SCT, with all due respect you were the one who started with the namecalling in this thread.
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.
That's usually the better way to have a discussion over being a douche for no apparent reason and not saying anything pertinent to your apparent opinion that you are keeping to yourself.
Hmmm, your response here to NVbaseball sounds pretty direct to me..
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>That's usually the better way to have a discussion over being a douche for no apparent reason and not saying anything pertinent to your apparent opinion that you are keeping to yourself.
Hmmm, your response here to NVbaseball sounds pretty direct to me.. >>
Well duh, he was disrespectful towards me and I responded in kind. I haven't attacked anyone personally simply for having a difference of opinion, like he did to me.
<< <i>Remember that this is the Hall of FAME, not the Hall of WAR or the Hall of Stats. >>
I agree, but, there is a slight chance there could be some type of link between WAR and the chances someone is a HOF type caliber player. It certainly could be a good base line to start or include in an objective discussion. >>
Looking at relief pitcher HoFers and their non HoF counterparts...
Eckersley = 63.0 WAR, HOF Rivera = 55.9 WAR, not yet eligible Wilhelm = 47.3 WAR, HOF Gossage = 42.0 WAR, HOF
Maybe we can draw a line here, 42 or more WAR gets you in the hall as a reliever.
However, less than that and the "fame" part takes over. There's a mess of guys jumbled up around the 24.5 and 31 WAR range, two in the hall, 3 not eligible, but 5 who did not get elected:
John Hiller = 30.9 WAR, not HOF Lee Smith = 29.6 WAR, not HOF *Hoffman = 28.4 WAR, not yet eligible Lindy McDaniel = 28.1 WAR, not HOF *Wagner = 28.1 WAR, not yet eligible Kent Tekulve = 26.3 WAR, not HOF Fingers = 26.1 WAR, HOF *Joe Nathan = 26.1 WAR, not yet eligible Dan Quisenberry = 24.9 WAR, not HOF Sutter = 24.5 WAR, HOF
When you look at the qualitative aspects of Wagner's career, he's further down the list. Maybe he suffers because he has not been a part of as many postseason teams as other relievers and, as a result of that, has not had the opportunity to come up big on the biggest stage. That is certainly has to be a factor in the voters discounting his worth.
We can look at statistics until we're blue in the face, but we all know that the voters, whether right or wrong, look at relievers differently.
I'm not sure if "peace out" means you don't want to hear anything else. Either way, you keep throwing out all of his impressive statistics. But your op was whether or not he will make it to the HOF. The word "Fame" is in there for a reason. Fame can come in many ways, postseason success being one of them. How quickly would Brooks Robinson's stats got him in if it wasn't for the 1970 world series? Bottom line is Wagner's stats were great but he just never truly hit the Fame barometer.
For those that haven't been down this particular road with this particular poster, the only response he will accept is, "you are right."
So, I'll be the first one to say it. SCT, you are right. I can't believe I didn't see the light before, but the 9th posting of Billy Wagner's stats REALLY did it for me. He will SURELY be elected to the HOF within his first three years of eligibility. Anyone who says otherwise is clearly NOT looking at the FACTS as you CLEARLY laid them out. Anyone who says otherwise is CLEARLY trolling and doesn't understand baseball.
The likelihood of pejoratives within a Billy Wagner HoF candidacy thread with triple-digit replies in less than a day > the probability of him walking through the HoF doors without paying admission
I have a hard time putting any guy in the HOF that plays in an average of 60 innings a year.
And a lot of Billy's stats that SCT keeps hammering us with are inflated because he played in so few innings. LOB%? Sure, he did a wonderful job when the guys he inherited. Problem is, as I showed earlier, he hardly ever came into games with anybody on.
K/9? If we look at relievers with 400 innings pitched, instead of the arbitrary 500 you selected, Billy is no longer #1. And he shares the top 20 with such luminaries as Mike Gonzalez, Jose Valverde and Tom Henke.
