1966 Trade Board

[Tellistto]

New York sends:

SP William Kay
RF Henry "Goat" McKinney
New Yorks draft pick for 1966

Compton sends:

2b Sancho Lopez
SP Jose Gonzalez
SP Guus Barthen

Tell

[Young Drachma]

Confirmed.

[Young Drachma]

Compton trades:

3B Rick Inman
RF Lawrence Wyatt (AAA)

to Valdosta in exchange for:

C Sam Harmon

Valdosta to confirm.

[Alan T]

Originally Posted by Dark Cloud

Compton trades:

3B Rick Inman
RF Lawrence Wyatt (AAA)

to Valdosta in exchange for:

C Sam Harmon

Valdosta to confirm.

Confirmed. THanks for the trade talks DC.

[Cringer]

Rio Grande sends: SS Scott Evan

Colorado sends: SP Billy Martin

Thanks CR

[Chief Rum]

DC, Martin is at AAA. Not sure where Evans is, but I assume MLB.

I confirm. Thanks, Cringer!

[muns]

Hartford Sends

SP-Guillermo Flores
SP-Gabriel Molina
SP-Stand Martin
MR-Javier Vallerjo
C-Bernado Carillo
SS- Louis Lopez
1b-Jesse Ray
2nd- Jim Rausch
SS-Paul Herbert
LF- Jim Williams
CF-Russell Hicks
RF-Rafel Mendoza
Future draft pick that Me and fozzie will do next year


Chicago Sends

C-Standford Jones
$100,000

DC, your gonna have to break this up into 2 deals as the game only lets you trade 10 at a time. Thanks

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by muns

Hartford Sends

SP-Guillermo Flores
SP-Gabriel Molina
SP-Stand Martin
MR-Javier Vallerjo
C-Bernado Carillo
SS- Louis Lopez
1b-Jesse Ray
2nd- Jim Rausch
SS-Paul Herbert
LF- Jim Williams
CF-Russell Hicks
RF-Rafel Mendoza
First round draft Choice (next year as this year was just done)


Chicago Sends

C-Standford Jones
$100,000

DC, your gonna have to break this up into 2 deals as the game only lets you trade 10 at a time. Thanks

WTH? Jeez, is that legal?

[muns]

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

WTH? Jeez, is that legal?

why woulnt it be. I just combined everyone to make it one deal. I could have broken it down into 2 seperate deals????

[Young Drachma]

Originally Posted by muns

Hartford Sends

SP-Guillermo Flores
SP-Gabriel Molina
SP-Stand Martin
MR-Javier Vallerjo
C-Bernado Carillo
SS- Louis Lopez
1b-Jesse Ray
2nd- Jim Rausch
SS-Paul Herbert
LF- Jim Williams
CF-Russell Hicks
RF-Rafel Mendoza
First round draft Choice (next year as this year was just done)


Chicago Sends

C-Standford Jones
$100,000

DC, your gonna have to break this up into 2 deals as the game only lets you trade 10 at a time. Thanks

I'm going to have to veto the deal as it's setup and instead, ask you to indicate that the "future draft pick" simply be "future considerations" and then I'll leave it up to both of you to remember next year to consummate another trade that formally sends that pick to Chicago. Reason? I said in the draft rules initially that we wouldn't allow future draft pick trading (meaning, you can only trade draft picks during the same off-season as that year's draft) and that's mostly for simplicity.

So...it's just a formality, but I'm going to ask you to edit your post and then I'll go ahead and process that trade tonight so long as Chicago confirms it.

Sorry for the long winded explanation.

[muns]

Originally Posted by Dark Cloud

I'm going to have to veto the deal as it's setup and instead, ask you to indicate that the "future draft pick" simply be "future considerations" and then I'll leave it up to both of you to remember next year to consummate another trade that formally sends that pick to Chicago. Reason? I said in the draft rules initially that we wouldn't allow future draft pick trading (meaning, you can only trade draft picks during the same off-season as that year's draft) and that's mostly for simplicity.

So...it's just a formality, but I'm going to ask you to edit your post and then I'll go ahead and process that trade tonight so long as Chicago confirms it.

