HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Western Conference > Pacific Division > Edmonton Oilers
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

Bob McKenzie's Hockey Insider (Comrie)

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
11-27-2003, 08:49 AM
  #51
Ryno
BEHOLD!!
 
Ryno's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: G.P
Country: Canada
Posts: 529
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Digger12
While I agree that it's outdated, it doesn't change the reality that many GMs look at 5'9" offensive centers as a cute novelty, but not something you stick into your top 6 if you want to be a top team. That's just the way some of these guys are wired.

With Comrie specifically, I'm betting there's also some hesitation among the GMs about exactly how effective he really is at the NHL level. MC's had two very different seasons: One where he scored 33 goals, led the team in +/-, and basically carried this team on his back in an attempt to make the playoffs but ultimately failed; and the other, where he scored 20 goals, was the worst defensive liability on his team, and had such a bad playoff that his coach nearly benched him. If I'm a rival GM, I'm wondering which guy is the real Mike Comrie...

Add to that he's represented by likely one of the most hated agents in hockey, and you have a very uncertain package.
Those are valid points, but Digger you and I both know the truth, as to why Comrie's season was below standard (and if you call a 51 point season in 69 games substandard, then chances are you've got one helluva player on your team )

Someone has brought up the statistics before the hand injury, and he was on pace for something like 70 pts? (correct me if I'm wrong, of course) and a +/- of -2.

The playoffs were a direct result of the injury as well.

Now like I said, the concers you've brought up are legitimate ones that a GM may have...however, the only things I keep hearing are that he's too small...too small...TOO SMALL!!

All I'm trying to prove is that size isn't as important as we've been lead to believe, and guys like Savard and Briere are proving that with every game they play.

EDIT: Sorry, 51 points in 69 games, not 50

Ryno is offline  
Old
11-27-2003, 08:55 AM
  #52
Digger12
Registered User
 
Digger12's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Defending the border
Posts: 14,566
vCash: 500
Preaching to the choir my man...

I'm just giving up some points as to why Lowe may not be getting the juicy offers he was hoping to receive, and that the concerns other GMs may have with Comrie aren't just about his height.

Digger12 is offline  
Old
11-27-2003, 09:35 AM
  #53
Asiaoil
Registered User
 
Asiaoil's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Country: Thailand
Posts: 5,259
vCash: 500
Comrie can certainly be a very effective 2nd line center on a good team when paired with a bigger top line guy who can shield MC from unfavorable matchups. A Thorton/Comrie 1-2 is an example and would be awesome in my opinion. But these type of situations are not common because there are very few decent big top line centers around. Most teams already have smaller guys on their top 2 lines so adding MC is problematic. This is the exact situation we have now in Edmonton with York. Adding MC to our lineup makes us very vulnerable physically as the Dallas series clearly showed.

The other option teams have is to say the hell with it and go with small guys at center their top lines. This is common for expansion teams - and players like Ronning, Briere, Savard have all done OK in this situation. You just won't go anywhere in the playoffs with this strategy - eventually you have to get bigger - and this is what the Oilers are trying to do.

The reality of the situation is that the league sees MC as a good small 2nd line center - and there are relatively few situations where he would fit in effectively. This limits trade options and his contract history doesn't help either. Oiler fans need to understand that MC's value has its limits because of his size or they will be disappointed when the deal finally comes down.

Asiaoil is offline  
Old
11-27-2003, 09:48 AM
  #54
Ryno
BEHOLD!!
 
Ryno's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: G.P
Country: Canada
Posts: 529
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Asiaoil
Comrie can certainly be a very effective 2nd line center on a good team when paired with a bigger top line guy who can shield MC from unfavorable matchups. A Thorton/Comrie 1-2 is an example and would be awesome in my opinion. But these type of situations are not common because there are very few decent big top line centers around. Most teams already have smaller guys on their top 2 lines so adding MC is problematic. This is the exact situation we have now in Edmonton with York. Adding MC to our lineup makes us very vulnerable physically as the Dallas series clearly showed.

