Jump to content
Twins Daily
  • Create Account

How much credit should Falvey/Levine get for the 2019-2020 seasons?


cHawk
 Share

This is a discussion that I've seen come up in a few places, particularly in this thread. An argument that I've seen a lot is that the reason this FO has the winning percentage they have is entirely due of the core they inherited which was constructed by Terry Ryan, rather than anything they did.

I thought this would be something we should dig a little deeper on, because Falvey/Levine did inherit a solid young core that was constructed by Terry Ryan, no doubt. However, there are a ton of other things to consider, such as the philosophies and analytical differences between the two regimes.

What do y'all think?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Recommended Posts

If I had to spit out a number... maybe they get 67% of the credit for the success? They inherited a nice group of players but few of those players were legitimately good when they took over the team. They added a lot of coaches and modern techniques to the organization, which surely helped those players become more successful in some capacity.

And we shouldn't overlook the savvy trades in Odorizzi and Maeda; neither the 2019 nor the 2020 teams are close to that level without those guys anchoring pretty shaky rotations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As @Brock Beauchamppointed out, they added some key pieces around a core that was already in place.  That core also improved on their watch.  

Given what they were tasked with when hired, the fact that the team became as good as it was so quickly, they've got to be given quite a bit of credit for that.  Basically rebuilding the organizational philosophy appeared to show near immediate dividends.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's a tough question but you really should divide it a bit. I think Levine is far less capable then Falvey. Falvey has attempted to do things, org-wise, that may be pretty helpful. Levine, as GM, has shown a pretty incredible ability to misjudge talent. I've been pretty vocal that this core was going to do pretty well, no matter who was the GM or manager. They just had too much talent. The GM's job in 19-20 was to add to that talent and expand the window. I don't think Levine did that.

Obviously, the big move of adding Cruz was tremendous. The Odo and Maeda trade were good but people are giving a bit too much credit there. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, gunnarthor said:

It's a tough question but you really should divide it a bit. I think Levine is far less capable then Falvey. Falvey has attempted to do things, org-wise, that may be pretty helpful. Levine, as GM, has shown a pretty incredible ability to misjudge talent. I've been pretty vocal that this core was going to do pretty well, no matter who was the GM or manager. They just had too much talent. The GM's job in 19-20 was to add to that talent and expand the window. I don't think Levine did that.

Obviously, the big move of adding Cruz was tremendous. The Odo and Maeda trade were good but people are giving a bit too much credit there. 

It's interesting that you separate out the two so cleanly. You've done it quite a bit and I've always found it interesting. I'm not sure you're incorrect, I just view the two as mostly one entity. In my mind's eye, I put as much, if not more, blame on Falvey for the truly lackluster moves in free agency.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Brock Beauchamp said:

It's interesting that you separate out the two so cleanly. You've done it quite a bit and I've always found it interesting. I'm not sure you're incorrect, I just view the two as mostly one entity. In my mind's eye, I put as much, if not more, blame on Falvey for the truly lackluster moves in free agency.

And I could be completely wrong but in my mind, the GM is in charge of the draft and the roster while Falvey is in charge of long term organizational issues. He creates the plan, others execute it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't love this topic because who knows for sure where to give credit to and in what exact amounts.  I will say Falvey and Levine benefited by having the talent from the 2012 draft in Buxton, Berrios, Duffey and Rogers.  The international signings of Kepler, Polanco and Sano helped as well.  While giving credit to adding that talent can you imagine what this team might have become if the FO hadn't gotten basically little to nothing out of the 2013, 2014, and 2015 drafts?  And while they picked well in the 2016 draft their system didn't develop those players because Falvine took over in 2017 so not sure how much credit the old FO can get there?

At any rate the current FO did have some key additions and once they got the player development going things really seemed to change for the better IMO.  So much so that other teams started poaching our coaches.  I guess for me I am going to go 50/50 on old and new.  A lot of pieces were in place but the new organizational philosophy really changed things for the better as well.  I don't think one does as well without the other so 50/50 is the best I can come up with.

