Navigation: Jump to content areas:


Pro Quality. Fan Perspective.
Login-facebook
Around SBN: Kobe Bryant Isn't Up To Speed On Jeremy Lin, 'Linning'

On The Mariners' Next Manager

When a manager gets fired, I think everyone wants about a day or so to reflect on why it happened, and whether it was the right decision to make. Once those inquiries are exhausted, though - and it doesn't take long - it becomes time to look ahead to who comes next. Who's the next skipper going to be? It turns into a frequent topic of conversation, stretching from the time the opening is created right up to the time that it's filled.

What's weird about this particular discussion, though, is just how different it is from other ones of a similar nature. If your team needs a new pitcher, you talk about possible new pitchers, and you analyze which ones are good and which ones are not. If your teams needs a new second baseman, you talk about possible new second basemen, and you analyze which ones are good and which ones are not. If your team needs a new general manager, you talk about possible new general managers, and you analyze which ones have the right philosophies and which ones have the wrong philosophies.

In other words, when it comes to other openings, it's fairly easy to identify good fits and bad fits, and so, as fans, we're able to root for certain options and against certain others. Even with GMs - though a potential GM is obviously more difficult to analyze than a potential player, there are usually indications somewhere in his history. We knew, for example, that Jack Zduriencik would have a pretty good idea of what he's doing, and we knew, for example, that Ed Wade would not.

But with field managers, it's just so completely different. Larry Stone talked about Bobby Valentine as a possibility to take over the Mariner job earlier this afternoon, and Valentine is a name that gets a lot of fans excited. A lot of fans would love to see Bobby Valentine in Seattle. But, why? Why would Bobby Valentine be a good fit? Can we really say anything with any degree of certainty about how he'd work out?

What about Daren Brown? Brown's a no-name - a managerial prospect of sorts - but he's been in the organization for a while, and he's familiar with a number of players already on the team. Should the Mariners go the internal route and just take away the interim tag? What are Brown's upsides? What are Brown's downsides? To what degree do we know these to be upsides and downsides?

It becomes an interesting discussion, because different people will start to align themselves with different managerial candidates, even though at no point can we actually say very much at all about how they'd work out. Managerial performance is difficult to analyze. Maybe impossible. We certainly don't have an agreed-upon way to do it for now. And if we don't know how to evaluate managers, we definitely don't know how to predict how managers will do in different situations.

One need look no further than Don Wakamatsu for an example of what I mean. Overall, there wasn't a whole lot that changed about the Mariners between 2009 and 2010. Based on team performance and clubhouse morale, I think most would say that Wak was a good manager in 2009. Based on team performance and clubhouse morale, I think most would say that Wak was a bad manager in 2010. How did that happen? Who could have possible predicted it? Who could have known that one of last year's more successful managers would go on to be one of this year's greatest failures, especially with Ken Griffey Jr. and Mike Sweeney remaining on the roster?

People will speculate about options to fill the Mariners' managerial vacancy. Later, we''ll get something of an interview list. Names will come out. People, in turn, will discuss those names, and discuss their perceived strengths and weaknesses. This guy has experience managing young teams. This guy rides pitchers too hard. This guy has a history of confrontation. This guy is a hardass. This guy is a player's manager. And so on.

And fans will select their favorite candidates, based on their favorite characteristics. I know a lot of fans want to see the Mariners hire someone fiery, so they'll root for the most fiery candidate. Other fans want someone more cerebral, so they'll root for the candidate who talks about OBP and platoon splits and leverage.

But what we have to realize is that, in the end, we just can't really predict who'll fit and who'll flop. We can prefer certain candidates over others - and we all invariably will - but we can't predict who'll succeed, and for that reason I will caution against getting too invested. There's just little sense in getting super excited or super disappointed about whoever the Mariners hire, because we won't actually know if he's a good hire until the season is well underway. And even then, who's to say about the season that follows?

Comment 159 comments  |  1 recs  | 

Do you like this story?

Comments

Display:

I find myself uninterested in who winds up managing this team.

Which is a stark contrast from my old line of thinking that anything is better than Hargrove/McLaren.

by ThundaPC on Aug 12, 2010 6:58 PM PDT reply actions  

I think I prefer this feeling!

