Options
Ryan Howard Question
markj111
Posts: 2,921 ✭✭✭
in Sports Talk
He continues to put up God awful numbers. Is he toast, or is he just slow to come back from his injury? How long will the Phillies continue to play him? Will any heads roll in the front office for giving him that ridiculous contract?
0
Comments
<< <i>So the 2005 Rookie of the Year, 2006 MVP, finishing the top 10 in MVP voting from 2006-2011 and World Series Champion is overpaid and worthless. Yeah, I guess it'a a "what have you done for me lately" society. >>
Are you saying the Phillies should overpay him because he used to be good?
At my job, I get paid to produce. I quit producing, my employer quits paying. I have nothing against Howard. He and the Philies negotiated in good faith. The Phillies agreed to a new contract even though he had a year+ left on the old one. They are now paying $125 million to a player who, for the last 1 1/2 years has had no value. Virtually every sentinent human in the baseball world thought the contract was ridiculous at the time. I believe someone in the organization should be held accountable. Pujols has been a vastly superior player to Howard, but the Cardinals looked at the numbers (dollars & expected production), and let him go. I believe the Phillies would like a do over.
<< <i>
<< <i>So the 2005 Rookie of the Year, 2006 MVP, finishing the top 10 in MVP voting from 2006-2011 and World Series Champion is overpaid and worthless. Yeah, I guess it'a a "what have you done for me lately" society. >>
Are you saying the Phillies should overpay him because he used to be good?
At my job, I get paid to produce. I quit producing, my employer quits paying. I have nothing against Howard. He and the Philies negotiated in good faith. The Phillies agreed to a new contract even though he had a year+ left on the old one. They are now paying $125 million to a player who, for the last 1 1/2 years has had no value. Virtually every sentinent human in the baseball world thought the contract was ridiculous at the time. I believe someone in the organization should be held accountable. Pujols has been a vastly superior player to Howard, but the Cardinals looked at the numbers (dollars & expected production), and let him go. I believe the Phillies would like a do over. >>
Other than huge signing bonuses for the few top draft picks players in ALL sports are ALWAYS paid for what they have done in the past.
The Phillies may have signed him to a longer contract than they should have, but it was their choice to sign him, they could have traded him. Looks like a pretty good power hitter from 2006-2011.
Joe
Other than huge signing bonuses for the few top draft picks players in ALL sports are ALWAYS paid for what they have done in the past.
NO! They are paid for what they are expected to produce in the future. Past performance is an indicator of future performance, but it is just one. Based on your logic, it's time to dig up Babe Ruth. Maybe the Phillies are willing to pay Ruth based on past performance, but the other teams do not expect him to do as well in the future.
Neyer wrote the following in 2010:
Ryan Howard’s new contract is a testament the enduring power of the Are-Bee-Eye. It’s also a testament to old-school ignorance: ignorance of aging patterns, ignorance of position scarcity, ignorance of opportunity costs … hey, take your pick. The Phillies have done a lot of things right over the last few years. But this is a big bowl of wrong.
<< <i>Other than huge signing bonuses for the few top draft picks players in ALL sports are ALWAYS paid for what they have done in the past.
NO! They are paid for what they are expected to produce in the future. Past performance is an indicator of future performance, but it is just one. Based on your logic, it's time to dig up Babe Ruth. Maybe the Phillies are willing to pay Ruth based on past performance, but the other teams do not expect him to do as well in the future.
Neyer wrote the following in 2010:
Ryan Howard’s new contract is a testament the enduring power of the Are-Bee-Eye. It’s also a testament to old-school ignorance: ignorance of aging patterns, ignorance of position scarcity, ignorance of opportunity costs … hey, take your pick. The Phillies have done a lot of things right over the last few years. But this is a big bowl of wrong. >>
I believe both of you are correct. In theory players are up supposed to be paid for what they are expected to produce in the future but the reality is most free agent contracts are really compensating the players for what they had done during their control years. It's whichever team that offers the big unrestricted free agent contract that usually ends up holding the bag.
Baseball is the only big money major pro sport that guarantees player contracts in their entirety. That has to change. It's only good for the players, bad for everybody else.