If the question is would the old FO have done better than Falvine my answer would be a straight up no way.  They had years to try and do that and never did.  Even in TR's best years he never had a team win 100 games in a season.  The analytics and other tools brought to bare with the new FO are helping this team to better compete.  Still have to get better pitching though and hopefully that is coming soon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Such a tough topic. And the real answer is there's no way to know. If we're just talking about the 2019 and 2020 Twins records I'd probably go 65/35 or 70/30 Falvey over Ryan. No player is "just too talented" or "always going to be this good." Well maybe the Trout, Junior, Mays elite of the elite guys, but not the guys we're talking about here. Sano, Buxton, Polanco, Rogers, Duffey weren't "always going to be this good" no matter what. That isn't how things work. The new FO changed the pitch selection on Duffey to get him to become an elite reliever. The new FO hired coaches that taught Rogers his slider that became his best pitch to make him an elite reliever. You can't just assume they would've succeeded under Ryan when the things that made them as good as they were in 19 and 20 were taught by people brought in under Falvey with Falvey's systems and approach. May was terrible under Ryan. Got a year under Falvey's system and became a big time reliever.

But Ryan was the one who brought this core in so he certainly needs some of the credit. And I do think that core would have still been good, just not sure how good. Buxton basically fixed himself so can't give credit to anyone but the previous regimes there since they brought him in. Maybe Polanco, Sano, and Kepler would have been just as good in 19 and 20 with Ryan in charge, maybe they wouldn't. I give them a 50/50 split cuz there's just no saying. I'll go 60/40 for Ryan if you want to give him extra credit for bringing them in.

Odo. Maeda. Pineda. Cruz. JD. Wisler. Cron. Schoop. Marwin. Castro. Cave (19 version). Jeffers. Hill. Clippard. Thielbar. Romo. Those are the guys off the top of my head that Falvey brought in and played significant roles in helping either the 19 or 20 team substantially. Falvey's regime gets credit for all of that and that gets me to 65-70% in Falvey's favor (if not more). Ryan didn't leave the cupboard completely bare, but Falvey improved some of the pieces left behind and brought in those 16 guys I listed plus others.

Plus he modernized the system and development approach, but I'd suggest that is about to pay off as we move forward and wasn't as big in 19 and 20.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good question, with so many variables. Some of it is also the level of competition the team faces from year to year. The AL Central was quite weak in 2019-20, making the Twins regular season success seem perhaps more significant than it was. When the competition caught up, the Twins weren't as far ahead as 2019 made them seem.

I appreciate some of the larger-scale developmental changes in the organization under this FO, but they've yet to bear any real fruit. They should get the vast majority of credit for their initial success here, but those successes were really pretty modest. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would say they similar to others is it hard to put a number on it.  You could even include Bill Smith in there as he signed Polonco, Sano, and Kepler, and was part of draft that took Eddie, and I am sure a few other pieces could be tracked back to him.  However, the current FO changed up the coaching staff and the development levels.  Of course the development changes will not have much impact for those 2 seasons, but the change in coaching most likely had some level of impact.  Also, Buxton had more sustained offense under those coaches, so there is a good chance that had an impact. 

Did Ryan leave the team with some good talent, yes he did, and he was always an overall good judge of talent, of course plenty of misses in his history, but who does not have that in baseball.  My biggest issue for years was how behind the times they were on technology and analytics.  I am not a 100% analytics guy, but using more data to make more informed decisions, like where to set up a defense or pitch someone is never a bad thing. Those are the changes the current FO made that have impacted the team.  The few trades they made for pitching helped as well, but of course they had some misses with signings, trades, as all FO do.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/14/2022 at 10:02 AM, gunnarthor said:

It's a tough question but you really should divide it a bit. I think Levine is far less capable then Falvey. Falvey has attempted to do things, org-wise, that may be pretty helpful. Levine, as GM, has shown a pretty incredible ability to misjudge talent. I've been pretty vocal that this core was going to do pretty well, no matter who was the GM or manager. They just had too much talent. The GM's job in 19-20 was to add to that talent and expand the window. I don't think Levine did that.

