Grand Marquis

[98navigator]

well never mind then, put him #1 in the rotation

 

Let's not get carried away...

[BigSlick]

which will be relevant when we start asking Marquis to be our Ace. he's not going to "dominate" with his stuff, nor will he be asked to. but he's certainly capable of living up to his contract and performing above what you hope for out of a 4th or 5th starter by striking out 4.5-6.0/9 and a K:BB around 1.75.

 

God some of you just don't get it. I'm not one to name a starting pitcher's role. The simple fact (FACT, NOT OPINION) is that every single starter in baseball has the same damn job. What difference is there between an "ace" and a "5th starter" when it comes to baseball? Are the Cubs spotted a run when their ace goes? No, they have the same job. Naming them means absolutely nothing and is a waste of time.

 

When I say dominance, I don't mean going out there and pitching like an "ace." K:BB dominance is no more than being the best pitcher you can be. There's maybe one or two other factors, but K:BB is one of the most important if not the most important thing when evaluating how good a pitcher is. Quite frankly, Marquis is not very good at it, never has been and never will be. The ability to strikeout guys without walking them is by far the most important skill a pitcher can possess. It has nothing to do with his "role" it has everything to do with his job - getting people out.

 

Capable to living up to his contract? Come on, let's not be naive, I'm not looking at his contract and saying he sucks. I'm looking at him and saying he sucks. It doesn't make a difference if he's making seven million or 1/7th of a million. At the end of the day he's the same pitchers so I am going to evaluate his pitching looking at that, not the number of zeroes on his paycheck.

 

He has three starts by my count.

 

Does it really make a difference? For the love of God it's nine innings. We all saw what Ryan O'Malley could do for about the same time.

 

:lol:

[Mephistopheles]

FWIW, I think maybe you would get your point across better here if you didn't talk down to people so much.

I got my point across and didn't call anyone stupid or [expletive]. I guess I shouldn't have said some people don't "get it" or some people are naive. It's nothing personal, as some of you know I almost never read who I am replying to. I guess that's bad.

[radarluv1]

i hope nobody's expecting shutouts from marquis. but if he throws 7 innings a game and gives up 4 runs each outing, he's better than what we had last year.

[A New Era]

i hope nobody's expecting shutouts from marquis. but if he throws 7 innings a game and gives up 4 runs each outing, he's better than what we had last year.

 

With our offense, that's really not that bad. He'll be ok the first couple of months. I just hope he keeps it up.

[98navigator]

If he can do that, consistently, he will be a bargain. Most importantly, if he can limit his average ER to four, the Cubs should win the majority of his starts (because the team's offense appears to be poised to score more than 4 runs per game).

[b_wiggy_66]

which will be relevant when we start asking Marquis to be our Ace. he's not going to "dominate" with his stuff, nor will he be asked to. but he's certainly capable of living up to his contract and performing above what you hope for out of a 4th or 5th starter by striking out 4.5-6.0/9 and a K:BB around 1.75.

 

God some of you just don't get it. I'm not one to name a starting pitcher's role. The simple fact (FACT, NOT OPINION) is that every single starter in baseball has the same damn job. What difference is there between an "ace" and a "5th starter" when it comes to baseball? Are the Cubs spotted a run when their ace goes? No, they have the same job. Naming them means absolutely nothing and is a waste of time.

 

When I say dominance, I don't mean going out there and pitching like an "ace." K:BB dominance is no more than being the best pitcher you can be. There's maybe one or two other factors, but K:BB is one of the most important if not the most important thing when evaluating how good a pitcher is. Quite frankly, Marquis is not very good at it, never has been and never will be. The ability to strikeout guys without walking them is by far the most important skill a pitcher can possess. It has nothing to do with his "role" it has everything to do with his job - getting people out.

 

Capable to living up to his contract? Come on, let's not be naive, I'm not looking at his contract and saying he sucks. I'm looking at him and saying he sucks. It doesn't make a difference if he's making seven million or 1/7th of a million. At the end of the day he's the same pitchers so I am going to evaluate his pitching looking at that, not the number of zeroes on his paycheck.

 

He has three starts by my count.

 

Does it really make a difference? For the love of God it's nine innings. We all saw what Ryan O'Malley could do for about the same time.

