McCovey Chronicles: An SB Nation Community

Navigation: Jump to content areas:

Around SBN: MLB postseason scores, schedules and blog coverage Bar-right-arrows

Should the Giants consider being buyers if....?

Tiny by Hobbes2d on

Now I know this is highly unlikely given the way the Giants treated him, but given that the team could legitimately be "contenders" for the NL West by the All-Star Break, should or would the Giants sign Barry Bonds?

Let's face it, at this point it seems pretty obviously nobody wants to sign Barry, and I'm thinking that if the Giants were in contention that Bonds might come into the mix again. For the sole reason that they already know him and have put up with him for the past 15 years, and not to mention the biggest hole in the Giants lineup is a power hitter. Bonds provides that and would give them a big boost overall in terms of protection, for what has been some solid seasons most of the regulars.

But obviously that would beg the question, what to do with Fred Lewis? My thinking is they likely could still deal Winn to somebody (another contender) and try to get prospects and maybe a bullpen arm to shore up the pen. Or that might not even be necessary as they could platoon Lewis with Bonds and Winn giving the 3 starters rest with Lewis, and using Lewis as a replacement in later innings.

I have a bad feeling that the Giants might end up considering a run at the NL West title. Especially when one considers the possible dominance the team might have in the postseason with a 3 man rotation of Lincecum, Cain and Sanchez. Or even in a 4 man rotation, with Zito and his experience (assuming his resurgence lasts), would be a pretty vaunted rotation to face in the playoffs. Also Correia has been valuable in the pen before and he could move back there in the playoffs.

Even if Bonds isn't an option (and likely isn't, if Selig and owners are colluding to keep him out of the league), should the Giants still consider buying at the deadline?

My general thought is no, to stick to rebuilding plan, but some events might force their hand at attempting to make a run at this ala the Cardinals in 06.

This FanPost is reader-generated, and it does not necessarily reflect the views of McCovey Chronicles. If the author uses filler to achieve the minimum word requirement, a moderator may edit the FanPost for his or her own amusement.

0 recs | Comment 118 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Display:

Get Bonds either way

Baseball is better with Bonds. Winn could be 4th OF who would get a lot of playing time and a great PH. Or he could be traded.

I don’t care if we lose every game the rest of the way. Just get Bonds back. Show the guy some respect.

by positiveuphemism on Jun 26, 2008 2:46 AM PDT   0 recs

Leftfielders...

He’d have to beat Lewis in the McCov. Chron. Polls to get his spot back.

(I have to admit, watching the Giants without Bonds this year is kind of a “flat” experience for me. Bonds always gave me something to look forward to in the Giants games… Where are the Giants in the order? When is Barry coming up?—Whatever “It” is, he’s got it).

http://www.strikeoutsfortroops.org/

by Inside The Coke Bottle on Jun 26, 2008 8:00 AM PDT to parent up   0 recs

Whatever "It" is, he’s got it.

The ability to hit a baseball?

Bay City Ball

by xanthan on Jun 26, 2008 8:02 AM PDT to parent up   0 recs

Was that “it”?

http://www.strikeoutsfortroops.org/

by Inside The Coke Bottle on Jun 26, 2008 8:03 AM PDT to parent up   0 recs

it = best ever

kind of hard to replace. it’s like partying hard all night and then blearily leaving the club/concert/whatever and wandering around wondering where your car is and how to get home and whether last night really happened.

by positiveuphemism on Jun 26, 2008 8:51 AM PDT to parent up   0 recs

At the risk of sounding dickish, if you’re at a game and can’t find anything to look forward to without BLB in the lineup, I’d question whether you’re really a baseball and/or Giants fan.

2008 Giants: Scrappy! Scrappy! Joy! Joy!

by Goofus on Jun 27, 2008 12:44 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

At the risk of sounding like I'm echoing a dick

I agree. There is a nice weave of stories and storylines in every game, from two uncoordinated Little League teams all the way to MLB teams with medium (or worse) talent. There are lots of plays in literature that are still great stories even though they aren’t “Hamlet” or “Macbeth.”

