HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Eastern Conference > Atlantic Division > Toronto Maple Leafs
Notices

Leafs win in Home Finale 3-2 OT.

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
04-06-2012, 07:54 PM
  #326
beauchamp
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Laval, Qc
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,943
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Holy Mackinaw View Post
(...)
1993 Montreal ?????
(...)
Muller 2nd 1984 NJ
Bellows 2nd 1982 MIN
Savard 3rd 1980 CHI
Ramage 1st 1979 COL

beauchamp is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-06-2012, 11:04 PM
  #327
Durkin67
Leaf Opinionist
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Canada/Africa
Posts: 2,949
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Holy Mackinaw View Post
And on this we can all agree. Detroit is not the norm but more the exception.

As for your comparisons, again, you are missing the point. If ifs ands and buts were candy and nuts, we'd all have a Merry Christmas. It is easy to sandbag and go back in time "Well, you could have had..."

That it is why it is a draft. It is about taking a chance and, hopefully, rely on your scouts. There are more than 200 players drafted each year. Outside the top 5, it is always easy to go back, look at those 200 other players and saying "Well, they should have taken this guy..." It is easy to cherry pick to suit your argument that way.

Top-5 picks, historically, are where you are going to get your stars. Of the current nine top point leaders in the NHL, seven are top 5 picks. 4/5 goal scorers and 3/5 assist leaders are top 5 picks. This isn't rocket science. This is fact.

You can sandbag your argument any way you want. The numbers don't lie, just as they don't lie with my chart of Stanley Cup champions and top 5 picks drafted by those teams. We pro top-5 crowd are given five chances to give you a list of stars and reasons why drafting in the top 5, for argument's sakes, is more beneficail; you guys have 200 players ayear to choose from, we have five. So, yes, you are more likely to win the draft crapshoot by picking high. Hindsight and going back to say "You should have taken Richards" is a moot argument. You, me and scouts for 30 NHL teams could say the same thing.

I am not "for" the Leafs tanking on purpose, but I want a top-5 pick and if they lose, I am not going to be as upset as I was when the Isles knocked the Leafs out by wining the shootout vs Jersey a few years back. So, yes, winning these games are meaningless at this point in the year. We have a chance to get a superstar player to build our team around, and that has me looking forward to the draft this year. I hope we don't get the seventh pick. I hope we get the fourth.



Of your top nine ONE has a cup ring. Lets look at the nine just below that group and see what we can learn...

-Of the following nine you can find an additional four cup winners, none of whom went in the top 5.

-Of the overall group of 18, exactly half are top 5 picks (6 of the top nine, and 8 of the top 18, went either 1st or 2nd) and account for a total of 764 points.

-The other half account for 706 of the total 1470 points awarded. Not a single player in this group was a top ten pick, let alone top 5.

-The top 5 group, and their one stanley cup ring, average 84.8 points per player. The median number of points is 81. The range, or difference between the highest and the lowest point totals is 31

-Of the other group and its 4 cup rings among 9 players, the average is 78.4 and the median number is 77. the range is 20 points.

-The combined salary of your top 5 group, who account for 1 cup, is 59.71 million dollars. Average salary is 6.63

The second group and its 4 cups combine for 38.37 million. The average salary being 4.26


CONCLUSIONS:

Five of the top 5 group produced at a point a game or higher over their careers. Of the second group, the five best averaged around .87 PPG

top 5 picks generally scored an average of ten goals a year more, and command over 2 million a year more in salary, while producing 75% fewer cup championships, costing 46% more of a team's overall budget than group 2 .

We could assume that more productive players generally equate to greater overall success. But that would not be the case. in the top 5 group, 6 players play on teams which have a shot at making the playoffs. Three play for teams who won't see post season play. The median position in the standings of this group is 7th place in their conference.

In the second group, players on 7 teams are likely to qualify for post season. The median position in the standings among this group is 6th.

I see no clear cut advantage that the top 5 class holds. Overall, Group A scores more goals, costs more money, yet has yielded fewer champions, and has fewer members qualifying for the playoffs, while representing an increase in overall expense which is disproportionate to ultimate success.

Durkin67 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-06-2012, 11:11 PM
  #328
Duke Silver
Truce?
 
Duke Silver's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: St. John's, NL
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,604
vCash: 450
According to Durkin, individual players single-handedly win championships. It has nothing to do with their surrounding cast.

My point: using championships to determine player talent is ridiculously flawed. Good gracious.

Duke Silver is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-06-2012, 11:16 PM
  #329
Durkin67
Leaf Opinionist
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Canada/Africa
Posts: 2,949
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Duke Silver View Post
According to Durkin, individual players single-handedly win championships. It has nothing to do with their surrounding cast.

