Cup of Coffee

April 29, 2011: Unexpected Benefit

111 Comments

Knowing my job is going away at work has forced me to aggressively go after some things I've wanted for years. It shouldn't take something like this to inspire me, but it does. Oh well.

111 thoughts on “April 29, 2011: Unexpected Benefit”

  1. My wife, not an early riser, got up to watch the Royal Wedding. I couldn't care less, but I was up, because, you know, that's the time I get up.

    1. The whole thing is a scam!
      Billy Butler married Kate about 42 months ago. They have a kid!
      And why so early in the morning on a game day? During the season is odd enough, but they could at least pick an off-day.
      (Maybe it's a real popular chapel though.)

        1. What offense would ol'GW take? Did he have some sort of an edict about his soldiers having their weddings during their winter at Valley Forge?

            1. (My joke is that I'm gonna just go on believing that the whole country is worked up about Billy and Katie Butler getting married, and I'm just going to stay oblivious to the British Crown. Royal. Will. Kate. Does England have a Sluggerrr?)

    2. Mrs. Runner had three other friends over, and they made it an all-nighter. She polished the silver, bought scones and Earl Grey, and this morning they popped the champaign and had lots of tasties for breakfast. I slept well, and had a great breakfast - win-win, far as I'm concerned.

    3. The local news I usually watch in the morning was moved to an alternate channel this morning for the royal wedding coverage. Then, they spent no less than half the broadcast talking about the royal f*(!ing wedding. I think I will be writing an email to the station about this annoyance.

      1. I'm so cut off from entertainment news at this point, I never would have known the royal wedding was happening if it wasn't for a few comments here and at Facebook. Hell, I thought Princess Di's death was covered for far too long - I'm sure this would have put me over the edge.

  2. It turns out my dad will have surgery Monday. It's a routine procedure, if there is such a thing as a routine procedure on an eighty-eight-year-old man. So, instead of going to School of Ministry next week, I'll be going to be with Mom and Dad.

    Here's what has me a little shaken up about this. Wednesday, I talked to my parents, and they told me Dad had this doctor's appointment. I offered to drive them to it. I've done this many times before, and Dad always said no. This time, however, he did not say no. He did not come out and say yes, but he hummed and hawed around, which I knew was his way of telling me to just assume a yes without making him say it.

    There's nothing unusual about giving a man of his age a ride to the doctor, but my parents are fiercly independent people. The last thing they would ever do is ask for a favor, put anyone out, or burden anyone. That makes me think that Dad actually allowing me to take him to the doctor is a significant event, and not a happy one. I'm afraid that we are entering the phase in which Mom and Dad's decline will progress ever more rapidly over the next few years, until we reach the inevitable end.

    Even if I'm wrong, of course, we will only get a temporary reprieve until this phase hits. Due to proximity and temperament, much of the responsibility for their care will probably fall on Mrs. A and me. I don't mind doing that--I can never repay them for all they've done for me--but it still will make a significant difference in our lives over the next few years.

    I realize how fortunate I am to have had my parents around and in relatively good health for as long as I have. I also realize that I'm not the first person to deal with this, nor am I going to be the last. I assume we'll figure things out as we go along, just like everyone else does, and we'll get through it, just like everyone else does.

    I don't really have a point to this, other than the obvious one that we need to treasure our loved ones for as long as we have them. That's said so often that it's become a cliche, but it's still true. If you would like to say some prayers for my family, that would be appreciated.

    We now return you to your regularly scheduled programming.

    1. the nation's going through tough times indeed. i was just informed my grandmother died yesterday after a long struggle with cancer (she lived far away and we weren't fiercely close, but it's still a blow).

      i'm coming to the age where thoughts of my aging parents and what that all entails are starting to enter my mind. god willing, that's still a long ways away. regardless, it's still something i know i'll face sooner than later. i hate growing up.

      anyway, best of luck, and best of health to you and your family. as you are for us, we're also here for you.

    2. My parents are far from it, but I remember that phase in my great-grandparents, and I remember how heartbreaking it was to see it. My grandparents will be there soon, and it makes me feel guilty that I'm 1600 miles away.

      There's very little I can add to what you said, but you're always quick to support all of us, so I'll try to at least manage a cliche: hang in there, Jeff. We'll all be thinking of you.

