2012 Organizational Rankings: #11 – Washington

Dave Cameron laid out the methodology behind the rankings. Remember that the grading scale for each category is 20-80, with 50 representing league average.

2012 Organizational Rankings

#30 – Baltimore
#29 – Houston
#28 – Oakland
#27 – Pittsburgh
#26 – San Diego
#25 – Minnesota
#24 – Chicago AL
#23 – Seattle
#22 – Kansas City
#21 – Cleveland
#20 – New York NL
#19 – Los Angeles
#18 – Colorado
#17 – Miami
#16 – Arizona
#15 – Cincinnati
#14 – Chicago NL
#13 – Milwaukee
#12 – San Francisco

Washington’s 2011 Organizational Ranking – #24

2012 Outlook – 52 (T-15th)

The last time the Washington Nationals even sniffed a playoff berth was the first season they were the Washington Nationals: 2005. The move from Montreal was most unfortunate for those north of the border, but baseball in the District of Columbia was excited for baseball, as 2.7 million people filled the turnstiles to watch the Nationals. And they competed, holding first place for 53 games. Washington was even within three games of a wild card slot as late as September 17th, but a 4-9 finish doomed the first Nationals to an 81-81 final record. It is still the best effort the former Expos have managed.

No longer is it a question of if the Nationals can get over the .500 hump but when they will. Last year’s squad finished at 80-81 despite losing Stephen Strasburg for nearly the entire season and Ryan Zimmerman — the only holdover from that 2005 squad — played just 101 games. Bryce Harper time is on the horizon and could come as soon as this season. Mike Morse showed great potential as a power hitter and Wilson Ramos is a promising young catcher. There’s even a solid rotation behind Strasburg, featuring fellow youngster Jordan Zimmermann, blockbuster trade target Gio Gonzalez and free agent get Edwin Jackson. The bullpen headlined by Drew Storen and Tyler Clippard is strong as well. There’s a lot to like about this 2012 Washington Nationals team.

That said, they play in one of baseball’s deepest divisions and will have to compete with the Phillies, Braves and Marlins for NL East honors, and this is not a team without holes. Ian Desmond has struggled at shortstop for two years in a row. An Opening Day outfield of Roger Bernadina, Rick Ankiel and Jayson Werth (thanks to Morse’s injury) contains maybe one starter on a typical playoff roster, and Adam LaRoche‘s best days are well behind him. These shortcomings will probably be too much for the Nationals to overcome in the National League’s most competitive division.

2013+ Outlook – 55 (T-9th)

The Nationals won’t have a young lineup this season — between Jayson Werth, Rick Ankiel, Adam LaRoche, Mark DeRosa and Xavier Nady, there’s plenty of age to go around. But almost all of the key pieces are 27 or younger — Ryan Zimmerman, Danny Espinosa, Wilson Ramos, Stephen Strasburg, Gio Gonzalez, Jordan Zimmermann, Drew Storen, Henry Clippard Henry Rodriguez, and Clippard. This is a core of young, cost-controlled players who will define the franchise for at least a few more years.

And then there’s the fruits of the early draft picks the Nationals have had thanks to their poor performances over the last few years. A few of those fruits went over to the Athletics in exchange for Gio Gonzalez, and so Washington’s farm system no longer showcases the depth it did in recent years. Still, it’s nearly impossible to beat what the Natoinals have at the top in Bryce Harper and 2011 first rounders Anthony Rendon and Alex Meyer.

The lack of depth is one thing that pushes the Nationals’ ranking down to merely ninth, but if some of their lesser prospects — think Steve Lombardozzi or Destin Hood, among others — can develop into useful parts at the major league level, they’ll be able to produce one of the majors’ deepest young teams over the next three seasons.

Financial Resources – 54 (T-8th)

The Nationals haven’t been a big-payroll club since they’ve moved from Montreal — where revenues were ever dwindling along with the Olympic Stadium crowds — but salaries in the nation’s capital are on the rise. The Nationals have $83 million in obligations for 2012 according to Cot’s Contracts, up $29 million from just five years ago. They’ll need to keep increasing payroll in order to retain all the young talent on hand — they’ve already handed out a $100 million extension to Ryan Zimmerman to go with Jayson Werth’s $121 million deal.