Obviously, the big move of adding Cruz was tremendous. The Odo and Maeda trade were good but people are giving a bit too much credit there. 

They are two people with different skills and responsibilities. I have a harder time separating the two, but generally align with you that Falvey has done a better job with building and the culture and strategy than Levine has done executing. Levine has pulled off some great trades, but is almost gun shy on free agency

edit to add: not sure if I can parse out credit, but generally talent development coaching feels light years ahead of the Ryan/Smith era. Even established players like Polanco and Buxton took significant steps forward. That part seems like both Falvey and Levine

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To get around to answering the OP, as a front office, maybe 60%, which is quite significant considering it takes years to develop a single player, let alone the hundreds of players, coaches, scouts etc to build an org

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Twins are nothing like the Seattle Kraken. 

When Falvey and Lavine came aboard there was already a roster of players in place, there was nothing they could do about that.

Nearly every job has conditions that define the starting point. 

Once in the chair... they are responsible for what happens. Terry Ryan is no longer responsible. 

100% Credit and Blame

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Riverbrian said:

The Twins are nothing like the Seattle Kraken. 

When Falvey and Lavine came aboard there was already a roster of players in place, there was nothing they could do about that.

Nearly every job has conditions that define the starting point. 

Once in the chair... they are responsible for what happens. Terry Ryan is no longer responsible. 

100% Credit and Blame

 

This is a good way to look at it.  Although the current FO did not bring in some of the talent, they decide what to do with what is there.  Do they change it up via trade, or releasing players?  Who do they bring in to manage and coach them, or do they keep who was there.  Once the past FO is gone they make no more decisions.  Just because Ryan left some talent in the system does not mean the current FO had to keep them around. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Trov said:

This is a good way to look at it.  Although the current FO did not bring in some of the talent, they decide what to do with what is there.  Do they change it up via trade, or releasing players?  Who do they bring in to manage and coach them, or do they keep who was there.  Once the past FO is gone they make no more decisions.  Just because Ryan left some talent in the system does not mean the current FO had to keep them around. 

My personal subjective opinion is that I'm happy with them. My opinion is that they are making progress in the right direction and yes I was watching last year and am still saying that. 😀

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, chpettit19 said:

Such a tough topic. And the real answer is there's no way to know. If we're just talking about the 2019 and 2020 Twins records I'd probably go 65/35 or 70/30 Falvey over Ryan. No player is "just too talented" or "always going to be this good." Well maybe the Trout, Junior, Mays elite of the elite guys, but not the guys we're talking about here. Sano, Buxton, Polanco, Rogers, Duffey weren't "always going to be this good" no matter what. That isn't how things work. The new FO changed the pitch selection on Duffey to get him to become an elite reliever. The new FO hired coaches that taught Rogers his slider that became his best pitch to make him an elite reliever. You can't just assume they would've succeeded under Ryan when the things that made them as good as they were in 19 and 20 were taught by people brought in under Falvey with Falvey's systems and approach. May was terrible under Ryan. Got a year under Falvey's system and became a big time reliever.

But Ryan was the one who brought this core in so he certainly needs some of the credit. And I do think that core would have still been good, just not sure how good. Buxton basically fixed himself so can't give credit to anyone but the previous regimes there since they brought him in. Maybe Polanco, Sano, and Kepler would have been just as good in 19 and 20 with Ryan in charge, maybe they wouldn't. I give them a 50/50 split cuz there's just no saying. I'll go 60/40 for Ryan if you want to give him extra credit for bringing them in.

Odo. Maeda. Pineda. Cruz. JD. Wisler. Cron. Schoop. Marwin. Castro. Cave (19 version). Jeffers. Hill. Clippard. Thielbar. Romo. Those are the guys off the top of my head that Falvey brought in and played significant roles in helping either the 19 or 20 team substantially. Falvey's regime gets credit for all of that and that gets me to 65-70% in Falvey's favor (if not more). Ryan didn't leave the cupboard completely bare, but Falvey improved some of the pieces left behind and brought in those 16 guys I listed plus others.

Plus he modernized the system and development approach, but I'd suggest that is about to pay off as we move forward and wasn't as big in 19 and 20.