Sorry for the long winded explanation.

lol its ok, we actually had this deal in the works, but fozzie, didnt get the pm comfirning everything till about 20 mins ago, which is why it worked out the way it did. It was supposed to be this years draft.

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by muns

why woulnt it be. I just combined everyone to make it one deal. I could have broken it down into 2 seperate deals????

I haven't checked those players at all, but my guess is you traded a whole bunch of mediocre prospects for one terrific player. In the other leagues I have been in, a deal like this would be vetoed pretty fast. If you can't do at "worst" a five for one deal, it shouldn't count.

I have also seen people suggest trading guys they just signed to contracts, which should be another major no-no. I am beginning to suspect we need to start watching trades more carefully.

[Young Drachma]

The game will let me trade the future pick, so it'll be fine. But I did state the rule as it was and don't want to go back on my word, so...still.

[Young Drachma]

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

I haven't checked those players at all, but my guess is you traded a whole bunch of mediocre prospects for one terrific player. In the other leagues I have been in, a deal like this would be vetoed pretty fast. If you can't do at "worst" a five for one deal, it shouldn't count.

I have also seen people suggest trading guys they just signed to contracts, which should be another major no-no. I am beginning to suspect we need to start watching trades more carefully.

I understand what you're saying.

But in this particular case, there are a few things at play here.

1. Chicago has barely ANY players in the minors at all.
2. Hartford is basically at the cap and
3. has been stockpiling players for a while.

Hartford had to get rid of a bunch of guys with the new roster limits showing up this year and Chicago needed guys to be able to field minor league teams.

It's not really as bad a deal as it looks on the surface and it'd be no more "fair" if they'd split it up into two deals. This doesn't smack of pulling a fast one to me, so I think we're okay.

But I follow what you're saying and your sentiment is well taken.

[Young Drachma]

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

I have also seen people suggest trading guys they just signed to contracts, which should be another major no-no. I am beginning to suspect we need to start watching trades more carefully.

Wait, who traded a just signed free agent?

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by Dark Cloud

Wait, who traded a just signed free agent?

No one yet. But there's one on the block right now, and technically, I myself just received a player who was just re-signed by his team after being allowed to go to FA. That latter gets into tricky area (since he was re-signed by the same team), but you can definitely say a player wouldn't have signed a contract to return to a team only to be traded a day later.

[Young Drachma]

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

No one yet. But there's one on the block right now, and technically, I myself just received a player who was just re-signed by his team after being allowed to go to FA. That latter gets into tricky area (since he was re-signed by the same team), but you can definitely say a player wouldn't have signed a contract to return to a team only to be traded a day later.

Well, MLB doesn't have a salary cap. So it never happens in baseball. But it happens in the NBA all of the time, because they have a salary cap and because players can make more money signing with their current team than they can on the open market before getting dealt.

The unwritten threshold has been to only allow trades of guys who have played at least a year with a team. I'm fine with enforcing that as edict, especially since you can release a guy to get under the cap.

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by Dark Cloud

I understand what you're saying.

But in this particular case, there are a few things at play here.

1. Chicago has barely ANY players in the minors at all.
2. Hartford is basically at the cap and
3. has been stockpiling players for a while.

Hartford had to get rid of a bunch of guys with the new roster limits showing up this year and Chicago needed guys to be able to field minor league teams.

It's not really as bad a deal as it looks on the surface and it'd be no more "fair" if they'd split it up into two deals. This doesn't smack of pulling a fast one to me, so I think we're okay.

But I follow what you're saying and your sentiment is well taken.

IMO (and that's all it is, so feel free to just tell me to deal with it), but Hartford shouldn't get an easy out like this. If they have stockpiled players and need to drop them, then that's what they should be doing, not a trade like this. Chicago can still likely get tons of players from FA, including the ones we vets will soon be releasing ourselves, to fill out their system, and keep Standford Jones.

Chicago is obviously suffering a bit from absentee ownership, and probably some of the other new owners' teams as well, but maybe we need to work out a workaround for that instead of allowing a deal that would benefit one team (Hartford) at essentially the cost of nothing.

[muns]

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

I haven't checked those players at all, but my guess is you traded a whole bunch of mediocre prospects for one terrific player. In the other leagues I have been in, a deal like this would be vetoed pretty fast. If you can't do at "worst" a five for one deal, it shouldn't count.