Authorized dealer for PCGS, PCGS Currency, NGC, NCS, PMG, CAC. Member of the PNG, ANA. Member dealer of CoinPlex and CCE/FACTS as "CH5"
Other than the already mentioned signing bonuses, no one gets a huge contract until AFTER they have proven they can produce!!!!!!
Joe
<< <i>The only way players can be predicted/expected to produce is by past performance.
Other than the already mentioned signing bonuses, no one gets a huge contract until AFTER they have proven they can produce!!!!!!
Joe >>
No.No. A thousand times no. You pay for expected performance. The Dodgers guaranteed Puig $47 million without ever seeing him play a game at any level. Past performance is certainly an indicator, but so are age, consistency, and injury history. If two players have similar seasons, but one is 27 and the other is 37,which one is worth more?
<< <i>
<< <i>The only way players can be predicted/expected to produce is by past performance.
Other than the already mentioned signing bonuses, no one gets a huge contract until AFTER they have proven they can produce!!!!!!
Joe >>
No.No. A thousand times no. You pay for expected performance. The Dodgers guaranteed Puig $47 million without ever seeing him play a game at any level. Past performance is certainly an indicator, but so are age, consistency, and injury history. If two players have similar seasons, but one is 27 and the other is 37,which one is worth more? >>
Let's dig up the Babe and ask him.
<< <i>So the 2005 Rookie of the Year, 2006 MVP, finishing the top 10 in MVP voting from 2006-2011 and World Series Champion is overpaid and worthless. Yeah, I guess it'a a "what have you done for me lately" society. >>
For any baseball team to do well, players should never be paid based on what they have done, whether lately or six years ago. They should be paid based on what they will do in the upcoming games and years. Those are the only ones that Ryan Howard has any control over. And it's doubtful he is going to be doing much in those games to help the Phillies
<< <i>The only way players can be predicted/expected to produce is by past performance. >>
That's correct
One argument might say that if a team makes a ridiculous prediction, like the Phillies did with Howard, it ends up with a player being overpaid
(Another argument might say that in a free market everyone earns exactly what they're worth)
Howard was a 5th round pick so I am assuming they got him at a bargain when he turned out to be 2005 ROY.
According to Baseball Reference dot com he made $355,000.00 in 2006 when he was MVP.
He continued to hit at least 30 HR and 100 RBI until 2011.
Signed the big contract in April (?) 2010 when he was 31. In the teams defense, while it was a HUGE contract it was only for 5 years with a team optioned buyout in the last year.
Obviously, it looks like Howard has REALLY stopped producing. In trying to predict how he was going to perform, it would have been reasonable to expect at least 2 if not 3 good years out of the 5, but that has not happened.
Had he had the big drop off in 2007 or 2008, he would have NEVER gotten that big or that long of a contract.
As they say when advertising any investment "past performance does not guarantee future performance"
Good bye.
Joe
I haven't paid attention to Howard, but is he doing worse then Matt Kemp? SLG of 335 last I saw! Yikes!
I swear what happens is some of these guys start focusing on the house they are building or their twitter account or something. Not that they don't try, don't practice, whatever, but I get a feeling nether of these guys (Howard or Kemp) would kill themselves to get a bit better anymore.
JJacks
<< <i>I haven't paid attention to Howard, but is he doing worse then Matt Kemp? SLG of 335 last I saw! Yikes!
I swear what happens is some of these guys start focusing on the house they are building or their twitter account or something. Not that they don't try, don't practice, whatever, but I get a feeling nether of these guys (Howard or Kemp) would kill themselves to get a bit better anymore.
JJacks >>
Many of the older players believe it's because of the long term contracts. Broooks Robinson said that he signed 23 one year contracts. Not much security there.
However in Howard's case he would have gotten paid better earlier if he had signed one year contracts from day one.
Joe
However in Howard's case he would have gotten paid better earlier if he had signed one year contracts from day one.
I assume that at day one he signed for the minimum.