    3. My thoughts and prayers are with you and yours, Jeff. I watched my grandmother go through a very similar life change, and my wife's grandparents are having similar health and independence issues. Your folks are lucky to have you there for them.

    4. My father is only 58. He says he wants to live another ten years, but he's already ready to die. Meanwhile, I'm terrified. I have found dying is often tougher on the people who are going to be alive and have to reframe their lives without someone in it.

      I have also found it's hard no matter how expected or merciful the death is. Yes, a 100 year-old parent dying is going to be easier than a 30 year-old parent. But no matter how many times one says, "They're no longer suffering," or "It was their time," it doesn't make it any easier. Because while it may have been the right time for them to die, it's never the right time for us.

      What makes it easier is having meaningful people in your life that you can direct energy to when it happens. Hopefully we'll be a small part of that.

    6. Jeff A, I'm not a praying person, but my thoughts are with you and your parents.

      Mine are in their late 70s and have visibly aged quite a bit in the last few years. Thanks for the reminder to cherish those relationships.

    7. To add to the "treasure these moments" theme, we found out last night that a mother of Trey's teammate went home from their game the other night, collapsed and died. They don't know why. The boy has an older brother that plays in the minors, just like junior, so that kind of hits home that the widower is left with two boys approximately the same age as Junior and Trey.

    8. I'm sorry to hear it Padre. You and your family are in my thoughts and prayers.

      My parents are celebrating their 60th birthdays this summer. They're both still working and I don't see retirement or "old age" any time soon...but 60 is getting there and CH's news struck a chord with me.

    10. I am sorry to hear about your dad, Jeff. Here's to hoping things go well for him in the upcoming days.

      1. At the moment, I choose to be excited about the inevitable change. I'll let you know in a few weeks if that's still how I'm feeling...

    13. May everything go as smoothly as can be hoped for you, your parents, and your wife.
      I've got some thinking going around in my head, but I don't know if I'll ever get it into ASCII.

  5. cc to the brass:

    let me know if you wanted to discuss things this weekend. i should be busy abotu 9:30-11, but free around that.

  6. I'm still really unconvinced by the explanations given for the Ponder pick. It does sound like it was difficult to trade down out of the first round, as the Seahawks also tried to trade down but couldn't work anything out. But reading something like this makes me think they were just in the wrong mindset:

    What we know is this: Vikings coach Leslie Frazier was desperate to draft a quarterback who could lead his team, and he seemed very happy at the lectern late Thursday night.

    Even accepting that drafting for position is more important in the NFL than in other leagues because trades are less common, the Vikings went 6-10 last season and I'm pretty sure they have needs at more than one position. And QB was so bad for the Vikings last year that they could make a big upgrade with a mediocre QB.

    It would be one thing, I think, for the Vikings to reach for a guy they felt was the best player available but other people hadn't rated highly (like the Twins' Revere pick.) But I think it's a quite different thing to limit your scope to one of the 22+ positions on the field and stubbornly insist that you must have a player from that position. It just doesn't seem like a smart way to run a draft.

    1. Revere was a much worse pick. Whereas its possible Ponder would have been available in the second, its a near certainty Revere would have been.

        1. I do find the dead certainty that some fans have about this kind of stuff fascinating: whyohwhy aren't the people that do this for a living as good at drafting teams as I am??? I mean, don't the Vikings get ESPN Insider?!??

          1. The biggest problem with draft coverage, and this is especially a problem for the baseball draft, is that all of our opinions about players in the draft come from the media, and then the media are the ones who decide which teams had the best draft. The writers saw the Twins pick someone that they didn't have on their board. To them, this means that Revere was a reach and no one else would have drafted him--but they didn't see the Twins picking him, so why should we believe them when they say no one else would have picked him?

            1. But where does the media get its information? If they are reporting that Revere wasn't on other teams radars, then I'm inclined to believe them over information about other teams that the Twins might be getting about interest in players. I think they panicked because there was such a large supplemental round. He wasn't their best player available, but he was THEIR guy, and they HAD to get him.

              1. [image of Bill Belichick]

                Ok, not baseball, but I don't think its a stretch to say that baseball teams are equally likely to be dishonest with the media...

              2. Teams don't exactly like to tell the media exactly who they're going to pick in the draft. The media talks with scouts, and gets a good overall picture of what scouts might think, but they're not privy to the discussions at the top about how teams are approaching the first few picks of the draft. We know empirically that the media doesn't have a good grasp of what every team is thinking because there are always big surprises about who goes in which slot.