I have also seen people suggest trading guys they just signed to contracts, which should be another major no-no. I am beginning to suspect we need to start watching trades more carefully.

With respect Chief i totally disagree with that statement. You cant blanket a league by saying only 5 and done......

Im actually in the camp of trying to do fair deals so that i can get fair deals back. Makes trading much easier that way ive found.

but just for shitz and giggles, half of the guys i dealt him are either gonna start or make his MLB team and play a lot. Would they make your roster, prob not, but you didnt just take over a team that didnt make a move for 2 seasons in a row either. Ill even go out on a limb saying 8-9 of those guys make his mlb team.

On top of that I need to get rid of guys as the new rule says. But it isnt a bad deal by anymeans.

[Young Drachma]

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by Dark Cloud

Well, MLB doesn't have a salary cap. So it never happens in baseball. But it happens in the NBA all of the time, because they have a salary cap and because players can make more money signing with their current team than they can on the open market before getting dealt.

The unwritten threshold has been to only allow trades of guys who have played at least a year with a team. I'm fine with enforcing that as edict, especially since you can release a guy to get under the cap.

Sign and trades happen because of the Bird rights issue. We don't have Bird rights or any exemptions to go over the cap, so that shouldn't be a consideration. And even in the NBA, it rarely happens anymore.

I am fine, though, with the unwritten threshold. That works for me. Long as we stick to that, I think we're good. We may want to consider also not allowing players who sign multi-year extensions to be traded until at least the second year of their extension, too, but that's just a suggestion.

[Young Drachma]

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

IMO (and that's all it is, so feel free to just tell me to deal with it), but Hartford shouldn't get an easy out like this. If they have stockpiled players and need to drop them, then that's what they should be doing, not a trade like this. Chicago can still likely get tons of players from FA, including the ones we vets will soon be releasing ourselves, to fill out their system, and keep Standford Jones.

Chicago is obviously suffering a bit from absentee ownership, and probably some of the other new owners' teams as well, but maybe we need to work out a workaround for that instead of allowing a deal that would benefit one team (Hartford) at essentially the cost of nothing.

Hmm..I totally understand your sentiment. I really do.

But at the same time, I prefer a scenario like the one they worked out. Any team could do it. I like new owners digging in and using their cap room to work out a situation however they want.

Do I think Hartford could've been in a pickle had this deal not occurred and would've had to release a bunch of guys? Yup. Will it someday happen as more teams spend and the salary cap doesn't go up? Yup.

At the end of the day, this is a participation league and the off-season is the key part of it. I don't think anyone gets screwed here, except for maybe those of us who didn't get some of those prime rib players from Hartford Triple-A. I know I smacked my forehead when I saw the deal. It was a pretty good masterstroke of using assets that he had to pull a deal, despite a lack of payroll flexibility.

I don't really see it as a bad thing or even a sign of impending league doom.

But that's just my opinion.

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by muns

With respect Chief i totally disagree with that statement. You cant blanket a league by saying only 5 and done......

Im actually in the camp of trying to do fair deals so that i can get fair deals back. Makes trading much easier that way ive found.

but just for shitz and giggles, half of the guys i dealt him are either gonna start or make his MLB team and play a lot. Would they make your roster, prob not, but you didnt just take over a team that didnt make a move for 2 seasons in a row either. Ill even go out on a limb saying 8-9 of those guys make his mlb team.

On top of that I need to get rid of guys as the new rule says. But it isnt a bad deal by anymeans.

muns, you're cool, so I know you'll be straight with me, and I think you know I only take this stance because I think such deals might have the potential to damage the league or at least unbalance it.

And it's in that context I ask you this question: if you could not do this deal, how many of those players stay in your system and how many are outright cut or played much lower in your system then their current ratings suggest?

[Young Drachma]

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

Sign and trades happen because of the Bird rights issue. We don't have Bird rights or any exemptions to go over the cap, so that shouldn't be a consideration. And even in the NBA, it rarely happens anymore.

I am fine, though, with the unwritten threshold. That works for me. Long as we stick to that, I think we're good. We may want to consider also not allowing players who sign multi-year extensions to be traded until at least the second year of their extension, too, but that's just a suggestion.

