2004 ESL Survey

Home Links Market Place MPHS Class of 86 Movie Reviews Music Neurotic Pictures Quotes Rotisserie Softball Sudden Death Comments

Home
ESL
ASL

2007 ESL Survey
ESL Best/Worst
ESL Constitution
ESL Pics
ESL Standings
ESL Trades
2005 ESL FAAB$
2006 ESL Survey
2005 ESL Survey
2004 ESL Survey
2003 ESL Survey
2002 ESL Survey
2001 ESL Survey
2000 ESL Survey
2000 Winter Waivers
Bennett Info
Capilo Info
Capilo Trades
DeCoursey Info
DeCoursey Trades
DeWalt Info
Franz Info
Gabrielli Info
Gabrielli Trades
C.Gallagher Info
D.Gallagher Info
D.Gallagher Trades
Hannon Info
Julian Info
Maher Info
Malinowski Info
Malinowski Trades
Metcalfe Info
Metcalfe Trades
B.Miller Info
B.Miller Trades
R.Miller Info
Moyer/Keller Info
Orlando Info
Orlando Trades
L.Paul Info
Perkins Info
Perkins Trades
Rosa Info
Rosa Trades
Schlesinger Info
Schlesinger Trades
D.Scott Info
D.Scott Trades
Slickers Info
Winterburn Info
Winterburn Trades
Zalegowski Info
Zalegowski Trades
Zenyuch Info/Leaders

ETERNAL SQUABBLERS LEAGUE
2004 WINTER SURVEY RESULTS

1A. ENTRANCE FEE - remains the same.  Well, sorta.  It goes up to $220 because of Question 1B.

1B. GET RID OF TRANSACTION FEES - PASSED

2. PLAYERS TRADED TO AL BETWEEN ROSTER FREEZE AND DRAFT DAY - LOSE PLAYER, GET NOTHING

3. PRIZE FOR LEADING A CATEGORY
- did not pass

4. NUMBER OF ACTIVE PLAYERS
- no change

5. NUMBER OF KEEPERS
- no change

6. REDUCE BY ONE YEAR THE CONTRACT OF ANY PLAYER THAT IS TRADED MID-SEASON
- did not pass

7. RE-ADOPT THE "ASTERISK" RULES - PASSED

8. DROPS FOR FAAB $$$ MUST BE DONE 48 HOURS IN ADVANCE - PASSED

9. USE ALL-STAR STATS AUTOMATED FAAB SYSTEM?
- did not pass

10A. $1 SALARY FOR LAST RESERVE PLAYER - PASSED

10B. RESERVE ROSTER DECLINING SALARIES - PASSED

11. ROOKIE SALARY INCREASES
- did not pass

12. "THE LOU RULE"
- did not pass

13. ELIMINATE FARM SYSTEM
- did not pass

1A. ENTRANCE FEE

For the last five years the entrance fee was $200. $40 of that went to All-Star Stats and $15 of it goes to me because I need the money for my coke habit. Is there any desire to raise that fee?

    1 - No, actually, Id like it lowered to $175
 5 - I=m a loser and it=s juuuuuust right at $200
    0 - Raise it to $225
    1 - Raise it to $250
    0 - Raise it to $275
    2 - Raise it to $300
    1 - I don't care.

I wouldn=t want anyone to quit because we are playing for too much money. If everyone votes for $300 and one person would quit if we play for $275 or more, we=ll only raise it to $274.

 1 - $220 limit
    1 - $300 limit
    1 - $1,000,000,000 limit
    7 - No limit

Comments regarding this question:
"I like it at $200, I just don't want to admit I'm a loser." -- Scott Metcalfe


1B. GET RID OF TRANSACTION FEES

Someone suggested that we get rid of the 25 cent transaction fee.  Or, as an alternative to losing the extra money in the pool for transactions, and add $20 to the entrance fee.

Playing devil's advocate, the reason why a transaction fee might be a good idea is to be at least some deterent against hundreds of frivolous transactions, such as switching in your 3rd catcher when one of your 2 starting catchers has an off day.  If you've paid attention to the AL, where we did eliminate transaction fees, there are teams - myself included - who make 3 or 4 or more move every day - a small disadvantage to those who don't want to go through that hassle.  You thought team's rotating in middle relievers was silly, wait until you see teams rotating in middle infielders every day, too.