The other option teams have is to say the hell with it and go with small guys at center their top lines. This is common for expansion teams - and players like Ronning, Briere, Savard have all done OK in this situation. You just won't go anywhere in the playoffs with this strategy - eventually you have to get bigger - and this is what the Oilers are trying to do.

The reality of the situation is that the league sees MC as a good small 2nd line center - and there are relatively few situations where he would fit in effectively. This limits trade options and his contract history doesn't help either. Oiler fans need to understand that MC's value has its limits because of his size or they will be disappointed when the deal finally comes down.
The thing is, though, I don't think Oiler fans are expecting a Gagne/Havlat/Jokinen return...

However, we ARE expecting something more than Corey Perry and a 2nd.

I don't think it's unreasonable to ask for more, and I don't think it's unreasonable to expect more.

What you are describing is exactly what's wrong with the mindset of the "good ol' boys" of the NHL - size over skill. It's no bloddy wonder we can't sell the game in the US...who wants to see a clutch 'n' grab fest between oversized, overpaid stiffs with limited skill?

Razzle Dazzle sells, bottom line.

Ryno is offline  
Old
11-27-2003, 10:45 AM
  #55
Seachd
Registered User
 
Seachd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: The Fail
Posts: 13,391
vCash: 500
Just for fun:

Someone on the Edmonton Oilers message boards ( ) said that his friend works for the Herald ( ) and he heard a rumour about Comrie and something for Jokinen and something.

You heard it here first. But, seriously, ( ) I believe it ( ). After all, the friend ( ) works at the Herald ( ).

P.S. That'd be a pretty good deal for the Oilers, I think.

Seachd is offline  
Old
11-27-2003, 11:01 AM
  #56
Asiaoil
Registered User
 
Asiaoil's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Country: Thailand
Posts: 5,259
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ryno
What you are describing is exactly what's wrong with the mindset of the "good ol' boys" of the NHL - size over skill.
That's not really what I mean - you need BOTH size and skill to be really successful - but that's a rare commodity at the center position. Of course Detroit had Feds and Yzerman who are not huge (but they're not 5-8 either) and Colorado has Forsburg and Sakic (not that small). These are also ELITE skill players and MC is nowhere near that class. We would go nowhere in the playoffs with both MC and York in the top 2 lines because we are TOTALLY overmatched physically. These guys are not even 5-10 for crying out loud. Comrie is really about 5-8 and York about 5-9. Lowe made his choice last year as to who his one small top 6 skill player would be when York agreed to a reasonable 3 year contract. MC was history from that day IMO and this contract squabble is just the end of a chain of events that started with the York contract.

Anyone who thinks we can get by the first round with both MC and York in our top 6 is "whistling dixie" IMO. Size does matter if you are trying to get better than a first year exit in the playoffs every year. I don't know what Comrie's value is - but I'll bet he's perceived as a top 2nd line center with drawbacks associated with size and contract hassles. That does not get you a top center or dman in return (as we have seen) but a good prospect like Brown or Gezlaf and a pick is probably reasonable (just examples)

Asiaoil is offline  
Old
11-27-2003, 11:22 AM
  #57
dawgbone
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 21,104
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to dawgbone Send a message via MSN to dawgbone
Quote:
Originally Posted by Asiaoil
Comrie can certainly be a very effective 2nd line center on a good team when paired with a bigger top line guy who can shield MC from unfavorable matchups. A Thorton/Comrie 1-2 is an example and would be awesome in my opinion. But these type of situations are not common because there are very few decent big top line centers around. Most teams already have smaller guys on their top 2 lines so adding MC is problematic. This is the exact situation we have now in Edmonton with York. Adding MC to our lineup makes us very vulnerable physically as the Dallas series clearly showed.

