Jump to content
PolishPrince34

Cuban Phenom defecting Oscar Colas

Recommended Posts

4 minutes ago, Chicago White Sox said:

Yes, I believe it was just based on prior year record.

Ok hope the spread sheet helped any research you are doing. We basically have the same argument that it doesn't seem to be risk aversion  but then again you haven't given your reason for why the Sox have had so little success in finding guys who can become MLB stars among the normal IFA signees among the guys who didn't require a penalty to sign.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, CaliSoxFanViaSWside said:

Ok hope the spread sheet helped any research you are doing. We basically have the same argument that it doesn't seem to be risk aversion  but then again you haven't given your reason for why the Sox have had so little success in finding guys who can become MLB stars among the normal IFA signees among the guys who didn't require a penalty to sign.

The only argument seems to be that we’ve only gone over $1 million twice for kids in that 16-18 age range, which was Adolfo and a 1B mentioned earlier in the thread.

Of course, we’ve also got the worst development results...so who’s to say if some of those kids couldn’t or wouldn’t have succeeded in other organizations?

The biggest positive is we seem to have been right on Robert, Jimenez (already a stud at time of trade), Tatis, Semien, Anderson, Moncada (see Eloy)...at least in initially identifying them.   That’s arguably six of the Top 50 (if not 40 or even 30) overall position player talents in the game today.  Then you add in Alexei and Abreu, the only real miss we’ve experienced in the last 12 years was Viciedo. 
 

At least that’s the positive spin on it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, CaliSoxFanViaSWside said:

Ok hope the spread sheet helped any research you are doing. We basically have the same argument that it doesn't seem to be risk aversion  but then again you haven't given your reason for why the Sox have had so little success in finding guys who can become MLB stars among the normal IFA signees among the guys who didn't require a penalty to sign.

Oh the spreadsheet is great.  It’s nice to have all the signings in one spot.

Honestly, I don’t get what happened with this year’s signing class.  Under Paddy the Sox typically spent most of their bonus pool allotment but never went into the penalty box (likely due to Jerry) until Robert.  They signed plenty of 16 year old’s, but outside of Adolfo they typically spread the wealth over multiple B tier guys.  Maybe that’s partly due to other teams going over their allotment and being able to land both premium guys and scale.  

Regardless, not spending our full bonus allotment in 2019 was out of character for us.  I personally think something went wrong in the recruitment process.  Our two biggest signings were guys eligible to sign in the 2018 class but waited for bigger paydays with us.  That means despite being in the penalty box for two years, very little of our bonus pool dollars were tied to guys we recruited at super young ages.  I’m not sure if we somehow missed the boat on recruiting or if Reinsdorf has a moral issue now that the recruitment is getting younger and younger (although we did sign several 16 year olds this year), but I find it hard to believe they couldn’t find enough guys they liked when they were able to in every other signing class under Paddy.  The only other theory I got is Jerry needed the front office to make a token offering out of respect for the P&L (like when the Bulls sold a 2nd round pick for cash) prior to what was expected to be an active / expensive offseason for the major league team.  I expected us to come out guns blazing this year and this signing class overall is very much a letdown.  I do think that next year will give us more insight into whether this was a one-time blip or a sign of things to come.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Chicago White Sox said:

Come on man, we were in the penalty box two of those years.  This present signing class was the first time we didn’t effectively spend all our money.

As for the age thing, how does 16 or 17 make any difference in regards to your argument that Jerry doesn’t want to sign risky unproven players?  Regardless, our 2013 class included at least three 16 year olds (Adolfo, Feliz, & Acosta).  2014 class had at least three 16 year olds (Alfaro, Nunez, & Mota).  Our 2015 class included at least four 16 year olds (Reyes, Tatis, Vasquez, & Nova).  Our 2016 class included at least three 16 year olds (Guerrero, Mieses, & Comas).  I’m sure I’m missing a ton of other 16 year olds as it’s hard to get exact ages for a lot of the lower profile guys at the time of their signing.  Regardless, a lot of our big signings were 16 year olds prior to going into the penalty box and they weren’t the rarity you’re making them out to be.  Yes, these classes did have quite a few 17 year olds as well, but many of those guys were legit prospects (like Leynyn Sosa) and again I’m not sure how signing them is any different than signing a 16 year old from a risk perspective.

One - do you think the white Sox are the only team who have dealt with the penalty? It didn’t stop the Padres from signing 16 players  in 2018. The Sox made a choice, they decided to punt so they could get marginal relief prospects over international free agency.

Two - of course it matters they are 16. If you are 17/18 you have been passed over for at least one signing period for other players or other reasons. There will be late bloomers every year, but you are passing up a ton of the top talent and swimming for the leftovers.  It is restricting an avenue of cheap talent accumulation for zero reason.

And how is it different? It is cheaper. I’m not sure we even know Rodriguez or Baileys bonuses.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, bmags said:

One - do you think the white Sox are the only team who have dealt with the penalty? It didn’t stop the Padres from signing 16 players  in 2018. The Sox made a choice, they decided to punt so they could get marginal relief prospects over international free agency.

Two - of course it matters they are 16. If you are 17/18 you have been passed over for at least one signing period for other players or other reasons. There will be late bloomers every year, but you are passing up a ton of the top talent and swimming for the leftovers.  It is restricting an avenue of cheap talent accumulation for zero reason.

And how is it different? It is cheaper. I’m not sure we even know Rodriguez or Baileys bonuses.

Your argument was the Sox weren’t signing 16 year olds because of a higher risk factor and that’s 100% not true.  The vast majority of their dollars spent were on 16 year olds and they basically spent their entire allotment every year under Paddy until they went into the penalty box.  They clearly weren’t cheap, they just refused to go over their allotment for Jerry reasons (similar to how they operated in the draft for years).  As for your first question above, I can’t tell you why didn’t sign more guys than they did, but most teams spend far less when they are in the penalty box.  The Padres are an obvious outlier.

I would like to see you support your claim that most of our signings were 17 or 18 year olds, because I don’t believe that to be the case prior to 2017.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Chicago White Sox said:

Your argument was the Sox weren’t signing 16 year olds because of a higher risk factor and that’s 100% not true.  The vast majority of their dollars spent were on 16 year olds and they basically spent their entire allotment every year under Paddy until they went into the penalty box.  They clearly weren’t cheap, they just refused to go over their allotment for Jerry reasons (similar to how they operated in the draft for years).  As for your first question above, I can’t tell you why didn’t sign more guys than they did, but most teams spend far less when they are in the penalty box.  The Padres are an obvious outlier.

I would like to see you support your claim that most of our signings were 17 or 18 year olds, because I don’t believe that to be the case prior to 2017.

I don't think you are wrong necessarily but Bmags isn't either. Sox biggest 16-17 year old signing was Adolfo in 2013/2014. Franklin Reyes, Amado Nunez & Guererro had some pretty decent bonuses but these guys were maybe top 30 prospects in their class and not even top 20. Nunez may have been top 20 but obviously publication rankings are guesswork just noting. When they have spent bigger in LatAm they have jumped on the older prospects when they can - as older prospects are far less common. Robert was basically their only "notable" signing for two classes and he was 19 (IIRC). Yolbert Sanchez was their big signing last year and he was 21. 

When you say the vast majority of their dollars are spent on 16 year old that's not true becuase Robert alone is probably more than half of their money spent down there during this century.  Past that, you're probably right but isn't that the vast majority of the free agent pool.

You both make valid points I just think bmags argument of the Sox being risk averse with players wrapping up puberty is a very fair argument. 

Edited by raBBit
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, raBBit said:

I don't think you are wrong necessarily but Bmags isn't either. Sox biggest 16-17 year old signing was Adolfo in 2013/2014. Franklin Reyes, Amado Nunez & Guererro had some pretty decent bonuses but these guys were maybe top 30 prospects in their class and not even top 20. Nunez may have been top 20 but obviously publication rankings are guesswork just noting. When they have spent bigger in LatAm they have jumped on the older prospects when they can - as older prospects are far less common. Robert was basically their only "notable" signing for two classes and he was 19 (IIRC). Yolbert Sanchez was their big signing last year and he was 21. 

When you say the vast majority of their dollars are spent on 16 year old that's not true becuase Robert alone is probably more than half of their money spent down there during this century.  Past that, you're probably right but isn't that the vast majority of the free agent pool.

You both make valid points I just think bmags argument of the Sox being risk averse with players wrapping up puberty is a very fair argument. 

But saying we’ve signed mostly 17 & 18 years simply isn’t true and neither is acting like we haven’t historically spent most of our bonus money under Paddy.  What we saw happen with this class is radically different than anything we’ve seen under Paddy and that’s the reason I’m arguing those points above.

There is no doubt in my mind that the Sox and/or Jerry view LatAm spending (excluding the older Cubans) as less effective than other forms of spending (which has been proven to be wrong), but despite that they always spent their entire bonus allotment prior to 2017.  I don’t believe that they’re suddenly more risk adverse to signing 16 year olds than they were in the half decade prior to going into the penalty box (they signed several this year).  To me, there is clearly some other factor at play that impacted their 2019 signing class.

As for saying the majority of their dollars went to 16 year olds, I’m excluding Robert from the equation.  He is not a typical amateur signing and obviously wasn’t part of our regular LatAm budget.  Circling back to 2019, Yolbert Sanchez is a very different signing than anything we’ve done in the past under Paddy.  We’ve signed a couple older Cuban guys, but not to anywhere close to $2.5M bonuses.  Again, most of our larger signings (with the exception of Robert) have been 16 year olds in the 25 to 50 range of their respective class.  IMO, 2019 is a very clear outlier to Paddy’s standard operating model, both in terms of the types of signings and the amount of money spent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Chicago White Sox said:

But saying we’ve signed mostly 17 & 18 years simply isn’t true and neither is acting like we haven’t historically spent most of our bonus money under Paddy.  What we saw happen with this class is radically different than anything we’ve seen under Paddy and that’s the reason I’m arguing those points above.

There is no doubt in my mind that the Sox and/or Jerry view LatAm spending (excluding the older Cubans) as less effective than other forms of spending (which has been proven to be wrong), but despite that they always spent their entire bonus allotment prior to 2017.  I don’t believe that they’re suddenly more risk adverse to signing 16 year olds than they were in the half decade prior to going into the penalty box (they signed several this year).  To me, there is clearly some other factor at play that impacted their 2019 signing class.

As for saying the majority of their dollars went to 16 year olds, I’m excluding Robert from the equation.  He is not a typical amateur signing and obviously wasn’t part of our regular LatAm budget.  Circling back to 2019, Yolbert Sanchez is a very different signing than anything we’ve done in the past under Paddy.  We’ve signed a couple older Cuban guys, but not to anywhere close to $2.5M bonuses.  Again, most of our larger signings (with the exception of Robert) have been 16 year olds in the 25 to 50 range of their respective class.  IMO, 2019 is a very clear outlier to Paddy’s standard operating model, both in terms of the types of signings and the amount of money spent.

They are definitely risk averse in the 16-year-old marketplace. They prefer quantity over quality. This methodology paid off with a guy like Fernando Tatis. Micker Adolfo's $1.6 million bonus is still the biggest for a 16-year-old. Half the league guarantees guys $2 million plus every period. The 2019 signing period where the Sox landed Yolbert was their first time playing under the new system. And they failed to spend about $1.5 million of the $5.5 million they were allotted. It's an absolutely absurd usage of resources that makes no sense. There's either a reluctance to pay a "premium" in this marketplace or Marco Paddy can't scout and close the deal. I don't believe the latter is true. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Y2Jimmy0 said:

They are definitely risk averse in the 16-year-old marketplace. They prefer quantity over quality. This methodology paid off with a guy like Fernando Tatis. Micker Adolfo's $1.6 million bonus is still the biggest for a 16-year-old. Half the league guarantees guys $2 million plus every period. The 2019 signing period where the Sox landed Yolbert was their first time playing under the new system. And they failed to spend about $1.5 million of the $5.5 million they were allotted. It's an absolutely absurd usage of resources that makes no sense. There's either a reluctance to pay a "premium" in this marketplace or Marco Paddy can't scout and close the deal. I don't believe the latter is true. 

What if there aren't any good players that come from that year's class? Is it still an absurd usage of resources? Did they not spend money because they're cheap, or did they not identify enough prospects to spend the money on, or was the class just weak? I don't think any of us really know. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This place is an amazing fount of knowledge.  Not just about the Sox but about  MLB in general.  Great back and forth thanks for all that info on how clubs operate in LA.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, TaylorStSox said:

What if there aren't any good players that come from that year's class? Is it still an absurd usage of resources? Did they not spend money because they're cheap, or did they not identify enough prospects to spend the money on, or was the class just weak? I don't think any of us really know. 

There are plenty of good players. And even if not, you should be taking flyers on talent. The Sox had $5.5 million to spend. There is literally zero excuse to not spend all $5.5 million. The White Sox, Rick Hahn specifically said that those trades were made because the money was going to go unspent. That's the problem though. The fact that they didn't have agreements with players already is a huge problem. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Y2Jimmy0 said:

And they failed to spend about $1.5 million of the $5.5 million they were allotted. It's an absolutely absurd usage of resources that makes no sense. There's either a reluctance to pay a "premium" in this marketplace or Marco Paddy can't scout and close the deal. I don't believe the latter is true. 

Oh I 100% agree it’s an absurd use of resources.  My question is what has changed that has caused this to finally happen, because historically they spent their entire allotment despite a general risk aversion to LatAm spending.  They also focused on younger prospects in their first signing class.  Both Sanchez & Tatis waited out until the 2019 class to sign with us.  That means we only spent $1M or less on guys that were first time eligible signings in 2019 (the guys with longer lead times).  Hahn can say they didn’t like anyone else, but to me it really seems like something went wrong in the recruitment process.  IMO, either we were too late to the party with a lot of these guys due unforeseen market changes when the new structure was introduced while we were in the penalty box or Jerry simply said he’s not going to support the recruitment of 13 & 14 year olds.  They may have an unwillingness to pay a premium for younger guys, but it’s never stopped them from spending all their allotment before.  There is zero reason they shouldn’t have been able to add 3 to 5 more guys in the $300k to $500k if they wanted to.  So either they didn’t want to or something systematic prevented them from doing so.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Isn’t the most logical explanation that they were going to shift resources back to the MLB roster...for example, Machado’s $250+ million?

In 2016/17, we were already anticipating that 2019 was going to be their first competitive year, at least until the Kopech TJS and about nine other major injuries, including Carlos Rodon.

The 2000-2016 philosophy was quite obviously to invest the majority of spending to the big league roster.  It was stated many times.

The one thing that doesn’t make much sense was how poorly we allocated money in FA last year...other than McCann.  It’s almost as if there was zero back-up plan when they lost out on Machado for how to spend the money.   In retrospect, another $25-30 million should have been thrown at international operations, but what’s done is done.

Jesus Pena and Yolmer Sanchez, for example, are the best Dominican and Venezuelans...going back a decade.   Unless you want to count Tatis, which was more about the connection between the father really personally pushing the organization on his son’s potential and KW/Paddy than any type of academy presence down there.

It’s pretty remarkable pretty much to have zero success there, Venezuela, Puerto Rico and the Pacific Rim...

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Chicago White Sox said:

Oh I 100% agree it’s an absurd use of resources.  My question is what has changed that has caused this to finally happen, because historically they spent their entire allotment despite a general risk aversion to LatAm spending.  They also focused on younger prospects in their first signing class.  Both Sanchez & Tatis waited out until the 2019 class to sign with us.  That means we only spent $1M or less on guys that were first time eligible signings in 2019 (the guys with longer lead times).  Hahn can say they didn’t like anyone else, but to me it really seems like something went wrong in the recruitment process.  IMO, either we were too late to the party with a lot of these guys due unforeseen market changes when the new structure was introduced while we were in the penalty box or Jerry simply said he’s not going to support the recruitment of 13 & 14 year olds.  They may have an unwillingness to pay a premium for younger guys, but it’s never stopped them from spending all their allotment before.  There is zero reason they shouldn’t have been able to add 3 to 5 more guys in the $300k to $500k if they wanted to.  So either they didn’t want to or something systematic prevented them from doing so.

For our sake, I'm hoping they had deals worked out with Cuban defectors who weren't allowed to come over once Trump vetoed that process. That's the only positive thing that could have happened in this regard. The way they handled the 2019 international class really makes no sense

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, caulfield12 said:

Isn’t the most logical explanation that they were going to shift resources back to the MLB roster...for example, Machado’s $250+ million?

In 2016/17, we were already anticipating that 2019 was going to be their first competitive year, at least until the Kopech TJS and about nine other major injuries, including Carlos Rodon.

The 2000-2016 philosophy was quite obviously to invest the majority of spending to the big league roster.  It was stated many times.

The one thing that doesn’t make much sense was how poorly we allocated money in FA last year...other than McCann.  It’s almost as if there was zero back-up plan when they lost out on Machado for how to spend the money.   In retrospect, another $25-30 million should have been thrown at international operations, but what’s done is done.

Jesus Pena and Yolmer Sanchez, for example, are the best Dominican and Venezuelans...going back a decade.   Unless you want to count Tatis, which was more about the connection between the father really personally pushing the organization on his son’s potential and KW/Paddy than any type of academy presence down there.

It’s pretty remarkable pretty much to have zero success there, Venezuela, Puerto Rico and the Pacific Rim...

 

They can't just throw money around like that anymore. It's a hard capped system. This is what the White Sox wanted. The draft is hard capped and the Sox have spent the most that they can the past few years. Not doing the same in the international market is stupid. It's not logical at all that they'd be shifting resources to the big league team. Their cap internationally is like $5.5 million unless they trade for more money. It doesn't make sense that it would have anything to do with big league spending at that small fraction of the overall pie. 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Y2Jimmy0 said:

They are definitely risk averse in the 16-year-old marketplace. They prefer quantity over quality. This methodology paid off with a guy like Fernando Tatis. Micker Adolfo's $1.6 million bonus is still the biggest for a 16-year-old. Half the league guarantees guys $2 million plus every period. The 2019 signing period where the Sox landed Yolbert was their first time playing under the new system. And they failed to spend about $1.5 million of the $5.5 million they were allotted. It's an absolutely absurd usage of resources that makes no sense. There's either a reluctance to pay a "premium" in this marketplace or Marco Paddy can't scout and close the deal. I don't believe the latter is true. 

I still don't think it's risk aversion alone. Baseball is a worldwide game and talent comes from everywhere.Paddy is just one scout. He can't be everywhere.  You need networking and continuity in many many parts of the world and often in some unstable places. Sure you can rely on lists of the best players and then plan trips to see them but I think you get the best results by having a strong presence in many areas making contacts . That is an expensive and time consuming endeavor.

You need to  establish relationships with the family's of 14 year olds for 2 years until they can sign or you decide they have not developed enough in the 2 years to warrant signing them. I am just not sure the Sox are willing to spend the time and money needed to do everything required to get the top players and settle for less in a few select areas. It's one thing to spend your whole allotment but it's another thing to spend time and money keeping scouts in different parts of the world for long periods away from their families.

At least we can all agree that the Sox need to do better . We just have different theories on why they are so bad at it. To me it just comes down to spending more on scouts, establishing a presence, networking, building relationships and doing the job the way other more successful teams do it. It help's to have a "closer" , a guy like a top salesman who can close a deal.

Edited by CaliSoxFanViaSWside

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Y2Jimmy0 said:

There are plenty of good players. And even if not, you should be taking flyers on talent. The Sox had $5.5 million to spend. There is literally zero excuse to not spend all $5.5 million. The White Sox, Rick Hahn specifically said that those trades were made because the money was going to go unspent. That's the problem though. The fact that they didn't have agreements with players already is a huge problem. 

I'd rather reserve judgement on the quality of the class when it's over. Frankly, I don't know anything about the amount of Latin American talent in that year and I don't think  anybody here really does either. As such, we need to be results oriented in this case. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, CaliSoxFanViaSWside said:

I still don't think it's risk aversion alone. Baseball is a worldwide game and talent comes from everywhere.Paddy is just one scout. He can't be everywhere.  You need networking and continuity in many many parts of the world and often in some unstable places. Sure you can rely on lists of the best players and then plan trips to see them but I think you get the best results by having a strong presence in many areas making contacts . That is an expensive and time consuming endeavor.

You need to  establish relationships with the family's of 14 year olds for 2 years until they can sign or you decide they have not developed enough in the 2 years to warrant signing them. I am just not sure the Sox are willing to spend the time and money needed to do everything required to get the top players and settle for less in a few select areas. It's one thing to spend your whole allotment but it's another thing to spend time and money keeping scouts in different parts of the world for long periods away from their families.

At least we can all agree that the Sox need to do better . We just have different theories on why they are so bad at it. To me it just comes down to spending more on scouts, establishing a presence, networking, building relationships and doing the job the way other more successful teams do it. It help's to have a "closer" , a guy like a top salesman who can close a deal.

Paddy has an entire department of international scouts under him. It's not just him. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, TaylorStSox said:

I'd rather reserve judgement on the quality of the class when it's over. Frankly, I don't know anything about the amount of Latin American talent in that year and I don't think  anybody here really does either. As such, we need to be results oriented in this case. 

I disagree with you. You can choose to do whatever you want but I've written extensively about this year's class. I don't know more than they do but don't tell me I don't have an educated opinion on this whole thing. 

  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Y2Jimmy0 said:

I disagree with you. You can choose to do whatever you want but I've written extensively about this year's class. I don't know more than they do but don't tell me I don't have an educated opinion on this whole thing. 

Specifically which players did they miss that they could have signed? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, TaylorStSox said:

Specifically which players did they miss that they could have signed? 

That's not the point of this though. In recent years, they've signed lots of players like Jose Rodriguez, Benyamin Bailey etc. There are players to sign. Instead, they traded the ability to spend that money in order to get contract buyouts paid for. It's disgusting. I'm not going to list all the players they "could have" signed. That's ridiculous. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Y2Jimmy0 said:

That's not the point of this though. In recent years, they've signed lots of players like Jose Rodriguez, Benyamin Bailey etc. There are players to sign. Instead, they traded the ability to spend that money in order to get contract buyouts paid for. It's disgusting. I'm not going to list all the players they "could have" signed. That's ridiculous. 

I'm not trying to offend you. Not sure why you're taking it so personally. I'll just bow out and trust you. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, TaylorStSox said:

I'm not trying to offend you. Not sure why you're taking it so personally. I'll just bow out and trust you. 

You're right that we won't really know how good the class is/was for a long time. I just have a fundamental problem with the way they do business or did business in this case. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe they were expecting their “Cuban Connection” to drive results...with every youngster on the island now wanting to join an organization with four premiere Cuban talents?   For example, Puig and his agent pushing to join his countrymen.  Perhaps we’ll see the same trend with Colas taking less money to join the Sox.  
 

The Trump administration complicating the process makes sense, although you can always argue someone is getting paid big bucks to do risk-analysis/risk-mitigation and playing out worst-case scenarios.

This so-called connection has always been part of the reason for bringing in Robert, Abreu’s notable presence.  Pretty sure Jose Contreras is still involved as a team ambassador, too.  Every little bit helps.   Not to mention having a Spanish-speaking manager, that creates a huge comfort factor and keeps the cliques from taking over the clubhouse.

Recently, we have Abreu’s three year deal...when just one year at $17.8 million seemed most appropriate.

He’s very clearly bringing something to the table beyond what we can see on the broadcast.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×