Still, I will admit tallying these transaction fees is a nuisance, and on the other hand, if someone wants to make all of those moves, maybe that doesn't really matter...

    3 - No, leave it the way it is - keep the 25 cent transaction fee.
 4 - I agree, let's get rid of the transaction fee, and raise the entrance fee by $20.
    3 - I agree, let's get rid of the transaction fee, but leave the entrance fee alone.
    0 - I don't care.

Comments regarding this question:
"If it saves Chris some time so he does not have to calculate every transaction, then that is a good thing.  Plus since we spend $40 per team to use the web site, we might as well use it as much as possible." -- Jamie Schlesinger.


2. PLAYERS TRADED TO AL
    AFTER THE ROSTER FREEZE DATE
    BUT BEFORE THE DRAFT

Presently there is nothing written to define what we should do if a player is traded to the AL between the roster freeze date and the draft.  It's actually quite amazing that it has never happened, and we should probably write something down before it does.

There are two options:
 6 - It should be the same as if you lost a player at any other time during the off-season:
            You lose the player automatically and get nothing in return
    4 - It should be the same as if you lost a player during the regular season:
            You get the option of keeping him or you can drop him for FAAB money
    0 - I don't care.
 

If we chose the first option where you lose the player and get nothing:
 6 - You can add another player to your keeper list that you hadn't originally kept
    1 - No, you can't add another player to your keeper list to replace the player you lost.
    3 - I don't care.
 

If we chose the 2nd option where you can keep the player or drop him for FAAB:
    1 - You can add another player to your keeper list that you hadn't originally kept to replace the player you lost
    2 - No, you got FAAB $$$ so why should you get to add a player to your keeper list too?
    4 - You should have a choice:
            Keep the player just like he was traded during the season,
            Drop him for FAAB, but you can't replace him on your keeper list with another player
            or Drop him without getting FAAB but you get to replace him with another player who wasn't originally kept
    3 - I don't care.

Comments regarding this question:
[I'm really surprised by the results of this one.  I kind of thought this was a no-brainer that the team that loses a player to the AL would get something for it.  The first time someone loses a premium keeper the night before the draft, I think everyone will see why it would be nice if that team at least got something for that loss. -- Chris Mal]


3. PRIZE FOR LEADING A CATEGORY

Someone suggested that we give part of the prize pool to the winner of each category...say $25/per category.  It probably wouldn't eat into the 1st place team's pay-out since the 1st and 2nd place teams will probably win a couple categories.  But, at the same time, it might make teams out of the money less inclined to dump a category they are winning.

Another person noted that he would only be in favor of this idea if we increased the entrance fee to accommodate for the additional prizes.

 3 - No, I don't like this idea.
    1 - Yes, I like this idea, but only if we keep the entrance fee at $200.
    3 - Yes, I like this idea, would prefer to keep the $200 entrance fee but don't mind if it is increased for the extra prizes.
    1 - Yes, I like this idea, but only if we adjust the entrance fee accordingly to accommodate for the extra prizes.
    2 - I don't care.

If we keep the prize pool at $200, how much should we give the winner of each category?

    3 - $20 to the winner of each category.
    1 - $25 to the winner of each category.
    0 - $30 to the winner of each category.
    0 - $40 to the winner of each category.
    0 - $50 to the winner of each category.
    6 - I don't care.

If we increase the prize pool, how much should we give the winner of each category?

    1 - Give $20 to the winner of each category which would increase the entrance fee to $216.
    0 - Give $25 to the winner of each category which would increase the entrance fee to $220.
    1 - Give $30 to the winner of each category which would increase the entrance fee to $224.
    0 - Give $40 to the winner of each category which would increase the entrance fee to $232.
    2 - Give $50 to the winner of each category which would increase the entrance fee to $240.
    6 - I don't care

Comments regarding this question:
"Either way Chris is getting most of the money, so who cares how he gets it?" -- Jamie Schlesinger.

"I don't like the idea and don't want to raise the entrance fee so it should be a moot point." -- Drew Gallagher


4. NUMBER OF ACTIVE PLAYERS

Dejua Vu all over again.  It was suggested that we reduce the number of active players from its present number of 27.  I should remind everyone that the number of keepers was once 23, but that was prior to the expansion of the NL by adding the Arizona Diamondbacks and Milwaukee Brewers.  That means that the NL had expanded by 14% (16 teams / 14 teams = 114%).  It stood to reason that to keep our "mental" values of players in the NL the same as they had always been, that the number of active players would also increase by 14%, so we went from 23 active players to 27.  There are now 50 more players to draft, so it makes sense that we would add 40 more active players, does it not?