The other option teams have is to say the hell with it and go with small guys at center their top lines. This is common for expansion teams - and players like Ronning, Briere, Savard have all done OK in this situation. You just won't go anywhere in the playoffs with this strategy - eventually you have to get bigger - and this is what the Oilers are trying to do.

The reality of the situation is that the league sees MC as a good small 2nd line center - and there are relatively few situations where he would fit in effectively. This limits trade options and his contract history doesn't help either. Oiler fans need to understand that MC's value has its limits because of his size or they will be disappointed when the deal finally comes down.
I think you are really over playing the size issue here... take the stanley cup finalists over the past 3 years...

<b>00-01</b>
Colorado
Sakic 5-11 190, Forseberg 6-1 205, Drury 5-10 202, Yelle 6-1 190

New Jersey
Holik 6-4 230, Arnott 6-4 225, Elias 6-1 195, Gomez 5-11 200

<b>01-02</b>
Detroit
Yzerman 5-11 185, Federov 6-2 205, Larionov 5-11 170, Draper 5-10 190

Carolina
Francis 6-3 200, Brind'Amour 6-1 200, Vasicek 6-4 200, Kevyn Adams 6-2 195

<b>02-03</b>
New Jersey
Elias 6-1 195, Gomez 5-11 200, Madden 5-11 190, Niewendyk 6-2 205

Anaheim
Rucchin 6-2 215, Oates 5-11 195, Pahlsson 6-0 212, Neidermayer 6-2 209

out of those 6 teams, 4 of them had their centres that averaged under the league average (6-1 210). Size really isn't the biggest deal, as the smaller team up front won in every playoff series.

dawgbone is offline  
Old
11-27-2003, 11:39 AM
  #58
Ryno
BEHOLD!!
 
Ryno's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: G.P
Country: Canada
Posts: 529
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by dawgbone
I think you are really over playing the size issue here... take the stanley cup finalists over the past 3 years...

<b>00-01</b>
Colorado
Sakic 5-11 190, Forseberg 6-1 205, Drury 5-10 202, Yelle 6-1 190

New Jersey
Holik 6-4 230, Arnott 6-4 225, Elias 6-1 195, Gomez 5-11 200

<b>01-02</b>
Detroit
Yzerman 5-11 185, Federov 6-2 205, Larionov 5-11 170, Draper 5-10 190

Carolina
Francis 6-3 200, Brind'Amour 6-1 200, Vasicek 6-4 200, Kevyn Adams 6-2 195

<b>02-03</b>
New Jersey
Elias 6-1 195, Gomez 5-11 200, Madden 5-11 190, Niewendyk 6-2 205

Anaheim
Rucchin 6-2 215, Oates 5-11 195, Pahlsson 6-0 212, Neidermayer 6-2 209

out of those 6 teams, 4 of them had their centres that averaged under the league average (6-1 210). Size really isn't the biggest deal, as the smaller team up front won in every playoff series.
Though I agree with you, I think the point that Asiaoil was trying to make is that you need at least 1 centre in your top six that is over 6 feet to succeed in this league.

I guess the theory is that two centremen in your top 6 that are 5'10 and under will have difficulty in this league, and the way the game is played now, I would agreee with that.

My contention is that the GAME needs to be changed, not the players. You SHOULD be able to succed in this league with Mike Comrie and Mike York as your 1-2 centremen. Guys with as much skill as they have SHOULD be put in a position to succeed.

How does that happen?

Cut down the interference. Kill the clutch 'n' grab. 86 the hooking. CALL A SPADE A SPADE!! Eventually you'll eliminate the larger guys with limeted skill who rely on this type of game.

It's so bloody simple...no wonder the NHL execs haven't caught on yet

Ryno is offline  
Old
11-27-2003, 11:43 AM
  #59
Asiaoil
Registered User
 
Asiaoil's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Country: Thailand
Posts: 5,259
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by dawgbone
I think you are really over playing the size issue here... take the stanley cup finalists over the past 3 years...

