HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Eastern Conference > Metropolitan Division > New York Rangers
Notices

Glen Sather

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
07-06-2011, 12:13 PM
  #226
Shadowrunner
Registered User
 
Shadowrunner's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: New York City
Posts: 1,200
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to Shadowrunner Send a message via AIM to Shadowrunner
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jersey Girl View Post
Here come some statistics for ya...there are seven rounds of the draft. Rounds 2-7 have a total of 180 draft picks...30 picks per team for six rounds. So 29 (I left Sauer off my list of 28 because I was only listing non-Rangers) out of 180 is 16.1% chance of having an NHL career based on your small sample.

Four years of drafts equals a total of 24 picks per team for rounds 2-7...six per year. Based on your statistic of 16.1% chance of having an NHL career, four years (2005-2008) of drafts should yield 3.84 players with NHL careers. If the Rangers have THREE players (Stepan, Anisimov AND Sauer) in those four years, they've drafted BELOW average in the second round and beyond in that time frame.

See how statistics work?
I gave you three bona fide NHLers from the second round alone. Pyatt has 100+ NHL games, Hagelin will be an NHL player, and between Grachev, Kundratek and Weise, at least one of them will likely have an NHL career, maybe even all three. So when all is said and done, you're looking at 6-8 NHL players drafted in the span of 4 years in the second round or later, at least two of which are top 6 forwards and one a top 4 defenseman. Add in first-round picks like Staal, Cherry and MDZ and that's an outstanding drafting record.

Shadowrunner is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-06-2011, 12:30 PM
  #227
chosen
Registered User
 
chosen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 5,611
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shadowrunner View Post
I equated them based on similarity in size AND their rookie years. I don't see how size is somehow not an issue. It's an obstacle to overcome for any small forward.
Do you compare all players based on size? To me that is insanely ridiculous. St. Louis and mza have nothing to do with each other other than their stature.

Mza might become something, but mentioning him with a star is ******** at this point.

chosen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-06-2011, 12:38 PM
  #228
Shadowrunner
Registered User
 
Shadowrunner's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: New York City
Posts: 1,200
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to Shadowrunner Send a message via AIM to Shadowrunner
Quote:
Originally Posted by chosen View Post
Do you compare all players based on size? To me that is insanely ridiculous. St. Louis and mza have nothing to do with each other other than their stature.

Mza might become something, but mentioning him with a star is ******** at this point.
That's the whole point, which you missed completely. MSL was nowhere near a star for quite a few seasons before he developed into one of the league's premier forwards. He was waived by his team, etc.

Comparatively, MZA has had a better rookie year than MSL. It doesn't mean he'll have anywhere near MSL's career, but it's encouraging to see, considering they both have similar challenges to overcome.

Shadowrunner is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-06-2011, 01:09 PM
  #229
NHRangerfan
enfoonts
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: New Hampshire
Country: United States
Posts: 3,091
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shadowrunner View Post
That's the whole point, which you missed completely. MSL was nowhere near a star for quite a few seasons before he developed into one of the league's premier forwards. He was waived by his team, etc.

Comparatively, MZA has had a better rookie year than MSL. It doesn't mean he'll have anywhere near MSL's career, but it's encouraging to see, considering they both have similar challenges to overcome.
Methinks you're stretching the St. Louis thing a little, he played 13, 56 and 78 games his first 3 seasons and he was 18-22-40 in the 3rd season which was really his 1st full season, the guy had a pedigree, in college he was a 3 time Hobey Baker finalist and had 200+ pts in 139 college games, and was a PPG player in the AHL. I wouldn't really count it as a knock that he was released by that buffoon Dick Button.

NHRangerfan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-06-2011, 01:36 PM
  #230
Shadowrunner
Registered User
 
Shadowrunner's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: New York City
Posts: 1,200
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to Shadowrunner Send a message via AIM to Shadowrunner
Quote:
Originally Posted by NHRangerfan View Post
Methinks you're stretching the St. Louis thing a little, he played 13, 56 and 78 games his first 3 seasons and he was 18-22-40 in the 3rd season which was really his 1st full season, the guy had a pedigree, in college he was a 3 time Hobey Baker finalist and had 200+ pts in 139 college games, and was a PPG player in the AHL. I wouldn't really count it as a knock that he was released by that buffoon Dick Button.
That actually helps prove my account. MSL had lots of talent coming in, but it took him a while to adapt and excel at the NHL level. (By the way, I think 56 games qualifies as a rookie season according to HF.) Similarly, people shouldn't dismiss MZA's potential on account of an inconsistent but fairly successful rookie season.