The argument that I've heard for reducing the number of active players is that there are too many active players in the NL vs. our AL league.  But that is NOT true.  In this league there are 10 teams x 27 = 270 players.  In the AL there are 12 teams x 23 players = 276 players.

If you want to nit-pick, we should actually be INCREASING the number of active players in this league because there are MORE major league NL teams than there are major league AL teams.  Specifically, there are 16 NL teams (16x25=400 draftable players) and 14 AL teams (14x25=350 players).  So, in the ESL where we draft 270 players, that's only 67% (270/400) of the player population drafted.  In the ASL we draft 276 players, that's 79% (276/350)!  So how can it possibly make sense to say there are too many active players in the this league?  If you look at the numbers, really, there aren't enough.

 6 - Keep it the way it is, there should be 27 active players.
    4 - Reduce the number of active players to 26.
    0 - I'm undecided.

Comments regarding this question:
"The overall number of players is not the problem.  It's having to manage that many on my particular team." -- Drew Gallagher


5. NUMBER OF KEEPERS

It was suggested that we reduce the number of keepers from its present number of 16.  As noted in the previous survey question, the NL expanded by 14% a few years ago by adding the Brewers and the Diamondbacks.  At that time we kept the number of keepers at 16, since we had gone from 15 to 16 a few years prior to that after the addition of the Marlins and the Rockies.  In reality, we should have expanded the number of keepers by 14%, but we left it at 16.  Actually, since we're voting on this, what the heck, let's also vote to INCREASE the number of keepers to 17.

(As a side-note, and as I have noted every time we've voted on this, any rules which directly affect existing teams would not go into affect until the following year.  So if this rule passes, it would be effective for the 2004 season.  For those in the ASL, you know that this isn't without precedent.  When we've changed the number of keepers in the ASL, it waited one year.  The logic behind waiting is to keep the voting legitimate.  For example, if a team with 16 keepers thinks the number should be reduced, such a team is unlikely to vote to reduce it.  By making it affective a year later, when no one knows how many keepers they will have, it keeps anyone voting a certain way in an effort to protect their current situation.  Likewise, a team with only 10 keepers is less likely to vote to increase to 17 even if they think it makes sense.  But since you have no idea how many keepers you will have going into 2005, it keeps the voting completely unbiased.)

    2 - Increase the number of keepers to 17.
 3 - Keep it the way it is, teams may keep between 0 and 16 players from year to year.
    4 - Reduce the maximum number of keepers to 15.
    1 - I don't care.

Comments regarding this question:
"It's all about handicapping your team." -- Drew Gallagher  [For the record, I'm not sure how this handicaps my team.  If anything it probably would just stop me from keeping players that I shouldn't, like Tim Spooneybarger for $5 last year. -- Chris Mal]

"I vote for only ten keepers.  The above answers are not broad enough.  As an aside, what was the average number of keepers per team the last few years?  This should be our guide." -- Pete Gabrielli  [You can't really do it that way unless you knew how many players teams would keep if there wasn't a cap.  Some of the teams that keep 16 may have actually kept 17 or 18 or even 19 players, so how do you account for that?]


6. REDUCE BY ONE YEAR THE CONTRACT
    OF ANY PLAYER THAT IS TRADED MID-SEASON

Someone suggested that any player traded during the season should have his contract status reduced by one year.  For example, a player just drafted would then enter the very next season into his "option year."  A player in his 2nd year would become a free agent the following season, etc.

 6 - No, I don't like this idea
    3 - Yes, that sounds like a great idea
    1 - I don't care


7. RE-ADOPT THE "ASTERISK" RULES

We eliminated the "asterisk" rules a couple years ago, and I'm not sure that was such a great idea.  I propose we bring the "asterisk" rules back, and make them identical to the rule in the ASL:

Asterisk players are:
* Any player drafted for $25 or over
* Any player FAAB selected for $60 or over
* Any player in the AL
* Any player in the last year of his contract

You may receive only two such players during the season.
You may trade away as many of these players as you like.