5 years/$125M (2012-16), plus 2017 option
5 years/$125M (2012-16), plus 2017 option
signed extension with Philadelphia 4/26/10
12:$20M, 13:$20M, 14:$25M, 15:$25M, 16:$25M, 17:$23M club option ($10M buyout)
award bonuses: $25,000 for All Star. $0.1M for MVP ($75,000 for second in vote, $50,000 for third)
perks: right to purchase 8 season tickets for Philadelphia home games
most favored nation no-trade protection (excluding contracts later acquired through trade or assignment) (may block deals to 21 clubs each season, matching no-trade protection extended to Cliff Lee)
3 years/$54M (2009-11)
signed extension with Philadelphia 2/8/09 (avoided arbitration, $18M-$14M)
09:$15M, 10:$19M, 11:$20M
salaries for 2010, 2011 increase by $1M with MVP in previous season or by $0.5M with 2nd-place finish in MVP vote in previous season
award bonuses: $0.1M each for Silver Slugger, Gold Glove, WS MVP, All Star start; $50,000 each for All Star selection or LCS MVP
$1M assignment bonus if traded before 11/1/2010, with no bonus if traded thereafter
1 year/$10M (2008) won in arbitration with Philadelphia 2/21/08 ($10M-$7M)
1 year/$0.9M (2007)
renewed by Philadelphia 3/07 (record for player with less than 2 years of service)
1 year/$0.355M (2006) renewed by Philadelphia 3/06
drafted 2001 (5-140), $0.23M signing bonus
agent: CAA Sports (Greg Landry, Jennifer Brasile, Casey Close)
ML service: 7.145
In your fist post you mentioned an injury. What was it?
Joe
<< <i>Looks like Philly got a lot of "bang for their buck" until 2009. After that not so much, now they look screwed.
In your fist post you mentioned an injury. What was it?
Joe >>
Tore his Achilles heel last play of the 2011 NLDS.
<< <i>
Other than huge signing bonuses for the few top draft picks players in ALL sports are ALWAYS paid for what they have done in the past. >>
Joe- With all due respect, this is crazy talk. Teams pay players for what they believe he will produce in the future. You are extraordinarily naieve if you think otherwise. The Phillies just grossly miscalculated how much gas Howard had left in the tank.
Always buying Bobby Cox inserts. PM me.
<< <i>So the 2005 Rookie of the Year, 2006 MVP, finishing the top 10 in MVP voting from 2006-2011 and World Series Champion is overpaid and worthless. Yeah, I guess it'a a "what have you done for me lately" society. >>
dang right. if it wasn't a what have you done for me lately society, all teams would have very crappy players still playing for them.
<< <i>
<< <i>
Other than huge signing bonuses for the few top draft picks players in ALL sports are ALWAYS paid for what they have done in the past. >>
Joe- With all due respect, this is crazy talk. Teams pay players for what they believe he will produce in the future. You are extraordinarily naieve if you think otherwise. The Phillies just grossly miscalculated how much gas Howard had left in the tank. >>
Management has and always will try to keep a players salary as low as they can. That's good business. It's only when the player can come into negotiations with a HISTORY of good performances that management will give them a raise.
Please tell me when it ever was that a player who has underperformed has ever been given a huge contract because management believes he will perform better in the future. Management is ALWAYS going to wait until the player has put up the numbers to justify huge money.
Of course AFTER a player has proven himself and he is going to get the big money, management is supposed to factor in a players age and how he MIGHT do in the future, but there's obviously no way of knowing this. A Player could get hurt or just stop producing, it's going to happen sooner or later. Even if management thought the player in question was ready to have a break out season, they wouldn't give him the money until after he achieved success.
The basic incontrovertible fact is players get raises AFTER they prove their value and not a minute before, with the exception of some high draft picks and a VERY few Latin American and Asian players who have great potential.
Name ONE PLAYER that wasn't a high draft choice, who got a huge long term contract that was just an average player with potential.
Joe
This was your original comment- "Other than huge signing bonuses for the few top draft picks players in ALL sports are ALWAYS paid for what they have done in the past. " The main problem that your critics have here is that you've left the door open for the notion that some teams pay players out of a sense of loyalty or pay them just because they appreciate what they've done over the past few years (Neither of which ever happens.)
I would suggest that this adjusted comment is similar, but would appease your critics-
"Other than huge signing bonuses for the few top draft picks, players in ALL sports are ALWAYS paid for what management believes they will be worth over the life of the contract that is being negotiated. Its also true that management's view on performance is largely based on recent historical performance. Younger players may be offered slightly more than their most recent stats would suggest, because of an expectation that upward trajectory of stats may continue. Older players may be offered slightly less than their recent stats would suggest, because of an expectation of downward trajectory of stats that may occur with old age. But at the end of the day, a contract offer is 100% based on an expectation of future stats that the player will provide a franchise, and not because of a "reward" of any type because of past play."