The issue I have with ascribing any substantial amount of success these guys have had to the new FO is that in the case of reversion or failure, with this particular group and others, an equivalent amount of criticism rarely follows. I'm not arguing that is necessarily should. I tend to lean the other way and do believe that to a larger extent the cream does rise to the top

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, KirbyDome89 said:

The issue I have with ascribing any substantial amount of success these guys have had to the new FO is that in the case of reversion or failure, with this particular group and others, an equivalent amount of criticism rarely follows. I'm not arguing that is necessarily should. I tend to lean the other way and do believe that to a larger extent the cream does rise to the top

I'd say it should go both ways. I don't have anyone off the top of my head who has taken drastic steps back since Falvey took over. A large part of that is that the guys who were here under Ryan and are still here now are the big name guys. I'm sure there's some examples of people taking steps back, but I don't have any off the top of my head. I have concrete data of changes made by Rogers and Duffey, for example, of changes that they made under Falvey that can very easily be attributed to his approach and the system he built. Doesn't mean Ryan and his coaches wouldn't have helped them, too, but we also shouldn't assume Ryan would've done something completely different than he'd ever done. Pitch mix and teaching the slider are the core principles of Falvey's system. Those things changed the pitchers Rogers and Duffey were. He needs to get some credit for that (certainly not 100%).

So I agree they should be held accountable for players taking a step back that can be reasonably attributed to his approach to the game and systems he setup. Failure is a weird middle ground, though. I pretty much would call that a wash. Can't give anyone credit or dock them points for players that failed under both regimes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, chpettit19 said:

I'd say it should go both ways. I don't have anyone off the top of my head who has taken drastic steps back since Falvey took over. A large part of that is that the guys who were here under Ryan and are still here now are the big name guys. I'm sure there's some examples of people taking steps back, but I don't have any off the top of my head. I have concrete data of changes made by Rogers and Duffey, for example, of changes that they made under Falvey that can very easily be attributed to his approach and the system he built. Doesn't mean Ryan and his coaches wouldn't have helped them, too, but we also shouldn't assume Ryan would've done something completely different than he'd ever done. Pitch mix and teaching the slider are the core principles of Falvey's system. Those things changed the pitchers Rogers and Duffey were. He needs to get some credit for that (certainly not 100%).

So I agree they should be held accountable for players taking a step back that can be reasonably attributed to his approach to the game and systems he setup. Failure is a weird middle ground, though. I pretty much would call that a wash. Can't give anyone credit or dock them points for players that failed under both regimes.

Sure, I'm not suggesting the current FO hasn't played a part, rather I think there's an element of cherry picking that tends to skew perception when assigning credit or blame. I agree with the bolded, I just feel the same way about a lot of the successes as well. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/19/2022 at 7:34 AM, Riverbrian said:

The Twins are nothing like the Seattle Kraken. 

When Falvey and Lavine came aboard there was already a roster of players in place, there was nothing they could do about that.

Nearly every job has conditions that define the starting point. 

Once in the chair... they are responsible for what happens. Terry Ryan is no longer responsible. 

100% Credit and Blame

 

That's very diplomatic of you, RB!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, KirbyDome89 said:

Sure, I'm not suggesting the current FO hasn't played a part, rather I think there's an element of cherry picking that tends to skew perception when assigning credit or blame. I agree with the bolded, I just feel the same way about a lot of the successes as well. 

I mean the players get the ultimate credit. Do you disagree that Ryan was not someone who believed in the analytics of pitch mix or the technology used in pitch development now? I'm not suggesting he wouldn't have been convinced to get on board eventually, but those were the first things Falvey did when he arrived. He updated the systems the Twins used to develop players and added technology. Rogers and Duffey are 2 players that saw serious spikes in performance after using ideas and coaching that Falvey has as staples of his system.

