HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > Trade Rumors and Free Agent Talk
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Trade Rumors and Free Agent Talk Trade rumors, transactions, and free agent talk. Rumors must contain the word RUMOR in post title. Proposals must contain the word PROPOSAL in post title.

The All Purpose Lu Thread (MOD WARNING IN OP)

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
11-17-2012, 07:43 PM
  #976
kthsn
Registered User
 
kthsn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 2,727
vCash: 1785
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rare Jewel View Post
If he's truly your "franchise" player then why is there discussion about him being traded?

It's clear that he's not
Based on a 2 game sample? Laughable at best. Schneider came in because the team needed a wakeup call, Luongo played well otherwise.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rare Jewel View Post
Not really, If you could be potentially $10 million over the cap still.
Removing Luongo's 5.3M cap hit is a last resort. Ballard (4.2M), Manny (2.5M), Alberts (1.1) will all come before.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rare Jewel View Post
I'm sure He'll love that. 33 years old and watching half the time. This a guy who usually plays 65+ games a year.
He played 55 games last season. Playing every other game in a shortened season on a contender should be fine.

As you said he's 33, doubt he waives for a lottery team at this point. He's a competitor who likes to win.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rare Jewel View Post
Even paying a portion of his salary with that much term and money wouldn't make a huge difference when concerning his value.
Easier for teams like FLA to absorb the 40M+ owed to Luongo.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rare Jewel View Post
Well if you want to send him to a divisional rival or a team that has emerged has your #1 rival, Then be my guess.
Gillis' job is to make the Canucks a better team, not make the other teams worse.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Rare Jewel View Post
I was being fascias.

Also Columbus?!? Where did they come from? That doesn't work for a many reasons.
CBJ would definitely be interested in Luongo, especially if the Canucks are in a dire situation. EDM/CBJ/TOR are all in the same boat. Lottery teams who Luongo is unlikely to waive for.

kthsn is offline  
Old
11-17-2012, 07:46 PM
  #977
Ricky Bobby
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 5,558
vCash: 500
Nucks by trading Luongo can attempt to address 3 major depth areas:

1. 3rd line center: Bozak

2. Depth defender with a manageable contract: Gunnarson

3. Depth winger or prospect: CMac, 2nd round pick or a B forward prospect like Colborne

Ricky Bobby is offline  
Old
11-17-2012, 07:47 PM
  #978
kthsn
Registered User
 
kthsn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 2,727
vCash: 1785
Either way RareJewel I definitely can't see a situation where Burke holds the upper hand in dealing with Luongo.

The only way Burke gets Luongo is if he outbids the other teams.

kthsn is offline  
Old
11-17-2012, 08:10 PM
  #979
Rare Jewel
Patience
 
Rare Jewel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Leaf Land
Country: Canada
Posts: 10,678
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by kthsn View Post
Based on a 2 game sample? Laughable at best. Schneider came in because the team needed a wakeup call, Luongo played well otherwise.

Laughable? They didn't have enough confidence or faith in their "franchise" player to play him when it counted most. 2 games or not that's pretty indicative of how they feel about their goaltending situation.


Quote:
Originally Posted by kthsn View Post
Removing Luongo's 5.3M cap hit is a last resort. Ballard (4.2M), Manny (2.5M), Alberts (1.1) will all come before.
Even with them gone you'd still more than likely be over.




Quote:
Originally Posted by kthsn View Post
He played 55 games last season. Playing every other game in a shortened season on a contender should be fine.

As you said he's 33, doubt he waives for a lottery team at this point. He's a competitor who likes to win.


Easier for teams like FLA to absorb the 40M+ owed to Luongo.


Gillis' job is to make the Canucks a better team, not make the other teams worse.


CBJ would definitely be interested in Luongo, especially if the Canucks are in a dire situation. EDM/CBJ/TOR are all in the same boat. Lottery teams who Luongo is unlikely to waive for.
So going by this you've deduced that really only Florida(a team that can't afford him) and Chicago(your biggest rival currently) are better possibilities than Toronto.

Teams just don't trade their best players to divisional rivals or other rivals if they can help it.

