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 case for a 1-year surgical tank for the Habs

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
08-02-2012, 12:44 PM
  #476
FlyingKostitsyn
Registered User
 
FlyingKostitsyn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Quebec
Country: Australia
Posts: 8,052
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by bsl View Post
Newsflash: **** teams have bad power plays. It's part of what makes a **** team.
Some good teams have bad powerplays and some bad teams have decent powerplays. What kind of point is it you want to make?

Powerplay depends on the players you have obviously but its heavily dependent on tactics (and thus coaching).

Since you want to use that tone :

Newsflash : you upgrade a team by fixing weaknesses. we had a **** powerplay, and would have a better team if we fix it.

FlyingKostitsyn is offline  
Old
08-02-2012, 12:51 PM
  #477
DAChampion
Registered User
 
DAChampion's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Canberra, Australia
Country: Australia
Posts: 6,729
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by FlyingKostitsyn View Post
Some good teams have bad powerplays and some bad teams have decent powerplays. What kind of point is it you want to make?

Powerplay depends on the players you have obviously but its heavily dependent on tactics (and thus coaching).

Since you want to use that tone :

Newsflash : you upgrade a team by fixing weaknesses. we had a **** powerplay, and would have a better team if we fix it.
No doubt, there's a lot of room for improvement in both the power play and the shootout.

However, given the team's roster, it's hard to see much improvement in the PP. Further, even if we acquired a good PP triggerman or PK Subban stepped up for that role, there's a huge gulf between 15th place and 8th place.

DAChampion is online now  
Old
08-02-2012, 12:57 PM
  #478
FlyingKostitsyn
Registered User
 
FlyingKostitsyn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Quebec
Country: Australia
Posts: 8,052
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DAChampion View Post
No doubt, there's a lot of room for improvement in both the power play and the shootout.

However, given the team's roster, it's hard to see much improvement in the PP. Further, even if we acquired a good PP triggerman or PK Subban stepped up for that role, there's a huge gulf between 15th place and 8th place.
Momentum has a lot to do with it. The team started the season very slow last year and never gained confidence. The were something like 2-8 after the first 10 games and while they somewhat recovered into being an average team afterwards they crashed again when Martin was fired. I think the players are going to compete far more intensely if they see they have a chance of making it, which they should unless they start the season very slow again.

FlyingKostitsyn is offline  
Old
08-02-2012, 01:12 PM
  #479
Teufelsdreck
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 14,422
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DAChampion View Post
Bergevin might do something else, I've acknowledged that I'm assuming that this is more or less the team entering the season. If he trades for Bobby Ryan (for example), or signs Doan, then that will show that I misunderstood Bergevin. Is that not clear? I think that's clear.

I won't regret it in April. I'll either be confirmed correct or I'll get to watch a playoff run, so I win either way :-)

You, on the other hand, are going in double nothing. If you're right, you get the satisfaction of being right as well as the playoff race. If you're wrong... you're going to look like this:
I've been a Habs fan for eons and have enjoyed many a thrill and suffered many disappointments. I can sustain them. But I'll have to wait until April to see whether I'm right. It can't be arbitrated in August.

Teufelsdreck is offline  
Old
08-02-2012, 02:56 PM
  #480
Rutabaga
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Middle of Nowhere
Country: France
Posts: 979
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lafleurs Guy View Post
Dude, they made the playoffs the year before with 92 points and then lost to the cup champs. Then they had a horrific season the following year.

Washington didn't HAVE to rebuild. They could've done what we did and tried to add to what they had. They still had Jagr and others... they could've limped along trying for 8th but it wasn't what they wanted to do. So they rebuilt.
If you think that they did not have to, im sorry, but you are misjudging their situation.
(They finished 6th in the conference the year before, 9th two years before, while always being a Top-10 team in payroll, in a scenario where a lockout is happening months later, with a team full of overpaid players over 30...)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lafleurs Guy View Post
It would just give us that much more of a chance at winning down the road.
Assuming that the staff is competent, from our situation, the difference would not be that big.
Thats why owners and managers are never going this way.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Lafleurs Guy View Post
If you're right and poorly managed teams rebuild... then it actually shows you how effective rebuilding really is. If a poorly managed club can rebuild and win multiple cups as NJ, Col, Det and Pittsburgh did then it just makes rebuilding all the more attractive an option.
I dont really understand your point. Anyway, if it was so effective and bullet-proof, i think you would have seen more teams trying to rebuild.
The fact that no one wants takes this road anymore doesnt trouble you ?

(Winning multiple cups is a pipe dream. If you can consistently finish in the Top-5 in the conference, you have to be quite happy)


Quote:
Originally Posted by Lafleurs Guy View Post
And again, unlike many small market teams, we actually have the means to do this intentionally.
The financial power to do it ? Yes. But its certainly not enough, because that was the case for a lot of teams that are/were in a similar situation.
But do you believe that we also have the positive and forgiving environment with the market ?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lafleurs Guy View Post
Edmonton has a bunch of 20 year old players. Let's talk about them again in 10 years and see if you're right. I'm not about to write off guys like Yakupov who haven't even played in an NHL game yet.

Not sure how you still don't understand the Islanders here. Folks cite them as 'proof' that drafting high doesn't work - and they ignore the fact that all those prospects were traded away. Again, all they had to do was be patient and rebuild. They didn't. And that's why they failed.
About the Islanders, its mostly that they wouldnt have end up with an all-star team, just a solid one, because an improvement means no high picks anymore in the latest years of that era.

Im not writing off Yakupov, but when the folks that ran/run Edmonton where it is now are still around the team, i find hard to believe that they can now sort that mess out quickly.

(Well, there is a point where talent will overcome the management, but then, its hardly because of the smartness of the staff, so it is hard to use that card.)

@DAChampion : Well, they started their rebuild, like everyone else in the past, because they run out of options. I dont think there is a such thing as a "position of weakness" if we compare the rebuilds between them, after all, they all started in similar circumstances.

