HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Eastern Conference > Atlantic Division > Montreal Canadiens
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

The Trade Myth- Fact or Fiction?

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
02-10-2009, 01:15 PM
  #51
le_sean
Registered User
 
le_sean's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Ottawa
Country: Vatican City State
Posts: 15,739
vCash: 612
Quote:
Originally Posted by nittany View Post
How else do you grade a head scout without looking at past drafts?

I wish I had a boss like you guys, where results aren't scrutinized.
Well when your job is to predict the ****ing future, stuff will be missed from time to time.

le_sean is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-10-2009, 01:21 PM
  #52
smon
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 2,007
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by le_sean View Post
Well when your job is to predict the ****ing future, stuff will be missed from time to time.

smon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-10-2009, 01:23 PM
  #53
JoliatMorenzGagnon
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Montreal
Posts: 16
vCash: 500
Maybe he's been trying to acquire a defensemen for a while and the Lang injury changed his plans.

It'd be interesting to know how many trades are being talked between GMs and how many actually happen.

I don't believe BG is as inert as what people might think.

JoliatMorenzGagnon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-10-2009, 01:57 PM
  #54
windycity
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Well duh
Posts: 3,608
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by le_sean View Post
Well when your job is to predict the ****ing future, stuff will be missed from time to time.
heh

but that's just an excuse

actually I read a pretty interesting synopsis of the 20th C the other day and how hard it is to predict things - eg., 1920, Germany is a wreck and looks destined to be a 2nd rate power to just 20 years later, where it's one of 2 or 3 most powerful countries in the world and dominant in Europe. To 5 years later, when it's basically destroyed.

I do agree that scouts should be measured on how their picks pan out - but overall - not based on isolated picks. The Habs scouting staff has certainly missed guys but everyone does. On average, I think the picks are better than most teams lately if you consider where we have drafted (middle to end of 1st)

windycity is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-10-2009, 01:59 PM
  #55
Ozymandias
#firetherrien
 
Ozymandias's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Hockey Mecca
Country: Canada
Posts: 13,438
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by windycity View Post
heh

but that's just an excuse

actually I read a pretty interesting synopsis of the 20th C the other day and how hard it is to predict things - eg., 1920, Germany is a wreck and looks destined to be a 2nd rate power to just 20 years later, where it's one of the most powerful countries in the world and dominant in Europe. To 5 years later, when it's basically destroyed.

I do agree that scouts should be measured on how their picks pan out - but overall - not based on isolated picks. The Habs scouting staff has certainly missed guys but everyone does. On average, I think the picks are better than most teams lately if you consider where we have drafted (middle to end of 1st)
Germany is really bad example dude. Their comeback was propted by international banking. That's why it came back on top so quickly. Also, note that they were the most dominant country before WW1 too, but that's a whole different story.

But I get your point.

Ozymandias is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-10-2009, 02:01 PM
  #56
Cloudigger
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: In my dreams
Country: Christmas Island
Posts: 287
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozymandias View Post
I'm trying to find the other thing I've read.


but in the meantime, don't you agree that claiming that a GM and scout aren't good because of a selection who is up to only his second year of pro is a bit moronic and overdramatic?
well since he is, more than likely, going ot get 20 goals for the second time after his second complete seasons it sure means he was an horrible pick...

Cloudigger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-10-2009, 02:14 PM
  #57
windycity
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Well duh
Posts: 3,608
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozymandias View Post
Germany is really bad example dude. Their comeback was propted by international banking. That's why it came back on top so quickly. Also, note that they were the most dominant country before WW1 too, but that's a whole different story.

But I get your point.
It was really about the ability to predict its turnaround so quickly. It really did look the basket case after WW1. And England and France were argubaly more powerful before WW1 (or least perceived to be). That's one of the reasons that WW1 occurred, Germany's insecurity in the face of a French-Russian alliance.

windycity is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-10-2009, 02:19 PM
  #58
Ozymandias
#firetherrien
 
Ozymandias's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Hockey Mecca
Country: Canada
Posts: 13,438
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by windycity View Post
It was really about the ability to predict its turnaround so quickly. It really did look the basket case after WW1. And England and France were argubaly more powerful before WW1 (or least perceived to be). That's one of the reasons that WW1 occurred, Germany's insecurity in the face of a French-Russian alliance.
Before WW1, economically, I do not agree. Germany was stronger. The French-Russia alliance wouldn't have happened and it is the usual excuse of mainstream history.

