PDA

View Full Version : Keith Law on Ramirez, Floyd, Fields


munchman33
03-12-2008, 02:21 AM
http://insider.espn.go.com/espn/blog/index?entryID=3288788&name=law_keith

It's an insider blog, so I'll give you a few details.

He compares Ramirez to Alfonso Soriano in plate approach. Says he has however no ability to judge pitches and relies on quick wrists to put pitches in play. He also says he's terrible defensively at second and would do good to spend some quality time in AAA.

He mirrors what a lot of scouts have been saying about Floyd, that he's just not the player he was a few years ago. He mentioned that his curveball used to be one of the best in the game, and now it's simply "solid average."

He says he likes Josh Fields a lot and thinks he'll be an above average third baseman, but he's really worried about his inability to improve at recognizing the breaking ball.

oeo
03-12-2008, 04:18 AM
I take Keith Law's opinion like I take Phil Rogers'.

PeoriaSoxFan
03-12-2008, 08:13 AM
Seriously, who is this guy and what gives him the ability to make such definitive judgements? Ramirez is horrible at 2nd? He's played all of 3 games there, without error, so that is fair. I am sure he has also spent a lot of time analyzing Floyd's curveball, who hasn't pitched, but once, in over a week. Absent Gammons, the ESPN baseball analysts are a joke.

Craig Grebeck
03-12-2008, 08:39 AM
Seriously, who is this guy and what gives him the ability to make such definitive judgements? Ramirez is horrible at 2nd? He's played all of 3 games there, without error, so that is fair. I am sure he has also spent a lot of time analyzing Floyd's curveball, who hasn't pitched, but once, in over a week. Absent Gammons, the ESPN baseball analysts are a joke.
He's a former scout/front office consultant for the Blue Jays.

The Immigrant
03-12-2008, 08:59 AM
He's a former scout/front office consultant for the Blue Jays.

...who washed out of professional baseball after only a couple of years. He was a writer for the Baseball Prospectus before that.

veeter
03-12-2008, 09:13 AM
He's a former scout/front office consultant for the Blue Jays.There are a lot of doctors out there, that I wouldn't let touch my dog.

Craig Grebeck
03-12-2008, 09:26 AM
It's not like he said anything revolutionary; those are all points that have been made here and elsewhere in the last few weeks.

dickallen15
03-12-2008, 09:37 AM
Law's opinion means nothing, unless of course he praises the White Sox.

jabrch
03-12-2008, 09:45 AM
He's a guy who sits on his couch and watches baseball. He's no more qualified to scout than many people here.

AWhiteSoxinNJ
03-12-2008, 09:55 AM
Keith Law hates the White Sox, always has, always will. Every time he has ever mentioned the Sox, its allows negative. I'd rather get my baseball insight from John Rocker then Keith Law.

rdivaldi
03-12-2008, 10:13 AM
Law's opinion means nothing, unless of course he praises the White Sox.

Law's opinion means nothing, unless of course he rips the White Sox.

It goes both ways...

Rockin Robin
03-12-2008, 10:14 AM
Seriously, who is this guy and what gives him the ability to make such definitive judgements? Ramirez is horrible at 2nd? He's played all of 3 games there, without error, so that is fair. I am sure he has also spent a lot of time analyzing Floyd's curveball, who hasn't pitched, but once, in over a week. Absent Gammons, the ESPN baseball analysts are a joke.

Wasn't it Ozzie that called his defense "pretty rough at second base"?

But then again, he did play 3 spring training games without an error. And what really qualifies Ozzie to be able to make those kind of judgments anyway?

rdivaldi
03-12-2008, 10:22 AM
And what really qualifies Ozzie to be able to make those kind of judgments anyway?

:?: Is this supposed to be in teal?

Rockin Robin
03-12-2008, 10:23 AM
Maybe.

Ok yes.

areilly
03-12-2008, 10:45 AM
Keith Law hates the White Sox, always has, always will. Every time he has ever mentioned the Sox, its allows negative. I'd rather get my baseball insight from John Rocker then Keith Law.

This pains me to say, but on the whole there has been more bad to say about Sox prospects than there has been that's any good. Law's not always right, but I don't see him having this axe to grind with the Sox that everyone else thinks he (and pretty much every other sportswriter) does.