Always buying Bobby Cox inserts. PM me.
PSA HOF Baseball Postwar Rookies Set Registry- (Currently 77.97% Complete)
PSA Pro Football HOF Rookie Players Set Registry- (Currently 19.26% Complete)
PSA Basketball HOF Players Rookies Set Registry- (Currently 6.02% Complete)
I get your point, generally speaking a young healthy player's value is going to be higher than an older player who might have had a few injuries along the way, all things being equal, the younger player would logically seem to be a better long term value to the team and get a better and longer contract.
The OP is bringing up Ryan Howard, the Phillies knew how old he was, but because of the HUGE numbers he put up, pretty consistently (I know he does have his critics), the Phillies were FORCED to reward him, or lose him, had he hit 25-30 home runs and 75-90 RBI a year over the same period, he would NOT have gotten that much money, or that long of a contract.
When management gives out these huge long term contracts they HOPE that the player maintains or possibly improves his PAST production, but in looking at nearly ALL of these contracts, it SEEMS to me that many players are getting at least a year or two at the end that don't make much sense. It's my opinion that they get these years partially because they were a bargain during their first couple of years of big production.
The simple truth of the matter is players salaries are based on past performance. If the player happens to be 38 years old his bargaining position is going to be weaker than if he is 28. But he is still getting paid for his productivity during his last contract. NO ONE can predict the future.
I really don't understand how you can disagree with my point. Again, please site me an example of a player who has NOT performed well above the norm getting a huge contract.
Joe
<< <i>I mean hes not tearing the cover off the baseball this season, but hes having a pretty decent year so far. He has his average up to .282 with 10 homers and 41 rbi's. He also has 20 doubles which puts him at 7th in the NL in doubles so its not like hes been real bad this year. Hes 33 years old, hes obviously not going to do as well as he did in his mid-late 20s. >>
I for one hope he is able to at least approach his past numbers. His OPS is almost what it was in 2010 and 2011.
Joe
As far as Howard goes, and the idea that teams are only paying on past success? This is partially true. Teams with 'old school' GMs and ownership reward players this way. Forward-thinking teams like the Rays and Giants are doing exactly the opposite - locking up key, young, great players early in their careers. The Rays first did this with Longo and the Giants with Posey. 20, heck even 10 years ago giving a guy with a year or two of MLB experience a massive deal would have seen insane. However, smart teams realize investing in youth is the real key to long term success. You'll always get teams like the Angels who make terrible decisions (Pujols, Hamilton) because they are more interested in headlines than long-term success.
I don't follow Howard, but a cursory look at his numbers would indicate he had a bad May. Also, his OPS is currently .828, good for 20th in the NL. Without knowing anything about his medical background, and seeing he did miss over half the year last year, my guess would be that he's still in rebuild mode.
Is he worth the money? Statistically speaking of course not. But what happens if they don't sign him? How much negative goodwill does that cost the Phillies with their fans when the rest of the team is getting blown up around them? I'd think the team invested the money as much in his performance as much as it was a sign to their fans 'hey don't leave us!'
<< <i>When management gives out these huge long term contracts they HOPE that the player maintains or possibly improves his PAST production, but in looking at nearly ALL of these contracts, it SEEMS to me that many players are getting at least a year or two at the end that don't make much sense. It's my opinion that they get these years partially because they were a bargain during their first couple of years of big production.
>>
Joe, this is not how the world works. Teams don't give players more money than they are worth simply because they like them or as you say "because they were a bargain during their first couple of years." Whether someone was a bargain or paid too much in their previous contract has absolutely nothing to do with the value of the next contract and what a team will be willing to pay them. The new contract is only based on their estimates of future production. Several people in this thread have tried to make this same point to you, but I still don't think you get it. No big deal. I have a few friends who view the world like you do- Everything revolves around "fairness" and how things should work. Not based in reality though.
Always buying Bobby Cox inserts. PM me.
<< <i>
<< <i>When management gives out these huge long term contracts they HOPE that the player maintains or possibly improves his PAST production, but in looking at nearly ALL of these contracts, it SEEMS to me that many players are getting at least a year or two at the end that don't make much sense. It's my opinion that they get these years partially because they were a bargain during their first couple of years of big production.