But this is faaaaaaar off topic. So let's just leave it at that.

Ozymandias is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-10-2009, 02:26 PM
  #59
windycity
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Well duh
Posts: 3,608
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozymandias View Post
Before WW1, economically, I do not agree. Germany was stronger. The French-Russia alliance wouldn't have happened and it is the usual excuse of mainstream history.

But this is faaaaaaar off topic. So let's just leave it at that.
fair enough - you might be interested in this though. I'm thinking of picking it up

http://www.amazon.com/Next-100-Years...4297403&sr=8-1

Tho I doubt there's much in there about any potential Habs draftees ;-)

windycity is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-10-2009, 02:33 PM
  #60
Kriss E
HFB Partner
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 27,066
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by nittany View Post
Burke is considered around the league as probably the best GM around. You don't agree?
I certainly don't.

He's good, but overrated. I don't think he's particularly better than Gainey and no way is he better than Holland.

Burke left VAN in the crapper, did a pretty good/decent job in ANA but left them when they're barely over the .500 mark. In his 2nd season there, they won the cup, so he's far from deserving much of the credit there.

He's not a great GM, and he also doesn't look like a very well liked one. Which is important when a big part of your job is to make trades.
The Zezel situation sums it up nicely.

Kriss E is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-10-2009, 02:35 PM
  #61
Ozymandias
#firetherrien
 
Ozymandias's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Hockey Mecca
Country: Canada
Posts: 13,438
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by windycity View Post
fair enough - you might be interested in this though. I'm thinking of picking it up

http://www.amazon.com/Next-100-Years...4297403&sr=8-1

Tho I doubt there's much in there about any potential Habs draftees ;-)
I could make a few predictions of my own, y'know.

National sovreignties will be absolete and replaced by a world government before this century is over ruled by a financial elite.

People will have permits to procreate.

Most modern cities will become like the city of London with over 1 million CCTV cameras.

The war in the middle-east will end, but badly.

Men will walk on Mars, then some people will say it was faked.

Hilary Clinton will become president of the US (or of the world )

Chris Chelios will finally retire in 2020.

Ozymandias is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-10-2009, 02:47 PM
  #62
gusfring
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 6,917
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kriss E View Post
I certainly don't.

He's good, but overrated. I don't think he's particularly better than Gainey and no way is he better than Holland.

Burke left VAN in the crapper, did a pretty good/decent job in ANA but left them when they're barely over the .500 mark. In his 2nd season there, they won the cup, so he's far from deserving much of the credit there.

He's not a great GM, and he also doesn't look like a very well liked one. Which is important when a big part of your job is to make trades.
The Zezel situation sums it up nicely.
I disagree. He didn't leave Vancouver in the crapper. He got Luongo, which is one of the best trades of all times.

gusfring is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-10-2009, 02:59 PM
  #63
Ozymandias
#firetherrien
 
Ozymandias's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Hockey Mecca
Country: Canada
Posts: 13,438
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by nittany View Post
I disagree. He didn't leave Vancouver in the crapper. He got Luongo, which is one of the best trades of all times.


Luongo was traded in 2006. Burke left the Canucks in 2004. It was Nonis who got Luongo.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dave_Nonis

"""Nonis replaced Brian Burke as the Vancouver Canucks' general manager in 2004. Prior to being GM for the Canucks, he spent six years working closely with Burke as Senior Vice President and Director of Hockey Operations for the franchise. In three seasons as general manager, his most significant transaction was trading for superstar goaltender Roberto Luongo from the Florida Panthers at the conclusion of his first season as GM."""

Get real, get a clue, GTFO.

Ozymandias is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-10-2009, 03:09 PM
  #64
Canadian_Brewtality
Registered User
 
Canadian_Brewtality's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,984
vCash: 500
this thread started a new Gainey debate for some reason, but i am one to agree that his resume isnt all that impressive.

Tecnhically his "5 year plan" has come full circle and his team is falling apart.
In one of the franchise`s most important years, his past few offseasons have been nothing short of fruitless.
An ageing vet whom he had to overpay (Hamrlik)
Disgrunteled playmaker (Tanguay)
And another aging 38 year old veteran.

Never addressed the center position in 5 years. This summer when he had his assets, he put his eggs in the Sundin basket and it failed miserably.
Now here we are 6 months later, still no first center, no d depth, and you can argue that our assets have plummeted in value (Plekanec, Kovy, Higgins + some of our younger prospects).