(There is only two options : horrible management with a team heading for a wall or, and thats a different problem : bankruptcy/financial difficulties)

They even planned to trade for Heatley before that season, so, it was surely not in their mind.
Injuries are part of the game, especially when you're thin in talent...

The third year is, normally, where when you can clearly see if the team has the potential to turn things around.

In the recent past, Los Angeles did finish 14th as well in the third season of their rebuilding phase, thats not good, but they were in the hunt for a playoff spot until March, still over .500 after 60 games. That was done with only two products of the rebuild : Doughty and Simmonds.

Tampa was 12th, but only 8 points behind the 8th placed team (Montreal) in the third season, fighting for the spot until the Olympics.
Colorado was in PO 2 years ago, they finished 11th last year...

Rutabaga is offline  
Old
08-02-2012, 03:51 PM
  #481
DAChampion
Registered User
 
DAChampion's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Canberra, Australia
Country: Australia
Posts: 6,729
vCash: 500
So out of curiosity I spent 10 minutes manually counting the top-5 and 6-10 draft picks of the period 2000-2009 and where they ended up. 21 teams have drafted top-5 in the period 2000-2009, and 28 teams have drafted in the top-10. I did this by hand so there may be a few mistakes.

A full 15 teams, half the league, have had at least two top-5 draft picks.


I sort the teams by the number of top-5 picks they have:
Team /// # of top-5 picks // # of 6-10 picks
Atlanta 5 2
Pittsburgh 5 0
Columbus 3 6
Florida 3 4
Chicago 3 3
Long Island 3 2
Los Angeles 3 0
Tampa 3 1
Carolina 3 0
Washington 3 0
Minnesota 2 3
Phoenix 2 3
Anaheim 2 2
Philadelphia 2 0
St-Louis 2 0
Ottawa 1 2
Montreal 1 2
Boston 1 2
Toronto 1 1
Buffalo 1 0
Colorado 1 0
Nashville 0 4
Calgary 0 3
San Jose 0 3
Rangers 0 2
Vancouver 0 2
Edmonton 0 2
Dallas 0 1


*******************

Since that is nearly every team in the league it's hard to make any definitive statements. Detroit and New Jersey are not on the list.

DAChampion is online now  
Old
08-02-2012, 09:02 PM
  #482
Lafleurs Guy
Registered User
 
Lafleurs Guy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 21,453
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rutabaga View Post
If you think that they did not have to, im sorry, but you are misjudging their situation.
(They finished 6th in the conference the year before, 9th two years before, while always being a Top-10 team in payroll, in a scenario where a lockout is happening months later, with a team full of overpaid players over 30...)
You're trying to re-write history and it won't work. They were a bubble team just like we were. They made the playoffs four out of six years. They tried buying a championship and got nowhere. They missed the playoffs and decided to do something about it.

We're coming off our worst season ever (just like Washington when they decided to change.) Did we have a fire sale like they did? No. We actually signed Kaberle and then wasted one of our best assets for what was hoped to be a short term gain with Bourque. We weren't proactive. Didn't trade our vets for prospects. We stubbornly clung to some faint hope that we'd get 8th. Do you think our club would've traded Jaromir Jagr the way Washington did? Of course not. Our management had no long term vision.

The difference is that Washington was willing to rebuild and we weren't. Fortunately we lucked out with a top five pick (that ironically should've been Washington's) and we unintentionally tanked to get Galchenyuk. Our only real rebuild move has yielded us Paccioretti. Too bad we don't make more of those kinds of moves.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rutabaga View Post
Assuming that the staff is competent, from our situation, the difference would not be that big.
Thats why owners and managers are never going this way.
And it's why we're not successful.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Rutabaga View Post
I dont really understand your point. Anyway, if it was so effective and bullet-proof, i think you would have seen more teams trying to rebuild.
The fact that no one wants takes this road anymore doesnt trouble you ?

(Winning multiple cups is a pipe dream. If you can consistently finish in the Top-5 in the conference, you have to be quite happy)
Most clubs don't want to take this road, that's what made Sam Polloch so successful. He understood the power of the draft when others didn't. He did things in a way that others didn't. He actually rebuilt even while he was on top.

GMs have wisened up over the years but rebuilding can still happen. Thing is though, it's awfully hard for small market teams to do it. We can though. We have the fan base and the money... we're just not all that bright.

BTW, Winning multiple cups has happened before and will happen again. No doubt about it. Four or five in a row? Probably not, but multiple cups is going to happen for sure.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rutabaga View Post
The financial power to do it ? Yes. But its certainly not enough, because that was the case for a lot of teams that are/were in a similar situation.
But do you believe that we also have the positive and forgiving environment with the market ?
I know we do.

And I find it hilarious that this is even a question. The folks who scream that we can't rebuild are sitting here on a message board after our worst season ever. We've had bubble teams or worse for most of the past 20 years. The fans haven't gone anywhere. If they were going to leave, this message board would be empty by now.

Stop kidding yourself. Look at the Leafs for Pete's sake. They've missed the playoffs for over a decade and they're still packed. Corporate sponsorship guarantees it. Even if the fans don't physically show up it's still a sell out every night.

We've got the fans and the money. We've just been missing management's willingness to actually do what it takes to win.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Rutabaga View Post
About the Islanders, its mostly that they wouldnt have end up with an all-star team, just a solid one, because an improvement means no high picks anymore in the latest years of that era.
So then the high picks would've made them too good? No matter how you slice it, you can't argue on one hand that rebuilding doesn't work and then try to say that if they'd stuck wiith a rebuild they'd have been too good to get all those players...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rutabaga View Post
Im not writing off Yakupov, but when the folks that ran/run Edmonton where it is now are still around the team, i find hard to believe that they can now sort that mess out quickly.
And you may be right. But how smart do you have to be to draft Yakupov or Hall or RNH? A trained monkey could do it. That's the point. High picks are the great equalizer. And if you had a team (like us) with some actually scouting talent drafting high, we'd be in great shape.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rutabaga View Post
(Well, there is a point where talent will overcome the management, but then, its hardly because of the smartness of the staff, so it is hard to use that card.)
Look, we all agree Edmonton's mgmt sucks. But imagine if we had good management with high picks. Imagine if our guys actually figured out that dealing vets when you aren't winning will yield more prospects to build with and actually taking advantage of Timmins' skills. Timmins is great but we've given him very little to work with. And even worse have dealt away some of his great picks for nothing.