Craig Grebeck
03-12-2008, 10:49 AM
...who washed out of professional baseball after only a couple of years. He was a writer for the Baseball Prospectus before that.
He retired in 2006. He had ascended as high as special assistant to GM J.P. Ricciardi. (http://toronto.bluejays.mlb.com/news/press_releases/press_release.jsp?ymd=20060531&content_id=1481471&vkey=pr_tor&fext=.jsp&c_id=tor)

He's a guy who sits on his couch and watches baseball. He's no more qualified to scout than many people here.
Well he was a scout at the major league level and worked in the highest part of a major league front office. But other than that I see your point.

Flight #24
03-12-2008, 11:17 AM
Is it just maybe possible that he's got something intelligent to say and some experience that qualifies him beyond most of those on the site without him being the uber-deity whose word must be law? Whether it's because he analyzes the stats much more in depth than anyone here, because he's actually been a scout and part of an MLB front office(albiet briefly), or because he currently gets paid to do this fulltime whereas most of us are doing it as a part-time hobby? I know I'd generally defer to those here who spend more time assessing and analyzing stuff than I do while not treating their word as gospel - why not the same for Law? It's not like whether his opinion is positive or negative should change whether or not it's intelligent and has some basis in fact.

I dunno, just seems like that COULD be the case here. It's not like he's saying anything all that controversial now is it? "Floyd has struggled and is less highly thought of than previously. Ramirez is raw. Fields ought to be good, but needs to cut down on Ks." Truly conventional wisdom-shattering stuff, no?

Can't we finally get past the "statheads have nothing of value to say" without taking it to the extreme of "statheads are gods who know all"?

ChiWavDave
03-12-2008, 11:37 AM
Is it just maybe possible that he's got something intelligent to say and some experience that qualifies him beyond most of those on the site without him being the uber-deity whose word must be law? Whether it's because he analyzes the stats much more in depth than anyone here, because he's actually been a scout and part of an MLB front office(albiet briefly), or because he currently gets paid to do this fulltime whereas most of us are doing it as a part-time hobby? I know I'd generally defer to those here who spend more time assessing and analyzing stuff than I do while not treating their word as gospel - why not the same for Law? It's not like whether his opinion is positive or negative should change whether or not it's intelligent and has some basis in fact.

I dunno, just seems like that COULD be the case here. It's not like he's saying anything all that controversial now is it? "Floyd has struggled and is less highly thought of than previously. Ramirez is raw. Fields ought to be good, but needs to cut down on Ks." Truly conventional wisdom-shattering stuff, no?

Can't we finally get past the "statheads have nothing of value to say" without taking it to the extreme of "statheads are gods who know all"?


A rational, cogent, measured and balanced thought... On a message board? Here at WSI? Yep, that will go over well.

The Immigrant
03-12-2008, 11:44 AM
It's not like he's saying anything all that controversial now is it?

He's not. If anything, he has a very favorable opinion of Ramirez. He projects him as a 20 HR hitter who needs to improve his plate discipline, and his take on Alexei's defensive abilities at 2B is consistent with Ozzie's ("a bit rough"). It's also hard to disagree with his assessment of Fields.

On the other hand, this is the guy who said the White Sox had the worst offseason in all of MLB despite the addition of stathead favorites Swisher and Quentin, so I can understand the reaction.

russ99
03-12-2008, 11:53 AM
He's not. If anything, he has a very favorable opinion of Ramirez. He projects him as a 20 HR hitter who needs to improve his plate discipline, and his take on Alexei's defensive abilities at 2B is consistent with Ozzie's ("a bit rough"). It's also hard to disagree with his assessment of Fields.

On the other hand, this is the guy who said the White Sox had the worst offseason in all of MLB despite the addition of stathead favorites Swisher and Quentin, so I can understand the reaction.

While some of his analysis bears reading, I can't ever remember him having anything favorable to say about the Sox. He must have some kind of chip on his shoulder. Also, I don't see him ripping other teams in a similar fashion.

At least with Phil Rogers, his Trib/Cubbie overlords hold his leash and he had to make nice when the Sox were marching to their title in 2005. What's Law's excuse?

areilly
03-12-2008, 12:01 PM
Whether it's because he analyzes the stats much more in depth than anyone here, because he's actually been a scout and part of an MLB front office(albiet briefly), or because he currently gets paid to do this fulltime whereas most of us are doing it as a part-time hobby? I know I'd generally defer to those here who spend more time assessing and analyzing stuff than I do while not treating their word as gospel - why not the same for Law? It's not like whether his opinion is positive or negative should change whether or not it's intelligent and has some basis in fact?