I think overall Gainey has put us on the map, but has failed to put us over the top. We arent even close to being contenders.

Dont get me started on the Carbo extension...

Canadian_Brewtality is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-10-2009, 03:26 PM
  #65
gusfring
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 6,917
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozymandias View Post


Luongo was traded in 2006. Burke left the Canucks in 2004. It was Nonis who got Luongo.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dave_Nonis

"""Nonis replaced Brian Burke as the Vancouver Canucks' general manager in 2004. Prior to being GM for the Canucks, he spent six years working closely with Burke as Senior Vice President and Director of Hockey Operations for the franchise. In three seasons as general manager, his most significant transaction was trading for superstar goaltender Roberto Luongo from the Florida Panthers at the conclusion of his first season as GM."""

Get real, get a clue, GTFO.
My bad. Burke is a terrible GM. So he gets no credit for anything Vancouver did and nothing for what Anaheim did, yet Gainey gets no criticism for where Montreal is right now?

And I should get a clue? ****

gusfring is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-10-2009, 03:36 PM
  #66
Ozymandias
#firetherrien
 
Ozymandias's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Hockey Mecca
Country: Canada
Posts: 13,438
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by nittany View Post
My bad. Burke is a terrible GM. So he gets no credit for anything Vancouver did and nothing for what Anaheim did, yet Gainey gets no criticism for where Montreal is right now?

And I should get a clue? ****
Wow. You are not on the quick side, huh?

Refer back to another post. I never said Burke is a bad GM, I said that there are several GMs, including BG, that I see in front of him. But now that you see that your pitiful argumentation has been deconstructed to a pulp, you try to reverse the paradigm.

This all started with you saying that Burke was a "real" GM and that the Leafs will be better than the habs sooner than not. We showed you that there is as much criticism to be put on his lap than Gainey, and that success as a GM is a question of being in the right environment. You tried to invent good moves by Burke, but rather showed your lack of knowledge about hockey events, even, rather close events in terms of years.

Now as for giving criticism for where the Habs are right now, maybe you should calm down, or go back into the cave you go hide to when things are going smoothly for the Habs, because only three weeks ago, the Habs were at the end of a 14-2-1 sequence and were top 5 in the East, all that with a team that had many many injuries. Also, take a look at the 2002-2003 Habs roster. Maybe then you will be thankful of what Gainey has done. But I doubt that. You sincerily don't sound like a Habs fan. You rather sound like some Réjean Trembly wannabe. Lemme guess... your true team is the Nordics, right?

Ozymandias is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-10-2009, 03:41 PM
  #67
gusfring
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 6,917
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozymandias View Post
Wow. You are not on the quick side, huh?

Refer back to another post. I never said Burke is a bad GM, I said that there are several GMs, including BG, that I see in front of him. But now that you see that your pitiful argumentation has been deconstructed to a pulp, you try to reverse the paradigm.

This all started with you saying that Burke was a "real" GM and that the Leafs will be better than the habs sooner than not. We showed you that there is as much criticism to be put on his lap than Gainey, and that success as a GM is a question of being in the right environment. You tried to invent good moves by Burke, but rather showed your lack of knowledge about hockey events, even, rather close events in terms of years.

Now as for giving criticism for where the Habs are right now, maybe you should calm down, or go back into the cave you go hide to when things are going smoothly for the Habs, because only three weeks ago, the Habs were at the end of a 14-2-1 sequence and were top 5 in the East, all that with a team that had many many injuries. Also, take a look at the 2002-2003 Habs roster. Maybe then you will be thankful of what Gainey has done. But I doubt that. You sincerily don't sound like a Habs fan. You rather sound like some Réjean Trembly wannabe. Lemme guess... your true team is the Nordics, right?
I think Burke is better. That's my opinion. Facts over the last 5-6 years prove that. His teams have been better than Bob's. By far.

Bob has not been able to address the needs of this team since he has been here and right now the organization is in a terrible position, contract wise. If you can't see that, that's fine.

Keep your rose coloured glasses on tight.

gusfring is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-10-2009, 03:55 PM
  #68
ECWHSWI
Spartan mic'
 
ECWHSWI's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 17,532
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by nittany View Post
I think Burke is better. That's my opinion. Facts over the last 5-6 years prove that. His teams have been better than Bob's. By far.