 

:lol:

 

K/BB ratio is not one of the most important stats for pitchers. Maybe walks but not K/BB. Some pitchers just don't strike a lot of guys out and have good success. Look at Chien-Ming Wang from last year. He had one of the lowest K/BB ratio's but was one of the better pitchers in the league. You have to pitch to your strengths. Your job as a pitcher is to prevent runs. If you do that by striking out 15 guys then good job. If you do it by inducing 15 ground balls then good job. Just get the batters out.

[Mephistopheles]

If he can do that, consistently, he will be a bargain. Most importantly, if he can limit his average ER to four, the Cubs should win the majority of his starts (because the team's offense appears to be poised to score more than 4 runs per game).

the cubs scored more than four runs a game last season, but for 4 ER over 7 innings to be useful, it would mean that the bullpen would have to have an ERA of zero. Under no circumstances is an ERA of 5.14 good enough for the Cubs, Yankees or '27 Yankees.

[Mephistopheles]

which will be relevant when we start asking Marquis to be our Ace. he's not going to "dominate" with his stuff, nor will he be asked to. but he's certainly capable of living up to his contract and performing above what you hope for out of a 4th or 5th starter by striking out 4.5-6.0/9 and a K:BB around 1.75.

 

God some of you just don't get it. I'm not one to name a starting pitcher's role. The simple fact (FACT, NOT OPINION) is that every single starter in baseball has the same damn job. What difference is there between an "ace" and a "5th starter" when it comes to baseball? Are the Cubs spotted a run when their ace goes? No, they have the same job. Naming them means absolutely nothing and is a waste of time.

 

When I say dominance, I don't mean going out there and pitching like an "ace." K:BB dominance is no more than being the best pitcher you can be. There's maybe one or two other factors, but K:BB is one of the most important if not the most important thing when evaluating how good a pitcher is. Quite frankly, Marquis is not very good at it, never has been and never will be. The ability to strikeout guys without walking them is by far the most important skill a pitcher can possess. It has nothing to do with his "role" it has everything to do with his job - getting people out.

 

Capable to living up to his contract? Come on, let's not be naive, I'm not looking at his contract and saying he sucks. I'm looking at him and saying he sucks. It doesn't make a difference if he's making seven million or 1/7th of a million. At the end of the day he's the same pitchers so I am going to evaluate his pitching looking at that, not the number of zeroes on his paycheck.

 

He has three starts by my count.

 

Does it really make a difference? For the love of God it's nine innings. We all saw what Ryan O'Malley could do for about the same time.

 

:lol:

 

K/BB ratio is not one of the most important stats for pitchers. Maybe walks but not K/BB. Some pitchers just don't strike a lot of guys out and have good success. Look at Chien-Ming Wang from last year. He had one of the lowest K/BB ratio's but was one of the better pitchers in the league. You have to pitch to your strengths. Your job as a pitcher is to prevent runs. If you do that by striking out 15 guys then good job. If you do it by inducing 15 ground balls then good job. Just get the batters out.

wang is the exception not the rule. just because one person did it, it doesnt mean another one can. And Wang is a bad comparison on a couple of levels.

 

1.) His ERA is probably going to be in the mid 4s next season, not mid 3s. His HR rate was too low, even for his GB tendencies.

2.) Wang didn't walk anyone and had a lot of groundballs. Marquis walked 23 more guys in 20 less innigns.

3.) Chien Ming Wang is in the 100th percentile when it comes to getting guys to hit groundballs. Marquis will be lucky to touch the top quarter. That's a HUGE difference.

[98navigator]

If he can do that, consistently, he will be a bargain. Most importantly, if he can limit his average ER to four, the Cubs should win the majority of his starts (because the team's offense appears to be poised to score more than 4 runs per game).

the cubs scored more than four runs a game last season, but for 4 ER over 7 innings to be useful, it would mean that the bullpen would have to have an ERA of zero. Under no circumstances is an ERA of 5.14 good enough for the Cubs, Yankees or '27 Yankees.

 

I said an average of 4 ER. Like anyone else, he will pitch better in some starts than others (likewise, the offense will have days when it is producing more or less than 4 runs). Marquis can be a very serviceable pitcher. The way you are describing the situation, we should expect to lose the majority of his starts. I don't believe that to be the case.

[brinoch]

I don't know why, since they pitch with different hands, but every time I hear or read Marquis, I think Estes.