                And I'm sure there are plenty of players in every draft that teams especially don't want to talk about because they are hoping he will fall. What's the point in telling the media you really like some under-the-radar guy other than to give away the fact that he's on your radar?

      2. While I have no opinion on whether either would have been available in the next round, I disagree that Revere was a "much worse pick" on the basis of how likely he was to have been available later.

        I think the evidence is that the success gradient is much steeper in the NFL than in baseball. In other words, you could throw a dart at a board of names and do about as well with any of a couple dozen guys at any point in the baseball draft (after, say, the first 10-15 picks). Of the next 36 players chosen after Revere in the 2007 "first round", only 8 have so far achieved even a cup of coffee in the majors. Most prominently: Brett Cecil (10 picks later), Julio Borbon (7 picks later) and Tommy Hunter (26 picks later), who are the only "regulars" so far to emerge from the 1st round or supplemental picks after Revere.

        Of outfielders picked after Revere, Wendell Fairley (next pick) has a cumulative 696 OPS in the minors and hasn't gone beyond high-A; Julio Borbon is a similarly-equipped OF (761 OPS in the minors with no power, 281/324/355 so far in the majors); Kellen Kulbacki (12 picks later) "hit" 215/284/319 in AA last year and appears to be out of baseball; and Michael Burgess (21 picks later) is back in A+ for the third straight year.

        By the standard of outcomes, the Revere pick doesn't look too bad. Borbon maybe would have been a better choice for banjo-hitting, speedy OFer. But there isn't much evidence that the Twins missed out on clearly better selections by taking Revere where they did.

        1. The Twins were "right" in the sense he's played well, like you would reasonably expect a first-rounder at that point in the draft. On the other hand, they were "wrong" if they could have safely predicted they could have gotten the same player in the same round, then why not pick someone else more highly coveted by most teams? Basically, it comes down to which would you rather have: Ben Revere and a first-round pick or Revere and a second-round pick? In many ways, the Twins went with the safe pick instead of the potential for something great. They didn't want to gamble he'd still be there in the second round, they didn't want to gamble on players that could possibly be more expensive (that was the claim by several outsiders, that the Twins were going cheap and he signed for just $750,000), and he projected pretty well to be able to hit and run well, but there was essentially no power potential and he has a wet noodle for an arm, so there wasn't a lot of upside. If he can't stick in center field, he'll have to win batting titles to avoid being relegated to a fourth outfielder. Or be Scott Podsednik.

          1. That's a simplistic way to view Revere's big league career. He has the range to be a center fielder but not necessarily the arm. That means if/when he moves to left, his defense will be that much better, offsetting the position penalty. Now, you're right that his offense will heavily derive from his BABIP, but considering Juan Pierre is now in his 12th season, I think a good defense, all BABIP outfielder will do just fine.

            1. .325/.385/.406 -- Revere, minors
              .331/.379/.393 -- Pierre, minors

              From 2001-2010, Juan Pierre had 23 fWAR. I'd certainly be satisfied if Revere turned into the next Juan Pierre.

          2. Some didn't think Revere would be around when the Twins picked again. And it's not so crazy to believe that--if the Twins were willing to pick him where they did, it's not at all unreasonable to believe that someone else would have picked him in the next few picks.

            That said, I do think that money was a factor. Looking at what they spent in draft bonuses and major league payroll, I'm pretty sure they borrowed from the draft bonus fund to put more money into the major league roster that year. But since the media never reports total expenditure on players (40-man roster plus draft bonuses plus international signings), that's rarely taken into account. Looking at how the players after Revere have fared, though, I think it could have been a case where no one else blew them away, and since it was a gamble no matter what, they decided to make an inexpensive gamble.

            Anyway, probably the most hilarious thing about the whole reaction against Revere as a draft pick is that he reminded everyone of Span, and at the time, Denard Span was pretty much the only guy who figured he'd be successful. When Revere was drafted, I wrote this (comparing Span, Ellsbury, and Revere):

            My first impression of this pick was that it was Denard Span all over again. To a certain degree, it is Denard Span all over again. But as Ellsbury shows us, Denard Span wasn't necessarily fated to become Jason Tyner II. Sometimes these toolsy guys work out, and sometimes they don't. Just how often they turn out and how much value they have on average are good questions that I don't have answers for right now.