Bob has not been able to address the needs of this team since he has been here and right now the organization is in a terrible position, contract wise. If you can't see that, that's fine.

Keep your rose coloured glasses on tight.

examples please ?

and huh, make sure you write things that are true at least...

ECWHSWI is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-10-2009, 04:03 PM
  #69
Ozymandias
#firetherrien
 
Ozymandias's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Hockey Mecca
Country: Canada
Posts: 13,438
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by nittany View Post
I think Burke is better. That's my opinion. Facts over the last 5-6 years prove that. His teams have been better than Bob's. By far.

Bob has not been able to address the needs of this team since he has been here and right now the organization is in a terrible position, contract wise. If you can't see that, that's fine.

Keep your rose coloured glasses on tight.
Not rose colored glasses, just plain glasses that let me see clearly, which is clearly something you outta be looking into, I mean, buy some.

Being logical is not having rose colored glasses. And you are quite arrogant to have the audacity to say such a thing after all the facts and arguments several of us have givin you about Burke. We provided FACTS. You provided assumptions, such as Burke trading for Luongo. So by this, we can see that our opinions are informed, while yours is based only on, well, god knows what, probably the fact that you don't like Gainey and the fact that you like Burke, seeing no further than simplistic facts.

You say he's better because his teams have been doing better?? Sorry, but that's such a pathetic contrived argument.

In 2003-2004, Gainey inherited a down and out team, that hadn't made the playoffs in three years, and then they did make the playoffs, going in the second round.

That same season, the Canucks were eliminated in the 1st round and the owners didn't renew Burke's contract.

In 2005-2006, it was the second year of the rebuild for the Habs, and once again they made the playoffs. Gainey was 2 in 2 for the playoffs, when he inherited a team that was absolutely atrocious.

In 2005-2006, Burke inherited a team that was much more in shape than what Gainey inherited (in fact, they had made the Stanley cup final 2 years before he got the team). The Ducks and Habs had a very similar record in regular season, while the Ducks were eliminated in the 3rd round.

The year after, the Ducks win the cup, with a lot of elements already in place, and other elements we've already talked about.

Habs got eliminated before the playoffs that year.

Last season, Ducks finished with two points less than the Habs and were eliminated in the 1st round, while the Habs lasted till the 2nd round of the playoffs.

This season, the Leafs dont seem to be doing any better than the Habs. And before he left Anaheim, the Ducks weren,t doing better than the Habs.

It's pretty close all in all. But you have to look a bit further than results. You have to consider what they have done in their tenure and what kinda of components they had to deal with, and Gainey's job was by far the hardest. That's why your opinions doesn't hold much weight, because it is based on simplistic reasoning without even scratching the surface of the truth.

Oh and why don't you do like I said, check the rosters of the Habs of 2002-2003 and the present roster and tell me Gainey hasn't improved this team.

You can GTFO now.

Ozymandias is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-10-2009, 07:15 PM
  #70
gusfring
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 6,917
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozymandias View Post
Not rose colored glasses, just plain glasses that let me see clearly, which is clearly something you outta be looking into, I mean, buy some.

Being logical is not having rose colored glasses. And you are quite arrogant to have the audacity to say such a thing after all the facts and arguments several of us have givin you about Burke. We provided FACTS. You provided assumptions, such as Burke trading for Luongo. So by this, we can see that our opinions are informed, while yours is based only on, well, god knows what, probably the fact that you don't like Gainey and the fact that you like Burke, seeing no further than simplistic facts.

You say he's better because his teams have been doing better?? Sorry, but that's such a pathetic contrived argument.

In 2003-2004, Gainey inherited a down and out team, that hadn't made the playoffs in three years, and then they did make the playoffs, going in the second round.

That same season, the Canucks were eliminated in the 1st round and the owners didn't renew Burke's contract.

In 2005-2006, it was the second year of the rebuild for the Habs, and once again they made the playoffs. Gainey was 2 in 2 for the playoffs, when he inherited a team that was absolutely atrocious.

In 2005-2006, Burke inherited a team that was much more in shape than what Gainey inherited (in fact, they had made the Stanley cup final 2 years before he got the team). The Ducks and Habs had a very similar record in regular season, while the Ducks were eliminated in the 3rd round.

The year after, the Ducks win the cup, with a lot of elements already in place, and other elements we've already talked about.