Lafleurs Guy is offline  
Old
08-02-2012, 09:27 PM
  #483
Montreal Impact FC
.:| Champ's City |:.
 
Montreal Impact FC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Montreal
Country: Ecuador
Posts: 1,239
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by FlyingKostitsyn View Post
Some good teams have bad powerplays and some bad teams have decent powerplays. What kind of point is it you want to make?

Powerplay depends on the players you have obviously but its heavily dependent on tactics (and thus coaching).

Since you want to use that tone :

Newsflash : you upgrade a team by fixing weaknesses. we had a **** powerplay, and would have a better team if we fix it.
As a fan i have been on the positive side always saying despite the ufa flops and poor performance in general for what the last 19 years qnd it didnt work out.. now this team finnishes 28th and lot of people think its fine we got some role players and better coaching (cause jm here wasnt praised here at first... Right?) Now we get MT back and he is a good coach now... Sorry but until MB doesnt show me what Molson wanted extremely clearly when he canned JM that we need a team wich as a goal and is to win a cup every year.. and we dont/cant make it happen... Well for me thats failure.. not saying he wont do something but until.its done no one can expect me to be over the board positive.. being positive would be in my book going up 3-5 spots overall... We need a major.boost and i dont know if most of us would say islanders now (wich have better top prospects than us mainly du to Tavares) would now all of a sudden transform into a great team with a coach like MT... Not sure... Seriously ill stay very down to earth and wait for.proofs before having any reasonable hope for this season... Yes i like the fact MB as a great attitude and good guy but that doesnt mean it will translate... The day he makes 1 trade and it works out ill be really positif as far as i know he could turn out like mini reggie houle... We just dont know... Facts tell us this team lacka something major and pp sucess or sh failure might or not make a difference.. fact is this team on paper is weak chances are the first line couldnt improve the torrid pace they had unless either pacioretty or desharnais is close to superstar status... Markov could be back to his old form but facts will also show us Markov was already somewhat injury prone before the last 2 years disaster... What else? Subban and Price could turn out something amazing... But... Remains to be completed both players are known to have bipolar performance (for whatever reasons) Galcheniuk.could be great but seriously dont expect him to be a.difference maker just yet either... Facts also would indicate he most likely need another junior year...

I just dont see much teams above of us last year falling much in the standings.. and from an outside POV i doubt any major sports media would rank us more than 20th overall and could we really blame them...

Montreal Impact FC is offline  
Old
08-02-2012, 09:41 PM
  #484
DAChampion
Registered User
 
DAChampion's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Canberra, Australia
Country: Australia
Posts: 6,729
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lafleurs Guy View Post
Look, we all agree Edmonton's mgmt sucks. But imagine if we had good management with high picks. Imagine if our guys actually figured out that dealing vets when you aren't winning will yield more prospects to build with and actually taking advantage of Timmins' skills. Timmins is great but we've given him very little to work with. And even worse have dealt away some of his great picks for nothing.
What is the difference between a good management team drafting 1st overall and a bad management team drafting 1st overall?

Is it having the 31st overall on the 2nd line 3 years down the line?

DAChampion is online now  
Old
08-03-2012, 12:27 AM
  #485
Rutabaga
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Middle of Nowhere
Country: France
Posts: 979
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lafleurs Guy View Post
You're trying to re-write history and it won't work. They were a bubble team just like we were. They made the playoffs four out of six years. They tried buying a championship and got nowhere. They missed the playoffs and decided to do something about it.

We're coming off our worst season ever (just like Washington when they decided to change.) Did we have a fire sale like they did? No.[...]
So, yes, i really think your misjudging the extent of the damage they had to deal with because they were certainly not a bubble-team like we are/were.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lafleurs Guy View Post

Most clubs don't want to take this road, that's what made Sam Polloch so successful. He understood the power of the draft when others didn't. He did things in a way that others didn't. He actually rebuilt even while he was on top.

GMs have wisened up over the years but rebuilding can still happen. Thing is though, it's awfully hard for small market teams to do it. We can though. We have the fan base and the money... we're just not all that bright.
It was 40 years ago.
Things have massively changed.

And its not just a problem of market size/fan support.
Boston, Philadelphia, Minnesota, Ottawa or Toronto have been in a very similar situation as well. And none of them took that road either.
The current set of rules and CBA is also a factor you have to consider.

And there is more than the money and the fans.(Team, Manager, Owner, Medias...)

You're a well-known advocate of a rebuild, but you should see that it is something that is not really supposed to happen, and that no one (as a GM/owner/player) wishes to live.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Lafleurs Guy View Post
So then the high picks would've made them too good? No matter how you slice it, you can't argue on one hand that rebuilding doesn't work and then try to say that if they'd stuck wiith a rebuild they'd have been too good to get all those players...
If their management would have been decent, they wouldnt have stayed in the basement for 6+ years. Instead, they would have climbed up in the standings after 2, 3 or 4 seasons. Missing on the very high picks of year 3, 4, 5 or/and 6.

Thats what im trying to say.

(For the record, i think that we dont have what it takes staff-wise, to go through such a turbulent zone. Timmins is great, but the rest of the cast will eventually find a way to destroy his work.)

Rutabaga is offline  
Old
08-03-2012, 08:33 AM
  #486
DAChampion
Registered User
 
DAChampion's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Canberra, Australia
Country: Australia
Posts: 6,729
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rutabaga View Post
(For the record, i think that we dont have what it takes staff-wise, to go through such a turbulent zone. Timmins is great, but the rest of the cast will eventually find a way to destroy his work.)
Is it not too early to pass such judgment on the rest of the staff?