DFA all Giants over 34 years old.

by Mayor of 311 on Jun 28, 2008 4:22 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

No to buying

I don’t care where we are in the standings. Making a playoff push is not going to get us to the world series, we’ve already gone through this in 04,05,06. Give me my losing season + top 5 pick + a lineup that features Lewis, Bowker, Denker, Burriss, Schierholtz as everyday players. I can deal with the losing….for this year at least.

by superk1ng on Jun 26, 2008 3:00 AM PDT   0 recs

The last time I seriously thought about Bonds returning to the team, I ended up in a twelve step recovery program for nostalgiaholics. So… I refuse to answer the question on the grounds that I really can’t afford to have another sponsor bail on me screaming things like “lost cause” and “unreasonable, jackass kid” all the way out the door.

Which, by the way Mayor, that whole episode was not productive to my recovery. You’ll notice I gave the PG-13 version here. What you actually yelled at me is… unrepeatable…

My Dave Righetti is better than your Dave Righetti.

by howtheyscored on Jun 26, 2008 3:53 AM PDT   0 recs

A) The Giants are not going to be in contention.

B) Even if they were contending, they wouldn’t sign Bonds.

C) I’m starting to to think that at the next McC awards, we should have an award for best comment, just so this can win something.

..so allow me to present Tim Lincecum and Matt Cain as two sweet, sweet bottles of warming hooch.

by Cookyman on Jun 26, 2008 6:38 AM PDT   0 recs

Answer to C:

In the last 24 hours (short term memory), I personally liked:

Andy From DC's post asking

Not that I think Denker should get a start or not… I currently have no feelings on the matter of Denker starting. I just thought it was an interesting question to ponder. And I wonder if Denker wonders the samething.

http://www.strikeoutsfortroops.org/

by Inside The Coke Bottle on Jun 26, 2008 8:12 AM PDT to parent up   0 recs

Oops

Andy From DC asked: “I mean seriously? Who does denker have to fu*k to get a start.”

http://www.strikeoutsfortroops.org/

by Inside The Coke Bottle on Jun 26, 2008 8:13 AM PDT to parent up   0 recs

Buy young team controlled infiled possion player near MLB level.

Buy roster spots for already controlled near MLB level outfielders can play.

Buy time (and skill level) so perhaps next season the Giants infield “d” and “o” are not so dreadful instead of needing to massivley upgrade both at the same time.

But what is this “c” word you are uttering. It sounds a lot like communism. Were is Sen. McCarthy when you need him?

" Their still Shitty" - Major Leagues the movie.
I am a Giants fan. Thus I enjoy my pain. Currently enjoying it more then usual.

by daveinexile on Jun 26, 2008 7:17 AM PDT   0 recs

Wow

I totally misread “possion” as “poisson” and thought you wanted near-MLB fish.

My bad.

Your 2011 SF Giants: the 2008 Augusta Greenjackets!

by Lyle on Jun 26, 2008 5:32 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

my worse.

" Their still Shitty" - Major Leagues the movie.
I am a Giants fan. Thus I enjoy my pain. Currently enjoying it more then usual.

by daveinexile on Jun 26, 2008 7:37 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

Not to be rude, but is anyone else getting tired of these “If we can contend!” posts? I’m not trying to say what people can or can’t post, but jeez, haven’t we have like 10 of these posts in the last 2 weeks?

Bay City Ball

by xanthan on Jun 26, 2008 7:42 AM PDT   0 recs

But we’re just 4 elite bats away from .500!!!

..so allow me to present Tim Lincecum and Matt Cain as two sweet, sweet bottles of warming hooch.

by Cookyman on Jun 26, 2008 7:49 AM PDT to parent up   0 recs

It’s like someone slipped acid into the water supply of McC.

Bay City Ball

by xanthan on Jun 26, 2008 7:59 AM PDT to parent up   0 recs

I just think the whole “contending in 2010” is too depressing for some.

..so allow me to present Tim Lincecum and Matt Cain as two sweet, sweet bottles of warming hooch.

by Cookyman on Jun 26, 2008 8:11 AM PDT to parent up   0 recs

they are fucking ridiculous.

and NO to Bonds please.

Fairley odd parent to Wendell

by WTF on Jun 26, 2008 7:56 AM PDT to parent up   0 recs

I’m weary of it, yes.