My point: using championships to determine player talent is ridiculously flawed. Good gracious.


MY POINT using player talent, (if thats how you describe top 5 picks) to determine championships is ridiculously flawed. The other party in this discussion contends that top 5 talent is critical to success. I argue that it is not, and that history supports my position.

Durkin67 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-06-2012, 11:19 PM
  #330
Duke Silver
Truce?
 
Duke Silver's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: St. John's, NL
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,604
vCash: 450
Quote:
Originally Posted by Durkin67 View Post
MY POINT using player talent, (if thats how you describe top 5 picks) to determine championships is ridiculously flawed. The other party in this discussion contends that top 5 talent is critical to success. I argue that it is not, and that history supports my position.
Sorry to wrongly attribute that standpoint to you.

I'm glad we're on the same page, in that regard.

Duke Silver is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-06-2012, 11:26 PM
  #331
Durkin67
Leaf Opinionist
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Canada/Africa
Posts: 2,949
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Duke Silver View Post
Sorry to wrongly attribute that standpoint to you.

I'm glad we're on the same page, in that regard.
No harm done. Who wouldn't want a top 5 pick...I just refuse to frame our entire future as an organization on playing the draft lottery.

If you had a family to support, the majority would go out and get a job and earn a living, squirrel some cash away, pay your bills, keep the credit payments to a minimum, not underachieve on purpose, maybe get a welfare cheque and go buy lottery tickets hoping that lightning will strike.Thats what the whole draft lottery thing is like to me.

Not a perfect analogy, and certainly not a generalization about people who require government assistance, but the point is valid.

Durkin67 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-07-2012, 01:05 AM
  #332
MorriPage
Registered User
 
MorriPage's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Earth
Country: Canada
Posts: 679
vCash: 500
It comes down to scouting, good drafting and talent development. It's nice to have those top 5 picks, can't-miss prospects, and the shiny toys, but finding the hidden gems and diamonds in the rough in the later rounds (ex. Detroit) can make the difference between a perennial winner and a perennial loser.

MorriPage is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-07-2012, 09:13 AM
  #333
Holy Mackinaw
Registered User
 
Holy Mackinaw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: GTA, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,401
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Durkin67 View Post
MY POINT using player talent, (if thats how you describe top 5 picks) to determine championships is ridiculously flawed. The other party in this discussion contends that top 5 talent is critical to success. I argue that it is not, and that history supports my position.
Good god, you think I mean induvidual players wins Cups? Teams win championships. Check out my Stanley Cup champions list and top 5 picks drafted by those teams. You don't think most of those DRAFTED players played integral roles in those Cups? The facts do not lie. HIstory does not support your position.

You are likely to find a franchise player drafting in the top 5. That is my sole point. How many GMs set to pick 15th, 20th, 25th are thinking they can get a franchise-altering player at that slot? Now how many in the top 5 have that same attitude?

We are not talking about building the intangiibles around that player to win a championship. If you don't think the odds of finding that player in the top 5 -- instead of cherry picking your other 200 player after the fact and saying so and so should have drafed so and so instead -- are heavily weighted in favour, I don't know what else to say.

I am not saying top 5 picks will win a Cup themselves. If that is you interpretation, it's no wonder we are going back and forth on this.

CONCLUSION: You are more likely to get a franchise player in the top 5. What you do to support that player is in the disrection of the GM. THAT is the point. It's really not that hard to understand.

Holy Mackinaw is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-07-2012, 09:31 AM
  #334
Gatorade*
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 3,579
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Durkin67 View Post
Of your top nine ONE has a cup ring. Lets look at the nine just below that group and see what we can learn...

-Of the following nine you can find an additional four cup winners, none of whom went in the top 5.

-Of the overall group of 18, exactly half are top 5 picks (6 of the top nine, and 8 of the top 18, went either 1st or 2nd) and account for a total of 764 points.

-The other half account for 706 of the total 1470 points awarded. Not a single player in this group was a top ten pick, let alone top 5.

-The top 5 group, and their one stanley cup ring, average 84.8 points per player. The median number of points is 81. The range, or difference between the highest and the lowest point totals is 31

-Of the other group and its 4 cup rings among 9 players, the average is 78.4 and the median number is 77. the range is 20 points.

-The combined salary of your top 5 group, who account for 1 cup, is 59.71 million dollars. Average salary is 6.63

The second group and its 4 cups combine for 38.37 million. The average salary being 4.26


CONCLUSIONS:

Five of the top 5 group produced at a point a game or higher over their careers. Of the second group, the five best averaged around .87 PPG

top 5 picks generally scored an average of ten goals a year more, and command over 2 million a year more in salary, while producing 75% fewer cup championships, costing 46% more of a team's overall budget than group 2 .