Rare Jewel is offline  
Old
11-17-2012, 08:17 PM
  #980
ginner classic
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Kitsilano
Posts: 6,687
vCash: 500
I get the distinct impression that a significant percentage of the people here are heavily engaged in RPG.

Are you actually negotiating with each other. Really? Is this IMVU? Second Life?

So weird.

ginner classic is offline  
Old
11-17-2012, 08:19 PM
  #981
Rare Jewel
Patience
 
Rare Jewel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Leaf Land
Country: Canada
Posts: 10,678
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by kthsn View Post
Either way RareJewel I definitely can't see a situation where Burke holds the upper hand in dealing with Luongo.

The only way Burke gets Luongo is if he outbids the other teams.
I know you can't, You like most Vancouver fans think there's teams lined up around the block to pay and exorbitant price for him.

But what I'd be intrested to know is what do think you could get from Florida, Edmonton and Chicago that make you rather do a deal with them instead of Toronto?

Rare Jewel is offline  
Old
11-17-2012, 08:19 PM
  #982
kthsn
Registered User
 
kthsn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 2,727
vCash: 1785
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rare Jewel View Post
Laughable? They didn't have enough confidence or faith in their "franchise" player to play him when it counted most. 2 games or not that's pretty indicative of how they feel about their goaltending situation.
We put in Schneider because our skaters weren't up to par. Luongo is literally the last one to blame for our lack of scoring.

If Gillis no longer considers Luongo a franchise player that doesn't give Toronto an upper hand over the other suitors.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rare Jewel View Post
Even with them gone you'd still more than likely be over.
It's an intriguing hypothetical that the cap drops that much. If it were the case then many other teams would also be in trouble.

I still don't see how that makes Toronto any more likely than other suitor.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rare Jewel View Post
So going by this you've deduced that really only Florida(a team that can't afford him) and Chicago(your biggest rival currently) are better possibilities than Toronto.
Yes Florida and Chicago are much more likely, due to Luongo's NTC. Florida is the clear front runner.

Florida can afford him, ownership gave Tallon an OK.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rare Jewel View Post
Teams just don't trade their best players to divisional rivals or other rivals if they can help it.
Teams just don't trade their best players if it doesn't improve their team either.

This argument helps Florida much more than it helps Toronto.


I still don't get why you think Burke has any leverage over Gillis, if anything you're giving all the more reason why Toronto will have to outbid the other teams.

kthsn is offline  
Old
11-17-2012, 08:23 PM
  #983
kthsn
Registered User
 
kthsn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 2,727
vCash: 1785
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rare Jewel View Post
I know you can't, You like most Vancouver fans think there's teams lined up around the block to pay and exorbitant price for him.

But what I'd be intrested to know is what do think you could get from Florida, Edmonton and Chicago that make you rather do a deal with them instead of Toronto?
I don't think any teams are willing to pay Gillis an "exorbitant price" for Luongo. That's the main reason I believe Luongo starts the season as part of a tandem.

I think Florida ends up acquiring Luongo for Petrovic, Matthias, 1st and a prospect.


Last edited by kthsn: 11-17-2012 at 09:26 PM. Reason: Confused Petrovic with Ellerby
kthsn is offline  
Old
11-17-2012, 08:52 PM
  #984
StringerBell
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 10,000
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by seanlinden View Post
You seem to be precluding the possibility of Burke going with a 24 year old goaltender with career .911 sv%, 2.83 sv% in 71 games, played almost entirely in a #1 role.

When you're trying to build a long term winner, you generally don't abandon young players because of 1 bad year and block their development with guys well into their 30s.
Out of curiosity, how long of a leash do you imagine Reimer would have if Burke decides to go with him? If he does not show any marked improvement next year as a starter, does he get another year? What about if he craps the bed the year after next, do you keep going?

How many lost seasons before Burke realizes that there is a fine line between "blocking the development" of a guy who, by almost all accounts, does not project to be a quality starter in the NHL, and providing him with enough of a buffer to avoid being thrown to the wolves again?

I am not going to say acquiring Luongo is the ideal answer for the Leafs problems in net, but relying on Reimer to develop into a quality starter has the potential to kill the mojo of a developing team, much like it did last year. I really think Burke missed the boat by not signing Vokoun to tandem with the kid.