You've made a fine case that Billy is one of the best of the new breed of closer. Good for him. But he won't get in the HOF - voters will (rightly) look at him as a guy who never had to come in with guys on base, who never was called on for a 2 or 3-inning save, and whose postseason resume includes a 10.03 ERA and 6 series where his ERA was 3.00 or higher (out of 8 - and the 2 under 3.00 totaled 1.1 innings). Fact is, the closer position is seen as one that is not a particularly special one. Billy's average season was 4-3, 34 saves, and a 2.31 ERA. When it boils right down to it, those numbers are not remarkable, especially when you've got guys like Craig Kimbrel putting up a 1.39 ERA while averaging 15.5 K/9 over the last 4 seasons.
ENOUGH ALREADY! No reason to keep posting the SAME stats ad nauseam. You have stated your opinion as have others. Unfortunately for you nobody agrees with your conclusion. But don't worry, that will in no way change the value of the 800ct. box full of Wagner Rookies that you have. THE END.
STAY HEALTHY!
Doug
Liquidating my collection for the 3rd and final time. Time for others to enjoy what I have enjoyed over the last several decades. Money could be put to better use.
There are a few things holding him back in terms of mainstream importance:
1) Living in the shadow of Mariano Rivera and Trevor Hoffman 2) No World Series appearances/rings 3) Relative lack of Saves (he has 17 fewer Saves than John Franco) 4) Never started a major league game (see Eckersley and Gossage)
"If Billy Wagner does not make it, I’ll eat my shoe"
He's fifth all-time in saves and only two saves behind John Franco, another left handed reliever who will be on Hall of Fame ballot this year for the first time. It will be very interesting to see how Franco fares in this years balloting, and may indicate what we can expect when it's Wagner's name on the ballot. ... If Bruce Sutter is the bar, all these guys on the list should fair well in voting. There is a catch however. He didn't get elected until his thirteenth year on the ballet. That's eighteen years after throwing his last pitch, and he has a Cy Young.
Personally, I don't think he makes it. He's got the stats, but not the fame. If there were no Mariano Rivera in his era, he'd probably get in.
Also, can't believe the 3rd article passed editing with 'ballet' instead of 'ballot'. Pretty funny (and disturbing) picturing Sutter doing ballet. Snuffy, get on it.
<< <i>SCT, with all due respect you were the one who started with the namecalling in this thread. >>
I didn't make any of it personal, as in directed at anyone in particular. You are fishing. >>
Not so much toward anyone in particular but rather *everyone* that disagreed with you.
<< <i>That's because most here know more about baseball cards than baseball itself. Anyone who truly believes that Billy Wagner isn't one of the best relievers of all-time and isn't worthy of a HOF discussion is pretty much clueless about the actual sport of baseball. >>
Moral of the story? Don't start a discussion with guns blazing and then act innocent when you're called out for doing so.
So basically my kid won't be able to go to college, but at least I'll have a set where the three most expensive cards are of a player I despise ~ CDsNuts
<< <i>Also, can't believe the 3rd article passed editing with 'ballet' instead of 'ballot'. Pretty funny (and disturbing) picturing Sutter doing ballet. Snuffy, get on it. >>
<< <i>Also, can't believe the 3rd article passed editing with 'ballet' instead of 'ballot'. Pretty funny (and disturbing) picturing Sutter doing ballet. Snuffy, get on it. >>
>>
+10 Spicy Chickens
Awesome, just as disturbing as I was picturing. I think I'll use this as my profile pic for my fantasy football team this year, if you don't mind.
Great Job as always Snuff. Now here's your dinner ... gonna have to kill it yourself!
STAY HEALTHY!
Doug
Liquidating my collection for the 3rd and final time. Time for others to enjoy what I have enjoyed over the last several decades. Money could be put to better use.
I look at closers in baseball much as I view kickers in football... often called to win the game in high pressure situations, often underappreciated, but unless they're truly remarkable they don't make the HOF.
<< <i>Are billy Wagner rookie cards a good investment? >>
If he makes the HOF, yes. Larkin cards are still rising and there was a huge spike in sales the day after induction, many going for 2-3x the money they were the day before and BINs that had been sitting for months snatched up. There are a lot of collectors who only focus on HOF'ers.
If not, no.
Do you like to invest in futures and take the gamble?
I think he will get in after about 15 years like Jim Rice and Bruce Sutter. No one really considerers him a HOF now, but in 15 years there will be a new crop of HOF voters that feel sorry for him.