We could assume that more productive players generally equate to greater overall success. But that would not be the case. in the top 5 group, 6 players play on teams which have a shot at making the playoffs. Three play for teams who won't see post season play. The median position in the standings of this group is 7th place in their conference.

In the second group, players on 7 teams are likely to qualify for post season. The median position in the standings among this group is 6th.

I see no clear cut advantage that the top 5 class holds. Overall, Group A scores more goals, costs more money, yet has yielded fewer champions, and has fewer members qualifying for the playoffs, while representing an increase in overall expense which is disproportionate to ultimate success.
What are you doing on hockey's future if you don't believe in the draft?

I can't believe you actually believe lower picks are better than lottery picks.

Gatorade* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-07-2012, 10:13 AM
  #335
Durkin67
Leaf Opinionist
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Canada/Africa
Posts: 2,949
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Holy Mackinaw View Post
Good god, you think I mean induvidual players wins Cups? Teams win championships. Check out my Stanley Cup champions list and top 5 picks drafted by those teams. You don't think most of those DRAFTED players played integral roles in those Cups? The facts do not lie. HIstory does not support your position.

You are likely to find a franchise player drafting in the top 5. That is my sole point. How many GMs set to pick 15th, 20th, 25th are thinking they can get a franchise-altering player at that slot? Now how many in the top 5 have that same attitude?

We are not talking about building the intangiibles around that player to win a championship. If you don't think the odds of finding that player in the top 5 -- instead of cherry picking your other 200 player after the fact and saying so and so should have drafed so and so instead -- are heavily weighted in favour, I don't know what else to say.

I am not saying top 5 picks will win a Cup themselves. If that is you interpretation, it's no wonder we are going back and forth on this.

CONCLUSION: You are more likely to get a franchise player in the top 5. What you do to support that player is in the disrection of the GM. THAT is the point. It's really not that hard to understand.

Happy Easter to you as well.

No, your generalization in regards to what I think you might mean about top 5 picks is not correct. You apparently contend that a top 5 pick is where you get your best chance of landing a franchise or cornerstone player to build a team around, presumably with a better shot of leading their respective clubs to a championship. History does not support that.


Heres the last 9 cup winning teams, and their 'cornerstone' player(s) with draft position

BRUINS CHARA, 56 BERGERON 45
HAWKS KANE 1 , TOEWS 3

PENS SID 1 MALKIN 2
WINGS DATSYUK 171, ZETTERBERG 210
ANAHEIM GETZ 19, PERRY 28
CANES BRINDAMOUR 9 STAAL 2
BOLTS VINNY 1 MARTY (undrafted)
DEVILS PARISE 17TH
WINGS DATSYUK ZETTERBERG


Again, no distinct advantages inherent with top 5 picks leap out...for me, anyway...


Last edited by Durkin67: 04-07-2012 at 10:23 AM.
Durkin67 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-07-2012, 10:22 AM
  #336
Holy Mackinaw
Registered User
 
Holy Mackinaw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: GTA, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,401
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Durkin67 View Post
MY POINT using player talent, (if thats how you describe top 5 picks) to determine championships is ridiculously flawed. The other party in this discussion contends that top 5 talent is critical to success. I argue that it is not, and that history supports my position.
One other point. Seeing how 1 in 30 teams wins the Cup each year, isn't your assertion somewhat ridculous, bordering on sheer ignorance?

Does that mean Stamkos isn't a valuable player to the Bolts? Or Sedin to Vancouver? Kovalchuk? Kessel? None of those players have rings, as you like to point out. As Duke said, using Stanley Cup rings to determine a player's worth is simply flawed thinking.

That is your rationale, not mine. You said there is one ring in the top nine. I never said anything of the sort. I said 7/9 top scorers are top 5 picks.

Holy Mackinaw is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-07-2012, 10:27 AM
  #337
Durkin67
Leaf Opinionist
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Canada/Africa
Posts: 2,949
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Holy Mackinaw View Post
One other point. Seeing how 1 in 30 teams wins the Cup each year, isn't your assertion somewhat ridculous, bordering on sheer ignorance?

Does that mean Stamkos isn't a valuable player to the Bolts? Or Sedin to Vancouver? Kovalchuk? Kessel? None of those players have rings, as you like to point out. As Duke said, using Stanley Cup rings to determine a player's worth is simply flawed thinking.

That is your rationale, not mine. You said there is one ring in the top nine. I never said anything of the sort. I said 7/9 top scorers are top 5 picks.