Oh, but it's fun to degenerate into a hack as a poster and then claim superiority, especially when people like Keith Law(brain)less and Jerry CrASSnick don't recognize the genius of the Linebrink deal. Seriously, what does Jim In-Caple-able know, or for that matter Peter DUMBmons? They should rename it to ESPNN. The extra N is for nothing, because that's what they know about the 2005 World Champion White Sox!

oeo
03-12-2008, 12:27 PM
It's not like he said anything revolutionary; those are all points that have been made here and elsewhere in the last few weeks.

Says he has however no ability to judge pitches and relies on quick wrists to put pitches in play.How many ABs did this guy see? 3, 4? Unless munchman isn't quoting him correctly, that's an awfully strong opinion after only watching the guy a few times.

oeo
03-12-2008, 12:30 PM
Is it just maybe possible that he's got something intelligent to say and some experience that qualifies him beyond most of those on the site without him being the uber-deity whose word must be law? Whether it's because he analyzes the stats much more in depth than anyone here, because he's actually been a scout and part of an MLB front office(albiet briefly), or because he currently gets paid to do this fulltime whereas most of us are doing it as a part-time hobby? I know I'd generally defer to those here who spend more time assessing and analyzing stuff than I do while not treating their word as gospel - why not the same for Law? It's not like whether his opinion is positive or negative should change whether or not it's intelligent and has some basis in fact.

I dunno, just seems like that COULD be the case here. It's not like he's saying anything all that controversial now is it? "Floyd has struggled and is less highly thought of than previously. Ramirez is raw. Fields ought to be good, but needs to cut down on Ks." Truly conventional wisdom-shattering stuff, no?

Can't we finally get past the "statheads have nothing of value to say" without taking it to the extreme of "statheads are gods who know all"?

Keith Law created his own reputation; I didn't do it for him. When you say things like the Sox having the worst offseason in all of baseball, then I really start to question your reasoning.

If he doesn't want to be treated like a ****ing moron, then he shouldn't say ****ing moronic things.

spiffie
03-12-2008, 12:33 PM
How many ABs did this guy see? 3, 4? Unless munchman isn't quoting him correctly, that's an awfully strong opinion after only watching the guy a few times.
He's also been on the Cuban national team for a few years. And I would suspect that if you're really inside things in MLB (the way someone who was a scout and worked for a team might be) that you might even be able to get video from Cuba. I really doubt he made that assessment from 4 at-bats.

Flight #24
03-12-2008, 12:49 PM
Keith Law created his own reputation; I didn't do it for him. When you say things like the Sox having the worst offseason in all of baseball, then I really start to question your reasoning.

If he doesn't want to be treated like a ****ing moron, then he shouldn't say ****ing moronic things.

IIRC, his rational there wasn't that they acquired the worst players, but that given their situation, they didn't make smart moves. That's not that controversial either. I don't know anyone who doesn't think that the Sox are decidedly NOT the favorites, and that are basically saying "if guys bounce back and the young/new pitchers pan out, we can contend".

All Law said (again IIRC) is that that's not a smart situation to try and win now in. It's nice & easy to pick out his conclusion and throw it around, but when you peel back the onion a bit, he's nowhere near as negative as you can make it sound.

For example: There was a thread on here not too long ago with WSIer projections as to what the win total would be, and I think things generally settled on the high 80s/low 90s. That's from a group that's admittedly biased. However, realistically, the Tigers and Indians are likely to win low to high 90s. So the Sox in an optimistic view are likely to contend and fall short based on those projections.

No one's saying that's guaranteed to happen, and that's why they play the games. But at some point, you have to pick your spots as to when to hold your young talent and when to deal it away. That's all Law said.

munchman33
03-12-2008, 01:05 PM
How many ABs did this guy see? 3, 4? Unless munchman isn't quoting him correctly, that's an awfully strong opinion after only watching the guy a few times.