[brinoch]

If he can do that, consistently, he will be a bargain. Most importantly, if he can limit his average ER to four, the Cubs should win the majority of his starts (because the team's offense appears to be poised to score more than 4 runs per game).

the cubs scored more than four runs a game last season, but for 4 ER over 7 innings to be useful, it would mean that the bullpen would have to have an ERA of zero. Under no circumstances is an ERA of 5.14 good enough for the Cubs, Yankees or '27 Yankees.

 

I said an average of 4 ER. Like anyone else, he will pitch better in some starts than others (likewise, the offense will have days when it is producing more or less than 4 runs). Marquis can be a very serviceable pitcher. The way you are describing the situation, we should expect to lose the majority of his starts. I don't believe that to be the case.

 

We should expect to lose the majority of his starts. Marquis, over his career, hasn't been a very good pitcher. He's extremely unlikely to magically improve.

[radarluv1]

i'd be happy to win half the games marquis starts.

[Mephistopheles]

I said an average of 4 ER. Like anyone else, he will pitch better in some starts than others (likewise, the offense will have days when it is producing more or less than 4 runs). Marquis can be a very serviceable pitcher. The way you are describing the situation, we should expect to lose the majority of his starts. I don't believe that to be the case.

 

Let's do an average ERA of 4 over 7. Our bullpen ERA will probably be around 3.80-4.00. So let's assume a 3.90 bullpen ERA. Let's also assume .40 unearned runs per 9 innings (which is league average from last season). That means our team is going to give up an average of 5.27 runs a game when he's our starter. Last season ONE team in the National League averaged more than that many runs per nine innings, the Phillies at 5.30.

 

The Cubs don't have the good an offense, so we would expect the Cubs to lose more than half of the games started by him - also known as a majority of his games.

 

Just because we have a half-way decent offense it doesn't mean we should be content with a piece of crap like Marquis.

[98navigator]

If he can do that, consistently, he will be a bargain. Most importantly, if he can limit his average ER to four, the Cubs should win the majority of his starts (because the team's offense appears to be poised to score more than 4 runs per game).

the cubs scored more than four runs a game last season, but for 4 ER over 7 innings to be useful, it would mean that the bullpen would have to have an ERA of zero. Under no circumstances is an ERA of 5.14 good enough for the Cubs, Yankees or '27 Yankees.

 

I said an average of 4 ER. Like anyone else, he will pitch better in some starts than others (likewise, the offense will have days when it is producing more or less than 4 runs). Marquis can be a very serviceable pitcher. The way you are describing the situation, we should expect to lose the majority of his starts. I don't believe that to be the case.

 

We should expect to lose the majority of his starts. Marquis, over his career, hasn't been a very good pitcher. He's extremely unlikely to magically improve.

 

Marquis hasn't been stellar but he has shown an ability to keep his team in most games he pitches (which is a huge improvement over a last year). The only thing he'll be asked to do is limit the damage; the best way he can do that is by keeping the ball on the ground. He had a nightmare year with the Cardinals in 2006 because, among other things, he gave up over 30 homeruns.

[98navigator]

I said an average of 4 ER. Like anyone else, he will pitch better in some starts than others (likewise, the offense will have days when it is producing more or less than 4 runs). Marquis can be a very serviceable pitcher. The way you are describing the situation, we should expect to lose the majority of his starts. I don't believe that to be the case.

 

Let's do an average ERA of 4 over 7. Our bullpen ERA will probably be around 3.80-4.00. So let's assume a 3.90 bullpen ERA. Let's also assume .40 unearned runs per 9 innings (which is league average from last season). That means our team is going to give up an average of 5.27 runs a game when he's our starter. Last season ONE team in the National League averaged more than that many runs per nine innings, the Phillies at 5.30.

 

The Cubs don't have the good an offense, so we would expect the Cubs to lose more than half of the games started by him - also known as a majority of his games.

 

Just because we have a half-way decent offense it doesn't mean we should be content with a piece of crap like Marquis.

 

As horrible as he was last year the Cardinals were 15-18 in his starts. I'd take that but I expect him to be a bit better this year. As "bad" as he's been, last year he averaged more ER than at any other time in his career. I think he will turn in more respectable performances this year because of a mechanical change, change of scenery, and wanting to prove his worth. I think those things can, even marginally, help him perform to a higher standard.