They won’t have to deal with managing Griffey. If they can manage the bullpen and lineups decently and get the team to not hate him I’ll be satisfied!

by ThundaPC on Aug 12, 2010 7:52 PM PDT up reply actions  

Did Lou Piniella retire or "retire"?

I heard he got along swimmingly with the front office

I feel like Charlie Brown trying to kick the football. Ugh

by HitKing69 on Aug 12, 2010 6:59 PM PDT reply actions  

No

I feel like Charlie Brown trying to kick the football. Ugh

by HitKing69 on Aug 13, 2010 10:27 AM PDT up reply actions  

And I was never serious

I feel like Charlie Brown trying to kick the football. Ugh

by HitKing69 on Aug 13, 2010 10:31 AM PDT up reply actions  

Did Piniella get along with the front office?

I feel like Charlie Brown trying to kick the football. Ugh

by HitKing69 on Aug 13, 2010 10:34 AM PDT up reply actions  

That's why I liked him.

He didn’t give a shit. I like that attitude. Come out, do your job and go home.

by d0nkey on Aug 13, 2010 10:37 AM PDT up reply actions  

It seemed like every July and August

He was blustering about a lack of personnel moves, lack of action from the front office … besides wanting to get closer to home, I thought this was a reason for him wanting to leave in the first place.

I feel like Charlie Brown trying to kick the football. Ugh

by HitKing69 on Aug 13, 2010 10:39 AM PDT up reply actions  

He went in to Lincoln's office in 2002 and lit Lincoln up.

That was the beginning of the end for him here and he will never be back as long as Lincoln drives this bus. I’m not sure if Lou’s issues were ever with the GM’s he worked with as much as he had issues with Howard and Chuck.

by Sec 108 on Aug 13, 2010 10:46 AM PDT up reply actions  

I don't disagree,

But has it been outlined why anywhere? The connection is obvious so people are going to be asking.

by BigR on Aug 13, 2010 10:32 AM PDT up reply actions  

Why?

BECAUSE IT’S NOT 1995 ANY MORE IS MOST OF THE REASON WHY

sorry about that.

but to answer seriously, it’s because he’s retiring. And because he’s not good at handling pitchers. And because he hates inexperienced players.

by pdb on Aug 13, 2010 10:34 AM PDT up reply actions  

I'm open to this idea.

Because we’re rebels. Accurate, intelligent, introspective rebels. And damn proud of it my friend. - CapSea

by JLProck on Aug 12, 2010 7:21 PM PDT up reply actions  

I just want someone with a brain

Someone who doesn’t kill young pitchers and understands that young players may not put up great stats but need a chance to develop. Also, if they know to use their better relievers in high leverage situations, that would be nice too.

by Thurston24 on Aug 12, 2010 9:06 PM PDT via mobile reply actions  

A brain you say? Good news!

Hard work never killed nobody, but I won't take my chances.

by JAH on Aug 12, 2010 9:34 PM PDT up reply actions   1 recs

For some reason I thought Wak was this guy

He seemed to have the necessary experience as a bench coach with young teams to understand how to create opportunities for success. The relievers thing, I just don’t know. Have the Mariners ever had a manager who utilized the bullpen optimally – Nelson to Rhodes to Sasaki doesn’t count as management. Anyone of us could have figured that out in 2001.

I feel like Charlie Brown trying to kick the football. Ugh

by HitKing69 on Aug 13, 2010 10:31 AM PDT up reply actions  

I can't be in favor of Valentine after hearing him on BTN stating that building a team based around

good defense is a bad concept just like money ball and on-base percentage. He flat out stated those things have proven to be failed concepts.

by Rudy4three on Aug 12, 2010 9:25 PM PDT reply actions  

I would think you want a GM and manager to be on the same page in regards to

team building and what are important characteristics of the players assembled on the 25 man roster.

by Rudy4three on Aug 12, 2010 10:49 PM PDT up reply actions  

What Mariner John said

Most baseball managers are traditionalist guys. They’re going to want a traditionally built team. Jack is certainly going to try and give him that. Most teams aren’t built entirely on OBP or defense or pitching or whatever. Most teams have some power, some on-base ability, some speed, some defense (unless you’re the Mariners).

All Jack needs to do is give him a team that can win.