            And as history has gone on to show, even Denard Span didn't have to be Denard Span. And right now, his 10.4 career fWAR is ahead of Ellsbury's 8.1 career fWAR. If Revere was drafted this year instead of 2007, and he was compared to Span, the reaction would have been a lot different, I believe.

            1. I think it could have been a case where no one else blew them away, and since it was a gamble no matter what, they decided to make an inexpensive gamble.

              Truth. Especially them borrowing from draft budget. It worked out, and they did a good job identifying a player other teams weren't taking very seriously.

        2. Saying he wasn't a poor pick because he has panned out relatively seems weird. That's like justifying Arian Foster in the first round of a fantasy football draft last year. Sure, you drafted him well above of where you needed to in order to get him, but it worked out ok.

          Just yesterday we were saying that in baseball its more important to draft the best player available. The Twins didn't believe he was this, or Revere has the worst agent ever, signing for 750,000.

          This isn't to say that I don't like Revere. I do. But the Twins could have picked Andrew Brackman and Ben Revere instead of Ben Revere and Danny Rams.

          1. I drafted Arian Foster in the 7th round of the 2010 WGOM fantasy football league.
            Unfortunately, I drafted DeAngelo Williams in the 1st round.
            Fortunately, I still won the league.

            2. Nice pick. I out of interest looked and it said his ADP was 50 on ESPN. I was out of it last year, but does that sound right?

              1. We had twelve teams and I was in the snake position, so I had the last pick in that round...so he fell a little bit further than average, I think.

                1. Although it should be noted that we play with IDPs, so there were some of those guys going by the 6th and 7th rounds.

          2. Milt, I didn't claim he "wasn't a poor pick because he has panned out." He hasn't panned out in the sense that I focused on.

            I claimed he wasn't a poor pick because there is NO EVIDENCE that the next 30 or so guys picked after him were better. If he was such a reach, it stands to reason that a goodly number of the guys picked after him should have succeeded in a noticeable way, and the odds of success should be declining in distance from the Twins' pick. But record doesn't support that hypothesis. Ergo, the Twins can't be said to have erred significantly, in the sense that teams picking after them are laughing and pointing at their foolishness. Most of these guys don't pan out to become contributors at the major league level.

            My argument was that the baseball draft, after the first handful of picks anyway, is a crapshoot in which the difference between individuals within relatively broad tranches of alternatives is slight. So it just isn't worthwhile to wring hands about picking a guy "too early" unless it is "too early" by several rounds.

            1. Well thats exactly what Revere was said to be. He was talked about as a 3-5th rounder. That is several rounds later than the first round.

    2. I don't know the players coming out of college either, so I reserve judgment. The only thing that really ticks me off is when you see obvious mistakes that are made based on the decision makers not understanding that they are dealing with probability, not certainty. You see this most when teams trade up. No matter how sure they are, it is still a huge risk.

      The best example of this was last year. The Vikings traded their 2nd and 3rd round picks to move up in the 2nd round to draft a backup RB (I can't even remember his name). I have no idea what the probability of getting a decent player in the 2nd round would be but let's say it is 70%. And let's say the probability of a decent player in the 3rd round is 50%. Just using those two picks would give you a 35% chance of two decent players, a 50% chance of one decent player, and a 15% chance of no decent players. (I know this is simplified but I think the theory is right.)

      Based on those assumptions, the Vikings would need to be awfully sure that moving up a few picks in the second round is worth it and I really doubt any GM is that much better than the other GMs to make it worthwhile. Throw in the fact that the Vikings thought they were just a player or two away from the Super Bowl and they spent a 2nd and 3rd rounder on a player that will NEVER start in the NFL, and it gets even more perplexing.

      This is a long-winded way of saying that I agree that they probably reached for the QB, but they've made far worse decisions.

      1. That's fair. And given the reservations that some have about Newton and Locker, I should probably be giving the Vikings the benefit of the doubt in that Ponder likely wasn't the 4th QB on their draft board.

        Since all the players knew there could be a strike this season, I wouldn't be surprised if this turns out to look like a weak draft overall in a few years, and if teams were having trouble trading down in the draft, that probably means there wasn't all that much talent to be had in the first round anyway.