We don't even know if Bergevin is a good manager yet.

Further, I don't see what would be traumatic about a 1-year surgical intervention. We're in a tactically advantageous position for a short rebuild, where we could likely go straight back to winning in the near future.

DAChampion is online now  
Old
08-03-2012, 09:43 AM
  #487
Lafleurs Guy
Registered User
 
Lafleurs Guy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 21,453
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DAChampion View Post
What is the difference between a good management team drafting 1st overall and a bad management team drafting 1st overall?

Is it having the 31st overall on the 2nd line 3 years down the line?
A well managed team is more likely to either hang onto that asset and develop it or at the very least deal it for something that makes sense. A team like ours has the added benefit of great scouting and will be more likely to pick a strong player with a top pick. Won't always happen of course, but I like our scouting better than most (any) team in the league.

A poorly managed team doesn't recognize the value of top picks and deals them away for quick fixes to try to make 8th place.

Lafleurs Guy is offline  
Old
08-03-2012, 09:56 AM
  #488
Teufelsdreck
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 14,422
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DAChampion View Post
Rutabaga,

Good post.



A point which I alluded to in my OP, but may not have come across successfully, is that it's preferable to have a 1-year strategic tank now, a surgical intervention, then a long drawm-out process like Washington, Edmonton, Chicago, Los Angeles, Long Island, Pittsburgh, Toronto; and soon Calgary will have gone through. You yourself decry the "long agony" of those rebuilds. Something I agree with. 5 years of being in the basement sounds horrible, and I want it avoided at all costs.

You're right that this (strategic 1-year tank) has not been done before, but are you sure that's valid? All legitimate strategies are eventually tried for a first time.

The 2010-2011 team had a convincing season, as you wrote. But they failed to replace Roman Hamrlik (number 1 dman at all situations), James Wisniewski (lifeblood of the PP), and Jeff Halpern (effective bottom-6 center). In hindsight it was clear that the team would regress. We then further removed Andrei Kostitsyn, Mike Cammalleri, and Hal Gill. Erik Cole and Max Pacioretty could be argued to compensate for the injured Gionta and the fall from productivity of Cammalleri; so then you're still looking at a loss of Hamrlik, Wisniewski, Gill, Halpern, Kostitsyn. For all the talk about the "league parity", I think this sequence of changes demonstrates the VAST difference between 6th place and 15th place. What we see from direct experience is that it takes a massively inferior roster to make that drop.

Finally, I agree with you that from a management standpoint there is less risk in going the 8th place route. However, I'm incredulous that people can look up the weak roster Bergevin has put together and discuss 8th place. If he were really focused on 8th place, would he not be doing more about the roster? Perhaps he is, and if we sign Doan or trade for Ryan, I'll retract my comments. But right now I see a GM who is thinking long-term.
Has it occurred to you that your one-year tank could be highly disappointing, that the new players fail to live up to expectations and the team remains in a depressed state for more years than you anticipated while teams that finish a bit higher in the standings continue to improve? I favor a less drastic approach in which the team retains its best assets, drafts as best as possible, and looks for opportunities on the UFA market or in trades.


Last edited by Teufelsdreck: 08-03-2012 at 10:13 AM. Reason: afterthought
Teufelsdreck is offline  
Old
08-03-2012, 09:57 AM
  #489
Lafleurs Guy
Registered User
 
Lafleurs Guy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 21,453
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rutabaga View Post
So, yes, i really think your misjudging the extent of the damage they had to deal with because they were certainly not a bubble-team like we are/were.
They made the playoffs four times in six seasons. Just like us. Bubble team.

Their wheels fell off and they did something about it. Our wheels fell off and we added Kaberle and then wasted an asset in Cammaleri...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rutabaga View Post
It was 40 years ago.
Things have massively changed.
And I said as much.

One thing that hasn't changed though is that top picks are still better than lower ones. And teams that deal for those picks usually find players that work out to be better in the long run. It's common sense. You aren't winning, do what you can to find young talent. If it's not a top pick... okay, but at least you're adding to your stable of younger players.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rutabaga View Post
And its not just a problem of market size/fan support.
Boston, Philadelphia, Minnesota, Ottawa or Toronto have been in a very similar situation as well. And none of them took that road either.
The current set of rules and CBA is also a factor you have to consider.
Boston and Philly have actually done exactly that. And both clubs will be better for it. They traded for top prospects and are building that way. Ottawa rebuilt with top picks and almost won a cup. They had the unfortunate position of being the top club in the league when everything changed with the cap. Nothing you can really plan for there.

Toronto... you're right. They haven't rebuilt. They've also missed the playoffs for 8 straight years. You want to emulate them?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rutabaga View Post
And there is more than the money and the fans.(Team, Manager, Owner, Medias...)

You're a well-known advocate of a rebuild, but you should see that it is something that is not really supposed to happen, and that no one (as a GM/owner/player) wishes to live.
All it takes is the will to do it and the transparency with the fans. You openly say that you're rebuilding. You admit that the club you have isn't good enough to win and you want to make LONG TERM moves to make the club better LONG TERM.

If our ownership did this nobody would hold it against him. There are TONS of Leaf fans begging for the rebuild that's never happened. And Bergevin just got hired, he's got a lot of rope. If anything by publicly declaring a rebuild, you give yourself more leeway and more time because people know what you're doing.

Or you could come out against a rebuild and trade away picks. That worked real well for Brian Burke....
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rutabaga View Post
If their management would have been decent, they wouldnt have stayed in the basement for 6+ years. Instead, they would have climbed up in the standings after 2, 3 or 4 seasons. Missing on the very high picks of year 3, 4, 5 or/and 6.