Shadowrunner is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-06-2011, 03:27 PM
  #231
dedalus
Registered User
 
dedalus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 7,215
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wolskii View Post
He has made a some good signings as well however IMO the bad still outweighs the good and that prevents the word excellent from being used with Sather.
I would say the fact that the team has never moved past the second round under his stewardship prevents the word "excellent" from being used with Sather.

dedalus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-06-2011, 03:32 PM
  #232
Jersey Girl
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 3,900
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shadowrunner View Post
I gave you three bona fide NHLers from the second round alone. Pyatt has 100+ NHL games, Hagelin will be an NHL player, and between Grachev, Kundratek and Weise, at least one of them will likely have an NHL career, maybe even all three. So when all is said and done, you're looking at 6-8 NHL players drafted in the span of 4 years in the second round or later, at least two of which are top 6 forwards and one a top 4 defenseman. Add in first-round picks like Staal, Cherry and MDZ and that's an outstanding drafting record.
OK if you're going to add Rangers you've decided will 'likely' have an NHL career, you have to add all the other players you've never heard of (because they're not on the Rangers) who will also likely have an NHL career. Chances are very good the same ratio will exist.

See how statistics work?

Don't claim Cherepanov (we'll unfortunately never know), or MDZ (we don't know yet) as success right now. Over a period of the four years you mentioned you have Staal for sure, and hopefully Stepan as very good players. Anisimov has upside, but let's wait and see. Sauer is a third pairing defenseman, not sure how much upside he has. MDZ may or may not be successful.

Like I said, not terrible. But if you want to call that excellent, you're just looking at things with your Ranger glasses on.


Last edited by Jersey Girl: 07-06-2011 at 03:47 PM.
Jersey Girl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-06-2011, 03:32 PM
  #233
Shadowrunner
Registered User
 
Shadowrunner's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: New York City
Posts: 1,200
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to Shadowrunner Send a message via AIM to Shadowrunner
Quote:
Originally Posted by dedalus View Post
I would say the fact that the team has never moved past the second round under his stewardship prevents the word "excellent" from being used with Sather.
The Kings haven't won a playoff series in 10 years. Is Lombardi a bad GM?

Shadowrunner is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-06-2011, 03:38 PM
  #234
dedalus
Registered User
 
dedalus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 7,215
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shadowrunner View Post
The Kings haven't won a playoff series in 10 years. Is Lombardi a bad GM?
Is he an excellent one?

That IS what I was replying to - your attempt to divert the conversation notwithstanding.

dedalus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-06-2011, 03:49 PM
  #235
Shadowrunner
Registered User
 
Shadowrunner's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: New York City
Posts: 1,200
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to Shadowrunner Send a message via AIM to Shadowrunner
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jersey Girl View Post
OK if you're going to add Rangers you've decided will 'likely' have an NHL career, you have to add all the other players you've never heard of (because they're not on the Rangers) who will also likely have an NHL career. Chances are very good the same ratio will exist.

See how statistics work?
Faulty logic. The 3.84 players per 4 years statistic is what you came up with having analyzed the 2005 draft six years ago. It's highly unlikely that anyone from that draft year who hasn't broken into the NHL by now will do so.

Of course there are still players drafted in 2006-2008 who will yet break into the NHL. The point is when that when they do, the "average" number of players will still come out to somewhere around 3.84, give or take. Do you follow? Whereas the number of NYR draftees will be at least 5, likely 6-7 and as many as 8. More importantly, among those 5-8 you have impact players, which make the picks all the more impressive.

Shadowrunner is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-06-2011, 03:52 PM
  #236
Shadowrunner
Registered User
 
Shadowrunner's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: New York City
Posts: 1,200
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to Shadowrunner Send a message via AIM to Shadowrunner
Quote:
Originally Posted by dedalus View Post
Is he an excellent one?

That IS what I was replying to - your attempt to divert the conversation notwithstanding.
I'm not trying to divert the conversation at all, just pointing out the flaw in your logic. The direction of the team matters. I'd much rather have the Kings roster than the Flyers, despite the former's longstanding playoff drought and the latter's recent successes.

And yes, I consider Lombardi to be an excellent GM.