Considering the blog includes video of batting practice, I'm gonna assume Keith's in sox camp and not just basing this off games.

spiffie
03-12-2008, 01:06 PM
Considering the blog includes video of batting practice, I'm gonna assume Keith's in sox camp and not just basing this off games.
Impossible! He likes numbers and guys who like numbers never ever watch baseball they just sit in their basements and play with spreadsheets!

jabrch
03-12-2008, 02:33 PM
Impossible! He likes numbers and guys who like numbers never ever watch baseball they just sit in their basements and play with spreadsheets!

For the record, it is only people like you who say this...

Jjav829
03-12-2008, 02:39 PM
Law's opinion means nothing, unless of course he praises the White Sox.

Pretty much. You can take out Law and insert any other name and it still works. People love to get all pissy when someone who is paid to give an opnion, gives their opinion and it isn't all positive for the Sox.

He's a guy who sits on his couch and watches baseball. He's no more qualified to scout than many people here.

Yeah, or a guy who actually travels to Spring Training to watch and cover games, who has also spent most of his life working in baseball. But other than that, he's just like the rest of us.

Law's opinion means nothing, unless of course he rips the White Sox.

It goes both ways...

Really? Do you always see people quick to bash a reporter who praises something good about the White Sox? Do you see people trying to find every nugget they can to discredit that person's opinion?

While some of his analysis bears reading, I can't ever remember him having anything favorable to say about the Sox. He must have some kind of chip on his shoulder. Also, I don't see him ripping other teams in a similar fashion.

At least with Phil Rogers, his Trib/Cubbie overlords hold his leash and he had to make nice when the Sox were marching to their title in 2005. What's Law's excuse?

Or not.

The last 4 titles on Law's blog:

Ramirez much like Soriano

Adenhart shows he's ready

Morales' stuff unimpressive so far - In which Law talks about Rockies pitcher Franklin Morales not having the velocity or location that he had last season. In another bullet point, Law talks about Rockies prospect Jayson Nix, saying "they'll be looking for an upgrade in short order." In yet another bullet point Law says "Giants' fans are in for a long, ugly season....Other than Matt Cain (http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/players/profile?statsId=7495) and Tim Lincecum (http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/players/profile?statsId=7981), there aren't many reasons to go see the Giants this year;"

M's give up too much for Bedard

But no, he only rips the Sox.

spiffie
03-12-2008, 02:48 PM
For the record, it is only people like you who say this...
I'm not the one who invented the term "pencil ****ing" in regards to using stats to analyze the game :D:

Jjav829
03-12-2008, 02:48 PM
Is it just maybe possible that he's got something intelligent to say and some experience that qualifies him beyond most of those on the site without him being the uber-deity whose word must be law? Whether it's because he analyzes the stats much more in depth than anyone here, because he's actually been a scout and part of an MLB front office(albiet briefly), or because he currently gets paid to do this fulltime whereas most of us are doing it as a part-time hobby? I know I'd generally defer to those here who spend more time assessing and analyzing stuff than I do while not treating their word as gospel - why not the same for Law? It's not like whether his opinion is positive or negative should change whether or not it's intelligent and has some basis in fact.

I dunno, just seems like that COULD be the case here. It's not like he's saying anything all that controversial now is it? "Floyd has struggled and is less highly thought of than previously. Ramirez is raw. Fields ought to be good, but needs to cut down on Ks." Truly conventional wisdom-shattering stuff, no?

Can't we finally get past the "statheads have nothing of value to say" without taking it to the extreme of "statheads are gods who know all"?

It's just the way some people are around here. They don't like 'outsiders' criticizing the team, even though if you read the blog, it isn't all that negative.

For example, here is Joey Cora talking about Alexei Ramirez at 2nd base:

"I think at the beginning [Ramirez] was trying to impress," coach Joey Cora said. "He comes from another country and wants to show off everything he's got. I don't want to say he was rough, but he was rushing everything. ... You can see the talent. He's got great hands and [a good arm]. I don't think he's played that much second as we thought he had."

Here is Keith Law talking about Alexei Ramirez at 2nd base:

On defense, he is indeed a bit rough. He has plenty of athleticism to handle second base, but his actions are all wrong for the position, similar to the way B.J. Upton (http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/players/profile?statsId=7333) couldn't play second despite being an excellent athlete. Ramirez hampers himself further with a tendency to try to make the flashy play, going for the glove flip during today's game when he would have been better served trying to get the ball out of his glove and then throwing it.