The only question then if we adopted this is, would we eliminate the rule that says any player traded after 6/14 would automatically be in the last year of his contract.  Keeping both rules would certainly curb dumping.  If we keep the 6/14 rule, then essentially the "asterisk" rule would be in effect until 6/14.  Then after 6/14 there can be free trading, but any players involved in a trade after 6/14 would automatically be in the last year of their contract.

    4 - No, I don't like the "asterisk" rules.  Keep the rule the way it is.
 4 - Yes, that sounds like a great idea, and keep the 6/14 rule too.
    2 - Yes, that sounds like a great idea, but it should replace the 6/14 rule.
    0 - I don't care.

Comments regarding this question:
[The "asterisks" are back.  The 6/14 rule remains.  So, to summarize, the "asterisk" rules will be in effect from Draft Day through 6/14.  Then after 6/14, any players traded automatically will be in the last year of their contract and back in the next draft.  When in doubt, remember that the trade rules can always be found on the ESL home page on this website. -- Chris Mal]


8. DROPS FOR FAAB $$$ MUST BE
    DONE 48 HOURS IN ADVANCE

Someone doesn't like the fact that you can drop an AL-player along with your FAAB bids, and then no one really knows how much FAAB $$$ some teams really will have.  It was suggested that to get the extra FAAB$ for that week, you must drop such a player 48 hours in advance.  I would then send an email to the entire league alerting everyone to the fact that someone is increasing their FAAB dollars.

    2 - No, keep it the way it is, I like the strategy of being able to submit my "drops" with my bids.
 5 - Yep, I agree, and I like the idea as outlined above.
    3 - I don't care.

Comments regarding this question:
"How about 'drop' money is not eligible to be used to bid until the following week." -- Pete Gabrielli  [Hey, that's a really good idea.  Too bad I didn't think of it before I released the voting.  We'll put it on the docket for next year. -- Chris Mal]


9. USE ALL-STAR STATS
    AUTOMATED FAAB SYSTEM?

Someone suggested that we use the All-Star Stats automated FAAB system instead of emailing bids to Steve Stremba.  The cost is the same.  All-Star Stats charges $50 for that feature, and we've been paying Steve $50 to take care of the bids each week.

The draw-back to the All-Star Stats service is that it would eliminate the "creative" bidding that we presently allow.  (For example, you wouldn't be able to submit a list of 6 players that says "I want just 3 of the following players.")

The benefit is that you don't have to wait for me to enter the winning bids.  I think I was able to do this in less than 2 hours after the deadline on most weeks, but every now and then I wasn't able to get to it until Thursday when I got home from work.

 5 - I like being able to submit bids the way I really want them, keep using Steve Stremba.
    5 - I would prefer the All-Star Stats automated evaluator system.
    0 - I don't care.

Comments regarding this question:
"The All-Star Stats FAAB system is much better and fairer to Steve and Chris." -- Pete DeCoursey

"If you and Steve don't mind, then I'm okay with it since I don't have All-Star Stats access on my work computer." -- Drew Gallagher

"Steve is a great guy, and has been performing this service for year, and rather expertly I might add!  Keep him and give him the money instead of All-Star Stats." -- Scott Winterburn  [Scott apparently thinks that Steve reads the survey results. -- Chris Mal]


10A. $1 SALARY FOR LAST RESERVE PLAYER

Someone thought it would be cool to make the salary of the very last reserve player drafted on each team $1 instead of $10 (or $5 if the player is a rookie and in the minor leagues).  It would make for interesting strategy, I guess, to try to save someone for the last round in hopes that no one else drafts that player ahead of you.

    2 - No, I don't like it.  All reserve players should have a salary of $10 (or $5 if they have rookie status and are in the minors.)
 7 - Yes, I like that idea, let's do it.
    1 - I don't care.

Comments regarding this question:
"I may get lucky and Drew may pick someone good for me after I have passed out." -- Drew Gallagher  [Let's see, I think you were out by round 8.  Drew gave you Joltin' Joe McEwing, Al Martin who you lost immediately after the draft when he signed with Tampa Bay that night, Todd "buck fifty" Hundley.  Me thinks you might want to stay sober. -- Chris Mal]

[The voting for this rule is irrelevant since Rule 10B also passed. -- Chris Mal]


10B. RESERVE ROSTER DECLINING SALARIES

Someone would like to see us go back to the OLD reserve roster system where the salaries declined by $1 in each round.  At the moment, however, we only have 10 rounds, so unless we went back to drafting 17 players, we couldn't go $15, $14, $13...$3, $2, $1.