Shadowrunner is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-06-2011, 03:54 PM
  #237
Brooklyn Ranger
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Brooklyn, of course
Posts: 7,681
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shadowrunner View Post
With all due respect (and kudos to a Kevin Smith reference), this relates to my comment about lacking knowledge. There was an excellent thread recently that provided actual statistics on how many first and second rounders make it in the NHL, and compared our drafting over the last number of years against the teams that picked 10 spots after us (this provided context for the prospect pool we were working with).

What it showed that, statistically, NYR was far and above more successful than any of those teams with our draft picks. Sangs was a bust, Cherry probably would have been an absolutely steal (RIP, we'll never know), but plucking guys like Sauer and Stepan in the second round is a bona fide slam dunk. You simply don't know statistics, that's why you can't appreciate how good the drafting has been.
It is too early to say that Sauer and Stepan are "a bona fide slam dunk." They have played one season in the NHL. Was it a good first year--absolutely. But, one season does not mean they will have successful careers or get any better than they are now. Making the NHL is only the first step.

And as far as needing to rely on statistics to know how "good" the drafting has been...as far as I'm concerned that's only one piece of the puzzle. Hockey is played on the ice, not on paper. Statistics are great for fantasy teams, but I watch real teams play real games and go from there.

Brooklyn Ranger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-06-2011, 03:58 PM
  #238
Bleed Ranger Blue
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 14,723
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shadowrunner View Post
The point is when that when they do, the "average" number of players will still come out to somewhere around 3.84, give or take. Do you follow? Whereas the number of NYR draftees will be at least 5, likely 6-7 and as many as 8..
You really think all the higher rated Ranger prospects are going to be consistent NHL'ers??? Well, I suppose when you think Jesper Fasth has NHL 1st liner upside, then anythings possible.

Noone is arguing that the Rangers have improved their drafting. What I, and many other posters have taken issue with is your use of the word "excellent" when it comes to post-lockout Sather. You ignore the mediocre place in the standings, you virtually ignore his abysmal free agent signings, and you point to all that NHL talent he's amassed.

Truth of the matter is some of those guys won't make the NHL, and the even sadder truth is none are elite and several are redundant.

Mediocre? Yup. Good? Eh, if Im in a good mood. Excellent? NO WAY

Bleed Ranger Blue is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-06-2011, 04:01 PM
  #239
Jersey Girl
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 3,900
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shadowrunner View Post
Faulty logic. The 3.84 players per 4 years statistic is what you came up with having analyzed the 2005 draft six years ago. It's highly unlikely that anyone from that draft year who hasn't broken into the NHL by now will do so.

Of course there are still players drafted in 2006-2008 who will yet break into the NHL. The point is when that when they do, the "average" number of players will still come out to somewhere around 3.84, give or take. Do you follow? Whereas the number of NYR draftees will be at least 5, likely 6-7 and as many as 8. More importantly, among those 5-8 you have impact players, which make the picks all the more impressive.
There is nothing based in fact to state that the number will be at least five. Or even 6-7 or 8. That's pure conjecture. Who?

Right now the Rangers have three players from those drafts taken in rounds 2-7 in the NHL. There is as much chance of that growing to five as there is at that staying at three. Likely 6-7 is being just completely wishful.


Last edited by Jersey Girl: 07-06-2011 at 04:08 PM.
Jersey Girl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-06-2011, 04:03 PM
  #240
Shadowrunner
Registered User
 
Shadowrunner's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: New York City
Posts: 1,200
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to Shadowrunner Send a message via AIM to Shadowrunner
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brooklyn Ranger View Post
It is too early to say that Sauer and Stepan are "a bona fide slam dunk." They have played one season in the NHL. Was it a good first year--absolutely. But, one season does not mean they will have successful careers or get any better than they are now. Making the NHL is only the first step.
The fact that they're playing in the NHL, successfully, makes it a successful pick, and in part a reflection of the player's proper development. As far as the careers they will go on to have, that's another matter.

[QUOTE=And as far as needing to rely on statistics to know how "good" the drafting has been...as far as I'm concerned that's only one piece of the puzzle. Hockey is played on the ice, not on paper. Statistics are great for fantasy teams, but I watch real teams play real games and go from there.[/QUOTE]

One has nothing to do with the other. The Islanders were a terrible team in the 90s, but it doesn't take away from the fact that they drafted very well (With Gordie at the helm, incidentally). So, of course it's only one piece of the puzzle. But the whole argument I'm having with Jersey Girl is about this very piece, and statistics is the most objective and non-biased way of evaluating it.