Habs got eliminated before the playoffs that year.

Last season, Ducks finished with two points less than the Habs and were eliminated in the 1st round, while the Habs lasted till the 2nd round of the playoffs.

This season, the Leafs dont seem to be doing any better than the Habs. And before he left Anaheim, the Ducks weren,t doing better than the Habs.

It's pretty close all in all. But you have to look a bit further than results. You have to consider what they have done in their tenure and what kinda of components they had to deal with, and Gainey's job was by far the hardest. That's why your opinions doesn't hold much weight, because it is based on simplistic reasoning without even scratching the surface of the truth.

Oh and why don't you do like I said, check the rosters of the Habs of 2002-2003 and the present roster and tell me Gainey hasn't improved this team.

You can GTFO now.
Burke won a cup 2 years ago. FACT. And if you think it just "fell in his lap" you are delusional. After Burke left Anaheim he was highly sought after by teams.

Yes, the roster has improved but it hasn't resulted in tangible results. One year where everything goes well and you win the conference was a great accomplishment, but barely beating the 8th place and then stinking against Philly was a disappointment.

Also, Gainey has this team in a terrible position with respect to free agency. He has a bunch of free agents and has a proven record of not being able to attract any.

BTW, does putting "GTFO" at the end of your messages make you some kind of tough guy or something? I don't get it.

gusfring is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-10-2009, 07:31 PM
  #71
JAVO16
Registered User
 
JAVO16's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Montréal
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,019
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Habs 4 Life View Post
I'm mad cause they gamble on Kostitsyn(health issues) when they already knew some of those guys we're going to be superstars.Anyways not just the Habs made mistakes on that draft year
Lol, that's right, everyone knew these guys we're going to be superstars.

JAVO16 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-10-2009, 10:33 PM
  #72
Hermamoud
Registered User
 
Hermamoud's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Country: Vietnam
Posts: 2,133
vCash: 500
I think Gainey built a good team over the years, but how can a GM predict that 95% of his roster would bomb this season? Should it be a requirement for GMs these days to have a degree in sports psychology?

And coming back to criticizing Timmins' pick, it's very unfair to compare Andrei Kostitsyn with Burns, Getzlaf or Parise. Those 3 players are playing their fourth year in the NHL, while Andrei Kostitsyn is only playing his 2nd full year, not getting nearly the ice time that those other players get.

It's a bit like when Boston traded Thornton. Back in 2006, everybody agreed to say that San Jose just robbed Boston. But now, the trade looks pretty even, Boston managed to acquire Sturm, Ference and Kobasew (after trading Stuart and Primeau), who are three very important components in their team. People jump to conclusions too quickly, it takes years to evaluate hockey deals and decisions.

Honestly, if you had the 1993 1st overall pick (at that time), wouldn't you have picked Daigle?

Hermamoud is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-10-2009, 11:26 PM
  #73
trobby
Registered User
 
trobby's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Ottawa
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,309
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadian_Brewtality View Post
Look around the NHL, WHO TRADES? No one.
Lot's of teams trade. According to Eklund there are 12 trades a day. Just today I saw a rumor with Souray going to 6-8 different NHL teams, and 6-7 KHL teams (E4 ++)



I agree it is rare to make your team Stanley Cup contenders with trades.
To add to that, most teams that win the Cup have goalies they drafted or worked through their system.

trobby is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-10-2009, 11:47 PM
  #74
windycity
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Well duh
Posts: 3,608
vCash: 500
It's all Gainey's fault. If he was even half-way decent as a GM he would have invented a time machine and gone back in time and fixed our draft mistakes. But nooooooo, he has to play it conservative and stick to the old-fashioned way.

windycity is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-11-2009, 12:19 AM
  #75
Kimota
Three Bananas
 
Kimota's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: La Vieille Capitale
Country: France
Posts: 22,957
vCash: 500
A trade right would be what the team needs. No doubt. I think we will never have the Kovalev for a year ago and the team we have now has exausted every possibilities.

The jury is still out about who's the better GM between Gainey and Burke with both having a Cup each as GM. Personaly though, I prefer Burke's style more. There's no screwing around with him. He doesn't allow for weaknesses. He won't be happy if his teams are successful if there's no character, for instance. The players can't hide and he doesn't tollerate softness. If he were here he would go nuclear on all the KKKKKs we have.

Kimota is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:35 AM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. ©2015 All Rights Reserved.