First, nobody really got elected to the Hall of Fame based on "fame" as many are saying. The mistakes that get in are due the ignorance of the writers of not understanding a player's true impact in baseball and how it pertains to creating runs and winning. Guys like Jim Rice were put in there due to the ignorance of the writers not understanding how to look at his RBI totals and how Fenway inflated his stats compared to his contemporaries, not because they felt he was famous.
Many of those writers claimed Rice was the best hitter in baseball from 1976-1986, and THAT is what they are basing his HOF merit on, NOT his "fame". Enough has been written on Jim Rice NOT being even close to the best hitter in that time frame, that no other sentence need be spoken to show that. See old threads if one wants to learn more as to why. It is a lack of understanding a player's true value that puts the mistakes in, not the fame part.
The 'housewife test' can be applied to Rice, Fingers, Sutter, and Dawson too. I don't know of many housewives who would know who those guys are anymore than they would know who BIlly Wagner is! They are not famous.
If "fame" were really a criteria that voters went by, then Roger Maris would have been in there a long time ago, as he is about as famous as it gets, and was also excellent!. Don Mattingly, Steve Garvey too. Steve Garvey IS a guy that would pass the housewife test!(not the young housewives anymore). Even the kids test, as wasn't he on the Muppets?
This is what the HOF criteria says the writers are to go by: "5. Voting: Voting shall be based upon the player's record, playing ability, integrity, sportsmanship, character, and contributions to the team(s) on which the player played."
Fame can only be found as a criteria if one searches under a subset of the definition of "character"...not a very strong point to make 'fame' a meaningful criteria.
"Player's Record," and "playing ability" are the criteria where writers have been voting players in, and they have basically ignored integrity, sportsmanship, etc..." They have ignored those other things mainly because they are impossible to truly know and/or quantify, and lets face it, a nice guy isn't very important if he can't hit!
Only now, with the PED exclusions are character being used as an eliminator...but character still isn't used as a reason for election.
So yes people, a players stats ARE INDEED the biggest element of a player's merit, as those are what measures a "players record", "playing ability", and "contributions to the team.". Just because one doesn't understand a certain stat, doesn't mean it isn't FAR more accurate than the archaic stats such as RBI and batting average.
The mistakes are from the writers not being able to understand a players contribution to teams, the value of their playing record, and how their performance truly reflects their playing ability. Heck, they elected the third best outfielder from the Red Sox, and called him the best hitter for 10 years in MLB to get him in the HOF...he was elected from ignorance, not because they felt he was famous!
For all intents and purposes, Albert Belle should be in the HOF. His prime years batting statistics dwarf most HOFers'. But his lack of integrity and character were most certainly used against him by the writers. Same with any player who is suspected of PED use. Regardless of the bad guys already in the Hall, at least they are making an EFFORT to keep the Hall clear of those bad guys now. I do agree that it's MOSTLY statistics that get a player enshrined. But I don't care that guys like Rice and Dawson are in. It doesn't take anything away from the players who were clearly more worthy, as they are still there and will always be more worthy regardless. There's always going to be a lower wrung of Hall of Famers that aren't as worthy as the cream of the crop. So be it.
IMHO, Albert Belle is the best player not currently in the HOF other than Joe Jackson and Barry Bonds, not counting the guys that haven't come up yet. He was a beast of a player - way more feared than "most feared hitter" Jim Rice ever was during his career - and was still an excellent player when his career was ended by injury. He absolutely deserves to be in - .292/40 HR/130 RBI every 162 games for 10 years. C'mon.
Is SCT the same guy would was going to get a t206 Wagner by trading up for it but ended with a Hideo Nomo parallel and then quit? I would like to know more about that. ..sounds like quite the adventure.
Is SCT the same guy would was going to get a t206 Wagner by trading up for it but ended with a Hideo Nomo parallel and then quit? I would like to know more about that. ..sounds like quite the adventure. >>
Yeah, that was me. I didn't continue because so many were so negative about it. So what.
<< <i>IMHO, Albert Belle is the best player not currently in the HOF - .292/40 HR/130 RBI every 162 games for 10 years. C'mon. >>
Jeff Bagwell for 10 years per 162 games: .306, 39 home runs, 126 RBIs, while playing home games in the Astrodome for seven of those years and providing much more defensive value and having an additional four at an All-Star level
Liquidating my collection for the 3rd and final time. Time for others to enjoy what I have enjoyed over the last several decades. Money could be put to better use.