Luckily, they’ll have some time. Desmond, Storen, Espinosa and Ramos haven’t even hit arbitration yet. Zimmermann and Clippard are just in their first season. Strasburg is already paid on a major league deal — $4.875 million for this season — but will have four seasons of arbitration (likely a Super Two in 2013) remaining. Gonzalez also is paid on an arbitration scale in his five year, $42 million deal — it doesn’t hit eight figures until 2015.

With Forbes ranking the Nationals as the 16th-most valuable franchise in baseball — largely due to market size — there’s reason to believe the Nationals can get the revenue they’ll need to keep a significant portion of this core around. Especially if they start winning.

Baseball Operations – 46 (T-20th)

Mike Rizzo has brought in one big time free agent, that of course being Jayson Werth and his massive contract. As the Nationals were also in on Mark Teixeira, it wouldn’t surprise if the move was a mandate from ownership to bring in a highly visible free agent.

His action in free agency has been otherwise minimal — small veteran pieces like Rick Ankiel and Ivan Rodriguez and Chien-Ming Wang that hardly give us enough of a look to truly judge his talent evaluating abilities. He’s also made one huge trade, sending four top prospects out for Gio Gonzalez. It is a move that has been met with mixed reactions, as Gonzalez can be a polarizing pitcher. Yes, he’s been excellent the last two years, particularly in the lens of ERA, but it’s impossible to ignore his propensity for the walk. Again, Rizzo hasn’t really made enough moves for us to get to know him well.

In the other aspect, drafting, Rizzo and the Nationals have done well with the cards dealt to them, getting Stephen Strasburg to the majors and infusing the organization with top talent like Harper and Rendon. The tougher tests will come as the Nationals have to draft in the double digits in the first round, but prior to the Gonzalez deal the Nationals had developed a deep system thanks to players beyond those early draft picks like Derek Norris and A.J. Cole (both fourth round picks).

The Werth contract will be a black mark on Rizzo until (and perhaps beyond) the time the Nationals are a winning franchise. Part of that is simply because his team hasn’t had to make many hard decisions with Rizzo in the front office. As the Nationals approach relevancy on the field, Rizzo will need to prove the Werth deal was an exception, not the rule.




Print This Post



If you enjoyed this post, please consider subscribing to Jack's new project, The Sports Desk on Beacon Reader. Jack also writes for Sports On Earth, The Classical, and has written for Disciples of Uecker and The Score, among others. Follow him on Twitter at @jh_moore.

61 Responses to “2012 Organizational Rankings: #11 – Washington”

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
  1. Person says:

    Henry Clippard? I believe you’ve conflated Henry Rodriguez and Tyler Clippard…

    Vote -1 Vote +1

  2. Well-Beered Englishman says:

    Other Rizzo deals: Milledge/Hanrahan for Morgan/Burnett, Langerhans for Michael Morse, and the unforgettable Capps for Ramos.

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    • jorgath says:

      As much as I like Rizzo, that last one is less “Yay Rizzo” as “WTF Twins?”

      Vote -1 Vote +1

    • MIKE says:

      I don’t think siting the Milledge/Hanrahan for Burnett/Morgan deal as a “win” for the Nats or Rizzo is accurate. Both Milledge and Morgan are no longer with either team. Morgan, in his 1 yr with the Nats posted a 1 WAR, Milledge a .6. Both below replacement level. So, whats left is Hanrahan v. Burnett. Sure Burnett is a nice 7th/8th inning guy, but Joel Hanrahan has become one of the best 5 closers in baseball, and likely (read hopefully) a guy that the Pirates will receive handsome compensation for this year at the trade deadline. Just don’t know how stacking Burnett v. Hanrahan comes out as a win for the nats

      Vote -1 Vote +1

      • I didn’t say it was a win for the Nats; just a deal Rizzo had made.

        Vote -1 Vote +1

      • pdowdy83 says:

        If Morgan posted 1 WAR how was he below replacement value? WAR means Wins Above Replacement, right?

        Still not saying they won the trade because Hanrahan is a bit more valuable than Burnett but your statement made no sense.

        Vote -1 Vote +1

      • jorgath says:

        Correction: Hanrahan is more valuable than Burnett now. Hanrahan was sucking it up something terrible when that trade was made.