I also think you may be misrepresenting what Valentine said, though I probably didn’t hear the same exact broadcasts as you. I think if you were to tell him “you should build a team on power” he would also say that would fail. I think he’s in favor of a more well-rounded approach as opposed to being very strong in one area. As I think most teams, general managers, managers, and fans would be. That’s not to say you can’t succeed by being only very strong in one area (which is where Valentine might disagree).

by Fuckmikereilly on Aug 12, 2010 11:44 PM PDT up reply actions  

I'm not misrepresenting him. He flat out said that the whole concept of moneyball

and OBP has proven to be a failure. He said that building around defense will result in the same failure for teams.

Seriously, how can anybody claim that building an offense around OBP is not the way to go? That makes zero sense to me and I’m not sure “most” managers would agree with that statement.

by Rudy4three on Aug 13, 2010 12:49 AM PDT up reply actions  

I really don't think he's saying that you don't need high OBP players

but I can’t say much without watching his comments firsthand. And certainly you could build an offense around power, for what it’s worth.

by Fuckmikereilly on Aug 13, 2010 12:58 AM PDT up reply actions  

I actually liked Valentine before I heard these comments, so I'm not trying to paint

him in a bad light cause I hate the guy. His comments though seemed ignorant with pretty much no reasoning to back them up other than the fact he’s old school and these concepts are new school.

That being I think as Jeff pointed out, managing is more about leadership and getting your guys to play hard and buy into the team. So his distaste towards new stats and what not probably would have little effect on his ability to lead well.

However, as pointed out somewhere in these comments, it has been rumored for quite awhile that Valentine wants say in personnel decisions. Therefore, his comments about defense and OBP shouldn’t be dismissed when talking about him as a prospective manager.

by Rudy4three on Aug 13, 2010 10:09 AM PDT up reply actions  

Well fuck those guys.

Hire someone that’s not retarded.

by Aaron Campeau on Aug 13, 2010 1:07 AM PDT up reply actions  

Good luck finding a manager that's not retarded.

I don’t think it’s an unreasonable view to think you can’t build a team from one area of strength, even if there are countless counterexamples (such as this years Padres). But mostly, I just don’t think it should be the utmost concern with a manager. In large part, he doesn’t build the team.

For all we know, Wak was all on board with the defense-first, high-OBP mentality. He also made fucking retarded strategic decisions.

by Fuckmikereilly on Aug 13, 2010 1:50 AM PDT up reply actions  

But Bobby apparently wants to help build the team.

They say (you know, they) that was one of the reasons talks with the Marlins didn’t go very far— he wanted too much control over personnel

by msb on Aug 13, 2010 8:28 AM PDT up reply actions  

One often overlooked criteria for judging a manager is how well they run their spring training.

This is something on which I think anyone who visits Peoria in the Spring can report. Are guys keeping busy, or are many just watching others do work? Are out of shape stars getting game ready, or are they screen printing banners for the ultimate practical joke?

If I recall correctly, Earl Weaver spent a chapter in his book on how important it is to get guys ready for the season. Though the game scores are meaningless, spring training sets the tone for the year, establishes discipline early, prepares rookies and veterans for the upcoming season, and generally is a reflection of how well a manager can coordinate his staff and players.

by csiems on Aug 12, 2010 9:29 PM PDT reply actions  

Why can't the Mariners make Morgan Freeman the voice of the Manager?

The team hires whom every they want. But when the manager has to speak he writes down his answer and Morgan Freeman reads the card.

No matter how bad the team played I would at least feel good about listening to the manager at the end each game.

by mark sobba on Aug 12, 2010 9:56 PM PDT reply actions  

I would also accept

James Earl Jones.

But let either one be the full manager, not just the voice, and have them base all their decisions on internet fan polls. “Lopez, the fans vote ‘hit homerz’, so do that”.

by Craptastic-J on Aug 13, 2010 6:14 AM PDT up reply actions  

NOOOOOOOOOOO

I wish I could auto post a “Stop” to everyone who suggests bringing Lou back and, in slightly unrelated matters, all Cubs fans.

by Mariner John on Aug 12, 2010 11:37 PM PDT up reply actions  

Turn it into a promotion

Every game one lucky fan gets to be manager for the day. For away games, magic 8 ball manned by Tui the new team mascot.

by hcoguy on Aug 12, 2010 10:25 PM PDT via mobile reply actions  

Ichiro! for starting pitcher.