>>
Joe, this is not how the world works. Teams don't give players more money than they are worth simply because they like them or as you say "because they were a bargain during their first couple of years." Whether someone was a bargain or paid too much in their previous contract has absolutely nothing to do with the value of the next contract and what a team will be willing to pay them. The new contract is only based on their estimates of future production. Several people in this thread have tried to make this same point to you, but I still don't think you get it. No big deal. I have a few friends who view the world like you do- Everything revolves around "fairness" and how things should work. Not based in reality though. >>
Of course this is how the world works, no one gets rewarded until AFTER they have proven their value. These big contracts are simply a calculated risk that the player will continue to perform as he has in the PAST.
EVERY SINGLE player in EVERY SINGLE sport, that has been gotten a top tier contract, got it because they had performed well above the norm and NEVER BEFORE.
The only players that are paid in the way you claim are the top prospects, which Ryan Howard was not. That's EXACTLY why he got his huge contract AFTER his big seasons and his drop off only proves again that he is not being paid for the future as his production has dropped significantly.
In fact the worst contracts are the ones given to players like Mark Prior who got the big signing bonus and pitched two full seasons for the Cubs.
You cannot and will NEVER be able to name ONE SINGLE player who was not a highly regarded prospect that got a HUGE contract prior to putting up league leading numbers.
JUST NAME ONE!!
JUST NAME ONE!!
Joe,
This is a rather foolhardy scenario you have proposed. If a player is NOT a highly regraded prospect AND has not established himself and put up impressive numbers, of course said player is not going to be offered a big contract. Michael is correct. Contracts are based on what ownership believes a player will do GOING FORWARD. A guy who wins the Cy Young Award but then suffers a major arm injury that requires offseason surgery is most certainly NOT going to get an offer for nearly as much (or as guaranteed) as a player who wins the Cy Young and does not get hurt. Sure, some players get some extra consideration for being a fan favorite and all, but that is a very minor consideration, trust me. Even the most popular players are quickly dumped if ownership believes their best days are behind them. That's just the nature of sports.
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
Nobody is going to get offered a 15-20 million dollar contract without already having performed at a superior level.
Management will not, and more importantly won't have to, offer a "Ryan Howard" type contract to a marginal to very good player even if they believe he is going to exceed his past totals.
AGAIN, management's offers are going to be tempered by age and or a players proneness to injury, off field problems etc. OF COURSE management is hoping the player continues to play well, but he gets the big money only AFTER he proves he can do it.
I looked up the top contracts in baseball, all of the players got their biggest contract raises AFTER their best season or several seasons. A perfect example is Johan Santana formerly of my Minnesota Twins. He was paid what looks like the league minimum, got a pretty nice raise after making the rotation, but it wasn't until after the three year period when he won 2 Cy Young awards that he got the BIG money. Had he been a third line pitcher, he would not have gotten the huge deal, no matter how good his pitches were. Funny, even though he has continued to pitch well, he hasn't reached that level again.
I am still waiting for someone to come up with an example of an average player getting a superior contract BEFORE he puts up superior numbers.
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
<< <i>You cannot and will NEVER be able to name ONE SINGLE player who was not a highly regarded prospect that got a HUGE contract prior to putting up league leading numbers.
JUST NAME ONE!! >>
That isn't the issue (although there is Darren Dreifort)
I can name players who put up league leading numbers and didn't get a huge contract. Just because Howard won an MVP, did not obligate the Phillies to sign him for $125 million. Brandon Webb is the same age and won the Cy Young the same year Howard won his MVP
<< <i>
<< <i>You cannot and will NEVER be able to name ONE SINGLE player who was not a highly regarded prospect that got a HUGE contract prior to putting up league leading numbers.
JUST NAME ONE!! >>
That isn't the issue (although there is Darren Dreifort)
I can name players who put up league leading numbers and didn't get a huge contract. Just because Howard won an MVP, did not obligate the Phillies to sign him for $125 million. Brandon Webb is the same age and won the Cy Young the same year Howard won his MVP >>
After looking at Dreifort's contract, I would say this does come awfully close to the most stupid contract ever.