[brinoch]

Marquis hasn't been stellar but he has shown an ability to keep his team in most games he pitches (which is a huge improvement over a last year). The only thing he'll be asked to do is limit the damage; the best way he can do that is by keeping the ball on the ground. He had a nightmare year with the Cardinals in 2006 because, among other things, he gave up over 30 homeruns.

 

I'd hardly call a career 4.55 ERA and a career 1.43 WHIP "keeping people in games." I'd call it an overrated starter and someone I don't want on my team. I remember in 2003 as we transitioned to NSBB from ESPN and Cubs.com how people said that Estes would keep the Cubs in games and would be a serviceable 5th starter. And, that we should give Estes a chance.

 

Well, there's a reason that we keep statistics -- it demonstrates the record of a player over time. And there's no greater predictor of success or failure than a player's statistics. Given Marquis' record, I'd be on the lookout for failure.

 

FYI, Shawn Estes, by comparison, boasts a grand 4.71 ERA and an incredible 1.53 WHIP over the course of his career.

 

So, in short, Marquis is better than Estes. Color me impressed. Hendry is gambling, and, in my opinion, Marquis was an awful signing (one among many by Hendry) because his past record is terrible. End of story.

[Mephistopheles]

If he can do that, consistently, he will be a bargain. Most importantly, if he can limit his average ER to four, the Cubs should win the majority of his starts (because the team's offense appears to be poised to score more than 4 runs per game).

the cubs scored more than four runs a game last season, but for 4 ER over 7 innings to be useful, it would mean that the bullpen would have to have an ERA of zero. Under no circumstances is an ERA of 5.14 good enough for the Cubs, Yankees or '27 Yankees.

 

I said an average of 4 ER. Like anyone else, he will pitch better in some starts than others (likewise, the offense will have days when it is producing more or less than 4 runs). Marquis can be a very serviceable pitcher. The way you are describing the situation, we should expect to lose the majority of his starts. I don't believe that to be the case.

 

We should expect to lose the majority of his starts. Marquis, over his career, hasn't been a very good pitcher. He's extremely unlikely to magically improve.

 

Marquis hasn't been stellar but he has shown an ability to keep his team in most games he pitches (which is a huge improvement over a last year). The only thing he'll be asked to do is limit the damage; the best way he can do that is by keeping the ball on the ground. He had a nightmare year with the Cardinals in 2006 because, among other things, he gave up over 30 homeruns.

 

here is his "ability" to keep teams in games:

 

http://mlb.mlb.com/images/2007/03/02/gflCRSLs.jpghttp://mlb.mlb.com/images/players/mugshot/ph_113744.jpghttp://mlb.mlb.com/images/2007/03/02/FfAGoGVk.jpg

[98navigator]

Marquis hasn't been stellar but he has shown an ability to keep his team in most games he pitches (which is a huge improvement over a last year). The only thing he'll be asked to do is limit the damage; the best way he can do that is by keeping the ball on the ground. He had a nightmare year with the Cardinals in 2006 because, among other things, he gave up over 30 homeruns.

 

I'd hardly call a career 4.55 ERA and a career 1.43 WHIP "keeping people in games." I'd call it an overrated starter and someone I don't want on my team. I remember in 2003 as we transitioned to NSBB from ESPN and Cubs.com how people said that Estes would keep the Cubs in games and would be a serviceable 5th starter. And, that we should give Estes a chance.

 

Well, there's a reason that we keep statistics -- it demonstrates the record of a player over time. And there's no greater predictor of success or failure than a player's statistics. Given Marquis' record, I'd be on the lookout for failure.

 

FYI, Shawn Estes, by comparison, boasts a grand 4.71 ERA and an incredible 1.53 WHIP over the course of his career.

 

So, in short, Marquis is better than Estes. Color me impressed. Hendry is gambling, and, in my opinion, Marquis was an awful signing (one among many by Hendry) because his past record is terrible. End of story.

 

Some of that is raised because of his 2006 stats. Nonetheless, he isn't going to be asked to be the ace of the staff, he's a rotation filler. He may be a gamble but he shouldn't prevent the Cubs from being successful in 2007. There is something positive to having serviceable starters/guys who can eat innings. In recent years, the Cubs have been hamstrung by pitchers who either can't make 32-35 starts or who can't throw 180-200+ innings. As a result, many games were lost in middle relief. Look at the NL teams that reached the postseason last year. Most of them had patchwork rotations.