      2. I think the NFL has pretty well established the expected values of various draft pick slots. The market rate for moving up in the draft via trading picks is common knowledge.

        1. Hmmm...I would say that teams know what is typically paid for various slots, but I think there's still a lot of room for discussion on whether or not the typical price is good for both parties involved. I have my doubts about the efficiency of a market where there aren't many participants and it's pretty difficult to judge the outcome of each deal.

    3. To add to the conversation, two more QBs went off the board before their next pick. Ponder likely wouldn't have been available. I think the 49ers would have taken him ahead of the kid from Nevada. I still would have rather fallen into Mallet or taken Clausen or McCoy last year than reach for Ponder this year.

      Oh well, he'll be starting in LA soon enough and I will be following the Chiefs.

  7. From the "Woe is Me" department, the Mrs. wants me to go to the h.s. musical with her tonight. No, the Boy is not performing. Instead, he's running the sound booth.

    I'm sure it will be fun. Much better than a quiet night at home, game logging and watching DVR'd episodes of Bones and drinking one of these.

    2. Speaking from experience, although most folks have no idea how difficult it is in the sound booth, the person running it knows. So, The Boy probably takes great pride in it and it will be a big deal to him if you miss it.

      However, anyone who has to see a full-length high school production has my sympathies.

      1. the Boy is working hard. He got tapped for the job at the last minute after the guy who was supposed to do it flaked. So he's been venting a lot this last week as he's tried to learn the system on the fly.

        Most challenging -- he had to create a schedule for sharing microphones among cast members. The school doesn't have enough functioning mikes for all the cast members with singing/speaking roles (they are doing Beauty and the Beast), so they have to swap as they exit/prepare to enter the stage. which means he has to know who has which mike, which means THEY have to follow a set scheme.

        opening night was last night. After much consternation all week with rehearsals, the first night went off almost without a hitch.

        as to whether he would take umbrage at me not showing up...I doubt it. But I will be there, showing the flag. Dreaming about that barleywine.

        1. I've known productions that have had the short-on-mikes problem. That's a hell of a thing, but as long as the people involved do their jobs quickly and correctly, it can be overcome (still, school...get some more mikes already).

          Once the show goes up, the booth guy's job isn't "hard" anymore, but it's still nerve-wracking. The job at that point is essentially done by knowing when to press a button, but if that button is pressed at the wrong time just once, it can destroy the entire performance.

          2. still, school...get some more mikes already

            You funny. That will be an issue for the Music Boosters to address, no doubt.

            *looks left, looks right. realizes that this means more from his own wallet*

          3. ugg. i had to do lights and sound at the same time for both richard iii and cyrano de bergerac.

            1. I did the two together for Carousel but had very little trouble because we had the best equipment available for the job (this was in college).

              I never did anything crew-related in high school. I really can't remember there ever being a real crew in high school. When I got to college, the idea of a stage manager was totally new to me, and suddenly I realized that my high school had robbed me of the only thing I was really interested in learning about.

    3. I still can't believe I had to go see Pirates of Penzance a few years ago when my sister was in it for one scene. That show was comically terrible.

    4. At the risk of jinxing myself, I've never seen a HS musical. I presume by the time I have kids, HS musicals will be all computer graphics and auto-tuned vocals.

      1. Maybe my experiences were unusual, by my high school's musicals were exceptional. When my brother was there, they sold out every night of Joseph and the Technicolor Dreamcoat and ran it another couple of months because it was so popular. Although, it may have helped that it was one of the largest schools in MN...

              1. minneapolis represent! we had hollywood caliber actors (literally) in our theater.

                1. I have no recollection of going to any high school musicals or if our theater was particularly good or crappy, but I do know that one of the actors on Mad Men is a Stillwater grad.

              2. I forget the director's name (Knutsen, maybe?) who was there when I was, but he directed at Blaine for a number of years and then headed to Anoka for maybe the next 10. He did a really good job identifying plays that fit his actors skills, and went to state and beyond pretty regularly.

                1. I remember losing to Anoka in the one-act competition. Twilight of the Golds vs. Rain. It was obvious you guys had way more money than us, though I felt the talent was equivalent. Unfortunately, the judges really put the hate on Coon Rapids.

                  1. The one-act judges, in my experience, were very taken in by spectacle. They quite often favored production value over talent, whether that meant they were favoring us or not. One-Act competitions have the best of intentions, but a lot of the judges - just like in high school speech - are borne out of necessity, not their expertise.