You can go on baseball savant and see when Rogers started using a slider (2018) and that he has done nothing but increase the usage. You can see that it's his most dominant pitch. We know sliders are a big part of what Falvey believes in, along with using your best pitch more frequently. Rogers deserves credit for working on it and being able to use it the way he does, but if we're comparing FOs I think it's more than reasonable to give Falvey credit over Ryan for that advancement from Rogers. Its hard to imagine Terry Ryan was suddenly going to start investing in trackman systems and having his pitchers work on pitch tunneling and changing their pitch mix. It's impossible to believe he had the knowledge to get it implemented as quickly as Falvey did. I think it's quite reasonable to give Falvey credit for such things.

The Rogers example is absolutely cherry picked. But there's a hard line where his stats improved drastically and clear evidence to what lead to the improvement. That isn't the case with most players. Duffey is the same way. I'd think you could do the same thing the opposite direction and find players with a hard line of stat drop and find clear evidence as to why. Blame should then be handed out. I think we should all put negative points on Ryan and Falvey for Buxton being mismanaged as terribly as he was until he just said "F it, I'm doing this myself." But Buxton's power is the opposite of what Ryan and his people wanted from him. They wanted him to "use his speed" and not worry about lifting the ball so much. Falvey is the opposite. Again, Falvey gets negative points with Buxton for me, but at least he didn't have him trying to pound the ball into the ground and beat out infield singles. 

Terry Ryan was a great GM in his first go with the Twins. The game passed him by in his second stint. Falvey has done a great job modernizing the organization that Ryan simply couldn't have done effectively. Not Ryan's fault. And I'm not trying to bash him unnecessarily. I think he was one of the best in the game his first stint. But he couldn't keep up in his second go and Falvey deserves credit for what he's done. Now it's time to see if he's put in a system that can develop young arms. I have faith.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, chpettit19 said:

I mean the players get the ultimate credit. Do you disagree that Ryan was not someone who believed in the analytics of pitch mix or the technology used in pitch development now? I'm not suggesting he wouldn't have been convinced to get on board eventually, but those were the first things Falvey did when he arrived. He updated the systems the Twins used to develop players and added technology. Rogers and Duffey are 2 players that saw serious spikes in performance after using ideas and coaching that Falvey has as staples of his system.

You can go on baseball savant and see when Rogers started using a slider (2018) and that he has done nothing but increase the usage. You can see that it's his most dominant pitch. We know sliders are a big part of what Falvey believes in, along with using your best pitch more frequently. Rogers deserves credit for working on it and being able to use it the way he does, but if we're comparing FOs I think it's more than reasonable to give Falvey credit over Ryan for that advancement from Rogers. Its hard to imagine Terry Ryan was suddenly going to start investing in trackman systems and having his pitchers work on pitch tunneling and changing their pitch mix. It's impossible to believe he had the knowledge to get it implemented as quickly as Falvey did. I think it's quite reasonable to give Falvey credit for such things.

The Rogers example is absolutely cherry picked. But there's a hard line where his stats improved drastically and clear evidence to what lead to the improvement. That isn't the case with most players. Duffey is the same way. I'd think you could do the same thing the opposite direction and find players with a hard line of stat drop and find clear evidence as to why. Blame should then be handed out. I think we should all put negative points on Ryan and Falvey for Buxton being mismanaged as terribly as he was until he just said "F it, I'm doing this myself." But Buxton's power is the opposite of what Ryan and his people wanted from him. They wanted him to "use his speed" and not worry about lifting the ball so much. Falvey is the opposite. Again, Falvey gets negative points with Buxton for me, but at least he didn't have him trying to pound the ball into the ground and beat out infield singles. 

Terry Ryan was a great GM in his first go with the Twins. The game passed him by in his second stint. Falvey has done a great job modernizing the organization that Ryan simply couldn't have done effectively. Not Ryan's fault. And I'm not trying to bash him unnecessarily. I think he was one of the best in the game his first stint. But he couldn't keep up in his second go and Falvey deserves credit for what he's done. Now it's time to see if he's put in a system that can develop young arms. I have faith.

Agree with you on Terry Ryan... I would build him a statue to honor his dedication and service with my club but would not consider him for a position anywhere near the current or future front office. 

The Twins have made tremendous strides on the development side since he has been replaced. 