        Vote -1 Vote +1

  3. Ed says:

    Do they get a final score? Could you let us know what their score was last year as well?

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    • Shane H says:

      52.45 is their total score on a scale of 20-80.

      The formula is 2012rank(.35)+2013plus(.35)+Finances(.15)+BASOPS(.15)

      so 52(.35)+55(.35)+54(.15)+46(.15)

      Vote -1 Vote +1

  4. pdowdy83 says:

    I’m not sure how you can rate Rizzo so poorly based on the Werth signing. Like someone stated above he also turned a previously non-tendered Matt Capps into Wilson Ramos and Ryan Langerhans into Michael Morse. He was able to secure Edwin Jackson on a really solid deal this season as well. The Zimmerman extension looks nowhere near as bad long term as the Joey Votto deal does and you also have to take into consideration he had to deal with Scott Boras in order to sign Strasburg, Rendon and Harper. If the only black marks on his record right now are Werth and trading possibly too much prospect wise for a solid number 2 starter than I think that makes him at least a break even GM.

    +15 Vote -1 Vote +1

    • jorgath says:

      Agree in full.

      Vote -1 Vote +1

    • NatsFan73 says:

      The Nats do a LOT of horse trading with Scott Boras. The Werth deal is clearly a significant overpay, but the rest not so much. Espinosa is also a Boras client, as is 2011 1st round pick Brian Goodwin.

      There is at least some public conjecture that the Edwin Jackson deal (another Boras client) was a you-scratch-my-back-I-scratch-yours arrangement made when EJax didn’t get the multiyear deal he was hoping for anywhere else.

      Taken all together the Nats aren’t so much getting raked over the coals by having to work with Boras, but rather seem to have a cozy and productive relationship with a man who reps a lot of the very top talent in pro sports.

      Vote -1 Vote +1

      • j6takish says:

        Having a strong relationship with Scott Boras can do wonders for a franchise trying to gain legitimacy. He usually represents the most talented, high profile draft picks. Plus, since his clients are mostly driven to money, talented free agents can be lured to less than optimal teams. You just need to be smart when dealing with him, which is easier said than done…

        Vote -1 Vote +1

    • Will says:

      He also traded AJ Morris and Michael Burgess (both of whom have stalled out at A+ and AA, respectively), for Tom Gorzelanny. It’s not a spectacular trade but he definitely got the better end of the deal.

      On the other hand, he dealt Chris Manno for a couple months of Mendoza Line baseball from Jonny Gomes. Even if Manno amounts to nothing (which it doesn’t look like), it’s still a loss for Rizzo.

      Balester for Perry is pretty much a wash.

      Morgan for Dykstra was an awful trade in terms of value, but Morgan was a clear clubhouse cancer and would have been released regardless. Still, Rizzo should have been able to have gotten a better return than what he did.

      He also managed to turn Jerry Hairston and Jason Marquis into potentially useful pieces (Zach Walters and Erik Komatsu), even though Komatsu was lost to the Card in the Rule 5 draft.

      All in all, it’s not very accurate to say “Rizzo hasn’t really made enough moves for us to get to know him well.” You probably just weren’t paying much attention.

      Vote -1 Vote +1

      • pdowdy83 says:

        Agreed. I feel like a rating of 50 – 52 would have been more fair. He has had his good moves and his bad moves. He definitely hasn’t done anything to be rated a 46. Considering the players he has been responsible for drafting and the quick rise of the team since he took over for Bowden and his disaster of a roster seems to me that he should be slightly above average.

        Vote -1 Vote +1

  5. xeifrank says:

    The Nationals are definitely making quick strides in the right direction but the 11 ranking is too high and too quick for my tastes. With win totals of 59, 59, 69 and 80 the last four years there needs to be a little longer history of winning for me to have the Nationals this high. I think winning along with a “history” of recent winning should carry more weight and it does in my rankings. There are no other categories that stick out to me to rank them this high.

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    • jorgath says:

      Look over your 2013+ projections again. Yeah, the Nats are probably an 84 to 87 win team this year, but they’re a serious contender for the NL pennant next year.

      Vote -1 Vote +1

    • bflaff says:

      Agree with Xei. It’s great to be excited by potential, and the Nats certainly have some unusually interesting baubles in the basket, but they haven’t done it yet. They need another year of good results on the field before we can say with confidence that they are arriving. One year could be a fluke instead of a new baseline. See #6 ORG for details. What looks like a strong surge could actually be a mirage.