      3. I was in Fiddler on the Roof when I was in high school. Nobody knew how to do an actual Russian Jewish accent, but it was fun.

        1. Fiddler is the only show I've been in twice. In high school, I was the skinniest Lazar Wolf in history. In college, as a freshman, I was a one-line chorus member. It was pretty tough to go from being the biggest fish in the smallest pond to the opposite.

          1. I was Avram the bookseller, so I was somewhere in between there. I wasn't in choir and hadn't been in any musicals before that, but I was cast in a part that had the last solo in that one song that gets cut from all the movie versions.

            1. my sole stage experience (that I remember) came in a 6th-grade production, where I was the barker/lead in some sort of circus show. Somehow I managed to remember most of my lines and cues, but it didn't give me the theater virus.

            2. Avram, sure. I had to cover a line he forgot in high school, the poor bastard. Luckily, it was a misogynistic line, which fit perfectly with Lazar Wolf's character.

          2. I was in the orchestra for Fiddler and Meet Me in St. Louis. The only show in which I was actually on stage was Working.

            1. And my only time on stage was Father Mulcahy in M.A.S.H. Otherwise, I was the God of All Things Lighting. You want a spotlight on Tiny Tim's crutch next to an empty chair? You got it!

    5. I was the cab driver in "Harvey" in college. I didn't make my entrance until the final 10 minutes of the play, so I had 2 1/2 hours or so to hang around each night. I helped with special effects some (making the phone ring, etc.) and didn't bother getting dressed and makeup on until at least the second act.

      1. I actually got to play Elwood P. Dowd in "Harvey" in community theater in Pierre. It was the only time I ever had the lead role, and I loved it.

      2. The other plays I was in during high school (besides Fiddler) were The Crucible in which I played one of the judges, who doesn't appear till the second half of the play, and Midsummer Night's Dream, in which I played Theseus, who appears in the first scene and then doesn't come back till the end of Act 4. So I got to have lots of extended down time backstage, too, which I enjoyed cause it also meant I didn't have to go to all the rehearsals.

      1. You'll have to give me a few hours, I'm still at work and leotards are generally frowned upon as proper work attire.

  9. CHEAPMAIL ARRIVES!!1!!11!1

    One is clearly the IIPA from New Glarus, and the others - T, and...DJ? DS? A sort of stout?

    I must warn you, if I hear nothing for the next few minutes, I'm just going to have to crack one open and find out.

      1. I had the Tripel guessed, but I didn't want to get myself too psyched until I was sure.

        I was leaning toward Dry Stout, but yeah, it looks a little like a J. No worries.

        Okay, partaking of the IIPA right now, since the Milkmaid insists on tasting the others when she gets home. This is fantastic. It reminds me a bit of Sierra Nevada Tornado, but I haven't had that in a few months so maybe my mind's exaggerating the similarity.

        1. I have also not have the Tornado in many moons, so I couldn't give a comparison either. Although that might be an excuse to go get some Tornado. (soon to be in can form, in case anyone likes that sort of thing.... I know I do.)

          As an fyi, the ABV on that T is about 9 - 9.5%.

            1. I am swimming in bottles, so I don't need to collect them as much anymore. Plus, cans are far more handy when tailgating and for general cooler packing.

  10. Hey Zap! Zap Rowsdower! You have your Facebook locked down so tight, I can't attempt to invite you to the WGOM event in KC.

    Which reminds me -- anyone else not get the invite to the KC/Twins game on June 5 yet?

  11. The Twins have an all-left-handed outfield tonight vs. Bruce Chen. Do we really have to wait to put Jason Repko on the DL? Is anyone they call up going to be that much worse? Or can we at least get another pitcher? No Thome either, but he shouldn't start against a lefty anyways. Chen has a reverse split for his career, so maybe not a big deal, but still frustrating. Morneau DHing, Cuddyer at first, Hughes at second Casilla at SS batting second.

    1. this will be the first game I watch since Sunday. I guess I dont care who they trot out, I just want to see a win

  13. Great line I just heard: with the 43rd pick in the NFL draft, David Kahn selects Ryan Mallet.

    1. Memphis may be my least favorite city in the US, but suck it Tim Duncan and Manu Ginobili.

Comments are closed.