Shadowrunner is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-06-2011, 04:07 PM
  #241
Shadowrunner
Registered User
 
Shadowrunner's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: New York City
Posts: 1,200
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to Shadowrunner Send a message via AIM to Shadowrunner
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jersey Girl View Post
There is nothing based in fact to state that the number will be at least five. Or even 6-7 or 8. That's pure conjecture.

Right now the Rangers have three players from those drafts in the NHL. There is as much chance of that growing to five as there is at that staying at three. Likely 6-7 is being just completely wishful. Can it happen? Sure. Will it happen? Let's wait and see. But don't count it until it happens. It may not.
At this time there are four, you're forgetting Pyatt. Hagelin is extremely likely to make it as a 3rd or at least a 4th liner, that's five. It's not wishful to expect at least one of Grachev, Kundratek or Weise to make it, but whatever. I think my point has been made.

And I didn't count Del Zotto or any other first rounder.

Shadowrunner is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-06-2011, 04:13 PM
  #242
Jersey Girl
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 3,900
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shadowrunner View Post
At this time there are four, you're forgetting Pyatt. Hagelin is extremely likely to make it as a 3rd or at least a 4th liner, that's five. It's not wishful to expect at least one of Grachev, Kundratek or Weise to make it, but whatever. I think my point has been made.
OK I'll give you Pyatt. The definition of a 'fringe' player. That's four. That's average.

Hagelin, Grachev, Kundratek and Weise are very much reaches. Definitely possible none of them will be NHL regulars.

Jersey Girl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-06-2011, 04:13 PM
  #243
dedalus
Registered User
 
dedalus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 7,215
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shadowrunner View Post
I'm not trying to divert the conversation at all, just pointing out the flaw in your logic.
Since I've offered no logic, you're most certainly not commenting on any flaw in my logic. Rather, you simply don't like my assessment.

And yes, when you compare a GM who has helmed a team for HALF the time Glen Sather has helmed the Rangers, you're comparing apples to oranges. If it was not your intent to divert to the conversation, fine, but that is still the outcome when you present a false analogy.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Shadowrunner View Post
The direction of the team matters.
In your opinion. That's perfectly alright.

I daresay many fans of sport, perhaps most, would say that the GM should be evaluated on the success of the team he presents, year in and year out. His job, even by any GM's definition, is, after all, not to construct a team that will merely please a given sub-group of fans - in this case those attached to prospects.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Shadowrunner View Post
I'd much rather have the Kings roster than the Flyers
Congratulations. I'm pretty confident the Kings organization would rather have a conference finals and a championship finals in the last five years, the term of Lombardi's service. That's what players play for, coaches coach for, and GMs live for: winning.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Shadowrunner View Post
And yes, I consider Lombardi to be an excellent GM.
I applaud your generosity. My standard of excellence is rather higher.

But in fairness to Lombardi, he hasn't had as much time to meet that standard as Glen Sather has - nor the resources for that matter. Perhaps his product will rise above the mediocrity that Sather's has thus far shown.

dedalus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-06-2011, 04:17 PM
  #244
wolfgaze
Interesting Cat
 
wolfgaze's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 12,054
vCash: 500
Post-lockout (and a couple years immediately preceding), Rangers have drafted quite well (given their positions) and fared well on the trade front. Sather, as General Manager, gets credit for that. Some of the high profile UFA signings were pretty awful though, so he gets criticism for that. In the end, Sather has been strong in some areas, weak in others. I definitely think some fans hate him for the UFA signings alone and don't want to extend him any credit for how well the organization has done drafting and retaining those younger players, or any credit for where the organization stands today (bright future IMHO). I think if I was ranking Sather post-lockout, on a scale of 1-10, all factors considered, he would be a 7.

wolfgaze is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-06-2011, 04:20 PM
  #245
Brooklyn Ranger
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Brooklyn, of course
Posts: 7,681
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shadowrunner View Post
The fact that they're playing in the NHL, successfully, makes it a successful pick, and in part a reflection of the player's proper development. As far as the careers they will go on to have, that's another matter.



One has nothing to do with the other. The Islanders were a terrible team in the 90s, but it doesn't take away from the fact that they drafted very well (With Gordie at the helm, incidentally). So, of course it's only one piece of the puzzle. But the whole argument I'm having with Jersey Girl is about this very piece, and statistics is the most objective and non-biased way of evaluating it.
Sorry, we're arguing apples and oranges here. For me what matters happens on the ice. You're talking as if making the NHL is more important than winning in the NHL. And so far, while Sather and Co. have improved the level of prospects in the organization via the draft over the last 7 drafts, as far as I'm concerned, there's a lot of potential, but the jury is still out.