Thats what im trying to say.
And you're missing the point. IF their management had been decent, they just would've rebuilt and hung onto what they had. And they would've been better off. And citing them as a case why rebuilding doesn't work (when they never rebuilt in the first place) makes no sense.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rutabaga View Post
(For the record, i think that we dont have what it takes staff-wise, to go through such a turbulent zone. Timmins is great, but the rest of the cast will eventually find a way to destroy his work.)
That's because our staff hasn't had the patience to rebuild the club. If we did, then it wouldn't be a problem.

Ultimately it has to come from ownership. My hope is that Molson has seen enough. My hope is that he wants to actually win a cup and will do what's necessary to win. We're already at the bottom of the standings anyway so it's a good time for this. I don't know what we'll do. I only know what we SHOULD do.

The good thing is though, is that it's not as pressing as it was. By fluking out with Price and getting Galchenyuk that helps a lot. Max was actually brought in with one of our few rebuilding trades so that works and we lucked out on PK not going in the first round. It may be enough for our club to be strong in the future anyway. I just think we should ensure that we're good by getting MORE of those kinds of players. Dealing Pleks and others like him would hurt us now but it doesnt' matter anyway. It helps down the road. And that's what we should be looking at. Because for us, the cup drive isn't now. It's three or four years down the road - IF things go right.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Teufelsdreck View Post
It seems not to have occurred to you that your one-year tank could be highly disappointing, that the new players fail to live up to expectations and the team remains in a depressed state for more years than you anticipated.
Maybe he just looked at the alternative and realized that we have nothing to lose anyway. We might tank again this season no matter what. And if we do make the playoffs we aren't going anywhere anyway so... what do we have to lose?

Lafleurs Guy is offline  
Old
08-03-2012, 10:33 AM
  #490
DAChampion
Registered User
 
DAChampion's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Canberra, Australia
Country: Australia
Posts: 6,729
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Teufelsdreck View Post
Has it occurred to you that your one-year tank could be highly disappointing, that the new players fail to live up to expectations and the team remains in a depressed state for more years than you anticipated while teams that finish a bit higher in the standings continue to improve? I favor a less drastic approach in which the team retains its best assets, drafts as best as possible, and looks for opportunities on the UFA market or in trades.
Any one of the components of my proposed 1-year surgery could fail, however there are many separate components, so you can't expect all of them to fail.

Reiterating the list:

1) Enter the season with the current roster. Thats gets us a high draft pick, probably top-5 in the current draft. Probability of success? Maybe 50% of getting a great player.

Timmins drafted Price with the 5th overall, Kostitsyn with the 10th overall, and McDonagh with the 12th overall, so the evidence suggests he's actually very strong with high picks. That's a home run, a double and a walk with picks inferior to top-5 ... so my 50% may be too conservative.

2) Don't trade any of our current 2nd rounders. Note that Calgary and Nashville may have a lot of trouble this year, and 3 picks in the range 31-45 for the deepest draft year in a decade is a strong possibility. Like I said in my OP. You know what's better than having a Sebastian Colberg in your system? Having 4 Sebastian Colbergs in your system.

If you assume 33% success rate per 2nd rounder, the probability of getting 0 NHL players is 30%, the probability of getting 1 roster players is 44%, the probability of getting 2 roster players is 22%, and the probability of getting 3 roster players is 4%. I like those odds.

3) Rather than rush the development of Galchenyuk, Leblanc, Gallagher, etc, to try and get some measly secondary production to "win now", let them dominate at the appropriate levels (OHL + 9 NHL games + WJC, AHL, AHL), it will pay off in the long-run.

4) Trade whatever veterans you don't need moving forward at the deadline for whatever you can get. You then get:
- A 50% probability of success per veteran that the draft picks returned will yield NHL roster players of good but not great quality.
- An additional, independent, unknown probability that the cap space can be used on more useful players in the future.

******

It's true that you never know what you're going to get when you roll the dice. However, if you roll weighted dice on a very regular basis, you expect to win.

ETA: We have Markov, Plekanec, Subban, Gorges, Price, Pacioretty, Eller, Emelin as our core going forward. That's not a playoff team. However, if you add whoever succeeds out of Tinordi, Beaulieu, Holland, Pateryn, Gallagher, Galchenyuk, Leblanc, Kristo, Ellis, Colberg then we already have the components of a perpetual bubble team in our system. We'll be there in 2 years max in my opinion. I just suggest we add to that, to upgrade from bubble team status to contender status. The time to do it is now before Galchenyuk and Colberg and and before that impressive Hamilton Bulldogs contingent is already in the NHL.

ETA #2: To make things clearer:
Once Galchenyuk, Colberg, Tinordi, Beaulieu, etc are already in the NHL the rebuilding window will have closed. The magical time to rebuild is now.


Last edited by DAChampion: 08-03-2012 at 10:59 AM.
DAChampion is online now  
Old
08-03-2012, 11:16 AM
  #491
Teufelsdreck
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 14,422
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DAChampion View Post
Any one of the components of my proposed 1-year surgery could fail, however there are many separate components, so you can't expect all of them to fail.

Reiterating the list:

1) Enter the season with the current roster. Thats gets us a high draft pick, probably top-5 in the current draft. Probability of success? Maybe 50%.

Timmins drafted Price with the 5th overall, Kostitsyn with the 10th overall, and McDonagh with the 12th overall, so the evidence suggests he's actually very strong with high picks. That's a home run, a double and a walk with picks inferior to top-5 ... so my 50% may be too conservative.

2) Don't trade any of our current 2nd rounders. Note that Calgary and Nashville may have a lot of trouble this year, and 3 picks in the range 31-45 for the deepest draft year in a decade is a strong possibility. Like I said in my OP. You know what's better than having a Sebastian Colberg in your system? Having 4 Sebastian Colbergs in your system.

If you assume 33% success rate per 2nd rounder, the probability of getting 0 NHL players is 30%, the probability of getting 1 roster players is 44%, the probability of getting 2 roster players is 22%, and the probability of getting 3 roster players is 4%. I like those odds.

3) Rather than rush the development of Galchenyuk, Leblanc, Gallagher, etc, to try and get some measly secondary production to "win now", let them dominate at the appropriate levels (OHL + 9 NHL games + WJC, AHL, AHL), it will pay off in the long-run.