<b>00-01</b>
Colorado
Sakic 5-11 190, Forseberg 6-1 205, Drury 5-10 202, Yelle 6-1 190

New Jersey
Holik 6-4 230, Arnott 6-4 225, Elias 6-1 195, Gomez 5-11 200

<b>01-02</b>
Detroit
Yzerman 5-11 185, Federov 6-2 205, Larionov 5-11 170, Draper 5-10 190

Carolina
Francis 6-3 200, Brind'Amour 6-1 200, Vasicek 6-4 200, Kevyn Adams 6-2 195

<b>02-03</b>
New Jersey
Elias 6-1 195, Gomez 5-11 200, Madden 5-11 190, Niewendyk 6-2 205

Anaheim
Rucchin 6-2 215, Oates 5-11 195, Pahlsson 6-0 212, Neidermayer 6-2 209

out of those 6 teams, 4 of them had their centres that averaged under the league average (6-1 210). Size really isn't the biggest deal, as the smaller team up front won in every playoff series.

Edmonton 02-03
Comrie 5-8 Marchant 5-9 York 5-9 Reasoner 6-0 Horcoff 6-0

The numbers say it all in Edmonton - totally outmatched physically by even an averaged size team.

A quick edit - did you see what Sundin did to Comrie in the WC last spring? In this series there was much less clutch and grab / interferance than in the NHL and lots of skating - Sundin dismantled MC on both sides of the ice.


Last edited by Asiaoil: 11-27-2003 at 11:46 AM.
Asiaoil is offline  
Old
11-27-2003, 11:48 AM
  #60
Digger12
Registered User
 
Digger12's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Defending the border
Posts: 14,566
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by dawgbone
I think you are really over playing the size issue here... take the stanley cup finalists over the past 3 years...

00-01
Colorado
Sakic 5-11 190, Forseberg 6-1 205, Drury 5-10 202, Yelle 6-1 190

New Jersey
Holik 6-4 230, Arnott 6-4 225, Elias 6-1 195, Gomez 5-11 200

01-02
Detroit
Yzerman 5-11 185, Federov 6-2 205, Larionov 5-11 170, Draper 5-10 190

Carolina
Francis 6-3 200, Brind'Amour 6-1 200, Vasicek 6-4 200, Kevyn Adams 6-2 195

02-03
New Jersey
Elias 6-1 195, Gomez 5-11 200, Madden 5-11 190, Niewendyk 6-2 205

Anaheim
Rucchin 6-2 215, Oates 5-11 195, Pahlsson 6-0 212, Neidermayer 6-2 209

out of those 6 teams, 4 of them had their centres that averaged under the league average (6-1 210). Size really isn't the biggest deal, as the smaller team up front won in every playoff series.
Asiaoil's point wasn't that you can't have small centers and expect to compete for the Cup...it's that you'd better not have them centering both of your top 2 lines, ESPECIALLY 5'9" midgets.

Look at the examples you mentioned...not one of those teams had both of their top 2 centers under 6'1" and the ones that were under are no worse than 5'11". The guys that are anywhere close to Comrie's or York's size (Madden, Larionov, Draper) are in the bottom 6.

I could totally see a scenario where Lowe sat down in the offseason and decided he could only keep York or Comrie as one of his two top centers, and chose to go with the one who was the better skater and more versatile.

Digger12 is offline  
Old
11-27-2003, 12:07 PM
  #61
dawgbone
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 21,104
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to dawgbone Send a message via MSN to dawgbone
Quote:
Originally Posted by Digger12
Asiaoil's point wasn't that you can't have small centers and expect to compete for the Cup...it's that you'd better not have them centering both of your top 2 lines, ESPECIALLY 5'9" midgets.

Look at the examples you mentioned...not one of those teams had both of their top 2 centers under 6'1" and the ones that were under are no worse than 5'11". The guys that are anywhere close to Comrie's or York's size (Madden, Larionov, Draper) are in the bottom 6.