 

The Cubs don't need 5 studs to win.

[brinoch]

I said an average of 4 ER. Like anyone else, he will pitch better in some starts than others (likewise, the offense will have days when it is producing more or less than 4 runs). Marquis can be a very serviceable pitcher. The way you are describing the situation, we should expect to lose the majority of his starts. I don't believe that to be the case.

 

Let's do an average ERA of 4 over 7. Our bullpen ERA will probably be around 3.80-4.00. So let's assume a 3.90 bullpen ERA. Let's also assume .40 unearned runs per 9 innings (which is league average from last season). That means our team is going to give up an average of 5.27 runs a game when he's our starter. Last season ONE team in the National League averaged more than that many runs per nine innings, the Phillies at 5.30.

 

The Cubs don't have the good an offense, so we would expect the Cubs to lose more than half of the games started by him - also known as a majority of his games.

 

Just because we have a half-way decent offense it doesn't mean we should be content with a piece of crap like Marquis.

 

As horrible as he was last year the Cardinals were 15-18 in his starts. I'd take that but I expect him to be a bit better this year. As "bad" as he's been, last year he averaged more ER than at any other time in his career. I think he will turn in more respectable performances this year because of a mechanical change, change of scenery, and wanting to prove his worth. I think those things can, even marginally, help him perform to a higher standard.

 

With regard to your first point, St. Louis scored 4.82 runs per game last season (781 runs) while giving up 4.70 runs per game (762 runs total). Marquis, by himself, gave up 136 total runs. Marquis gave up 17.85% of the runs scored on the Cardinals over the entire season in 13.50% of the total innings pitched. (194.1 innings by Marquis vs. 1439.2 innings pitched by the Cardinals) That's bad.

 

And, for the second point, we have quantifiable facts about his previous performances in Atlanta and St. Louis. They indicate that he will be a poor pitcher. Meanwhile, you offer sandcastles in the sky.

[Mephistopheles]

id like to visit sandcastles in the sky

[brinoch]

Marquis hasn't been stellar but he has shown an ability to keep his team in most games he pitches (which is a huge improvement over a last year). The only thing he'll be asked to do is limit the damage; the best way he can do that is by keeping the ball on the ground. He had a nightmare year with the Cardinals in 2006 because, among other things, he gave up over 30 homeruns.

 

I'd hardly call a career 4.55 ERA and a career 1.43 WHIP "keeping people in games." I'd call it an overrated starter and someone I don't want on my team. I remember in 2003 as we transitioned to NSBB from ESPN and Cubs.com how people said that Estes would keep the Cubs in games and would be a serviceable 5th starter. And, that we should give Estes a chance.

 

Well, there's a reason that we keep statistics -- it demonstrates the record of a player over time. And there's no greater predictor of success or failure than a player's statistics. Given Marquis' record, I'd be on the lookout for failure.

 

FYI, Shawn Estes, by comparison, boasts a grand 4.71 ERA and an incredible 1.53 WHIP over the course of his career.

 

So, in short, Marquis is better than Estes. Color me impressed. Hendry is gambling, and, in my opinion, Marquis was an awful signing (one among many by Hendry) because his past record is terrible. End of story.

 

Some of that is raised because of his 2006 stats. Nonetheless, he isn't going to be asked to be the ace of the staff, he's a rotation filler. He may be a gamble but he shouldn't prevent the Cubs from being successful in 2007. There is something positive to having serviceable starters/guys who can eat innings. In recent years, the Cubs have been hamstrung by pitchers who either can't make 32-35 starts or who can't throw 180-200+ innings. As a result, many games were lost in middle relief. Look at the NL teams that reached the postseason last year. Most of them had patchwork rotations.

 

The Cubs don't need 5 studs to win.

 

Given our offensive woes in the Hendry era, the only times we've won with regularity is when we've had at least 4 studs.

 

I understand that, realistically, there's something to a serviceable starter who goes out and doesn't take away your chance to win. Unfortunately, Marquis is not one of those guys. Unless, that is, our offense scores 5+ runs per game.