They basically said the said thing; that he is a great athlete but he needs a lot of work to learn the position. When Cora says it, no one cares. When Law says it, people get upset.

champagne030
03-12-2008, 02:52 PM
This pains me to say, but on the whole there has been more bad to say about Sox prospects than there has been that's any good. Law's not always right, but I don't see him having this axe to grind with the Sox that everyone else thinks he (and pretty much every other sportswriter) does.

This easily could've been done by Buster Olney. Law saw nothing that hasn't been written about in print or been told to a media member by the coaching staff.

Ramirez is raw and undisciplined, but aggresive at the plate. And called "rough" at 2nd base by Ozzie.

Floyd has regressed since he was drafted.

Fields is a defensive liability and cannot hit a curve.

Nothing earth-shattering in this report by Law.

BridgePortNative
03-12-2008, 03:10 PM
This easily could've been done by Buster Olney. Law saw nothing that hasn't been written about in print or been told to a media member by the coaching staff.

Ramirez is raw and undisciplined, but aggresive at the plate. And called "rough" at 2nd base by Ozzie.

Floyd has regressed since he was drafted.

Fields is a defensive liability and cannot hit a curve.

Nothing earth-shattering in this report by Law.

and yet day after day, year after year somebody gets all pissy about someone who writes an opinion on their own thoughts of whats up with the team. If its negative, it MUST be because he just HATES the Sox. Give me ****ing break. Why post it in the first place?

jabrch
03-12-2008, 03:27 PM
When Law says it, people get upset.

I don't think anyone gets "upset" at all. I just don't give a crap what Law says. I'll trust the guy who watches them play every day (Cora) over a guy who manages to have an opinion about all these guys, some of whom he can't possibly be watching full time.

munchman33
03-12-2008, 04:49 PM
Why post it in the first place?

Because:

1. Some people here think Ramirez should be starting opening day at second.

2. Some people here are under the delusion that Gavin's curveball is better than a simply "good" pitch.

munchman33
03-12-2008, 05:00 PM
I don't think anyone gets "upset" at all. I just don't give a crap what Law says. I'll trust the guy who watches them play every day (Cora) over a guy who manages to have an opinion about all these guys, some of whom he can't possibly be watching full time.

I trust the guy that doesn't work for the organization and doesn't have to have an agenda. Everyone always assumes the writers have agendas. The assumption should be that those working within the organization have an agenda. Because if you think they don't, you're lying to yourself.

goon
03-12-2008, 05:02 PM
The White Sox won't compete this year. They should give up now and save themselves from embarrassment.

In fact, they may not see another season above .500 for the next 10 years.

munchman33
03-12-2008, 05:44 PM
The White Sox won't compete this year. They should give up now and save themselves from embarrassment.

In fact, they may not see another season above .500 for the next 10 years.

10 years is a stretch. But they better compete this year. Because if Kenny's wrong about a lot of these guys, there isn't much in terms of backup. And there isn't a whole lot on the horizon either.

rdivaldi
03-12-2008, 05:45 PM
there isn't much in terms of backup. And there isn't a whole lot on the horizon either.

Don't jump to that conclusion, prospects have a funny way of coming out of nowhere.

munchman33
03-12-2008, 05:49 PM
Don't jump to that conclusion, prospects have a funny way of coming out of nowhere.

But we seem consistently to get the short end of that stick. Until we start spending more in player development, I don't think we should bank our future on guys just miraculously developing.

Off topic, but who's teaching these guys how to hit? It seems like everytime we have a prospect come up, they have no clue when it comes to breaking stuff. Is it a system thing where we draft fastball hitters, or are these guys being taught the wrong approach?

goon
03-12-2008, 06:27 PM
10 years is a stretch. But they better compete this year. Because if Kenny's wrong about a lot of these guys, there isn't much in terms of backup. And there isn't a whole lot on the horizon either.



The White Sox will never make the playoffs again.

munchman33
03-12-2008, 08:30 PM
The White Sox will never make the playoffs again.

If things don't play out exactly like Kenny thinks they will, we won't for three or so years.

sullythered
03-12-2008, 08:31 PM
Yeah, he's got some experience scouting, so his opinions aren't entirely invalid. My problem here is that he doesn't really say anything everybody didn't already know.