Hard work never killed nobody, but I won't take my chances.

by JAH on Aug 12, 2010 10:28 PM PDT up reply actions  

:(

I have full confidence that Howard Lincoln and Chuck Armstrong will become overly involved, and screw it up.

by Henry Valz on Aug 12, 2010 11:35 PM PDT reply actions  

I'm really just worried about the relationship between HowChuck and Z.

The worse and worse this season gets, the thought keeps brewing that its possible Z’s job might be in jeopardy.
I wish there was someway of getting confirmation from someone on the inside that it’s foolish to be worried.

by BigR on Aug 12, 2010 11:45 PM PDT reply actions  

All I hope is that they've given him some private guarantee that he's sticking around for a little while

A GM who thinks his job is in danger does short-sighted things, and if Jack has one weakness, it’s some of his short-sighted moves.

by Fuckmikereilly on Aug 12, 2010 11:54 PM PDT up reply actions  

He'll make it through next year. The concern is whether he's going to be pressured into

making short sighted moves to make 2011 a contending year, when most M’s fans feel we need to use 2011 as a way to get our young talent experience, and clear some more bad money (Bradley, Wilson, etc) off the books

by Rudy4three on Aug 13, 2010 12:52 AM PDT up reply actions  

Most of the names that have bandied about have been fairly uninspring to me at least.

For instance of those on Stone’s initial list I only feel various degrees of loathing or indifference.

For some reason I’ve been hoping that the Cubs are dumb enough to decide to pay through the nose to bring in Girardi or Valentine and allow Z to go after Ryne Sandberg. I have no reason to believe Sandberg would actually be a good idea or that the Cubs would actually pass on him, but I have decided I wouldn’t mind seeing this happen.

by drblacknwhite on Aug 13, 2010 1:27 AM PDT reply actions  

I am against bringing in any big name manager

I’m worried they’d want to WIN NOW at all costs and undermine the GM

by Poochie on Aug 13, 2010 8:27 AM PDT reply actions  

I really don't care that much about the Manager.

I guess, it is important to have someone who can manage young players. With Ackley, Smoak, Saunders and Pineda as major pieces of the future the new manager can’t “miss use them.”

 I think the M’s larger issues are DH, Third base, Catcher, starting pitching and the bull pen.

Fuck the Angels

by InSpokane on Aug 13, 2010 8:45 AM PDT reply actions  

Why is Lou such a bad manager?

I get the impression that a lot of you like a guy that just tells it like it is. And if I remember correctly, he certainly did.

Do you just not like a manager to get all fired up and throw bases around?

Did he put shitty lineups out?

Did he not make the right in-game decisions on whether to steal, bunt, hit-and-run, etc?

I don’t get it. Why the elitist attitudes without giving a shred of evidence about why he was a bad manager?

by d0nkey on Aug 13, 2010 10:13 AM PDT reply actions  

I was never a fan of his bullpen management.

I found throwing bases around and acting like a jackass funny when I was a dumbass teenager. Now that I’m a little older, I find that sort of behavior pointless at best.

Lou may or may not be a good manager, but he wasn’t the reason the Mariners were good when he was here. If Wak was manager back then, I’d bet they would have very similar records.

by Jed MC on Aug 13, 2010 10:20 AM PDT up reply actions  

He destroys pitchers arms and he distrusts any player with less than 5 years experience

but for me it’s more than that. People want Piniella back because he’s a big slab of OMG1995WASSOAWESOME nostalgia, regardless of the facts, those being that he is retiring and that he isn’t the best candidate. I want no part of that – 1995 was 15 years ago. People need to let it go.

by pdb on Aug 13, 2010 10:22 AM PDT up reply actions   2 recs

Okay, this is better.

Kirk,
Disliking rookies is a good point. I never knew that about him and that would make for a bad fit with this club.

Jed,
I also found Lou’s jackassery entertaining when I was a teenager. It might be pointless, but is it pointless if seattle fans want to come out and watch that in person? I don’t know if we can say whether or not he actually generates revenue, but that can’t be a bad thing if he would fill seats.

pdb,
I don’t think its really about 1995. At least not for me. I think, as Jed said, that whether it was Lou, Wak, or McLaren, we would have had the same record with the talent we had back then. That tells me that the manager doesn’t have much influence on the outcome of a season. So why would it be bad if we hired a manager that could provide a little bit of entertainment on the field? ISn’t that what baseball is supposed to be? Entertaining? If we win, hey it’s fun! If we lose, hey at least we saw a base get tossed.