4) Trade whatever veterans you don't need moving forward at the deadline for whatever you can get. You then get:
- A 50% probability of success per veteran that the draft picks returned will yield NHL roster players.
- An additional, independent, unknown probability that the cap space can be used on more useful players in the future.

******

It's true that you never know what you're going to get when you roll the dice. However, if you roll weighted dice on a very regular basis, you expect to win.

ETA: We have Markov, Plekanec, Subban, Gorges, Price, Pacioretty, Eller, Emelin as our core going forward. That's not a playoff team. However, if you add whoever succeeds out of Tinordi, Beaulieu, Holland, Pateryn, Gallagher, Galchenyuk, Leblanc, Kristo, Ellis, Colberg then we already have the components of a perpetual bubble team in our system. We'll be there in 2 years max in my opinion. I just suggest we add to that, to upgrade from bubble team status to contender status. The time to do it is now before Galchenyuk and Colberg and and before that impressive Hamilton Bulldogs contingent is already in the NHL.

ETA #2: To make things clearer:
Once Galchenyuk, Colberg, Tinordi, Beaulieu, etc are already in the NHL the rebuilding window will have closed. The magical time to rebuild is now.
I don't think those recruits, promising as they appear to be, will have much impact in the next 2 seasons. Assuming my estimate is reasonable, the likelihood that the Habs will escalate dramatically in that time frame is not great. Therefore, the window for drafting talented juniors and Europeans will not close for some time. In light of that, the need for an urgent overhaul is somewhat diminished.

Teufelsdreck is offline  
Old
08-03-2012, 11:26 AM
  #492
bsl
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 4,124
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SouthernHab View Post
This is awesome. Edmonton fighting for 8th place is ideal after 3 years of rebuilds and tanks.

Montreal fighting for 8th place after 1 horrible year is not acceptable.

Since Edmonton will be fighting for 8th place, shouldn't you be advocating a surgical tank for this year also?

Circular logic?
Quote:
Originally Posted by DAChampion View Post
So out of curiosity I spent 10 minutes manually counting the top-5 and 6-10 draft picks of the period 2000-2009 and where they ended up. 21 teams have drafted top-5 in the period 2000-2009, and 28 teams have drafted in the top-10. I did this by hand so there may be a few mistakes.

A full 15 teams, half the league, have had at least two top-5 draft picks.


I sort the teams by the number of top-5 picks they have:
Team /// # of top-5 picks // # of 6-10 picks
Atlanta 5 2
Pittsburgh 5 0
Columbus 3 6
Florida 3 4
Chicago 3 3
Long Island 3 2
Los Angeles 3 0
Tampa 3 1
Carolina 3 0
Washington 3 0
Minnesota 2 3
Phoenix 2 3
Anaheim 2 2
Philadelphia 2 0
St-Louis 2 0
Ottawa 1 2
Montreal 1 2
Boston 1 2
Toronto 1 1
Buffalo 1 0
Colorado 1 0
Nashville 0 4
Calgary 0 3
San Jose 0 3
Rangers 0 2
Vancouver 0 2
Edmonton 0 2
Dallas 0 1


*******************

Since that is nearly every team in the league it's hard to make any definitive statements. Detroit and New Jersey are not on the list.
I think you are saying that top 5 picks are important, as we see that many good teams have them. But I'll go a bit further:

2011-12 - Los Angeles Kings: 7th on your drafting list.

2010-11 - Boston Bruins: 18th on your drafting list.

2009-10 - Chicago Blackhawks: 5th on your drafting list.

2008-09 - Pittsburgh Penguins: 2nd on your drafting list.

2007-08 - Detroit Red Wings: Not on your list.

2006-07 - Anaheim Ducks: 13th on your drafting list.

2005-06 - Carolina Hurricanes: 9th on your drafting list.

2003-04 - Tampa Bay Lightning: 8th on your drafting list.

2002-03 - New Jersey Devils: Not on your list.

2001-02 - Detroit Red Wings: Not on your list.

2000-01 - Colorado Avalanche: 21st on your list.

Inconclusive so far, and I support rebuilding with top picks.

However, I will also say that your list does not include drafting top 10 picks in the ten years before cup wins, a major omission.

Therefore with that in mind, I will try to balance things a bit, with my own explanations, and all of you are free to agree or disagree. Remember, I disregard improvements teams have made since their cup win through drafting, and I think that's being more than fair. But I also look at top 10 picks at least 5-10 years or more in some cases, before the cup win, picks not on DA's list.

And: I do not even look at second round picks at all, even though rebuilding teams can make massive picks in the high second round. Again, being more than fair.

2011-12 - Los Angeles Kings: 7th on your drafting list.

Top 25% drafting combined with good trades of top drafted prospects.

Supports the rebuilding argument.

2010-11 - Boston Bruins: 18th on your drafting list.

Bottom 50% drafting. I was surprised by this. Chara and Thomas. Nothing more to say.

Does not support the rebuilding argument.

2009-10 - Chicago Blackhawks: 5th on your drafting list.

Top 12% drafting.

Supports the rebuilding argument.

2008-09 - Pittsburgh Penguins: 2nd on your drafting list.

Top 1% drafting.

Supports the rebuilding argument.

2007-08 - Detroit Red Wings: Not on your list.

Lidstrom. Just Lidstrom. Possibly the best D since Orr.

Does not support the rebuilding argument, but drafting a player like Lids that low is so absurd that I should scratch Detroit from the list. And I did not mention you know who at all and you know who at all.

2006-07 - Anaheim Ducks: 13th on your drafting list.

Top 40% drafting, combined with it seems every great D man in the world suddenly wanting to be there, that year.

Neutral on the rebuilding argument.

2005-06 - Carolina Hurricanes: 9th on your drafting list.

Top 30 % drafting. Staal only effective 1st round high pick.

Neutral on the rebuilding argument.