I can see where players who sign MLE and then get pawned off to someone else could be a problem, but conversely, if a team releases a guy they just offered a big contract to, it gets them under the cap (I only calculate it based on the current payroll, not expenses.) then it's no real difference to me.

I do think that if, say, a team made a habit of such things that we could think of implementing rules to prevent it. But otherwise? I think flexibility and keeping things open should be preferred over a list of iron clad rules that limit player movement.

I understand your concerns though and rest assured, that I'm watching and if things start to get out of hand with more active owners being here, etc., we can naturally rules to make sure things are equitable.

[Young Drachma]

The other thing to consider about this trade is that he traded them within his league. So he's got to play against these guys. No none of them are stars, but...it's not as if he pawned them of to the other league and won't have to face them, nope...he's got one guy -- sure, he's a great guy -- but just one guy and he's effectively limited his depth, while having to face off against guys who could burn him all year.

I don't think the deal was without risk, even if the bounty was a great player.

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by Dark Cloud

Hmm..I totally understand your sentiment. I really do.

But at the same time, I prefer a scenario like the one they worked out. Any team could do it. I like new owners digging in and using their cap room to work out a situation however they want.

Do I think Hartford could've been in a pickle had this deal not occurred and would've had to release a bunch of guys? Yup. Will it someday happen as more teams spend and the salary cap doesn't go up? Yup.

At the end of the day, this is a participation league and the off-season is the key part of it. I don't think anyone gets screwed here, except for maybe those of us who didn't get some of those prime rib players from Hartford Triple-A. I know I smacked my forehead when I saw the deal. It was a pretty good masterstroke of using assets that he had to pull a deal, despite a lack of payroll flexibility.

I don't really see it as a bad thing or even a sign of impending league doom.

But that's just my opinion.

It just seems to me that maybe muns made a few decisions that are coming back to bite him, and instead of allowing that to happen, we're giving him the easy way out.

Keep in mind, I will likely be dropping players I normally wouldn't either. I am fine with that. Them's the breaks, and I hope they end up with another team and do well. But if I have too many AAA-level 2B trapped behind Laursen, that should be my issue to deal with and be forced to make a hard decision, not allowed to solve my problems by moving 15 players to a formerly absentee-owner team.

[muns]

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

muns, you're cool, so I know you'll be straight with me, and I think you know I only take this stance because I think such deals might have the potential to damage the league or at least unbalance it.

And it's in that context I ask you this question: if you could not do this deal, how many of those players stay in your system and how many are outright cut or played much lower in your system then their current ratings suggest?

Give me a second to look it up in the game. I do know that off the top of my head 3 are on my mlb team and 2 of them are spects on my AAA team. let me fire up the game and see

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by Dark Cloud

I can see where players who sign MLE and then get pawned off to someone else could be a problem, but conversely, if a team releases a guy they just offered a big contract to, it gets them under the cap (I only calculate it based on the current payroll, not expenses.) then it's no real difference to me.

I do think that if, say, a team made a habit of such things that we could think of implementing rules to prevent it. But otherwise? I think flexibility and keeping things open should be preferred over a list of iron clad rules that limit player movement.

I understand your concerns though and rest assured, that I'm watching and if things start to get out of hand with more active owners being here, etc., we can naturally rules to make sure things are equitable.

Well, I am fine with the threshold you set, so on my end, at least, I don't feel anymore need to pursue this issue. But I am glad you are keeping an eye on this, because I definitely see it as a potential issue if we just let it go.

[muns]

SP-Guillermo Flores- wouldnt be with me, would get cut
SP-Gabriel Molina- would stay at AA
SP-Stand Martin- would get moved up to AAA
MR-Javier Vallerjo- On my MLB team
C-Bernado Carillo- on my MLB team
SS- Louis Lopez-on my MLB team
1b-Jesse Ray_ on My AAA roster (good player)
2nd- Jim Rausch on my AAA roster (would stay)
SS-Paul Herbert On My AAA roster (would stay)
LF- Jim Williams On my AAA roster ( would stay)
CF-Russell Hicks Prob would get get cut (decent ratings tho)
RF-Rafel Mendoza Prob would get cut (decent ratings tho)