If John Franco could only get 4.6% on the ballot and was gone after 1 year than no way Wagner gets even 10% of the vote . Mariano Rivera is a sure Hall of Famer , Trevor Hoffman is a likely Hall of Famer after a couple years. Lee Smith will probably be a Veteran's committee choice or make it on his last shot . Wagner is certainly one of the 5 best closers of his era behind Rivera , Hoffman,
Comments
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>SCT, with all due respect you were the one who started with the namecalling in this thread. >>
I didn't make any of it personal, as in directed at anyone in particular. You are fishing.
Hmmm, your response here to NVbaseball sounds pretty direct to me..
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>That's usually the better way to have a discussion over being a douche for no apparent reason and not saying anything pertinent to your apparent opinion that you are keeping to yourself.
Hmmm, your response here to NVbaseball sounds pretty direct to me.. >>
Well duh, he was disrespectful towards me and I responded in kind. I haven't attacked anyone personally simply for having a difference of opinion, like he did to me.
Billy Wagner all-time relief pitcher rankings (500+ innings)
LOB% - 1ST (probably THE most important stat for a reliever)
AVG - 1ST
K/9 - 1ST (also all-time for ALL pitchers)
K% - 1ST
ERA - 2ND
ERA- - 2ND
WHIP - 3RD
FIP- - 3RD
WAR - 4TH
FIP - 4TH
Saves - 5TH
Ks - 6TH
K/BB - 6TH
As in, better than pretty much anyone else you can come up with not already in the HOF and not named Rivera or Hoffman.
Peace out.
<< <i>
<< <i>Remember that this is the Hall of FAME, not the Hall of WAR or the Hall of Stats. >>
I agree, but, there is a slight chance there could be some type of link between WAR and the chances someone is a HOF type caliber player. It certainly could be a good base line to start or include in an objective discussion. >>
Looking at relief pitcher HoFers and their non HoF counterparts...
Eckersley = 63.0 WAR, HOF
Rivera = 55.9 WAR, not yet eligible
Wilhelm = 47.3 WAR, HOF
Gossage = 42.0 WAR, HOF
Maybe we can draw a line here, 42 or more WAR gets you in the hall as a reliever.
However, less than that and the "fame" part takes over. There's a mess of guys jumbled up around the 24.5 and 31 WAR range, two in the hall, 3 not eligible, but 5 who did not get elected:
John Hiller = 30.9 WAR, not HOF
Lee Smith = 29.6 WAR, not HOF
*Hoffman = 28.4 WAR, not yet eligible
Lindy McDaniel = 28.1 WAR, not HOF
*Wagner = 28.1 WAR, not yet eligible
Kent Tekulve = 26.3 WAR, not HOF
Fingers = 26.1 WAR, HOF
*Joe Nathan = 26.1 WAR, not yet eligible
Dan Quisenberry = 24.9 WAR, not HOF
Sutter = 24.5 WAR, HOF
Career WAR numbers don't really help here.
WTB: 2001 Leaf Rookies & Stars Longevity: Ryan Jensen #/25
We can look at statistics until we're blue in the face, but we all know that the voters, whether right or wrong, look at relievers differently.
"Peace out"???
For those that haven't been down this particular road with this particular poster, the only response he will accept is, "you are right."
So, I'll be the first one to say it. SCT, you are right. I can't believe I didn't see the light before, but the 9th posting of Billy Wagner's stats REALLY did it for me. He will SURELY be elected to the HOF within his first three years of eligibility. Anyone who says otherwise is clearly NOT looking at the FACTS as you CLEARLY laid them out. Anyone who says otherwise is CLEARLY trolling and doesn't understand baseball.
Dodgers collection scans | Brett Butler registry | 1978 Dodgers - straight 9s, homie
And a lot of Billy's stats that SCT keeps hammering us with are inflated because he played in so few innings. LOB%? Sure, he did a wonderful job when the guys he inherited. Problem is, as I showed earlier, he hardly ever came into games with anybody on.