If we keep the 10 round system, we could do this...
    Round 1 - $10 or $5 if player is a rookie in the minors
    Round 2 - $10 or $5 if player is a rookie in the minors
    Round 3 - $10
    Round 4 - $9
    Round 5 - $8
    Round 6 - $6
    Round 7 - $5
    Round 8 - $3
    Round 9 - $2
    Round 10 - $1

    3 - No, I don't like it.  Keep it the way it is, 10 rounds and all players are either $10 or $5 if they are rookies in the minors.
    2 - Yes, let's go back to the old system - draft 17 players, with salaries that decline $15, $14, $13...$3, $2, $1.
 3 - Yes, let's go with the system shown above.
    2 - I don't care.

Comments regarding this question:
[I considered this a "passing" vote since I assume the two people who voted to go back to the 17 player draft system would alternatively prefer the system outlined above.  Hopefully everyone agrees that was a safe assumption. -- Chris Mal]


11. ROOKIE SALARY INCREASES

As it has been for a very long time in the ESL, when you keep a rookie from one year to the next on reserve, his salary increases by $5.  Someone suggested that we increase rookie salaries only by $1 from one year to the next instead of $5, to make drafting players in the low minors more of any option.  On the other hand, although that is true, the whole reason that we made it +$5 was to make it less likely that just about every good player coming up through the minors would be a keeper for 3 or 4 years before he'd ever reach the draft.  It's a personal preference, I suppose, and so we vote...

 5 - No, it's good the way it is.  Rookie salaries increase by $5 each year they are kept on reserve.
    3 - Yes, I like this idea.  Rookie salaries should increase by only ONE dollar each year they are kept on reserve.
    2 - I don't care.

Comments regarding this question:
"No, the rule is intended to avoid drafting guys in the New York-Penn League.  Is this league on a see-saw with the ASL?" -- Drew Gallagher

"I think the rookie rules should be the same as the ASL." -- Dale Scott


12. "THE LOU RULE"

I think everyone has read the various emails from me and other interested parties about the merits of why this may or may not make sense, so I'll spare you from repeating all of that.  Here is how I propose that this rule would work...

  • Nothing will be revealed or announced to the league until two teams agree on a trade.
     
  • When 2 teams agree on a trade, you can either contact me and I will send an email to the league, or you can send an email to the league yourselves.
     
  • From the moment the email is sent, the clock begins ticking.  In the off-season, there will be a 3 day waiting period, and during the season there will be a 24 hour period.
     
  • During that waiting period, all other teams have the opportunity to attempt to match or better the offers to one or both teams.
     
  • If a "better" deal does not come along, the trade becomes official when the 24 hour (or 3 day) period is over.  (As always the trade does not become official in the stat service system until it is actually entered by one of the teams involved in the trade.)
     
  • If a "better" deal does come along, the original trade becomes void, another email will be sent out with the new deal, and the 24 hour (or 3 day) clock period begins again.
     
  • Both teams MUST respond to all counter-offers.  A trade cannot be entered as official until a response is made to all counter-offers.  Teams have 12 hours to respond to a counter-offer and negotiate, so if a counter-offer comes in at 23:59 hours, you have ANOTHER 12 hours to try to negotiate the new counter-offer.  In theory, that means it could take 36 hours to make a trade, but I'm guessing most counter-offers will be declined immediately or at least quickly, making the 1st offer official within 24 hours in most cases.
     
  • For trades made just before trading dead-lines or just before roster freeze dates, the "clock" period will be truncated.  So, in other words, if freeze lists are due at 6PM, and a trade is made at 4PM, an email should still be sent out, but teams then have just 2 hours to make a better offer.
     
  • The effective date of the trade during the regular season would be after this whole process is complete and one of the teams is able to enter the trade into the stat service system, NOT retroactive to the date the trade was first consumated.

 4 - No, I don't like it.  This is a ridiculous idea.
    1 - Yes, I like this idea, but let make it only apply during the regular season.
    1 - Yes, I like this idea - and it should apply during the season AND during the off-season.
    4 - I don't care.