I could totally see a scenario where Lowe sat down in the offseason and decided he could only keep York or Comrie as one of his two top centers, and chose to go with the one who was the better skater and more versatile.
Size and weight really have nothing to do with it. The difference between 6-1 and 5-10 is 3 inches, which sounds a lot bigger than it actually is.

Other factors such as strength, intelligence, effort, skill are all more important than simply size. Yeah, being 6-2 220 with intelligence, strength, effort, skill etc... is ideal, but there are maybe 5 or 6 guys in the NHL who have that. Simply adding a centre who is 6-1 205 to the lineup won't make this team any better.

You have to ask yourself... would you rather a 5-9 180 and a 5-10 175 player on the ice who get 60 points each, or would you rather a 6-1 200 and a 6-2 215 player on the ice who get 50 points each?

Size doesn't matter, results do. If Comrie had a year last year like he had his first year, and Yorkie wasn't hurt, this team would have been a hell of a lot better, and there would be no talk about needing a big centreman. I mean, this team went with a small centre and no 2nd line for years, and managed to be okay. You can't replace size with skill and expect to be better, and at this point in time, there aren't many players with size and skill who would be useful to the Oilers that they could obtain.

dawgbone is offline  
Old
11-27-2003, 12:12 PM
  #62
dawgbone
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 21,104
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to dawgbone Send a message via MSN to dawgbone
Quote:
Originally Posted by Asiaoil
Edmonton 02-03
Comrie 5-8 Marchant 5-9 York 5-9 Reasoner 6-0 Horcoff 6-0

The numbers say it all in Edmonton - totally outmatched physically by even an averaged size team.

A quick edit - did you see what Sundin did to Comrie in the WC last spring? In this series there was much less clutch and grab / interferance than in the NHL and lots of skating - Sundin dismantled MC on both sides of the ice.
actually, according to practically every single report, Comrie is 5-9, and Marchant and York were 5-10.

There were very few teams last year who managed to win games by simply out-muscling the Oilers. Otherwise, the team wouldn't have finished with 90+ points.

As for Sundin and MC... well yeah, that will happen. When you get two guys of similar skill, the bigger faster one will prevail 9 times out of 10. Sundin is a premier player, and in the end, Canada still won the game. Simply being bigger doesn't help the Oilers if they lose skill, and that is what will happen.

dawgbone is offline  
Old
11-27-2003, 12:46 PM
  #63
Asiaoil
Registered User
 
Asiaoil's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Country: Thailand
Posts: 5,259
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by dawgbone
actually, according to practically every single report, Comrie is 5-9, and Marchant and York were 5-10.

There were very few teams last year who managed to win games by simply out-muscling the Oilers. Otherwise, the team wouldn't have finished with 90+ points.

As for Sundin and MC... well yeah, that will happen. When you get two guys of similar skill, the bigger faster one will prevail 9 times out of 10. Sundin is a premier player, and in the end, Canada still won the game. Simply being bigger doesn't help the Oilers if they lose skill, and that is what will happen.
Most small players flat out lie with regard to their height - Comrie is not 5-9 and York/Marchant are both smaller than 5-10. I actually like MC's game a lot (even if I don't care much for his personality) but he absolutely needs to play with a bigger skill center to be effective when the chips are down (its all about getting a favourable matchup). Otherwise the skilled big man will exploit his size advantage every time.

PS - Canada won the game because we had lots of other weapons aside from Comrie. If he was our clear #1 center in the same role he played with the Oilers I doubt the same result happens.

I agree the Oil need both size and skill at center in their top 6 - but that's not an easy thing to accomplish.


Last edited by Asiaoil: 11-27-2003 at 12:51 PM.
Asiaoil is offline  
Old
11-27-2003, 01:16 PM
  #64
Master Lok
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Edmonton
Posts: 6,670
vCash: 500
Speaking of smallish centres, I'm surprised that New Jersey hasn't stepped into the running. They have a history of picking up smaller, skilled players with heart (e.g. Madden, Rafalski, Gomez). Listening to the scouts' description of Zach Parise = highly competitive, smallish centre, sounds like a young Doug Weight or even a young Mike Comrie.