"While conservatives tell you 'leave things alone and no one will lose,' and liberals tell you 'interfere a lot and no one will lose,' baseball says 'someone will lose.' Not only says it - but insists upon it! ... Democracy is lovely, but baseball's more mature." BVCE supports SF Dugout and Manny Burriss.

by BaronVonCurrentEvents on Jun 26, 2008 10:00 AM PDT to parent up   0 recs

It's the latest new Sign A-Rod thread!

At the start of the offseason, it was a million posts about how we should sign A-Rod for instant respectability. Now it’s “Can we contend this year???”

The long answer is: No.
The short answer is: No.

You do not take a sub-.500 team with an offense as unspectacular as ours is, and try to build a contender this year. For anyone who thinks it could happen, PLEASE try to remember 2004, 2005, and 2006! It’s been attempted, it failed. Quick fixes are not the answer, building a team for the long haul is a better answer.

I’m on record as saying I think we’re going to be a much improved team over the next couple seasons. Thinking about it, I think we’ll struggle a lot next year, hitting-wise, as guys go through their sophomore slump, but we’ll come out of it a better team. Just no more frickin’ quick fixes, please!

"He called the sh** POOP!" -- Adam Sandler

by JRPhillips on Jun 26, 2008 10:10 AM PDT to parent up   0 recs

The even shorter, but geekier, answer is: 0.

All-Father Watch: 1.05 ERA, 7 saves, 0.87 WHIP, 34 Ks in 34 1/3 IP

by EliminateMe on Jun 26, 2008 10:19 AM PDT to parent up   0 recs

You just tripped my A-Rod alarm. Congrats, ya asshat.

A-rod Large

Adoptive papa to Omar...so basically I'm screwed.

by PacBellBoozer on Jun 26, 2008 11:26 AM PDT to parent up   0 recs

Meh...

I don’t know, PBB… It kind of loses its appeal without the accompanying WHOOP WHOOP WHOOP! thing you used to do.

Otherwise I love it! I’m always hopeful that mentioning that obnoxious recurring warcry will bring about the Rainman Sez pic. Good times.

"He called the sh** POOP!" -- Adam Sandler

by JRPhillips on Jun 26, 2008 11:38 AM PDT to parent up   0 recs

I think the whole Royals series put a damper on the "contending" issue

If they are within 5 games at the break and playing well, I’d sign Bonds but I wouldn’t make any trades sending away the young’uns.

That being said, there’s no way in heck Sabean would sign Bonds. Not after the progress he’s made since he left. There’s just too many issues between Sabean and the Bonds era, I’m pretty sure Sabean wants to move on.

Proud pappa of....STEVE HOLM!!

by UnleashTheGore on Jun 26, 2008 8:12 AM PDT   0 recs

:D

Billy Hayes: His job is better than yours.

by delorean on Jun 26, 2008 8:37 AM PDT to parent up   0 recs

What about "STFU.org"? Is that available?

All-Father Watch: 1.05 ERA, 7 saves, 0.87 WHIP, 34 Ks in 34 1/3 IP

by EliminateMe on Jun 26, 2008 8:44 AM PDT to parent up   0 recs

How about "BadlyRunOrg.org"?

Your 2011 SF Giants: the 2008 Augusta Greenjackets!

by Lyle on Jun 26, 2008 5:35 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

Hobbes2d is Brian Sabean

That would be the only reason for this post. Just trying to see what the reaction would be. In another month near the trading deadline and say we are around 5 games back, he’ll be under a different name.

I say No to Bonds. Que “beating the dead horse” gif. I haven’t seen that in awhile.

Before you criticize someone, you should walk a mile in their shoes. That way, when you criticize them, you're a mile away and you have their shoes.

by WilliamVanLandingham on Jun 26, 2008 8:39 AM PDT   0 recs

¿Que?

Billy Hayes: His job is better than yours.

by delorean on Jun 26, 2008 8:43 AM PDT to parent up   0 recs

I think he meant kweewee.

..so allow me to present Tim Lincecum and Matt Cain as two sweet, sweet bottles of warming hooch.

by Cookyman on Jun 26, 2008 8:49 AM PDT to parent up   0 recs

I like to pronounce it kweewee.