      Vote -1 Vote +1

      • Well-Beered Englishman says:

        I don’t think a one-year surge with only two-thirds Ryan Zimmerman and 10% Stephen Strasburg is likely to be a mirage…

        Vote -1 Vote +1

      • Brian says:

        Well Beered, 10% of Stras is a perfect illustration of the point. The guy has never even pitched a full season, let alone like an ace for a full season. You can’t just wave all that away and assume that he is going to be what we hope he can be until he shows he actually does it. And then shows he can do it year in and year out. Then it’s reliable.

        Otherwise all you’re doing is saying, ‘This guy was a great prospect, so he *will* be great, and same for this guy, and this guy won’t get injured, and this guy will be an All-Star… and playoffs!’

        It’s pollyanna until they do it. Look at the team one spot ahead of them. The Rays should be penalized relative to the Nats for being so low revenue, but they’ve certainly demonstrated that they can reliably compete for the postseason year after year. They have a track record of results that the Nats don’t have yet.

        Vote -1 Vote +1

    • Will says:

      Xei, I think you’re confusing past success with future success.

      The Nationals win totals from the last four years have absolutely nothing to do with this series. Name four players from the 2008 Nats that are currently still on the club.

      You can’t, because there aren’t. Zimmerman, Jesus Flores and John Lannan are the only holdovers.

      So please explain again, what the Nationals record in 2008 or 2009-2011 for that matter has anything to do with 2012 Nats and beyond (which is what these rankings measure).

      The Twins won 88, 87 and 94 games from 2008-2010. That didn’t help them out at all in 2011.

      Vote -1 Vote +1

      • xeifrank says:

        I am not confusing the two. I am using different and what I feel better criteria in a simplified form.

        Vote -1 Vote +1

      • xeifrank says:

        Consistent winning is the trademark of a great organization!

        Vote -1 Vote +1

      • Will says:

        Fair enough, but Dave Cameron pretty clearly laid out the methodology at the start. You chose to adapt it to your own methodology then remark how it doesn’t sync up with your method. Of course it doesn’t, you’re comparing apples to oranges.

        But I still don’t understand what Dmitri Young, Lastings Milledge, Aaron Boone, Tim Redding and Odalis Perez, among others have to do with the 2012 Nationals.

        Vote -1 Vote +1

      • Will says:

        But you’re ignoring the fact that the Nationals are not a typical franchise.

        They were systematically gutted for several years when they were controlled by your favorite team’s owner and 28 others (tell me about another successful business that succeeded while it was owned by all its direct competitors). They were also threatened with contraction, which forced Omar Minaya to trade away guys like Cliff Lee, Grady Sizemore and Brandon Phillips for two months of Bartolo Colon in an effort to win before MLB got rid of them.

        When the Expos became the Nationals their farm system was absolutely gutted. Seriously, check out Baseball America’s 2005 ranking: http://www.baseballamerica.com/today/features/04top10s/nationals.html

        There’s absolutely nothing of value there.

        Understandably, the Nats were bad for a while. Now that they’ve had a few years to rebuild (delayed a couple years while they were run by Jim Bowden), they’ve quickly turned into a very strong franchise.

        Vote -1 Vote +1

      • xeifrank says:

        Yes, it is apples to oranges… so what. When the apples method spits out what I believe is a flawed ranking I will speak up. I think I have the right to do so while giving some reasons. Plus differing viewpoints furthers the discussion as long as it is done respectfully.

        Vote -1 Vote +1

      • CJ says:

        If you’re arguing with the process, the correct thing to say is not “Nats are too high”, it’s “coefficient X is too high”.

        Vote -1 Vote +1

      • Brian says:

        @ Will: You can toss out everything before 2011, but we also don’t know that 2011 represents anything like a reliable indicator of this group’s collective talent level. It’s a small sample size. They could stay the same, become amazing, or completely crater like the 2010 Mariners. Maybe you can point to some projection like it’s fact instead of an educated guess and tell me you know the team will consistently be .500 or better with this group, but you have no firm basis for saying so. The future has not been written. Let them develop a track record of success on the field first, and then we can start talking about #11 (or better).