Please, explain to me how he gets a raise after three average (actually below average to me) years and then he doesn't even pitch in 2002 because of injury. I am serious here, how could management feel he was going to deserve a pretty big raise while he was injured?
Vernon Wells seems a bit overpaid as well, but at least he has been an all star.
I give up none of this makes any sense.
<< <i>I'll try to explain the obvious once more. In order to have the opinion that a player is going to put up huge numbers in the future, he will have had to already done it in the past. >>
Nobdoy is refuting this. What you consistently stick to is this insane notion that teams signing these players aren't expecting a similar level of success. To suggest is insanity. When the Angels offered Josh Hamilton a 9 figure deal, or the same with Pujols, are you really suggesting that they were rewarding them for past success with a different team?
<< <i>Nobody is going to get offered a 15-20 million dollar contract without already having performed at a superior level. >>
No kidding.
<< <i>Management will not, and more importantly won't have to, offer a "Ryan Howard" type contract to a marginal to very good player even if they believe he is going to exceed his past totals. >>
Again, no kidding. Why are you even stating this?
<< <i>AGAIN, management's offers are going to be tempered by age and or a players proneness to injury, off field problems etc. OF COURSE management is hoping the player continues to play well, but he gets the big money only AFTER he proves he can do it. >>
Again, nobody is refuting this. What you continue to believe is that teams aren't expecting these elite players to continue to perform at elite levels after they sign these contracts.
<< <i>I am still waiting for someone to come up with an example of an average player getting a superior contract BEFORE he puts up superior numbers. >>
Why in god's name would anyone do this? NOBODY IS REFUTING THIS.
<< <i>
<< <i>I'll try to explain the obvious once more. In order to have the opinion that a player is going to put up huge numbers in the future, he will have had to already done it in the past. >>
Nobdoy is refuting this. What you consistently stick to is this insane notion that teams signing these players aren't expecting a similar level of success. To suggest is insanity. When the Angels offered Josh Hamilton a 9 figure deal, or the same with Pujols, are you really suggesting that they were rewarding them for past success with a different team?
<< <i>Nobody is going to get offered a 15-20 million dollar contract without already having performed at a superior level. >>
No kidding.
<< <i>Management will not, and more importantly won't have to, offer a "Ryan Howard" type contract to a marginal to very good player even if they believe he is going to exceed his past totals. >>
Again, no kidding. Why are you even stating this?
<< <i>AGAIN, management's offers are going to be tempered by age and or a players proneness to injury, off field problems etc. OF COURSE management is hoping the player continues to play well, but he gets the big money only AFTER he proves he can do it. >>
Again, nobody is refuting this. What you continue to believe is that teams aren't expecting these elite players to continue to perform at elite levels after they sign these contracts.
<< <i>I am still waiting for someone to come up with an example of an average player getting a superior contract BEFORE he puts up superior numbers. >>
Why in god's name would anyone do this? NOBODY IS REFUTING THIS. >>
I was arguing with macadams, can you read or do you just have to be in every argument you can find.
Since you seem to be agreeing with what I have said I must be wrong.....................sorry macadams.
<< <i>
I was arguing with macadams, can you read or do you just have to be in every argument you can find.
Since you seem to be agreeing with what I have said I must be wrong.....................sorry macadams. >>
Since this was a thread and not a PM I was more than allowed to put in my 2 cents, sorry if that offends you. What's hilarious is you have this idea that you're breaking new ground in saying players get paid after they perform. Where you continue to be wrong, however, is the idea that teams aren't expecting players to continue to perform when they sign massive contracts.
Even you can't possible be that dense, can you?
<< <i>INobody is going to get offered a 15-20 million dollar contract without already having performed at a superior level. >>
BJ Upton got 5yr/$75m from Atlanta after 5 straight unimpressive seasons. He's living up to it by hitting .175.
<< <i>
<< <i>INobody is going to get offered a 15-20 million dollar contract without already having performed at a superior level. >>
BJ Upton got 5yr/$75m from Atlanta after 5 straight unimpressive seasons. He's living up to it by hitting .175. >>
I guess it depends on your definition of unimpressive. They were nothing special anout them, but his OPS+ was decent in four of them. Still, I bet the Braves want a do over.
Always buying Bobby Cox inserts. PM me.