..so allow me to present Tim Lincecum and Matt Cain as two sweet, sweet bottles of warming hooch.

by Cookyman on Jun 26, 2008 9:03 AM PDT to parent up   0 recs

Exactly

Before you criticize someone, you should walk a mile in their shoes. That way, when you criticize them, you're a mile away and you have their shoes.

by WilliamVanLandingham on Jun 26, 2008 9:54 AM PDT to parent up   0 recs

Actually...

...he probably meant “cue”, as in giving a signal for something to be done. If you were to “kweewee” (or “queue”) the GIF, that would suggest there were other GIFs ahead of it and it had to wait its turn in the queue. Perhaps until after the “caution, grammar nitpick ahead” image.

All-Father Watch: 1.05 ERA, 7 saves, 0.87 WHIP, 34 Ks in 34 1/3 IP

by EliminateMe on Jun 26, 2008 10:15 AM PDT to parent up   0 recs

I don't care

I just like saying kweewee.

..so allow me to present Tim Lincecum and Matt Cain as two sweet, sweet bottles of warming hooch.

by Cookyman on Jun 26, 2008 10:28 AM PDT to parent up   0 recs

Far be it from me...

...to come between a man and his kweewee.

All-Father Watch: 1.05 ERA, 7 saves, 0.87 WHIP, 34 Ks in 34 1/3 IP

by EliminateMe on Jun 26, 2008 10:29 AM PDT to parent up   0 recs

I believe this calls for another grammar thread!

Everybody Loves Durham
comics | cartoons | Nattowear

by Natto on Jun 26, 2008 11:40 AM PDT to parent up   0 recs

Funny you should say that

I just rediscovered a file on my computer that is all the McCoven’s preferred grammar/style/usage rules from early in 2007. I said at the time that I would edit it into a thingie and post it. Good thing I didn’t say which year. Anyway, soon to come. Or in honor of our friend who is battling some health issues these days, the Official McCoven Usage & Style Guide is…

... TK.

DFA all Giants over 34 years old.

by Mayor of 311 on Jun 26, 2008 12:12 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

When you get around to it

please address the use of ANYWAYS. That one always drives me to distraction.

by marklar on Jun 26, 2008 4:49 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

“we’ve got” = “We have” + “stupid”

This one has been bugging me since I started actually editing text. It shows up a lot and it’s REALLY easy to miss.

My Dave Righetti is better than your Dave Righetti.

by howtheyscored on Jun 26, 2008 12:41 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

You have stupid too much time on your hands.

Somehow that just doesn’t sound right…

All-Father Watch: 1.05 ERA, 7 saves, 0.87 WHIP, 34 Ks in 34 1/3 IP

by EliminateMe on Jun 26, 2008 2:02 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

That is more of a figure of speech

than a grammatical fuckup.

“We have got” or “We’ve got” is redundant and kind of a conjugational hybrid, but it is a common saying as are many others (which I of course can not think of an example at this time).

The incessant misuse of there, their, and they’re is one that bugs me.

Also, common mis-spellings of simple words (Yeah, it’s a fragment.). However this forum as a whole (hole? lol) seems to be very good. The automotive forums that I frequent are absolutely horrible.

Eugeniooooooo!!!!

by FairweatherFan on Jun 26, 2008 5:38 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

It is definitely colloquially allowable, but so is “towards” (it’s official in the UK… but this is AMERICA!) and that continues to be my biggest pet peeve by far. Who knows why?

Things like there/their/they’re bug me, but because they’re so well known I feel like the perpetrator will be called on it eventually (and often, if they refuse to change their ways!).

Less common or well known things, or colloquialisms that slip into official text because they are so common in speech nobody notices at all seem much more insidious to me (even if they don’t matter), and tend to bother me more when I actually get tuned into them.

Misspellings don’t bother me too much because I know quite a few people who actually have spelling disabilities. It seems to be relatively common that people just can’t retain word spellings and spelling rules.

That said, the misspellings of player names bother me to no end. It’s going to be murder if Gillaspie ever makes the team…

My Dave Righetti is better than your Dave Righetti.

by howtheyscored on Jun 26, 2008 8:23 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

I did a fair amount of editing

At my last job of Technical Papers. One of my fellow engineers was a moron and insisted on using conversational shit like “a sticky wicket” in technical writing.