2003-04 - Tampa Bay Lightning: 8th on your drafting list.

Vinny only as top pick. Great later pick Richards was huge.

Still, will say supports the rebuilding argument, as Vinny was massive

2002-03 - New Jersey Devils: Not on your list.

Neidermayer only as top pick. But he was huge. But I will be fair.

Neutral on the rebuilding argument.

2001-02 - Detroit Red Wings: Not on your list.

This one is interesting. Stevie Y was not instrumental in THAT cup, but would they have won it without him? Maybe, maybe not. But he was part of the rebuild, the first part. And if the list had gone back further, well, it's bloody obvious Stevie Y was a huge reason the Wings won in 97 and 98.

Neutral on the rebuilding argument.

2000-01 - Colorado Avalanche: 21st on your list.

Lindros for Forsberg and others. Says it all. The rest is Sakic, who I do not count as a rebuilding pick at 15th overall, and Roy, a pretty good goalie they say. Still, the Lindros thing is a huge indicator of the effect of a massive tanking pick.

Supports the rebuilding argument.

To sum up. Of the 11 cup winning teams the last 11 years, we see that:

5 of the teams benefited hugely from rebuilding with one or more top 5 or better picks.

4 of the teams are neutral, cannot say top picks benefited them without more research into top 2nd round picks and trades. I have also not counted Stevie Y, Niedermayer and Staal as proving that top 5 picks win cups. I should, but other factors on these teams were just as strong. Still, would they have won their cups at the time without them? And I don't count the wings 97 and 98 wins with Stevie Y.

2 of the teams succeeded despite not having top 5 picks, but again, I have not checked if they gained extra or top 2nd round picks through trades.

Looks to me like drafting top 1-5 overall, and getting high second round picks also, at least once or couple of times a decade is a pretty effective way to win cups, which is all that counts, if combined with good development and good trading and good UFA pickups.


Last edited by bsl: 08-03-2012 at 12:27 PM.
bsl is offline  
Old
08-03-2012, 11:34 AM
  #493
Frozenice
the random dude
 
Frozenice's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,384
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Teufelsdreck View Post
Has it occurred to you that your one-year tank could be highly disappointing, that the new players fail to live up to expectations and the team remains in a depressed state for more years than you anticipated while teams that finish a bit higher in the standings continue to improve? I favor a less drastic approach in which the team retains its best assets, drafts as best as possible, and looks for opportunities on the UFA market or in trades.
The point with a one year tank is after the purge and we get the young prospects that we need, we quit tanking and strive towards winning, whether that is going into the UFA market, trades or offer sheets.

If we have six or seven picks in the top 50 players, we have a much better chance at success than if we have three or four and the lower the pick the better the odds of our picks having a successful NHL career.

Plus, if we have a promising core it is much easier to attract the best UFA's than it would be if we were merely so-so. Generally the best UFA's prefer to sign with the team that offers them the best chance at winning the Cup, all else being equal.

Frozenice is offline  
Old
08-03-2012, 11:41 AM
  #494
NHLFutureGuy3
Registered User
 
NHLFutureGuy3's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 481
vCash: 500
As I've stated before, I am totally on board with this 1 year surgical tank. In fact, I was on board even before this thread was created.

However, just a warning to DAChampion and all of us are for this. Hockey is not like Basketball in which the results are very predictable. A lot of unlikely things can happen in the NHL.

If Markov becomes the general,
If Subban improves his point shot
If, if, if....

Even if we made no moves at all and left our team they way it was, we could literally pull an Ottawa this season and sneak into the playoffs which would be horrible. In that case, be prepared for the onslaught of people thinking you were wrong even though that would not be the case.

Basically in hockey, no matter how much Bergevin tries to increase our chances of getting a high draft pick, things might still screw up!

NHLFutureGuy3 is offline  
Old
08-03-2012, 11:47 AM
  #495
DAChampion
Registered User
 
DAChampion's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Canberra, Australia
Country: Australia
Posts: 6,729
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Teufelsdreck View Post
I don't think those recruits, promising as they appear to be, will have much impact in the next 2 seasons. Assuming my estimate is reasonable, the likelihood that the Habs will escalate dramatically in that time frame is not great. Therefore, the window for drafting talented juniors and Europeans will not close for some time. In light of that, the need for an urgent overhaul is somewhat diminished.
I disagree.

I think Galchenyuk is likely to score 40 points in his rookie season, 2013-2014, as that is what players of his caliber often do. That's an impact right there. However, we'll have to clear some deadwood from our roster to make space for him. We should give Bourque easy minutes this year so that he has 15+ goals at the deadline and somebody actually wants to trade for him. We should also trade Gionta imo.

Leblanc will be no worse than an effective 3rd line winger, possibly a good 2nd line winger in 2013-2014.

Tinordi, Beaulieu, and Ellis rocked the CHL last year. They will adapt to the AHL next year. If each of them has a 33% chance to be ready for bottom pairing duties in the 2013-2014 season, then we expect one of them will be ready for the 2013-2014. If we're lucky two of them will be ready.

DAChampion is online now  
Old
08-03-2012, 11:53 AM
  #496
DAChampion
Registered User
 
DAChampion's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Canberra, Australia
Country: Australia
Posts: 6,729
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by NHLFutureGuy3 View Post
As I've stated before, I am totally on board with this 1 year surgical tank. In fact, I was on board even before this thread was created.

However, just a warning to DAChampion and all of us are for this. Hockey is not like Basketball in which the results are very predictable. A lot of unlikely things can happen in the NHL.

If Markov becomes the general,
If Subban improves his point shot
If, if, if....

Even if we made no moves at all and left our team they way it was, we could literally pull an Ottawa this season and sneak into the playoffs which would be horrible. In that case, be prepared for the onslaught of people thinking you were wrong even though that would not be the case.

Basically in hockey, no matter how much Bergevin tries to increase our chances of getting a high draft pick, things might still screw up!
If we're in 8th place at the deadline then we should be able to get more value for our veterans on the market than if we are in 14th place.