K/9? If we look at relievers with 400 innings pitched, instead of the arbitrary 500 you selected, Billy is no longer #1. And he shares the top 20 with such luminaries as Mike Gonzalez, Jose Valverde and Tom Henke.
You've made a fine case that Billy is one of the best of the new breed of closer. Good for him. But he won't get in the HOF - voters will (rightly) look at him as a guy who never had to come in with guys on base, who never was called on for a 2 or 3-inning save, and whose postseason resume includes a 10.03 ERA and 6 series where his ERA was 3.00 or higher (out of 8 - and the 2 under 3.00 totaled 1.1 innings). Fact is, the closer position is seen as one that is not a particularly special one. Billy's average season was 4-3, 34 saves, and a 2.31 ERA. When it boils right down to it, those numbers are not remarkable, especially when you've got guys like Craig Kimbrel putting up a 1.39 ERA while averaging 15.5 K/9 over the last 4 seasons.
<< <i>From now on, if anyone wants to discuss Billy Wagner with me, I'll just post this every time until it sinks in for you; >>
That is a pretty clear admission you don't care to discuss anything at all and your only intention is to be annoying
Doug
Liquidating my collection for the 3rd and final time. Time for others to enjoy what I have enjoyed over the last several decades. Money could be put to better use.
There are a few things holding him back in terms of mainstream importance:
1) Living in the shadow of Mariano Rivera and Trevor Hoffman
2) No World Series appearances/rings
3) Relative lack of Saves (he has 17 fewer Saves than John Franco)
4) Never started a major league game (see Eckersley and Gossage)
"If Billy Wagner does not make it, I’ll eat my shoe"
From 2012: Article 2
Status: Probably
From 2010: Article 3
He's fifth all-time in saves and only two saves behind John Franco, another left handed reliever who will be on Hall of Fame ballot this year for the first time. It will be very interesting to see how Franco fares in this years balloting, and may indicate what we can expect when it's Wagner's name on the ballot.
...
If Bruce Sutter is the bar, all these guys on the list should fair well in voting. There is a catch however. He didn't get elected until his thirteenth year on the ballet. That's eighteen years after throwing his last pitch, and he has a Cy Young.
Personally, I don't think he makes it. He's got the stats, but not the fame. If there were no Mariano Rivera in his era, he'd probably get in.
Also, can't believe the 3rd article passed editing with 'ballet' instead of 'ballot'. Pretty funny (and disturbing) picturing Sutter doing ballet. Snuffy, get on it.
<< <i>
<< <i>SCT, with all due respect you were the one who started with the namecalling in this thread. >>
I didn't make any of it personal, as in directed at anyone in particular. You are fishing. >>
Not so much toward anyone in particular but rather *everyone* that disagreed with you.
<< <i>That's because most here know more about baseball cards than baseball itself. Anyone who truly believes that Billy Wagner isn't one of the best relievers of all-time and isn't worthy of a HOF discussion is pretty much clueless about the actual sport of baseball. >>
Moral of the story? Don't start a discussion with guns blazing and then act innocent when you're called out for doing so.
<< <i>Also, can't believe the 3rd article passed editing with 'ballet' instead of 'ballot'. Pretty funny (and disturbing) picturing Sutter doing ballet. Snuffy, get on it. >>
<< <i>
<< <i>Also, can't believe the 3rd article passed editing with 'ballet' instead of 'ballot'. Pretty funny (and disturbing) picturing Sutter doing ballet. Snuffy, get on it. >>
+10 Spicy Chickens
Awesome, just as disturbing as I was picturing. I think I'll use this as my profile pic for my fantasy football team this year, if you don't mind.
Doug
Liquidating my collection for the 3rd and final time. Time for others to enjoy what I have enjoyed over the last several decades. Money could be put to better use.
RIP Mom- 1932-2012
<< <i>Are billy Wagner rookie cards a good investment? >>
If he makes the HOF, yes. Larkin cards are still rising and there was a huge spike in sales the day after induction, many going for 2-3x the money they were the day before and BINs that had been sitting for months snatched up. There are a lot of collectors who only focus on HOF'ers.
If not, no.
Do you like to invest in futures and take the gamble?
https://kennerstartinglineup.blogspot.com/
<< <i>Do you like to invest in futures and take the gamble? >>
I like to gamble, and I like little people.