I about strangled the guy when he wouldn’t stop.

I mean, what the fuck is a sticky wicket anyway? The guy was from New England, not goddamn India.

Eugeniooooooo!!!!

by FairweatherFan on Jun 26, 2008 8:45 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

I also am a champion

of random capitalization. It’s an unfortunate result of a stint with a MMORPG.

Eugeniooooooo!!!!

by FairweatherFan on Jun 26, 2008 8:45 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

British think it is weak to use the verb "have" with nothing after it.

A really lovely English woman was explaining this to me once. She said that it is weak language not to have a better verb following all the auxiliary verbs of “to be,” such as “have.” Her example was, “I have a cold” vs. “I have caught a cold,” or (as you predicted) “I have got a cold.” In the perfumed, lust-filled haze, I saw her point. It made me think.

DFA all Giants over 34 years old.

by Mayor of 311 on Jun 26, 2008 10:23 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

In the perfumed, lust-filled haze, I saw her point.

We can only hope that she saw yours as well.

My Dave Righetti is better than your Dave Righetti.

by howtheyscored on Jun 26, 2008 10:41 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

You're very kind, but alas...

Mayor: “yeah, uh, so, it’s been really nice chatting with you. Want to continue this over dinner? I have reservations at—”
Brit: “Have MADE a booking!! Or Have GOT a booking!! Barbaric Americans…” [storms away in huff, leaving Mayor that much more intrigued].

DFA all Giants over 34 years old.

by Mayor of 311 on Jun 26, 2008 11:34 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

For the last time...

The Giants are not contenders!!!

Until we can have a winning homestand, or not have the worst home record in all of baseball, we are not contenders.

Getting Bonds would be asine. Besides the fact that he cannot play LF anymore, why in the world would we bring him in to take time away from Fred Lewis?

He’s been our biggest bright spot the entire year so we are going to reward him by bringing in someone else to play his position? Not to mention that we couldn’t even “platoon” him since they are both left handed.

I’m the biggest Barry Bonds fan there is, but please, can we move on?

by Bruins17 on Jun 26, 2008 9:11 AM PDT   0 recs

THis

Eugeniooooooo!!!!

by FairweatherFan on Jun 26, 2008 9:18 AM PDT to parent up   0 recs

a sine?

Billy Hayes: His job is better than yours.

by delorean on Jun 26, 2008 9:47 AM PDT to parent up   0 recs

Now you’re going off on a tangent.

All-Father Watch: 1.05 ERA, 7 saves, 0.87 WHIP, 34 Ks in 34 1/3 IP

by EliminateMe on Jun 26, 2008 10:16 AM PDT to parent up   0 recs

I think that's Matt Cain's WPA sine

...if I understood xanthan correctly.

Your 2011 SF Giants: the 2008 Augusta Greenjackets!

by Lyle on Jun 26, 2008 5:37 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

I don't think you are his biggest fan

big fans want to watch their players play

by positiveuphemism on Jun 26, 2008 9:45 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

I’m smaller than average. Especially since I lost a few pounds.

My Dave Righetti is better than your Dave Righetti.

by howtheyscored on Jun 26, 2008 9:50 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

I actually am on record as being pro 2008 Barry Bonds… but even I am off that particular wagon. I will still maintain that they could have resigned Bonds and not Rowand and still be where they are now.. but the Rowand signing is looking pretty good so I’ll shut up and admit I was wrong (until Rowand hits .275 for a season).

Ironically, the Giants are one of the few teams that shouldn’t sign Bonds now… although he’d probably be better than Winn.

FIRE BRIAN SABEAN

by zenbitz on Jun 26, 2008 9:22 AM PDT   0 recs

Agreed

Bonds would not really help this team IMO. They are more than just one bat away from being a real “good” team.

The only way this team should be buyers is if it helps them over the next 2+ seasons, not just this one.

mortaging the future to rent players to end up in the playoffs by default this year (under .500) would be a really poor decision.

Eugeniooooooo!!!!

by FairweatherFan on Jun 26, 2008 9:35 AM PDT to parent up   0 recs

Does this change your mind at all?