I agree that Hockey >> Basketball.

DAChampion is online now  
Old
08-03-2012, 11:55 AM
  #497
FlyingKostitsyn
Registered User
 
FlyingKostitsyn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Quebec
Country: Australia
Posts: 8,052
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by NHLFutureGuy3 View Post
As I've stated before, I am totally on board with this 1 year surgical tank. In fact, I was on board even before this thread was created.

However, just a warning to DAChampion and all of us are for this. Hockey is not like Basketball in which the results are very predictable. A lot of unlikely things can happen in the NHL.

If Markov becomes the general,
If Subban improves his point shot
If, if, if....

Even if we made no moves at all and left our team they way it was, we could literally pull an Ottawa this season and sneak into the playoffs which would be horrible. In that case, be prepared for the onslaught of people thinking you were wrong even though that would not be the case.

Basically in hockey, no matter how much Bergevin tries to increase our chances of getting a high draft pick, things might still screw up!


1. Playoffs would be horrible? You guys forget that we currently have a large number of young players on the team. Experience helps them. I'm pretty sure its easier to sign big name free agents when your team doesn't stink as well. Anyways, go watch Toronto if you don't care about playoffs.

2. And yes he's going to be wrong if we do make the playoffs or miss out on a lottery pick. He's defended his arguments well and has right for his opinion but DAChampion made it clear that without any moves the current team is bound to tank. Theres no shame in that, its a very difficult sport to predict especially with a team like the Habs. Thats why counting on the team failing next year isn't a good idea (my opinion). Imho we can't expect the current group to finish with a top5 pick unless we deal major parts of the team.

I say the team should try its best (winning mentality) and the org should support them. If approaching the trade deadline we have 80% or more chance to miss the playoffs and/or suffer massive injuries again then we should be sellers and finish as low as possible. No ''tanking move'' should be done before that, we'll maximize value of players at the deadline anyways so trading now is not a good idea.


Last edited by FlyingKostitsyn: 08-03-2012 at 12:05 PM.
FlyingKostitsyn is offline  
Old
08-03-2012, 12:01 PM
  #498
DAChampion
Registered User
 
DAChampion's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Canberra, Australia
Country: Australia
Posts: 6,729
vCash: 500
These are "plausible" ways I could be wrong:

1) Bergevin makes some noise on the trade market. For example, if we trade a 2013 1st rounder, Eller, and Bourque for Bobby Ryan we'll be an improved team this year. If Doan signs here then we're a bubble team.

2) The magical no injuries season, like in 2007-08. That would raise us from lottery team to bubble team. I'm assuming the standard thing: that any 2 of our 10 best players will be gone at any given time. Most on the forum don't make that assumption.

3) Gallagher, Galchenyuk, or someone else steps up and puts together a calder trophy winning campaign. That could raise us to bubble team.

FlyingKostitsyn, if we draft 8th overall (out of the lottery) then my postings will be vindicated. My prediction for the Habs is 11th-15th place in the Eastern Conference and I give no detailed opinions on where they'll fall in that range.


Last edited by DAChampion: 08-03-2012 at 12:07 PM.
DAChampion is online now  
Old
08-03-2012, 12:29 PM
  #499
CGG
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: 416
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,271
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DAChampion View Post
No doubt, there's a lot of room for improvement in both the power play and the shootout.

However, given the team's roster, it's hard to see much improvement in the PP. Further, even if we acquired a good PP triggerman or PK Subban stepped up for that role, there's a huge gulf between 15th place and 8th place.
I beg your pardon? Have you heard of Andrei Markov? Yeah, he's on the roster. Didn't play but 10 games last year. That's an improvement already, not to mention having Kaberle on the roster as well. (It's a little known fact that our PP was 50% better in games that Kaberle played than in games where he didn't play).

Have you heard of PK Subban? Yeah. 14 PP goals over the past 2 years including one year where he lead the league in that stat even though he was a rookie. Stop looking for a triggerman, we have one. We just need someone who can pass him the puck, and that guy is named Andrei Markov.

Question - who (amongst defensemen) in the league has more PP goals over the past 2 seasons than PK Subban?

Answer - Shea Weber and Zdeno Chara. That's it.

CGG is offline  
Old
08-03-2012, 12:40 PM
  #500
Teufelsdreck
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 14,422
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DAChampion View Post
I disagree.

I think Galchenyuk is likely to score 40 points in his rookie season, 2013-2014, as that is what players of his caliber often do. That's an impact right there. However, we'll have to clear some deadwood from our roster to make space for him. We should give Bourque easy minutes this year so that he has 15+ goals at the deadline and somebody actually wants to trade for him. We should also trade Gionta imo.

Leblanc will be no worse than an effective 3rd line winger, possibly a good 2nd line winger in 2013-2014.

Tinordi, Beaulieu, and Ellis rocked the CHL last year. They will adapt to the AHL next year. If each of them has a 33% chance to be ready for bottom pairing duties in the 2013-2014 season, then we expect one of them will be ready for the 2013-2014. If we're lucky two of them will be ready.
That's a chain of ifs, as though Bergevin has a clear path. But your options remind me of adding one extension cord to another to another. No successful team has counted on unproven prospects to go with so few obvious keepers as the Habs have now. Chicago added veterans such as Hossa, Sharp, Versteeg, etc. So did Pittsburgh and Boston and LA with their rosters. In addition, your suggestion to trade Gionta, with his age, salary, and physical problems, would make other GMs lick their lips? Bourque? You expect him to fetch a first or second rounder? The Flames were so glad to get rid of him that they ceded a second rounder and a prospect in the deal as well as taking on Cammalleri's more expensive contract. It would be prudent of Bergevin to look for veterans (but younger than Doan) who would be an immediate fit. Oh, but I seem to have forgotten that the veterans I have in mind are precisely the type you would trade to amplify your tank.


Last edited by Teufelsdreck: 08-03-2012 at 12:45 PM.
Teufelsdreck 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 04:59 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.