Argue about the statistics proving me wrong all you want, it's not going to change the fact that Stepan and Sauer have just played their first NHL season (and Anisimov just finished his 2nd) and have not proved anything more than that. It's not going to change the fact that we only have one homegrown full time first rounder on the team. And it's not going to change the fact that the Rangers have not had any real success in the playoffs the whole time Sather has been here.

Statistically speaking, Sather should have been fired years ago.

Brooklyn Ranger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-06-2011, 04:23 PM
  #246
NHRangerfan
enfoonts
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: New Hampshire
Country: United States
Posts: 3,091
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shadowrunner View Post
That actually helps prove my account. MSL had lots of talent coming in, but it took him a while to adapt and excel at the NHL level. (By the way, I think 56 games qualifies as a rookie season according to HF.) Similarly, people shouldn't dismiss MZA's potential on account of an inconsistent but fairly successful rookie season.
I don't think that proves your point but if you want to look strictly at stats then you are 1000% correct...but I think there are lots of variables TOI, PP Time, etc...lets face it for a rookie MZA got some primo ice time.

My $.02 because people don't agree with putting MZA in the same sentence as MSL doesn't mean they think he is a bust, just means we have been down this road before with prospects, some of us are from Missouri

I happen to think the kid is very talented, has great ice vision, is fearless and has the heart of a lion but he needs to get stronger on his skates to be really succesful in the NHL.

NHRangerfan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-06-2011, 04:34 PM
  #247
Shadowrunner
Registered User
 
Shadowrunner's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: New York City
Posts: 1,200
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to Shadowrunner Send a message via AIM to Shadowrunner
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brooklyn Ranger View Post
Sorry, we're arguing apples and oranges here. For me what matters happens on the ice. You're talking as if making the NHL is more important than winning in the NHL. And so far, while Sather and Co. have improved the level of prospects in the organization via the draft over the last 7 drafts, as far as I'm concerned, there's a lot of potential, but the jury is still out.

Argue about the statistics proving me wrong all you want, it's not going to change the fact that Stepan and Sauer have just played their first NHL season (and Anisimov just finished his 2nd) and have not proved anything more than that. It's not going to change the fact that we only have one homegrown full time first rounder on the team. And it's not going to change the fact that the Rangers have not had any real success in the playoffs the whole time Sather has been here.

Statistically speaking, Sather should have been fired years ago.
Firstly, I'm getting tired of people calling Stepan and AA unproven. They were #42 and #44 in scoring among centers this season, respectively. This already makes them "average" second liners, with plenty of room to grow.

Secondly, both to you and Dedalus, for the millionth time, no one is arguing that Sather was awful pre lockout, and I wanted him gone as well. I don't anymore. I find that the team's current direction more than makes up for his blunders earlier in his tenure. In fact, were Sather to be fired today, I'd be extremely worried about the team's future.

Shadowrunner is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-06-2011, 04:38 PM
  #248
Shadowrunner
Registered User
 
Shadowrunner's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: New York City
Posts: 1,200
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to Shadowrunner Send a message via AIM to Shadowrunner
I want to add some levity to this debate:

Stepan and AA both outscored Scott Gomez this season, who finished with 7 goals and 38 points

Shadowrunner is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-06-2011, 04:46 PM
  #249
Pizza
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 9,917
vCash: 500
OK, that is funny. I'm so glad Gomez is gone and that we actually got a return on him in McD. That was one of Sather's better moments.

Pizza is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-06-2011, 04:48 PM
  #250
Glen Teflon Sather
Like A Boss
 
Glen Teflon Sather's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Bloomfield, NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 4,853
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Glen Teflon Sather
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jagr68NYR94Leetch View Post
I think this is a good thread to start.

I really think he has improved every year. He has made mistakes along the way but he has followed them up with some great maneuvering. He has done amazing job imo.
Some of you rangers fans absolutely kill me. We are talking about a guy who has been riding Gretzky's coattails for 31+ yrs. If slats had been the GM with any oorganization other than the rangers, he would have been fired before the lockout. The man is completely out of touch with what works in the new nhl or have we all forgotten about his ufa signings of gomer, dru, wadie, brashear, and boogard? It is really time for him to move on, but with his bosom buddy dolan running things, slats has a job for life. He did do one good thing though, he traded mess to us for nichols, rice and debrusk thereby giving us the only cup we've won in 71 years!

Glen Teflon Sather 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 01:56 AM.

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

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2014 All Rights Reserved.