Thats the honest truth for whats its worth

[muns]

and where the hell is Fozzie, this got me all nervous now

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by muns

SP-Guillermo Flores- wouldnt be with me, would get get
SP-Gabriel Molina- would stay at AA
SP-Stand Martin- would get moved up to AAA
MR-Javier Vallerjo- On my MLB team
C-Bernado Carillo- on my MLB team
SS- Louis Lopez-on my MLB team
1b-Jesse Ray_ on My AAA roster (good player)
2nd- Jim Rausch on my AAA roster (would stay)
SS-Paul Herbert On My AAA roster (would stay)
LF- Jim Williams On my AAA roster ( would stay)
CF-Russell Hicks Prob would get get cut (decent ratings tho)
RF-Rafel Mendoza Prob would get cut (decent ratings tho)

Thats the honest truth for whats its worth

Oh, I believe it, muns. Like I said, I have always been of the opinion you play it straight, and I am certain you didn't send a whole bunch of crap to Chicago. There will be good players in there, too. But my guess is (again, without looking at the above players, correct me if I am wrong) that none of the above players can or will ever hold a candle to Jones.

I think I would be more comfortable with a deal like this if it were a couple solid MLBers and two or three very good prospects; even if both deals would have approximately comparable talent exchanges, there is just something that has the "feel" of a take when you have a 15 or 20 for 1 type player, especially when the one player is a star player. Everyone knows that in deals like that, the team with the star pretty much always wins out.

There's a reason we don't see trades like these in any major sport.

[muns]

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

It just seems to me that maybe muns made a few decisions that are coming back to bite him, and instead of allowing that to happen, we're giving him the easy way out.

Keep in mind, I will likely be dropping players I normally wouldn't either. I am fine with that. Them's the breaks, and I hope they end up with another team and do well. But if I have too many AAA-level 2B trapped behind Laursen, that should be my issue to deal with and be forced to make a hard decision, not allowed to solve my problems by moving 15 players to a formerly absentee-owner team.

I still have to drop guys, and I havent done much to regret yet, except not take a few deals from the start. DC got me on one the other day....... All of those guys but 3 would have stayed on my AAA roster of above, so lesser talented guys would have been cut..... I didnt deal my single A roster over if thats what you thought... Im done though..... and just to clear the air in case anyone thinks anything I still got love for Chief, looking out for the league is all fine and dandy by me

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by muns

and where the hell is Fozzie, this got me all nervous now

Heh...sorry about that. Not trying to make you uncomfortable. I just get a really bad feeling when I see a deal like this. Part of it, I am sure, is simply you're in my league now and a major competitor, so of course, on a selfish, personal level, I want to see a trade for a star to a rival really COST that rival. And I think most of these guys were not critical to your team or potentially caught up in a roster crunch or never going to see your MLB roster. It just feels like something for nothing.

I got no qualms getting beat by a team that had to struggle through the same stuff I did to get my team where it was, or simply being beat by a better GM. But this feels like an advantage situation, where it is more about exploring the limits of the system we have thrown together, as opposed to going out there head to head and fighting for the same players on the same level. So it's sorta kudos to you for seeing that advantage and taking it, and if the league rules that's okay, then dummy on me and everyone else for not seeing it/using it first. But it's a real struggle for me to get this one past the smell test.

[muns]

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

Oh, I believe it, muns. Like I said, I have always been of the opinion you play it straight, and I am certain you didn't send a whole bunch of crap to Chicago. There will be good players in there, too. But my guess is (again, without looking at the above players, correct me if I am wrong) that none of the above players can or will ever hold a candle to Jones.

I think I would be more comfortable with a deal like this if it were a couple solid MLBers and two or three very good prospects; even if both deals would have approximately comparable talent exchanges, there is just something that has the "feel" of a take when you have a 15 or 20 for 1 type player, especially when the one player is a star player. Everyone knows that in deals like that, the team with the star pretty much always wins out.

There's a reason we don't see trades like these in any major sport.

Your right none can hold a candle to jones nor prob will. You got it right there, but most will be productive next year as all those position guys i sent over have 60 and above contact so its not as bad as you think either.