Don’t get me wrong here, I’m not advocating we bring Lou back.. but I wouldn’t go blowing up children’s hospitals if we did.

by d0nkey on Aug 13, 2010 10:36 AM PDT up reply actions  

I feel the same about bringing Lou Piniella back as I did about bringing 2010 Griffey back

For you, it’s not about 1995, but for the Mariner marketing department, it definitely would be. if Piniella were indeed brought back (which he won’t be, rendering all this academic), it would be at least in part to appease the casual fan who might or might not come to the ballpark. “Hey it’s Lou! He’s back! Remember how awesome he was? Let’s go to a game!”

If the Mariners are serious about rebuilding, Piniella isn’t even in the conversation at this point.

Baseball is supposed to be entertaining, but Piniella himself has said he doesn’t toss bases or anything like that any more, which basically just makes him another grizzled old manager. Not a lot of entertainment value there.

by pdb on Aug 13, 2010 10:40 AM PDT up reply actions  

I'm not sure if people go to the ballpark to see a manager.

Maybe on a “Lou Pinella Appreciation Day”, but I’m highly doubtful it would help increase attendance on a regular basis.

To me the main entertainment is the ballgame and putting a good team (or at the least good players) on the field. At this point, the only entertaining things to watch on this team are Felix, Ichiro, and Franklin in CF. The rest is just hoping the game will end quickly and that the young guys will improve.

by Jed MC on Aug 13, 2010 11:12 AM PDT up reply actions  

I don't think anyone goes to see the manager either.

But the possibility of seeing a blowup from the manager would add a little flair to the overall package. In my opinion anyway.

by d0nkey on Aug 13, 2010 11:15 AM PDT up reply actions  

He messed with player's swings for no reason other than he could.

He knew nothing about pitching yet meddled big time and overused the bullpen.
He never adjusted his approach to fit the player.
The only personalities that worked well with him were Jay Buhner types.
He would let superstars get away with murder but shit all over the 25th man on the roster like it was their fault the team sucked.
He played hunches all the time and like a gambler would tell you 100 times about the one that worked but never mention the 99 that failed.

Should I go on?

by Sec 108 on Aug 13, 2010 10:50 AM PDT up reply actions  

Not really.

I don’t know why he would be meddling with pitchers and hitters when there are other coaches for that. And I don’t think that the manager should adjust his approach to fit the player. At least not with the rookies, because the players are there to play for the manager. Not the other way around.

by d0nkey on Aug 13, 2010 11:17 AM PDT up reply actions  

You can say the players are there to play for the manager

but it doesn’t really work that way anymore, with the salaries and the union behind them.

by msb on Aug 13, 2010 11:25 AM PDT up reply actions  

Well, I have been through multiple management training courses and that is dead wrong.

If you want the best out of people you learn how to get it. Just plain demanding it is ignorant.

by Sec 108 on Aug 13, 2010 11:26 AM PDT up reply actions  

One of Drayer's thoughts on what went wrong with Wak this year was that he did not adapt

she noted Sweeney saying he was the same person as last year, and opined that was part of the problem— people & events changed, and he did not

by msb on Aug 13, 2010 11:30 AM PDT up reply actions  

And I have been through exactly zero, so I stand corrected.

I guess I just don’t think that a manager should bend over backwards for employees that aren’t on the same page. I would think that it would be best to find someone else rather than cater to employees that have special needs.

But now that I think about it, I guess it shouldn’t be as cut and dry as that. A manager should be a little flexible to get the desired results.

by d0nkey on Aug 13, 2010 11:48 AM PDT up reply actions  

But my point is that generally speaking, everyone who comments here is pretty sharp, and is quick to give insight to these types of discussions.

I just wanted to get past the “GOD NO and FUCK YOU” stage and figure out why people had their opinions of Lou.

And again, I am not advocating bringing him back. But I would like a manager that can light a fire when needed.

by d0nkey on Aug 13, 2010 11:50 AM PDT up reply actions  

People react differently to criticism.

I for instance have always enjoyed direct and even harsh criticism at work. It lets me know right away what I need to improve on. Some people wilt under that approach though. One way to appease Lou was to give him 25 guys that he couldn’t fuck up. The problem is that you limit the talent pool by doing that.

by Sec 108 on Aug 13, 2010 11:53 AM PDT up reply actions  

Could you imagine him in a franchise like the M's, where GMZ has stated you have to build from within?