        Vote -1 Vote +1

      • jorgath says:

        @Brian: Personally, I’m inclined to toss out everything before 2010. Or if you prefer more scientific, before a year in which at least 25% of the 40-man roster was made up of players still on the 40-man roster, which by my eyeball is 2010.

        Vote -1 Vote +1

  6. matt1101 says:

    Great job on all these organizational rankings. They’ve been really enjoyable (for me to read) keep it up! :D

    Vote -1 Vote +1

  7. Big Oil says:

    Article feels like it was posted incomplete, and baseball ops a bit low IMO, but otherwise a solid read and analysis to me, Jack.

    Vote -1 Vote +1

  8. Jordan says:

    You linked Jordan Zimmerman, not Jordan Zimmermann.

    Vote -1 Vote +1

  9. Thaps says:

    The Nationals won’t have a young lineup this season — between Jayson Werth, Rick Ankiel, Adam LaRoche, Mark DeRosa and Xavier Nady, there’s plenty of age to go around. But almost all of the key pieces are 27 or younger — Ryan Zimmerman, Danny Espinosa, Wilson Ramos, Stephen Strasburg, Gio Gonzalez, Jordan Zimmermann, Drew Storen, Henry Clippard Henry Rodriguez, and Clippard. This is a core of young, cost-controlled players who will define the franchise for at least a few more years.

    Maybe if you change “lineup” to “roster” or “this season” to “initially” then the first sentence would make sense. But it seems like a pretty strong way to make that statement given that DeRosa and Nady will not be in the lineup most of the time and Ankiel is more than likely on the bench once the Kid comes up.

    Vote -1 Vote +1

  10. Shane H says:

    11th is a solid ranking for this team. Gotta love the Strasburg, Zimmerman 1-2 followed by Gonzalez and Jackson. I like the bullpen. Ramos, Espinosa, Zim, are nice building blocks and you gotta couple middle aged thunder sticks in Werth and Morse. Just me But I DO NOT rush HARPER. Very few 19 year olds have had much of an impact in the bigs and service time is such a big issue these days. If he is just lighting up tripple A Pitching the first two months then bring him up if you really think he helps this year. If Not leave him at tripple A for the whole year and let him learn. I wouldnot bring him up this year unless A.) the Nats are seriously up for a wild card. and B.) He is clearly gonna outproduce internal options. I’m not so sure those two things together are givens. If not I leave him at tripple A until May 1, 2013 making sure I have him under team control for his age 20-26 seasons.

    Vote -1 Vote +1

  11. Baltar says:

    I’m not convinced. I’d like to see the Nationals/Expos have a winning season before they are ranked this high.
    When was the last time that happened?

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    • NadavT says:

      Prior to 2008, when was the last time that the Rays had had a winning season?

      Answer: Never. They had winning percentages below 45% each year and finished in 5th place in the AL East every year since they were created in 1998, with the exception of 2004 when they finished 4th. But perceptive analysts (including some of the writers at fangraphs) saw their breakout coming before it actually happened. There are ways to project future success other than just looking at past records.

      Vote -1 Vote +1

      • Otter says:

        Did you just compare the best front office in baseball (currently) to a front office where any given day the ‘plan’ changes?

        Vote -1 Vote +1

      • pdowdy83 says:

        Otter, when has Rizzo’s plan changed on “any given day”? Do you have examples to justify that?

        Vote -1 Vote +1

  12. David says:

    AHAHAHA.

    “…it wouldn’t surprise if the move was a mandate from ownership to bring in a highly visible free agent.”

    The Lerners wanting to spend money, that’s rich!

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    • John C says:

      Wow, the fierce grip some people have on the “TEH LERNRZ R CHEEP!” meme is really impressive. No number of overslot signings for draft choices, no Werth contract, Zimmerman extension, Gonzalez extension, Morse extension or the signing of Edwin Jackson for $11 million will sway them. They pay Lannan $5 million and sent him to the minors. But no, they are cheap, and won’t pay money.

      Impressive is one word for it. There are others.

      Vote -1 Vote +1

  13. Otter says:

    Way too high… I know we want to like this team, but I still really question their plan, if there is one. While signing Edwin Jackson isn’t ‘bad’ but why even do it seeing that they probably are at least a year away? I don’t mean to ding a team trying to win, but with the Nats and their bizarre player moves over the last five or six years, it’s another one I don’t get (along with not trading Dunn, signing Werth, etc). Plus if/when Strasburg blows out his arm again, that staff doesn’t look nearly as good.