As for the roster moves that most of us spend our time debating. I believe those moves are typically obvious things that most GM's would do and they are moves that are necessitated by the limitations of the roster space. For example, Player A has to be placed on the 40 man roster or they lose them. Because Player A goes on, Player B has to be traded or cut. Player B has a value that is pretty much agreed upon by all 30 teams and that player will return similar value from all 30 teams. If no one wants player B... he is cut. Most of us have a good idea who Player B will be when Player A comes along. The moves are obvious, the variance of the return will be tight. The individual roster moves made by GM's are pretty uniform and predictable to a degree. 

The best thing a front office can do to differentiate them from the other front offices they compete against is increase the value of the talent they have and produce more of it.

You can't increase the value of your players when Trevor Plouffe is good enough to be your every day 3B until he reaches free agency only to find that he can't find work after that. 

Falvey and Lavine are doing much better at this in my opinion. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/21/2022 at 2:59 PM, chpettit19 said:

I mean the players get the ultimate credit. Do you disagree that Ryan was not someone who believed in the analytics of pitch mix or the technology used in pitch development now? I'm not suggesting he wouldn't have been convinced to get on board eventually, but those were the first things Falvey did when he arrived. He updated the systems the Twins used to develop players and added technology. Rogers and Duffey are 2 players that saw serious spikes in performance after using ideas and coaching that Falvey has as staples of his system.

You can go on baseball savant and see when Rogers started using a slider (2018) and that he has done nothing but increase the usage. You can see that it's his most dominant pitch. We know sliders are a big part of what Falvey believes in, along with using your best pitch more frequently. Rogers deserves credit for working on it and being able to use it the way he does, but if we're comparing FOs I think it's more than reasonable to give Falvey credit over Ryan for that advancement from Rogers. Its hard to imagine Terry Ryan was suddenly going to start investing in trackman systems and having his pitchers work on pitch tunneling and changing their pitch mix. It's impossible to believe he had the knowledge to get it implemented as quickly as Falvey did. I think it's quite reasonable to give Falvey credit for such things.

The Rogers example is absolutely cherry picked. But there's a hard line where his stats improved drastically and clear evidence to what lead to the improvement. That isn't the case with most players. Duffey is the same way. I'd think you could do the same thing the opposite direction and find players with a hard line of stat drop and find clear evidence as to why. Blame should then be handed out. I think we should all put negative points on Ryan and Falvey for Buxton being mismanaged as terribly as he was until he just said "F it, I'm doing this myself." But Buxton's power is the opposite of what Ryan and his people wanted from him. They wanted him to "use his speed" and not worry about lifting the ball so much. Falvey is the opposite. Again, Falvey gets negative points with Buxton for me, but at least he didn't have him trying to pound the ball into the ground and beat out infield singles. 

Terry Ryan was a great GM in his first go with the Twins. The game passed him by in his second stint. Falvey has done a great job modernizing the organization that Ryan simply couldn't have done effectively. Not Ryan's fault. And I'm not trying to bash him unnecessarily. I think he was one of the best in the game his first stint. But he couldn't keep up in his second go and Falvey deserves credit for what he's done. Now it's time to see if he's put in a system that can develop young arms. I have faith.

I'm not making a pro TR argument here, nor am I suggesting the current FO hasn't contributed. As far as cherry picking is concerned, I'm not diving nearly as deep as you. Sano is a prime example for me. He's been a roller coaster the last 4ish seasons, with arguably more downs than ups. His ability to get on base has trended the wrong direction rather steadily for most of the Falvey/Levine tenure. There's plenty of Sano criticism, but little to none of it ties his regression/stagnation to the FO. I'm ok with that, as I prefer to separate this core group, for the sake of simplicity if nothing else, but I do see it as an example of the insulation the current FO has in regard to shouldering some shortcomings.

I'm inclined to agree with your Rogers example, but a lot of praise, particularly with the core that has spanned both FOs (likely because they're largely responsible for recent success,) follows an "if A then B," template with A being any type of success (sustainable or otherwise) and B being FO intervention. The inverse doesn't seem to apply nearly as often, maybe that's just me. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

Featured Video

×
×
  • Create New...