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by muns

I still have to drop guys, and I havent done much to regret yet, except not take a few deals from the start. DC got me on one the other day....... All of those guys but 3 would have stayed on my AAA roster of above, so lesser talented guys would have been cut..... I didnt deal my single A roster over if thats what you thought... Im done though..... and just to clear the air in case anyone thinks anything I still got love for Chief, looking out for the league is all fine and dandy by me

Yeah, DC's pulled off some good deals, and got his expansion team right back in contention. I no longer trust him farther than I can throw him.

Fair enough, long as you know it's not a "muns and Chief" issue for me, it's a potential league issue. If this is how we'll do it, I am sure I will adjust and start working on a 15-player offer to LBI or Baltimore.

[muns]

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

Heh...sorry about that. Not trying to make you uncomfortable. I just get a really bad feeling when I see a deal like this. Part of it, I am sure, is simply you're in my league now and a major competitor, so of course, on a selfish, personal level, I want to see a trade for a star to a rival really COST that rival. And I think most of these guys were not critical to your team or potentially caught up in a roster crunch or never going to see your MLB roster. It just feels like something for nothing.

I got no qualms getting beat by a team that had to struggle through the same stuff I did to get my team where it was, or simply being beat by a better GM. But this feels like an advantage situation, where it is more about exploring the limits of the system we have thrown together, as opposed to going out there head to head and fighting for the same players on the same level. So it's sorta kudos to you for seeing that advantage and taking it, and if the league rules that's okay, then dummy on me and everyone else for not seeing it/using it first. But it's a real struggle for me to get this one past the smell test.

and thats why your always gonna be a guy I want in any league im in. Classy post Chief, and I can understand and relate to what your saying. Im gonna be interested to see what Fozzie has to say, as he has been around the block here...... but as always thanks for the debate, always fun hearing what you have to say on any # of subjects, we just disagree here to a certain extent... Least we now have a rivalry in the newly formed RL

[muns]

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

Yeah, DC's pulled off some good deals, and got his expansion team right back in contention. I no longer trust him farther than I can throw him.

Fair enough, long as you know it's not a "muns and Chief" issue for me, it's a potential league issue. If this is how we'll do it, I am sure I will adjust and start working on a 15-player offer to LBI or Baltimore.

HA HA good luck with those offers, ive had my fair share gone un answered by a few guys in the league...... (not from those guys) but I know its not an us issue. Its all good..... im going to bed, im beat.......

PS.... Fozzie your killing me

[SirFozzie]

Originally Posted by muns

Hartford Sends

SP-Guillermo Flores
SP-Gabriel Molina
SP-Stand Martin
MR-Javier Vallerjo
C-Bernado Carillo
SS- Louis Lopez
1b-Jesse Ray
2nd- Jim Rausch
SS-Paul Herbert
LF- Jim Williams
CF-Russell Hicks
RF-Rafel Mendoza
Future draft pick that Me and fozzie will do next year


Chicago Sends

C-Standford Jones
$100,000

DC, your gonna have to break this up into 2 deals as the game only lets you trade 10 at a time. Thanks

Confirmed. Was over at NCAA 2009 going nuts

[muns]

And just to bring this up again, I wanted to point out that Jessie Ray the 1b Spect that I gave up in this dea hasl numbers that were just about on point as Standford Jones





Jesse Ray- 151 552 159 24 24 68 76 43 131 8 .288 .338 .473 .811 23.6

Stanford 136 508 142 30 15 82 77 75 108 0 .280 .373 .431 .804 24.0

Have no idea why its not lined up, as its lined up when i type this all out

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by muns

And just to bring this up again, I wanted to point out that Jessie Ray the 1b Spect that I gave up in this dea hasl numbers that were just about on point as Standford Jones





Jesse Ray- 151 552 159 24 24 68 76 43 131 8 .288 .338 .473 .811 23.6

Stanford 136 508 142 30 15 82 77 75 108 0 .280 .373 .431 .804 24.0

Have no idea why its not lined up, as its lined up when i type this all out

Come on, muns, one year is just one year. This is not a deal we will really be able to look back on for several years.

[muns]

Well he won the first year off of production alone thats for sure, with the other guys I gave him...