Bonds would accept the league minimum

If Winn can be traded, I really don’t see a downside to this, other than the media attention, team unity, etc. Lewis can play RF and Bonds can play every other day or so. If it’s not going to cost you financially and if you’re not keeping playing time from the kids, then why not?

Proud pappa of....STEVE HOLM!!

by UnleashTheGore on Jun 26, 2008 9:38 AM PDT   0 recs

ahh fuckit

Let’s do it. Would make this season more fun. Trade Winn and see if Lewis can play RF.

Eugeniooooooo!!!!

by FairweatherFan on Jun 26, 2008 10:11 AM PDT to parent up   0 recs

Not keeping playing time from the kids?

If we can trade Winn, then we should be playing Schierholtz, Bowker, or Horwitz in RF. Bonds would absolutely take starts away from the kids.

All-Father Watch: 1.05 ERA, 7 saves, 0.87 WHIP, 34 Ks in 34 1/3 IP

by EliminateMe on Jun 26, 2008 10:18 AM PDT to parent up   0 recs

Not necessarily

Bowker goes to 1B. And it sure doesn’t look like they’re going to bring up Nate, I would be suprised if they did it even if they traded Winn. Horwitz more likely than not isn’t a future starting OF for this club, so I wouldn’t include him in the equation. Say you bring Nate up anyway, Bonds plays left only every other day or so, so just do a mix of Freddy/Nate/Barry between left and right field. I don’t see that as stunting the growth of this club for years to come. We pretty much know Freddy is our future LF, yes, but Nate is still a question mark, to be honest. It wouldn’t hurt the club to play him half or 2/3 the time for the last half of the year before they bring him up full-time next year.

Notice I didn’t include Roberts in the plans for the club anywhere. That is important, Bochy.

Proud pappa of....STEVE HOLM!!

by UnleashTheGore on Jun 26, 2008 10:28 AM PDT to parent up   0 recs

So in other words...

...if you’re only taking away half the playing time of one of the kids, then why not?

If you did call up Schierholtz, why only play him half time? The reason they left him in AAA this year was to get consistent playing time. It makes no sense to call him up and sit him on the bench 3-4 days a week so Bonds can do another curtain call.

All-Father Watch: 1.05 ERA, 7 saves, 0.87 WHIP, 34 Ks in 34 1/3 IP

by EliminateMe on Jun 26, 2008 10:43 AM PDT to parent up   0 recs

I'm not advocating bringing up Schierholtz

That is, if Bonds is brought on. If, however, they don’t (which they probably won’t), then I think it wise to bring him up if Winn is traded. So, time for some if…then statements.

If Winn traded and Bonds not signed…Bring up Nate

If Winn traded and Bonds signed…leave Nate in AAA

If Winn not traded…angry hate-mail to Sabean

Kidding aside, I would trade Winn, sign Bonds, and let Nate continue in AAA until next spring, when he should be with the big club full-time and Bonds should be gone. I do realize that signing Bonds won’t get the Giants anywhere in the post season most likely, but I’m mostly thinking “Why the heck not, since it won’t hurt the team financially and it won’t be significantly stunting the growth of any of the kids”. That and it would make me happy to see him play again.

Proud pappa of....STEVE HOLM!!

by UnleashTheGore on Jun 26, 2008 11:12 AM PDT to parent up   0 recs

I'd like him back

but no way it happens

[url=http://www.wazzel.com] Wazzel [/url] (prove your sports knowledge if you can)

by NeifiChicken on Jun 26, 2008 9:46 AM PDT   0 recs

Bonds' agent, Scott Borris

has just released a press report stating that Bonds will play for the pro-rated ML minimum, AND donate it all to charity to pay for kids to come to the game.

Presumably he is saying this to illustrate that his client is a victim of collusion in violation of the MLBPA labor agreement… but that doesn’t mean the offer isn’t valid.

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=3460993

FIRE BRIAN SABEAN

by zenbitz on Jun 26, 2008 10:51 AM PDT   0 recs

Jeff Borris

But close. Probably a publicity stunt but a good one.

Think of the children – what GM want’s to be associated with denying children :)

Eugeniooooooo!!!!

by FairweatherFan on Jun 26, 2008 11:01 AM PDT to parent up   0 recs