StringerBell is offline  
Old
11-17-2012, 08:53 PM
  #985
Numbers
Registered User
 
Numbers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 2,065
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ricky Bobby View Post
Nucks by trading Luongo can attempt to address 3 major depth areas:

1. 3rd line center: Bozak

2. Depth defender with a manageable contract: Gunnarson

3. Depth winger or prospect: CMac, 2nd round pick or a B forward prospect like Colborne
Canucks do not need depth defenceman. Hamhuis, Bieksa, Edler, garrison, Ballard, Tanev, Alberts. I really hope no one suggests this anymore. Also Gunnarson is very important to Leafs, and that should be respected.

Numbers is offline  
Old
11-17-2012, 08:56 PM
  #986
Rare Jewel
Patience
 
Rare Jewel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Leaf Land
Country: Canada
Posts: 10,678
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by kthsn View Post
I don't think any teams are willing to pay Gillis an "exorbitant price" for Luongo. That's the main reason I believe Luongo starts the season as part of a tandem.

I think Florida ends up acquiring Luongo for Ellerby, Matthias, 1st and a prospect.
Ok, So we're making progress.


Lets take that deal there and I'll counter it with


Franson
Bozak
Colborne or Ashton
2nd '14

What say you?

Rare Jewel is offline  
Old
11-17-2012, 09:01 PM
  #987
kthsn
Registered User
 
kthsn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 2,727
vCash: 1785
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rare Jewel View Post
What say you?
No to that deal, not even close.

I should add in Gillis is probably asking quite a lot from teams right now.

I expect the asking price is top 6 forward + pick + prospect. If Florida acquires Luongo it'll be for much cheaper, it's not fair to Burke or any other GM but to quote Bertuzzi "it is what it is".

kthsn is offline  
Old
11-17-2012, 09:02 PM
  #988
StringerBell
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 10,000
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rare Jewel View Post
Ok, So we're making progress.


Lets take that deal there and I'll counter it with


Franson
Bozak
Colborne or Ashton
2nd '14

What say you?
Well, its worse than the Florida deal, so I cannot see why Vancouver would go for it. Your logic?

StringerBell is offline  
Old
11-17-2012, 09:10 PM
  #989
ginner classic
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Kitsilano
Posts: 6,687
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Numbers View Post
Canucks do not need depth defenceman. Hamhuis, Bieksa, Edler, garrison, Ballard, Tanev, Alberts. I really hope no one suggests this anymore. Also Gunnarson is very important to Leafs, and that should be respected.
actually...they do need depth D.

We've had between 8 and 10 d men with nhl experience for the last three years and have burned through them each time in the playoffs. This year we have 7 to start, and zero nhl quality depth on the right. So much so one of Edler or Garrison will start on their weak side.

So yeah. We need D. But, we need rhs D, and as many high end d prospects as we can get our hands on. But that is true for most teams except carolina, phoenix and pittsburgh.

ginner classic is offline  
Old
11-17-2012, 09:10 PM
  #990
Kass Effect
Registered User
 
Kass Effect's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Data Corrupted
Posts: 1,237
vCash: 358
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rare Jewel View Post
Ok, So we're making progress.


Lets take that deal there and I'll counter it with


Franson
Bozak
Colborne or Ashton
2nd '14

What say you?
I'd let out a big Kevin Sorbo-style "Disappointed"!


Kass Effect is offline  
Old
11-17-2012, 09:13 PM
  #991
Numbers
Registered User
 
Numbers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 2,065
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ginner classic View Post
actually...they do need depth D.

We've had between 8 and 10 d men with nhl experience for the last three years and have burned through them each time in the playoffs. This year we have 7 to start, and zero nhl quality depth on the right. So much so one of Edler or Garrison will start on their weak side.

So yeah. We need D. But, we need rhs D, and as many high end d prospects as we can get our hands on. But that is true for most teams except carolina, phoenix and pittsburgh.
We have Joslin signed in the AHL as depth who has NHL experience. Both Connauton and Sauve are potential call ups. Alberts is 7th dman. The defence is pretty much set.