Sheer ignorance? thats how I will characterize your response. Typical tactic when on runs out of things to say. Launch a personal attack. Ive been respectful, factual,thorough, and accurate. . You're stooping by resorting to insults. We are done.

Durkin67 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-07-2012, 10:30 AM
  #338
Durkin67
Leaf Opinionist
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Canada/Africa
Posts: 2,949
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MorriPage View Post
It comes down to scouting, good drafting and talent development. It's nice to have those top 5 picks, can't-miss prospects, and the shiny toys, but finding the hidden gems and diamonds in the rough in the later rounds (ex. Detroit) can make the difference between a perennial winner and a perennial loser.
Exactly correct. And historically, those later picks can prove to be every bit the cornerstone players that their top 5 counterparts are.

Eberle went somewhere in the teens, I believe. Who wouldn't want him as a cornerstone guy in TOR?

Eberle or Luke Schenn... who has more overall impact on his respective club in the long run...

Durkin67 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-07-2012, 10:52 AM
  #339
Holy Mackinaw
Registered User
 
Holy Mackinaw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: GTA, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,401
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Durkin67 View Post
Sheer ignorance? thats how I will characterize your response. Typical tactic when on runs out of things to say. Launch a personal attack. Ive been respectful, factual,thorough, and accurate. . You're stooping by resorting to insults. We are done.
'

"Sheer ignorance" is a personall attack? Oh my. Yes, it is sheer ignorance when you claim my 7/9 top-5 reference relates in any way to Stanley Cup rings.

Fact: You are more likely to get a franchise player in the top 5 than later in the draft. History proves that. Everything else you are throwing out is just hand-picked window dressing. But yes, we are done.

Holy Mackinaw is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-07-2012, 10:55 AM
  #340
Holy Mackinaw
Registered User
 
Holy Mackinaw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: GTA, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,401
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Durkin67 View Post
Exactly correct. And historically, those later picks can prove to be every bit the cornerstone players that their top 5 counterparts are.

Eberle went somewhere in the teens, I believe. Who wouldn't want him as a cornerstone guy in TOR?

Eberle or Luke Schenn... who has more overall impact on his respective club in the long run...
So what? RNH and Hall went top 5. Think those two aren't cornerstone players?

Again, hand-picking players to support your argument.

Holy Mackinaw is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-07-2012, 10:55 AM
  #341
Durkin67
Leaf Opinionist
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Canada/Africa
Posts: 2,949
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Holy Mackinaw View Post
'

"Sheer ignorance" is a personall attack? Oh my. Yes, it is sheer ignorance when you claim my 7/9 top-5 reference relates in any way to Stanley Cup rings.

Fact: You are more likely to get a franchise player in the top 5 than later in the draft. History proves that. Everything else you are throwing out is just hand-picked window dressing. But yes, we are done.
Questioning my competence because I hold an opinion contrary to yours is pretty ignorant, yes. Data isn't window dressing. your FACT, is little more than an opinion. History proves it. I just tabled that information.

Durkin67 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-07-2012, 11:51 AM
  #342
Durkin67
Leaf Opinionist
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Canada/Africa
Posts: 2,949
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Holy Mackinaw View Post
So what? RNH and Hall went top 5. Think those two aren't cornerstone players?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Holy Mackinaw View Post

Again, hand-picking players to support your argument.
Sure, they absolutely could become cornerstone players. My position isn't that a top 5 pick won't become a cornerstone guy, it is simply that cornerstone players can, and have been found AS FREQUENTLY throughout the first round, the second round, and in a few instances, well below that.

TOP 5 DRAFT SELECTION IS NOT THE ESTABLISHED BENCHMARK FOR CORNERSTONE TALENT.

History proves that its about a 50 50 split. Colour six ways to sunday if you like, but the facts are not going to change themselves.

Durkin67 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-07-2012, 01:08 PM
  #343
Leaf4Life
Registered User
 
Leaf4Life's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 522
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Durkin67 View Post
[B]

Sure, they absolutely could become cornerstone players. My position isn't that a top 5 pick won't become a cornerstone guy, it is simply that cornerstone players can, and have been found AS FREQUENTLY throughout the first round, the second round, and in a few instances, well below that.

TOP 5 DRAFT SELECTION IS NOT THE ESTABLISHED BENCHMARK FOR CORNERSTONE TALENT.

History proves that its about a 50 50 split. Colour six ways to sunday if you like, but the facts are not going to change themselves.
So you're saying it's a 50 50 split for the number of cornerstone players coming out of the top 5 versus the 1st round, 2nd round and below?