Master Lok is offline  
Old
11-27-2003, 10:04 PM
  #65
hillbillypriest
Registered User
 
hillbillypriest's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: there there
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,127
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by neogeo69
Speaking of smallish centres, I'm surprised that New Jersey hasn't stepped into the running. They have a history of picking up smaller, skilled players with heart (e.g. Madden, Rafalski, Gomez). Listening to the scouts' description of Zach Parise = highly competitive, smallish centre, sounds like a young Doug Weight or even a young Mike Comrie.
Although I think that for the most part the rumblings that Comrie's trade value has been hurt by his "attitude problems" are mostly trade posturing BS, I actually think that a perception that Comrie has an attitude problem would be a big deal to Lou Lamiorello. He didn't stand still for Danton, he probably won't give the time of day to Comrie either, even though I agree that NJ is the one team in the NHL that doesn't have blinders on against players under 6'.

hillbillypriest is offline  
Old
11-28-2003, 07:05 AM
  #66
barto
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Edmonton
Posts: 2,465
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by dawgbone
actually, according to practically every single report, Comrie is 5-9, and Marchant and York were 5-10.

There were very few teams last year who managed to win games by simply out-muscling the Oilers. Otherwise, the team wouldn't have finished with 90+ points.

As for Sundin and MC... well yeah, that will happen. When you get two guys of similar skill, the bigger faster one will prevail 9 times out of 10. Sundin is a premier player, and in the end, Canada still won the game. Simply being bigger doesn't help the Oilers if they lose skill, and that is what will happen.
What I recall from last year's playoffs is that MC, being the center to help out the defence, couldn't handle the Stars' bigger guys like Arnott and Modano, and they could fairly easily shrug him off and get to the front of the net for a good scoring chance. I think that sort of experience easily leads one to want a beefier guy able to handle those kinds of guys down low, esp. in the playoffs. But maybe it was just Comrie, rather than it being "a small center" that was the problem. He already had been struggling defensively, and more so after his thumb injury, so maybe a healthy (and happy?) Comrie could have managed better in his defensive responsibilities... But in those situations, size (and weight) certianly matters and should give a player an easier time of checking the opposing team's bigger centers.

Bart

barto is offline  
Old
11-28-2003, 11:36 AM
  #67
Asiaoil
Registered User
 
Asiaoil's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Country: Thailand
Posts: 5,259
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by barto
What I recall from last year's playoffs is that MC, being the center to help out the defence, couldn't handle the Stars' bigger guys like Arnott and Modano, and they could fairly easily shrug him off and get to the front of the net for a good scoring chance. I think that sort of experience easily leads one to want a beefier guy able to handle those kinds of guys down low, esp. in the playoffs. But maybe it was just Comrie, rather than it being "a small center" that was the problem. He already had been struggling defensively, and more so after his thumb injury, so maybe a healthy (and happy?) Comrie could have managed better in his defensive responsibilities... But in those situations, size (and weight) certianly matters and should give a player an easier time of checking the opposing team's bigger centers.

Bart
Having 1 small offensive center is no big deal - you play the matchups and avoid the big guys as much as possible. It's do-able. However, the Oil had both Comrie and York in their top 6 - you can't play them together and if you split them between the top 2 lines you can't play the matchups either. It's a coaches nightmare in the playoffs and KLowe made a choice - he's keeping York. Everything else about the MC situation (money, attitude, GM criticism) is BS as far as I'm concerned. It's all about getting bigger in the top 6.

If MC does go to Anaheim - how about Bryzgalov and Popovic? We address our depth problems in goal and on defense all at once - and they are both good prospects. Anaheim certainly has no issues in goal for the forseeable future and Popovic is also probably expendable.

Asiaoil is offline  
Closed Thread

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 08:27 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.