There is some fine-tuning that needs to be clarified...

  • Does the "better" deal have to include ALL of the players in the original deal or must it just include at least one of them???

Say for example, you have a deal on the table to trade Players A, B and C for Players X, Y and Z.  And someone makes a counter-offer of Player A for Player Q that knocks your socks off.  That ABC-for-XYZ trade is voided, and then new deal on the clock becomes A-for-Q.

There was some concern that this would be a bad idea because if the owner of ABC becomes convinced that ABC-for-XYZ is a bad trade, he can simply trade, say Damian Jackson (Player C) for Adam Melhouse to get out of the trade.  On the other hand, maybe that isn't such a bad thing since the idea of this whole concept is to eliminate unfair trades.  If the owner of ABC realizes that he was involved in making an unfair trade, perhaps it would be in the best interest of the league that he can somehow get out of it if he can cleverly include one of the players in the deal in a new trade.

Making teams include ALL of the players in the 2nd deal could also be bad if, as noted above, another offer comes along that is just simply a much better offer - one that is much more "fair", but for only ONE of the players in the original deal.  If you make teams include ALL of the players in the original deal, then you'll be eliminating a lot of subsequent trade possibilities.

    1 - Hmmmm...good point, the "better" deal must include ALL of the players on one-side from the original deal.
    2 - Hmmmm...good point, the "better" deal must just include at least ONE of the players from the original deal.
    7 - I don't care.

Comments regarding this question:
"Far too complicated for our humble little league..." -- Drew Gallagher

"I'm unsure about this one still.  Who determines if the 2nd offer is better or not?  What if everyone else thinks the second offer is better, but I still like the original offer, can I still take the original offer?" -- Scott Metcalfe  [Doesn't matter. -- Chris Mal]

[I knew this rule wouldn't pass, but I really do think this is a LOT simpler in reality than it was to try to explain it. -- Chris Mal]


13. ELIMINATE FARM SYSTEM or
            FARM PLAYERS CANNOT BE TRADED

It was suggested that we simply eliminate the drafting of minor league players.

Pros...

  • It could, in theory, decrease the lop-sidedness of most of our beloved "dump trades." If teams can't acquire $5 farm players in trades, they'll be more likely to get equal current value in trades, or maybe even less likely to jump off the bridge at the slightest hint of trouble.
     
  • It would save time before the draft in researching minor league players, many of whom will never see the a major league roster.
     
  • We would reduce the reserve portion of the draft to 7 rounds, eliminating about 15-30 minutes of generally uninteresting draft time.  (Leaving more time to eat and laugh at the mess we've made of our team!)
     
  • It would make the weekly FAAB drafts much more interesting if, throughout the season, we were able to bid on these hot young players as they trickle into the major leagues.
     
  • By bidding on the top young prospects as they make their major league debuts, their salaries would better reflect market price, rather than the unrealistic $5 price tag they all have.
     
  • These more realistic market-price salaries would lead to quicker turnover of players as well; it's easy to keep guys at $5, even if they're not panning out. It would be a harder decision if they were priced at $15 or $18; any really big names, guys who would go for $30 or $35, would be thrown back the next year.

Cons...

  • It limits the trades that teams can make if they are not good enough to compete.
     
  • Instead of dumping A-ball players, it's possible that teams might instead dump for whatever slop they can get instead.
     
  • It eliminates a part of the league that a number of people enjoy.

An alternative to the above was proposed.  Instead of eliminating the farm systems all together, that we could simply eliminate the trading of any player that starts the regular season as a rookie players.  That would allow teams who enjoy building a farm system to continue to do so, but would, at the same time eliminate the lop-sidedness of most of our league's dump trades.

This rule would be grandfathered, of course, so that any existing rookies would be unaffected, and still could be traded just like any other player.

Please rank the choices from 1 to 3, with #1 being the choice you like best, and #3 being the choice you like the least...

 5 -  No, I don't like this idea.  Keep the farm system.
    1 -  That's a cool idea, let's eliminate the drafting of minor leaguers completely.
    2 -  I like the alternative idea to KEEP the farm system, but eliminate the trading of minor leaguers during the regular season.
    2 -  I don't care.

Comments regarding this question:
"Do away with minor leaguers.  See how it works." -- Drew Gallagher


Number of visitors to this page:
Hit Counter