Ok there are 5 players selected in the top 5 of a draft (obviously)
There are 90 players selected in the 1st, 2nd and 3rd rounds

That means there is 18 (90/5) times higher chance of getting a cornerstone player out of the top 5.

Thanks for re-enforcing the importance of tanking

Leaf4Life is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-07-2012, 01:47 PM
  #344
Ed Belfour
Registered User
 
Ed Belfour's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 485
vCash: 300
Is this guy actually trying to claim that later picks are better than top 5 picks? That's pretty hilarious. It is well known that franchise type guys need a good supporting cast and that comes from good drafting in the later rounds, but you have a much better chance of finding the franchise players in the top 5.

Ed Belfour is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-07-2012, 07:53 PM
  #345
Durkin67
Leaf Opinionist
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Canada/Africa
Posts: 2,949
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ed Belfour View Post
Is this guy actually trying to claim that later picks are better than top 5 picks? That's pretty hilarious. It is well known that franchise type guys need a good supporting cast and that comes from good drafting in the later rounds, but you have a much better chance of finding the franchise players in the top 5.
No, thats not what 'this guy' is trying to claim. What 'this guy' is actually doing, is presenting information that your franchise guys don't necessarily have to be top 5 picks, and the data certainly supports that. Its an even split. Not sure what the debate is here...it's pretty conclusive. Not taking anything from the Kanes, the Malkins and Eric Staals of the game, just pointing out that for every one of those, you'll find a Getzlaf, An Iginla or a Chara who does as much or more to lead their teams.

Durkin67 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-07-2012, 07:57 PM
  #346
Durkin67
Leaf Opinionist
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Canada/Africa
Posts: 2,949
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Leaf4Life View Post
So you're saying it's a 50 50 split for the number of cornerstone players coming out of the top 5 versus the 1st round, 2nd round and below?

Ok there are 5 players selected in the top 5 of a draft (obviously)
There are 90 players selected in the 1st, 2nd and 3rd rounds

That means there is 18 (90/5) times higher chance of getting a cornerstone player out of the top 5.

Thanks for re-enforcing the importance of tanking
Thats interesting logic...problem is, you have much less of a chance to pick top 5, and considering that their effectiveness is pretty much on par with non top 5 picks, its hardly worth tanking for. You have just as good of an opportunity to find your cornerstone guys elsewhere. The problem with most petulant, self entitled and short sighted Leaf fans is that they have little more than Kadri to use as a frame of reference, and cling to the hallucination that had we taken Schenn, we'd be on the road to glory by now. It just doesn't work that way.

Durkin67 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-08-2012, 09:00 AM
  #347
Holy Mackinaw
Registered User
 
Holy Mackinaw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: GTA, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,401
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Durkin67 View Post
Thats interesting logic...problem is, you have much less of a chance to pick top 5, and considering that their effectiveness is pretty much on par with non top 5 picks, its hardly worth tanking for. You have just as good of an opportunity to find your cornerstone guys elsewhere. The problem with most petulant, self entitled and short sighted Leaf fans is that they have little more than Kadri to use as a frame of reference, and cling to the hallucination that had we taken Schenn, we'd be on the road to glory by now. It just doesn't work that way.
Jesus. Short sighted? Pot, meet kettle.

At the risk of "insulting you", if that is honestly what you think the point, or the value, of a top-5 pick is, I don't know what to say. That Brayden Schenn would put us on the road to glory? Good hockey banter is fun; having you twist words around to suit your argument is quite another.

Your comprehension of my point, as well as others regarding the history of top-5 picks, speaks for itself.

I'll say this slowly, so you don't jump to conclusions. YOUR ODDS OF FINDING A FRANCHISE PLAYER (not an impact player, not a good player, a FRANCHISE PLAYER) are greatly enhanced by picking in the top-5. Obviously, that could change depending the year and the strength of the draft class. That doesn't mean you can't find them anywhere else and uncover those gems but the odds of finding him in the top 5 are higher than anywhere else. For every guy who became a franchise player picking, at say, 15 or 20, I'll give you five or ten that had virtually no impact whatsoever. See what I mean by odds? What can't you understand about that? Argue my point, and not your twisted perception of it....

Holy Mackinaw is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-08-2012, 09:36 AM
  #348
Erdinger
Registered User
 
Erdinger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,682
vCash: 500
As a member of tank nation(originally to get rid of Wilson) I'm happy that the Leafs have at least got a lottery pick out of this disgrace of a season. I'm pretty well convinced that some of the self proclaimed "true Leafs fans" on these boards are actually depressed about the unusually(for the Leafs) high pick.

Erdinger 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 11:01 PM.

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.