He’d be right back to his old bullshit of undermining the GM in the press and demanding guaranteed veteran players while never playing the rookies or shitting all over them at every failure in a clutch situation. Seriously, it was a fun ride for the times but now? Fuck that guy. There’s lots of guys, I hope we go get one of those other ones.

by Kermit. on Aug 13, 2010 6:47 PM PDT up reply actions  

His input on personnel was ... erratic

he decided at various times he didn’t want Guillen (fragile!), Podsednik (well…), Ibanez (the kid won’t hit) & David Bell (they just rubbed each other the wrong way, it seems). To replace Bell he specifically asked for Cirillo (over Scott Rolen). In his quest for a bat he asked for Al Martin— he also asked for Carl Everett twice, but the trade(s) never happened. Unconfirmed is that he was willing to part with Varitek …

As Bob Finnigan (so, take a big grain of salt here) once put it, “Piniella espoused the Yankees’ principle of trading prospects for veteran help, even rent-a-players. It often helped, but it sometimes hurt years later. Woodward often heeded Piniella’s urging to acquire veterans. While Woodward is responsible for the Derek Lowe/Jason Varitek fiasco with Boston, Piniella probably had a hand in sending Joe Mays and David Ortiz to Minnesota, Mike Hampton to Houston, Jose Cruz to Toronto, Fernando Vina to the New York Mets , Raul Ibanez to Kansas City and Denny Stark to Colorado.”

by msb on Aug 13, 2010 11:08 AM PDT up reply actions   2 recs

This is all news to me.

Was his input on personnel erratic only in hindsight? Could anyone tell how these prospects were going to turn out at the time? I honestly don’t know.

by d0nkey on Aug 13, 2010 11:20 AM PDT up reply actions  

Denny Stark to Colorado?

Really, that’s the guy we’re missing from that deal?

by Fuckmikereilly on Aug 13, 2010 1:57 PM PDT up reply actions  

Who are we missing from that deal?

I feel like Charlie Brown trying to kick the football. Ugh

by HitKing69 on Aug 13, 2010 2:16 PM PDT up reply actions  

What about an 80 year old Whitey Herzog?!

That way we can keep the majority of this shitty team and REALLY play like the Cardinals! This is a flawless plan.

Carlos Silvelite

by OceanBird on Aug 13, 2010 10:43 AM PDT reply actions  

I don't give a shit who the Mariners next manager is

I only care about who it’s not. I don’t want a guy with a reputation for screwing with young players or overusing pitchers. I’d honestly prefer if it GMZ just grabs some virtually random organizational soldier and promotes them to manager. If GMZ is doing it right, this guy will literally do nothing outside of keeping his players happy all season.

by seattlebruin on Aug 13, 2010 11:35 AM PDT reply actions   1 recs

It must be incredibly difficult to find a manager that thinks outside the box.

Consider that they have to come up within their own ranks. That is, as one gets promoted he’ll bring along people he knows. I can imagine there must be pressure to conform. Unwritten rules, play the game the right way, etc. Could you imagine being the guy that puts your best bullpen guy into high leverage situations and closer be damned? Or any other situation that breaks with tradition, traditions that are wrong minded.

by Kermit. on Aug 13, 2010 6:52 PM PDT up reply actions  

Comments For This Post Are Closed


User Tools

By reading a game thread of your own volition you agree to accept all liability for any and all damage done to your delicate sensibilities.

FanPosts

Community blog posts and discussion.

Recommended FanPosts

Moar_bacon_small
Everything I Know About Jesus Montero

Recent FanPosts

Wbc_029_small
Friday Morning Music Thread
Small
OTDOD - Early February Edition
Agentejebaox3_small
A Statistical Analysis of Mariners' Fan Support
Small
Who will have a better season?
Claw_small
BA's Top 10 M's Prospects
Wbc_029_small
Friday Morning Music Thread
Small
Munenori Kawasaki Predictions!!!
Small
The Longevity and Future Success of Felix Hernandez.
Small
The present vs future conundrum

+ New FanPost All FanPosts >


Sexy People

Wbc_029_small Jeff Sullivan

Small Matthew