<< <i>
<< <i>Do you like to invest in futures and take the gamble? >>
I like to gamble, and I like little people. >>
In that order???
But I have promises to keep,
And miles to go before I sleep,
And miles to go before I sleep."
"Life is what happens to you while you're busy making other plans."
Collecting:
Any unopened Baseball cello and rack packs and boxes from the 1970's and early 1980s.
First, nobody really got elected to the Hall of Fame based on "fame" as many are saying. The mistakes that get in are due the ignorance of the writers of not understanding a player's true impact in baseball and how it pertains to creating runs and winning. Guys like Jim Rice were put in there due to the ignorance of the writers not understanding how to look at his RBI totals and how Fenway inflated his stats compared to his contemporaries, not because they felt he was famous.
Many of those writers claimed Rice was the best hitter in baseball from 1976-1986, and THAT is what they are basing his HOF merit on, NOT his "fame". Enough has been written on Jim Rice NOT being even close to the best hitter in that time frame, that no other sentence need be spoken to show that. See old threads if one wants to learn more as to why. It is a lack of understanding a player's true value that puts the mistakes in, not the fame part.
The 'housewife test' can be applied to Rice, Fingers, Sutter, and Dawson too. I don't know of many housewives who would know who those guys are anymore than they would know who BIlly Wagner is! They are not famous.
If "fame" were really a criteria that voters went by, then Roger Maris would have been in there a long time ago, as he is about as famous as it gets, and was also excellent!. Don Mattingly, Steve Garvey too. Steve Garvey IS a guy that would pass the housewife test!(not the young housewives anymore). Even the kids test, as wasn't he on the Muppets?
This is what the HOF criteria says the writers are to go by: "5. Voting: Voting shall be based upon the player's record, playing ability, integrity, sportsmanship, character, and contributions to the team(s) on which the player played."
Fame can only be found as a criteria if one searches under a subset of the definition of "character"...not a very strong point to make 'fame' a meaningful criteria.
"Player's Record," and "playing ability" are the criteria where writers have been voting players in, and they have basically ignored integrity, sportsmanship, etc..." They have ignored those other things mainly because they are impossible to truly know and/or quantify, and lets face it, a nice guy isn't very important if he can't hit!
Only now, with the PED exclusions are character being used as an eliminator...but character still isn't used as a reason for election.
So yes people, a players stats ARE INDEED the biggest element of a player's merit, as those are what measures a "players record", "playing ability", and "contributions to the team.". Just because one doesn't understand a certain stat, doesn't mean it isn't FAR more accurate than the archaic stats such as RBI and batting average.
The mistakes are from the writers not being able to understand a players contribution to teams, the value of their playing record, and how their performance truly reflects their playing ability. Heck, they elected the third best outfielder from the Red Sox, and called him the best hitter for 10 years in MLB to get him in the HOF...he was elected from ignorance, not because they felt he was famous!
Dodgers collection scans | Brett Butler registry | 1978 Dodgers - straight 9s, homie
<< <i>SCT- Do you have any stats to back up that Albert Belle should be in? >>
What are stats?
Exactly.
Is SCT the same guy would was going to get a t206 Wagner by trading up for it but ended with a Hideo Nomo parallel and then quit? I would like to know more about that. ..sounds like quite the adventure.
<< <i>Hold on a minute here.
Is SCT the same guy would was going to get a t206 Wagner by trading up for it but ended with a Hideo Nomo parallel and then quit? I would like to know more about that. ..sounds like quite the adventure. >>
Yeah, that was me. I didn't continue because so many were so negative about it. So what.
<< <i>IMHO, Albert Belle is the best player not currently in the HOF - .292/40 HR/130 RBI every 162 games for 10 years. C'mon. >>
Jeff Bagwell for 10 years per 162 games: .306, 39 home runs, 126 RBIs, while playing home games in the Astrodome for seven of those years and providing much more defensive value and having an additional four at an All-Star level
Bud: You've got to deliver these to the Susquehanna Hat Company! Lou: Where? Bud: It's on Bagel Street!
Doug
Liquidating my collection for the 3rd and final time. Time for others to enjoy what I have enjoyed over the last several decades. Money could be put to better use.