[98navigator]

If he can do that, consistently, he will be a bargain. Most importantly, if he can limit his average ER to four, the Cubs should win the majority of his starts (because the team's offense appears to be poised to score more than 4 runs per game).

the cubs scored more than four runs a game last season, but for 4 ER over 7 innings to be useful, it would mean that the bullpen would have to have an ERA of zero. Under no circumstances is an ERA of 5.14 good enough for the Cubs, Yankees or '27 Yankees.

 

I said an average of 4 ER. Like anyone else, he will pitch better in some starts than others (likewise, the offense will have days when it is producing more or less than 4 runs). Marquis can be a very serviceable pitcher. The way you are describing the situation, we should expect to lose the majority of his starts. I don't believe that to be the case.

 

We should expect to lose the majority of his starts. Marquis, over his career, hasn't been a very good pitcher. He's extremely unlikely to magically improve.

 

Marquis hasn't been stellar but he has shown an ability to keep his team in most games he pitches (which is a huge improvement over a last year). The only thing he'll be asked to do is limit the damage; the best way he can do that is by keeping the ball on the ground. He had a nightmare year with the Cardinals in 2006 because, among other things, he gave up over 30 homeruns.

 

here is his "ability" to keep teams in games:

 

http://mlb.mlb.com/images/2007/03/02/gflCRSLs.jpghttp://mlb.mlb.com/images/players/mugshot/ph_113744.jpghttp://mlb.mlb.com/images/2007/03/02/FfAGoGVk.jpg

 

There's no doubt he had a nice offense and defense behind him in STL. We also shouldn't overlook the fact that he had one of the best managers of all time. However, I think the Cubs will be able to replicate much of that here. They say managers can't win games but they can lose them... Having a smart in-game manager should help the Cubs overall.

 

Again, having Marquis on the staff isn't going to keep the Cubs from being successful if everyone else is doing their job. It certainly didn't prevent the previous teams he played for from going to the postseason. If the Cubs are bad it isn't going to be because of one person.

[98navigator]

Marquis hasn't been stellar but he has shown an ability to keep his team in most games he pitches (which is a huge improvement over a last year). The only thing he'll be asked to do is limit the damage; the best way he can do that is by keeping the ball on the ground. He had a nightmare year with the Cardinals in 2006 because, among other things, he gave up over 30 homeruns.

 

I'd hardly call a career 4.55 ERA and a career 1.43 WHIP "keeping people in games." I'd call it an overrated starter and someone I don't want on my team. I remember in 2003 as we transitioned to NSBB from ESPN and Cubs.com how people said that Estes would keep the Cubs in games and would be a serviceable 5th starter. And, that we should give Estes a chance.

 

Well, there's a reason that we keep statistics -- it demonstrates the record of a player over time. And there's no greater predictor of success or failure than a player's statistics. Given Marquis' record, I'd be on the lookout for failure.

 

FYI, Shawn Estes, by comparison, boasts a grand 4.71 ERA and an incredible 1.53 WHIP over the course of his career.

 

So, in short, Marquis is better than Estes. Color me impressed. Hendry is gambling, and, in my opinion, Marquis was an awful signing (one among many by Hendry) because his past record is terrible. End of story.

 

Some of that is raised because of his 2006 stats. Nonetheless, he isn't going to be asked to be the ace of the staff, he's a rotation filler. He may be a gamble but he shouldn't prevent the Cubs from being successful in 2007. There is something positive to having serviceable starters/guys who can eat innings. In recent years, the Cubs have been hamstrung by pitchers who either can't make 32-35 starts or who can't throw 180-200+ innings. As a result, many games were lost in middle relief. Look at the NL teams that reached the postseason last year. Most of them had patchwork rotations.

 

The Cubs don't need 5 studs to win.

 

Given our offensive woes in the Hendry era, the only times we've won with regularity is when we've had at least 4 studs.

 

I understand that, realistically, there's something to a serviceable starter who goes out and doesn't take away your chance to win. Unfortunately, Marquis is not one of those guys. Unless, that is, our offense scores 5+ runs per game.

 

With the exception of 2004, the Cubs offense (under Hendry) has usually been short a bat. That doesn't appear to be the case this year. Marquis is serviceable and he will make most, if not all, of his starts. The team is going to be better off in the long run if it doesn't over tax its strength (the bullpen) and expose itself to middle relief.

Edited March 12, 2007 by 98navigator

[RichHillIsABeast]

id like to visit sandcastles in the sky

 

cool, just don't move in.