    Finally we’re being way too optimistic about financial resources, as this team does not have the TV deal that other teams in markets DC’s size has. In addition, TV viewership is laughable (NHL in Miami like numbers at times). The team hasn’t spend the money that say, the White Sox have, over the last few years.

    I think this is an interesting team and there are a ton of reasons to be optimistic, but what have you done for me lately, especially considering how far back the Padres and Pirates are.

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    • 1. Not trading Dunn: I don’t get that one either, since the rumor was Dunn for Daniel Hudson, but it appears ownership vetoed the decision because they wanted a star around. Rizzo did not approve. The draft picks from Dunn are now Alex Meyer and Brian Goodwin, two of their top 10 prospects.

      2. Tommy John surgery is really not a big gamble anymore. Strasburg is much more likely to be the next Chris Carpenter than the next Mark Prior.

      3. You’re right that the TV situation with the Orioles is ugly.

      4. As far as Edwin Jackson goes – he was available for a huge bargain, so why the heck not?

      Vote -1 Vote +1

      • 1. What I meant was Rizzo did not approve of the owners’ vetoing his trade. That was confusing.

        Vote -1 Vote +1

      • Will says:

        I’d be curious to hear how the renegotiations over the Nats share of MASN revenues turned out. All news on that seems to be quite tight-lipped, but there were estimates being thrown around earlier in the offseason that suggested the Nats could be in for a pretty big increase, but talk of that has gone completely quiet.

        Vote -1 Vote +1

      • jorgath says:

        Will, two words will sum that up.

        Peter.

        Angelos.

        Vote -1 Vote +1

  14. L.UZR says:

    I am unsure how financial resources went from 20th to 8th. Did something happen that caused such a climb?

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    • Will says:

      20th was underrating the Nats payroll capacity. I think it was largely based off their low payrolls from 2006-2010. A lot of people were under the assumption that because they spent little in these years, then they must not be capable of spending very much, which has proven to be very wrong.

      The Jayson Werth contract and the Zimmerman and Gonzalez extensions have mostly cleared up an assumptions that the owners are cheap and that they intended to keep payroll under $60mil annually.

      Perhaps 8th might be too high. Though, I think the high ranking is more due to the fact that so many of their players are still pre-arb or arb-eligible, which will keep their salary commitments quite low for the next 3-5 years, rather than they have tons of money to spend because they have no financial commitments (like the Cubs).

      It also doesn’t hurt that the owners, the Lerner family, is one of the wealthiest ownership groups in the league. They won’t be pinching pennies.

      Vote -1 Vote +1

    • Terenn says:

      If anything the Nationals should be first in financial resources, as the aging Ted Lerner is by far the richest owner in baseball and is expressing his desire to win openly.

      Vote -1 Vote +1

  15. will h says:

    Another plus for Rizzo is that he brilliantly took advantage of over-slotting knowing it would soon come to an end.

    Vote -1 Vote +1

  16. Jimmy Wahl says:

    I think the Werth deal made sense as a precursor to signing another major free agent hitter. It didnt work out when Fielder signed in Detroit. I kind of view Werth as a lesser version of Dustin Pedroia, a player that’s best with lineup protection. You slot him in the number two slot with Zimmerman and Fielder behind him and hes going to generate a profit on that deal. The nats may still see that if Harper produces as expected.

    Vote -1 Vote +1

  17. Simon says:

    Is Strasburg really going to be a super 2 despite missing an entire season?

    Vote -1 Vote +1

  18. cs3 says:

    There is definitely a problem with the process if the Nats are ranked above the Giants.
    And I think Baseball Ops scoring is the main issue.

    Vote -1 Vote +1

  19. Slappy Jones says:

    Rizzo seems to be an average trader and signer of free agents as a gm but I do like his drafting.Kevin Keyes,Michael Taylor,Alex Meyer,Eury Perez (amateur free agent),Sammy Solis,Taylor Hill,and Destin Hood all have a good chance to contribute at the MLB level.

    Vote -1 Vote +1

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

Current day month ye@r *