The only thing I disagree with (slightly) is on Floyd. Only because I actually SAW him throw a good curve last year. He might not ever put it all together, but I'll trust my eyes on his curve ball more than I'll trust a writer's opinion. What I see is the clear problem with Gavin is his huge dropoff when pitching from the stretch.

A. Cavatica
03-12-2008, 09:21 PM
Whichever team ended up with Andy Gonzalez had the worst offseason...

BadBobbyJenks
03-12-2008, 09:44 PM
Hmmm I thought that was a pretty positive review of Ramirez, but it was Law so curse that guy who is doing a job we all could do.:rolleyes:

Jjav829
03-12-2008, 09:47 PM
Hmmm I thought that was a pretty positive review of Ramirez, but it was Law so curse that guy who is doing a job we all could do.:rolleyes:

No kidding. I mean he compared Ramirez to Alfonso freaking Soriano! Alfonso Soriano! Yeah, Soriano might have some extreme flaws, but the guy is still in the top level of players in the game.

And it's his scouting report. A scouting report includes positive and negative aspects of a players game. And even the best players in the game have minor flaws, so if anyone is expecting that a scouting report of Ramirez wouldn't include anything negative, they're kidding themselves.

BadBobbyJenks
03-12-2008, 09:56 PM
Keith Law created his own reputation; I didn't do it for him. When you say things like the Sox having the worst offseason in all of baseball, then I really start to question your reasoning.

If he doesn't want to be treated like a ****ing moron, then he shouldn't say ****ing moronic things.


He said it was the worst offseason in baseball because the sox were making moves to win now when he didnt think we could win now. Based on what he thinks of the sox chances this year, it does make sense. Not that I agree with it, but theres more to it than he just said the sox offseason ****ing sucked.

rdivaldi
03-12-2008, 10:36 PM
Off topic, but who's teaching these guys how to hit? It seems like everytime we have a prospect come up, they have no clue when it comes to breaking stuff. Is it a system thing where we draft fastball hitters, or are these guys being taught the wrong approach?

It has been conjectured many times that the coaching staff on the major league level plays a large role in the aggressive approach of our hitters. If you look at the careers of Guillen, Walker and Baines, these were guys that did not walk a lot and looked to hit early in the count. I have no solid evidence to back that up though.

munchman33
03-12-2008, 11:08 PM
It has been conjectured many times that the coaching staff on the major league level plays a large role in the aggressive approach of our hitters. If you look at the careers of Guillen, Walker and Baines, these were guys that did not walk a lot and looked to hit early in the count. I have no solid evidence to back that up though.

It's funny that Kenny went out and got Swisher and Quentin then. They're the exact opposite.

BadBobbyJenks
03-12-2008, 11:10 PM
It's funny that Kenny went out and got Swisher and Quentin then. They're the exact opposite.

Whats funny?

rdivaldi
03-12-2008, 11:22 PM
It's funny that Kenny went out and got Swisher and Quentin then. They're the exact opposite.

It suggests a change in organizational philosophy. What has always struck me is that we had one of the most walked batters in baseball history on our team for what? 15 years?

munchman33
03-12-2008, 11:28 PM
Whats funny?

I guess it isn't funny. It's worrisome. They might try to mess with their plate approach.

munchman33
03-12-2008, 11:28 PM
It suggests a change in organizational philosophy. What has always struck me is that we had one of the most walked batters in baseball history on our team for what? 15 years?

And we only had one batting coach that could work with him.

BadBobbyJenks
03-12-2008, 11:31 PM
I guess it isn't funny. It's worrisome. They might try to mess with their plate approach.

I suppose you could be worried about Quentin's, but all of a sudden Swisher is going to turn into a hacker?

munchman33
03-12-2008, 11:45 PM
I suppose you could be worried about Quentin's, but all of a sudden Swisher is going to turn into a hacker?

No, but when he slumps what if our guys can't help him out of it?

Maybe I'm analyzing this too much.

Brian26
03-13-2008, 12:01 AM
Seriously, who is this guy and what gives him the ability to make such definitive judgements? Ramirez is horrible at 2nd? He's played all of 3 games there, without error, so that is fair.

And to be fair, who are any of us to refute what he says? I haven't seen Ramirez play ONE game at second base yet.

FarWestChicago
03-13-2008, 06:44 AM
Maybe I'm analyzing this too much.No, keep digging. I'm sure you'll find an even more negative spin. :smile: