Purchasing WAR in Bulk
by James F on Dec 20, 2009 2:43 AM EST
53 comments
In my post on Matt Holliday, some of you balked at the notion that it was wise to invest a large percentage of our payroll in a single offensive player. This led me to a question for which I did not have the answer: are Wins Above Replacement (WAR) more or less expensive if bought in a single player or via multiple players on the free agent market?
But how to do this most efficiently? Instinctively, many people feel that you should diversify your investments, thus spreading out your risk. Common sense also tells us that since there are more good players than there are great players, the great players should cost a premium and therefore provide less production per dollar spent.
What I decided to do was to look at the Wins Above Replacement of players who had reached free agency and were therefore being paid a market price for their services, and to calculate how much they were being paid for each win over replacement. I then divided the players into two categories, those who generated a WAR above 4.5 in the 2009 season, and those who generated a WAR between 2 and 4.4. This is not truly statistically rigorous, but I felt it was a quick way to get an answer to my question.
Fewer than 30 offensive players had a WAR above 4.5 in 2009, and few of those have reached the end of their arbitration years. The players who have are Derek Jeter, Carl Crawford, Miguel Cabrera, Derrek Lee, Mark Teixeira, Ichiro, and J.D. Drew. The numbers are WAR, 2009 salary, and salary/WAR.
Jeter - 7.4 $21.6 $2.92
Crawford - 5.5 $8.3 $1.51
Cabrera - 5.4 $14.4 $2.67
Lee - 5.3 $13.3 $2.51
Teixeira - 5.1 $20.6 $4.04
Ichiro - 5.1 $18.0 $3.53
Drew - 4.7 $14.0 $2.98
Average salary per WAR: $2.88 million
The sample of players who have reached the end of their arb years and earned 2 to 4.4 WAR is obviously larger. Let's take a look: Mike Cameron, Raul Ibanez, Casey Blake, Michael Young, Torii Hunter, Scott Rolen, Todd Helton, Juan Rivera, Brian Roberts, Lance Berkman, Placido Polanco, Johnny Damon, Orlando Hudson, Russell Branyan, Chipper Jones, Paul Konerko, Brandon Inge, AJ Pierzynski, Bobby Abreu, and Carlos Lee.
Cameron - 4.3 $10.0 $2.33
Ibanez - 4.2 $7.2 $1.71
Blake - 4.2 $5.0 $1.19
Young - 3.9 $13.1 $3.36
Hunter - 3.8 $18.0 $4.74
Rolen - 3.8 $11.6 $3.05
Helton - 3.6 $16.6 $4.61
Rivera - 3.4 $3.3 $0.97
Roberts - 3.4 $8.0 $2.35
Berkman - 3.1 $14.5 $4.68
Polanco - 3.1 $4.6 $1.48
Damon - 3.0 $13.0 $4.33
Hudson - 2.9 $3.4 $1.17
Branyan - 2.8 $1.4 $0.50
Jones - 2.8 $10.0 $3.57
Konerko - 2.6 $12.0 $4.61
Inge - 2.5 $6.3 $2.52
Pierzynski - 2.5 $6.4 $2.52
Abreu - 2.5 $5.0 $2.0
Lee - 2.5 $19.0 $7.6
Average cost per WAR: $2.96 million
(Note: I excluded Alex Rodriguez, who posted a WAR of 4.4 in an injury shortened season. To put him in skewed the results in my opinion, particularly as if he had played a full season he would have had above 4.5 WAR)
Rather than we might suspect, the production of free agent hitters who produce more than 4.5 WAR is slightly less expensive than the production of free agents who produce 2.5 WAR or more. This is obviously a very small sample of only one season. But in the free agent market, the elite players seem to come at a slight discount relative to their expected production. My hypothesis is that this will generally be true.
But what really stands out is how few players there are in both categories. Batters who are past their arbitration years who produce 2.5 WAR or more are few and far between; there are fewer than there are major league teams. The group grows even smaller if we eliminate players like Jeter, Ichiro, Helton, Roberts, and Berkman who have only played for the team that originally brought them to the majors, and smaller still if we eliminate players like Cabrera who were traded but signed an extension with their new club. In short, few players worth 2,5 Wins Above Replacement will ever be available on the free agent market, and hardly any worth more than 4.5.
We can also see that it costs between $2.5 and $3 million per Win above Replacement for players worth 2.5 or more WAR, which means that paying more than $2.5 million per WAR for a player worth less than 2.5 WAR is a mistake; you will get more value out of a more expensive option.
The Orioles are operating with the philosophy of growing the arms and buying the bats. What this data from last season seems to show is that buying the bats is harder than it sounds; there aren't enough bats worth buying out there. It also seems to show that paying one player for many wins above replacement is more cost effective than paying many players for fewer wins above replacement.
Finally, I'll point out free agent Matt Holliday's WAR in his most recent four seasons, his only full seasons in the major leagues: 4.4, 8.0, 6.3, 5.7. Holliday appears to be one of these rare specimens, a 4.5+ WAR player who is available as a free agent. This category of player provides an equal if not greater value per dollar as the equivalent performance of multiple other free agents. So long as you believe that Holliday is likely to remain a 4.5+ WAR player if healthy for the duration of his contract, signing him is a singular opportunity which rarely presents itself. Buying the bats is harder than it sounds.
FanPosts are user-created content and do not necessarily reflect the views of the editors of Camden Chat or SB Nation. They might, though.
2 recs |
53 comments
|
Email
Print
Comments
A couple things…first you say:
Obviously, the most advantageous way to purchase WAR is to obtain it below cost.
If that’s the case, then why not wait for our young talent to produce? Cheap and under our control.
Which ties into my next question: Reimold made 400k last year. Correct me if I’m wrong, but you want to pay Holliday 25 million? Is the difference between what Reimold can produce vs. what Holliday can worth ALL that money?
I don't think that's the right question
The question is how can we become a playoff contender within our financial means. Does it make any difference to you if we make the playoffs with a budget of $70 million versus a budget of $40 million?
It is worth the money if we win, and if we win without crippling our ability to continue winning in the future.
At some point, yes, yes it is worth it
You cannot win the AL East with the lineup we have now. You can’t. We need, at a minimum, two more bats, and one needs to be a corner IF. Holliday is one of those bats. This is an almost singular chance to get an impact bat as a FA for the next 24 months.
At some point, you need big-time pitchers and hitters to win. We probably have the pitchers right now – we just need them to continue to improve. And there’s no one out there who would be a marked improvement that’s available among pitchers.
Matt Holliday is available as a bat. There’s a difference between 20 HR, which Reimold may get us, and the 29 Matt averages every year.
Buy the bat.
"(Brock Lesnar) is never in good spirits and he's not in good spirits now." - Dana White
Good analysis
Really, very interesting. However, you’re saying that the average per WAR for players above 4.5 is $2.88M. If that’s the case, then to justify giving Matt Holliday $25M/year for four years, Holliday would need to be worth 8.68 WAR every single year for four years. Matt Holliday is not going to be worth 8.68 WAR for one year, let alone four. If you take the average of his WAR over the last three years you get 6.67. I think that will be higher than what he is anyway seeing as how he’d be moving out of the NL and into the AL East, plus that 8 WAR is super high and not close to any other year of his career. But let’s say 6.67 WAR/year in 2010. According to your calculations, that’d make a decent salary for him about $19M/year. That’s quite a bit less than $25M, not to mention he’ll be 30 years old in 2010. That’s not old, but it’s past the time that players keep getting better. It’s highly likely 34 year old Matt Holliday will be worth quite a bit less than 6.67 WAR.
I’m sorry I just cannot see the point in giving Matt Holliday $25M, and based on your calculations it’s a huge over payment.
Here's the thing...
…we’re not accountants for the Orioles. There are no prizes for having the best ratio of salary to WAR. What we have to do is find a way to field a team that overall has enough wins above replacement to compete for a playoff spot within our budget. Last season, the Orioles offense was good for 15.5 Wins above Replacement. The Yankees’ offense had a collective WAR of 38.2, the Rays’ offense 34.1 and the Red Sox 27.4. We need to double the production of our offense to compete, and we have X number of dollars to do it with. The question is how do we double our offense’s production?
Some of it will have to come from better seasons from Nick Markakis, Adam Jones, and Matt Wieters. Some of it will come from having people who are not Melvin Mora and Aubrey Huff playing the infield corners. But that’s probably not enough.
The numbers I’ve presented, if statistically similar to data from other seasons, demonstrates the average cost of WAR through free agency. But the cost of WAR and the value of WAR are not the same thing. Let’s say that over the next four years, Matt Holliday is worth three WAR more than Nolan Reimold per season. The value of those extra three WAR is much different if it is the difference between an offense that produces 18 WAR instead of 15 than it is if the difference is from 22 to 25.
So the question that we first have to answer is whether over the next four to five seasons, we anticipate having an offense that generates 20+ wins above replacement without Matt Holliday. I believe that there is good reason to think that Markakis, Wieters, and Jones will all be 5 WAR players over that period, if not better. In which case I think we easily have that kind of offensive potential. I think that the value added in a 6.6 WAR player combined with the value created by having Reimold or Pie as surplus that is traded can put us over the top, and give us an offense that can provide 20-30 wins above replacement, enough to compete with the top teams in our division.
If adding 6.6 WAR is of high utility to our team, then the question becomes not whether we can get it at the best price, but if we can get it at a price that is within our budget. I’ll say it again: there is no reward, and therefore no motivation, for us as fans if the team spends less than its allotted budget for players. Because we will be getting high value performances from Markakis, Jones, and Wieters for well below market cost, we can afford to pay more than market cost to obtain the high value performance we need from other players.
My figure of $25 million per season is based on several factors. The most important of these is that it is a four year deal, fewer years than other teams interested in Holliday are willing to offer. Holliday would not cost us $125 million for five years, in my opinion. I believe it is in our interest to pay Holliday more money per year in order to get him on a shorter commitment. Second, I am taking into consideration the fact that the Orioles probably cannot purchase talent at market price, because their long stretch of losing and tough division make them less attractive of a destination for free agents. We paid above market just to attain Garrett Atkins; it will be even greater in the case of an All-Star.
But as I understand it, we have money to spend and need to get a lot better. Therefore, I think the goal should be to get the most WAR out of the dollars we spend, not to get WAR as cheaply as we can get it.
Perhaps I misunderstood.
In initial post you said that getting guys like Bedard and having young players at a low cost allow the Orioles to pay market value for remaining positions. Then you attempted to establish market value with your calculations. But what you want to do with Matt Holliday is sign him for way over market value. So which is it?
The Orioles have more money than a lot of teams, but less money than two very important teams that are above them every year in the standings. It’s for that reason that they can’t pay over market value (or at least, so much over market value) for players. It’s tricky because on one hand because, like you said, the O’s will probably have to pay more to land FAs due to their losing ways. But in order to sustain winning they can’t let themselves get locked up into ridiculous contracts like giving Matt Holliday $25M/year, even if it is just for 4 years. They HAVE to maximize their dollars.
The only player in baseball who makes at least $25M/year is Alex Rodriguez. Are you seriously saying that Matt Holliday should have a higher yearly salary than every player in baseball other than Alex Rodriguez? It would be irresponsible to give Holliday that kind of money and, I believe, detrimental to the team.
What I said was that having players who provide significant surplus value...
…allows for small and medium budget teams to pay players market rates at the remaining positions. The follow-up question is whether it is more efficient to pay for WAR with several players who produce a good WAR or with one player who produces an excellent WAR. Buying WAR appears to be slightly less expensive per WAR in excellent players than in good players. Put simply, you should expect to spend more adding two 3.5 WAR players than you would spend adding one 7 WAR player. Let’s say that instead of signing Holliday, in a year we sign Carlos Pena and Jorge Cantu. We should expect that the two of them combined will cost more that Holliday alone.
What I want to do is add 7 WAR to our offense at a price we can afford. It is almost impossible for us to do that through the trade market. Therefore, if we want to do it, we are essentially forced to do it through the free agent market. And what I’m pointing out is that it is cheaper to pay one excellent player a very large sum than it is to pay two very good players a merely large one. This is how to maximize our dollars. Buying a lot of WAR in a single package, in bulk if you will, allows you to get it at a discount. Are we better off paying Holliday $25 million or Pena and Cantu $30 million? And that doesn’t factor in that by paying one player instead of two market rate, we have another lineup spot for a highly rated prospect that might generate a lot of value for very little cost.
There are still arguments against a single excellent player versus two good ones; diversification is a hedge against risk of injury or severe regression. It might be worth it to pay more for two good players because at least that way you have less of a chance of getting zero return on your investment. But you also have a bigger problem with scarcity; there are more good players on the market than there are great ones, but not that many more, and you need two for it to be worth getting either.
Perhaps I didn’t make this clear in the post, but I felt it was implicit that the wins have to come from somewhere. The entire thing is pointless if we don’t win. To win, we need to add offense. And by my reasoning, paying Matt Holliday a ton of money is the cheapest way to do so. Therefore, I believe that if we can sign Holliday for an amount of money that does not prevent the team from covering its other needs, at whatever the best price we can get is.
As for the sum itself, a year from now it will seem less ridiculous, when Joe Mauer and Albert Pujols sign their first post-arb deals, along with Victor Martinez, Carl Crawford, Jayson Werth, Josh Beckett, and Brandon Webb. The prices in my rough analysis don’t account for the difference between the cost of WAR for players who signed as free agents only in the last couple seasons, but includes players who signed long-term deals several years ago. That isn’t to say that your arguments about team chemistry aren’t important, but I think the second-highest paid player in the game doesn’t take into account differences in length of contract or the fact that a lot more major salary increases are coming soon.
Two quick things
1) I never said one word about team chemistry. I’m guessing that’s what you got from “detrimental to the team.” What I meant was tying up that much money in one player is likely to be a disaster. It would handcuff the team financially.
2) Do you really think Matt Holliday is a 7 WAR player? And that he will be for the next four years?
Other than that I don’t know what else we could have to say to each other because it’s obvious we disagree philosophically.
Sorry about misunderstanding you
It was quite late and I apologize. But I’m still not really clear on what you are saying. Are you saying that paying one player $25 million would handcuff the team financially somehow more than having two players who cost $25 combined?
I think that if healthy, Matt Holliday should post between 5-7 WAR each of the next four seasons in our park.
Yes
You see, one player plays one position. Two players play two positions. If you pay one player $25M to play one position, you still have to pay someone else to play the other one.
I think maybe we value Holliday a little differently anyway. I don’t think he’ll ever put up a WAR of 7. He’s only had that once, he’s getting older, and he’d be moving to the toughest division in the tougher league.
Another thing you commented to Moose above, “Does it make any difference to you if we make the playoffs with a budget of $70 million versus a budget of $40 million?” It matters to me. If you can make the playoffs with a team payroll of $30M less, of COURSE you want to do that. Because then you spend that $30M making that team even better and more likely to win it all.
You bring up two interesting issues
First, does the quality of playoff teams have a significant effect on playoff results, and second, is it better or worse to pay market price at more than one position than it is to pay market price at only one position?
My intuition tells me that once you reach the playoff threshold, team quality has only a minor influence on playoff outcomes, and that a team is better off paying market price at as few positions as possible. But I haven’t looked into either question closely enough yet to state my answers with confidence, or my reasons behind them.
I’ll look into these questions further.
Worth it? What is worth? Matt Holliday will get what the market bears.
And if it takes $25M/year to get him to Baltimore, this is one instance I say do it.
This team, as presently constituted or even with Josh Bell at 3B, is 3rd best at BEST in the AL East. Adding Matt Holliday doesn’t take away a position from anyone, other than shifting Nolan Reimold to DH or possibly 1B. Felix Pie is still your 4th OF, and the DH spot is covered. And I don’t care if Luke doesn’t like 1st, he’s getting paid to play where the O’s tell him to play.
Adding Holliday, even with his contract numbers, addresses a area of need for the Orioles, and allows us to improve in three positions, since…
Holliday > Reimold in RF for offense
and
Reimold > Luke as DH
and
Luke > Wiggy (or anyone else) at 1B
Yes, the money is large. Yes, it’s most likely more than he’s worth in an absolute sense. But the market is what the market is. Pay Matt Holliday, get better in 2 lineup spots (if not 3) and let Andy MacPhail work his magic in finding a decent-to-good 1B from somewhere…
"(Brock Lesnar) is never in good spirits and he's not in good spirits now." - Dana White
Make that LF, obviously...
Sorry Nick. Didn’t mean to take your spot from ya…
"(Brock Lesnar) is never in good spirits and he's not in good spirits now." - Dana White
I agree
I think its more around 17-19M per. However, I think he wants years over dollars, so maybe you get him for 5/100 (the O’s will likely have to overpay a bit to land him). Sure, its longer than we want to go, but if you are willing to give him 4/100, what does it matter? If you want him for only 4, it may take 22M+ per.
We could be regretting 5/100
unless Holliday experiences that weird mid-30’s improvement that some players have seen. It was stated earlier by someone that he will likely be in decline by the last year or two of a four year deal, so a fifth year could end up being a royal rip-off.
I would love to have the guy, but I just can’t see paying someone that much in today’s economy for that long. There has to be a way we can add a bat after this season, most likely through a trade. We will have a better idea as to what prospects are a good fit after 2010…I say we wait.
The only problem I see with that
is that we will most likely need to trade for another bat even if we do land Holliday. 1B is still going to be a priority that I dont see us solving with Snyder. Holliday cures the need of one bat while leaving the trade chips for the 2nd. I dont want him for 5 years either, but if you are willing to do 4/100. why not do 5/100? I think that probably gets it done. It may take less than that honestly, but I still dont think Bmore is his first choice.
I really think it's all a moot point anyway
Holliday wants to stay in St. Louis so if they offer him anything comparable, that’s where he’ll be. I think that the news of the O’s being interested is being totally overblown to try and drive up the Cardinals’ offer. When meeting about Mike Gonzalez, Andy MacPhail said to Scott Boras, “Hey what about that Holliday? He’d look good in an O’s uniform, ha ha,” and Scott Boras rubbed his fingers delightedly knowing he could legitimately leak the that Orioles have interest in Holliday.
I agree it is probably a moot point
Although I don’t think it is evident that Holliday wants to stay in St. Louis. Players say a lot of things, and many of them aren’t true.
But while the question is largely academic, I don’t think it isn’t worth asking. For the last couple weeks, we’ve been debating these issues – is Kevin Millwood worth $9 million? What’s the value of a closer, or a draft pick? I’m not under any delusions that even if I could make an ironclad case that Holliday is worth paying $20-25 million per year and that this is the most cost effective way of making the team better that the Orioles will listen. I just think it can be fun and educational to debate the issue.
I bet some team is gonna come close.
And that means we don’t have him.
"The moment you stop thinking you're the best, it's time for you to get out the game." -'King' Mo Lawal
I don't know about that
I take it all with a grain of salt, including the comments from O’s officials that we’re not serious about Holliday. If the market for Holliday is as soft as it appears, then it is in the interest of the O’s to downplay their interest, let Jason Bay come off the market, wait and see if St. Louis decides that Johnny Damon is more cost effective than Holliday, and make our best offer to Holliday when he has fewer options.
This is the first point I have seen...
That would explain why not to get into a bidding war with this player. All others = put 20 mil/year on the table
A good cigar is like a beautiful chick with a great body who also knows the American League box scores. ~M*A*S*H, Klinger, "Bug-Out," 1976
by Birdland in NC on Dec 20, 2009 2:19 PM EST up reply actions
Eh, it all depends
If that is what the Orioles are doing, they are increasing the risk that they don’t get him at all to potentially get him for less. The best strategy in the world isn’t worth much unless we actually get him.
duck if Matt Holliday gets $25M/year
1) I will assume the GM of that team was high
and
2) I will buy you tickets to an O’s game and all the beers you care to drink next summer.
Before they signed Lackey, the Red Sox offered Holliday 5 years, $82.5 M. The latest out of the Cardinals camp is that they’ll offer him $15-16M/year for 5 or 6 years (the 8 year rumor has been refuted)
Look, I would be all for getting Matt Holliday for this team if the price works out. But to assume he’ll get $25M or to think he’s worth anywhere close to that is absurd.
One point that hasn't been covered is this...
Let’s say we over BID on Holliday. 4 years/25 mil and then we actually lose the bidding war (which would be unlikely at that price)… Holliday would have to make a decision — leave 10-20 mil on the table or accept a lesser offer (which he won’t do). Also, this would encourage the Red Sox or the Angels to overpay for this player, which works to our advantage.
I say go ahead and click the ebay button…. bid away — no harm done in losing.
A good cigar is like a beautiful chick with a great body who also knows the American League box scores. ~M*A*S*H, Klinger, "Bug-Out," 1976
by Birdland in NC on Dec 20, 2009 2:18 PM EST up reply actions
At some point....
we need a legit hitter with power to compete in this division in addition to what we hope we have in Jones, Reimold, The Deity and Markakis. Who else is available as a FA in this off-season AND next?
"The moment you stop thinking you're the best, it's time for you to get out the game." -'King' Mo Lawal
ha!
partially cuz i have somewhat avoided this fucking conversation. that said, i have nothing further to add
by twistedlogic on Dec 20, 2009 10:28 PM EST up reply actions
You mean recovering from the previous administration?
Just kidding. I won’t get into all that again.
that's a lot of birds
are these birds like specially-trained counterterrorist units or something?
by twistedlogic on Dec 20, 2009 10:30 PM EST up reply actions
At all
I mean, she likes marshmallow cream on snow cones. And doesn’t even call them snow cones.
"The moment you stop thinking you're the best, it's time for you to get out the game." -'King' Mo Lawal
Well....
"The moment you stop thinking you're the best, it's time for you to get out the game." -'King' Mo Lawal
well played
this conversation has gotten way off point. but i like it. and yes, i start sentences with conjunctions.
by twistedlogic on Dec 20, 2009 10:31 PM EST up reply actions
AGGGH!
You ever been on the receiving end of that God-forbid-I-should-call-it-music while dealing with a hangover?
And I don’t care WHAT I said or did the night before. Slayer while anyone in the room has a hangover is asymetrical warfare. Banned by Geneva.
You can't fix stupid. Stupid is forever.
FWIW, I think the lessons here are useful
…regardless of what happens with Matt Holliday. The value I see is in the two main conclusions: there are very few free agent hitters worth paying market price for, and the market price for hitters is lower per WAR for excellent players than it is for good ones.
Well, suit yourself
But I’m right.
"The moment you stop thinking you're the best, it's time for you to get out the game." -'King' Mo Lawal
There is that, too
I mean, even I am capable of winning an argument against a non-existent person.
"The moment you stop thinking you're the best, it's time for you to get out the game." -'King' Mo Lawal
I’ll admit I don’t have the slightest clue how WAR is calculated. I’m also not sure why it suddenly became the hot stat this offseason. I just have to say that I think it is too volatile of a stat to use to try and build a team. The numbers seem to vary for so many players each year its impossible to predict. You may be paying for what you think is 5 WAR only to find out it was actually only 2 WAR. There’s got to be a more effective way to look at how to build a team.
Fangraphs has a series of articles on their win value calculations and I recall a conclusion that win value is basically paid for in a linear manner. Teams with the money take advantage of the fact they can pay for better production on a linear scale. This seems to jive with your overall premise.
The O’s problem is they lag (the Yankess, Red Sox, and Rays) in pitching and hitting, and not by a little. I’m not sure where they start. One can argue that Holliday’s value on a mediocre team is lessened (and he may not see the same WAR just by playing on a worse team). But teams need to get talent somehow. It’s pretty clear that MacPhail’s plan is to see how much production he picks up from the recent infusion of youth, the cheapest way to do it, before making any decisions. I just think his plan to grow pitching will not suffice to bridge the gap in the AL East. I also have a sneaking suspicion his idea of buying a bat is to try to find lightening in a bottle (a la Carlos Pena circa 2007). We can only wait through this season to see.
some of you balked at the notion that it was wise to invest a large percentage of our payroll in a single offensive player. .
are Wins Above Replacement (WAR) more or less expensive if bought in a single player or via multiple players on the free agent market?
This is an incredibly vague question that could be answered in multiple ways to support several different positions in regards to the original question (see first block quote).
(Note: I excluded Alex Rodriguez, who posted a WAR of 4.4 in an injury shortened season. To put him in skewed the results in my opinion, particularly as if he had played a full season he would have had above 4.5 WAR)
If you’re going to exclude A-Rod, you might as well exclude Jeter as well.
But in the free agent market, the elite players seem to come at a slight discount relative to their expected production. My hypothesis is that this will generally be true.
This is a conclusion drawn from data not a hypothesis.
In short, few players worth 2,5 Wins Above Replacement will ever be available on the free agent market, and hardly any worth more than 4.5.
If you’re dealing with such a small sample, I wouldn’t draw any conclusions about the wisdom of buying WAR in bulk or many pieces when the difference is between $2.96M and $2.88M. To me, the data says there isn’t much a difference.
Vizzini: Let me put it this way. Have you ever heard of Plato, Aristotle, Socrates?
Man in Black: Yes.
Vizzini: Morons.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
Official Sponsor of Camden Chat GameThreads
SBNation.com Recent Stories
GAMETHREAD SPONSOR
Certain photos copyright © 2010 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