Numbers is offline  
Old
11-17-2012, 09:22 PM
  #992
ginner classic
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Kitsilano
Posts: 6,687
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Numbers View Post
We have Joslin signed in the AHL as depth who has NHL experience. Both Connauton and Sauve are potential call ups. Alberts is 7th dman. The defence is pretty much set.
Well we disagree on that point. I'd like to see a player like sanguinetti (cheap), blum or rundblad, (moderate cost), or petrovic (in a lou deal), to feel that we are sorted on that side.

In losing rome and salo and only getting Garrison we have lost nhl depth.

ginner classic is offline  
Old
11-17-2012, 09:38 PM
  #993
Numbers
Registered User
 
Numbers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 2,065
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ginner classic View Post
Well we disagree on that point. I'd like to see a player like sanguinetti (cheap), blum or rundblad, (moderate cost), or petrovic (in a lou deal), to feel that we are sorted on that side.

In losing rome and salo and only getting Garrison we have lost nhl depth.
Garrison is better then both Salo and Rome. Joslin and Rome are comparable. Vancouver prospects are a year older. I really feel like Gillis is done there, unless we get a really good young d prospect. Blum and Rundblad won't come cheap either. Canucks are much better off taking the value and getting a good forward. Also I don't think Gillis would have signed Garrison if he did not believe if one of Edler or Garrison would be comfortable playing rit side.


Last edited by Numbers: 11-17-2012 at 09:44 PM.
Numbers is offline  
Old
11-17-2012, 10:36 PM
  #994
Ricky Bobby
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 5,558
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Numbers View Post
Canucks do not need depth defenceman. Hamhuis, Bieksa, Edler, garrison, Ballard, Tanev, Alberts. I really hope no one suggests this anymore. Also Gunnarson is very important to Leafs, and that should be respected.
The top 4 in Hamhuis, Bieksa, Edler and Garrison is just fine.

But that bottom 3 leaves a lot to be desired.

Ballard has been an absolutely horrible fit with the Nucks (for both him and the organization I hope he gets an opportunity elsewhere).

Tanev is a useful Dman but he has limited upside as well as experience. He is fine as a # 5 or 6 but if an injury occur having him play 20 minutes a night would be a bad thing.

Alberts isn't someone you'd even want in your lineup regularly.

Vancouver by adding Gunnarson would get themselves a # 4 quality dman who can fit into the cap structure of the team this year and beyond, he's good 5 on 5 and on the PK. He isn't good on the PP but you've got 4 great options so he wouldn't be needed there. The only issue with Gunnarson is that he plays the left side.

Gardiner and Phaneuf are both out of the question. Komi has a terrible contract. Liles contract doesn't fit within your cap structure and he needs PP that isn't available on your team to be successful. Franson has defensive shortcomings and needs PP time to excel (which he wouldn't get). Holzer is a project with limited upside and won't help much with winning now well your core is in its peak. So we`re left with Gunnarson as the best D to offer.

Ricky Bobby is offline  
Old
11-17-2012, 10:44 PM
  #995
pdd
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 5,578
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by kthsn View Post
I don't think any teams are willing to pay Gillis an "exorbitant price" for Luongo. That's the main reason I believe Luongo starts the season as part of a tandem.

I think Florida ends up acquiring Luongo for Petrovic, Matthias, 1st and a prospect.
I was jut thinking about Luongo to Florida and thinking that Matthias must be involved.

If the deal you posted goes through...

VAN/FLA 2nd+3rd=Auld

VAN/FLA Bertuzzi+Allen+Auld=Luongo+Krajicek+6th

FLA/CAR Allen=Samsonov

VAN/TB Krajicek=O'Brien+Ouellet

VAN/NSH O'Brien+Gendur=Parent+Andersson

FLA/DET Bertuzzi=Matthias+2nd

VAN/FLA Luongo=Petrovic+Matthias+prospect+1st

Overall:
VAN Bertuzzi+Allen+Gendur+2nd+3rd=Petrovic+Matthias+Pa rent+Ouellet+Andersson+prospect+1st+6th

FLA
Petrovic+Krajicek+prospect+1st+6th=Samsonov+2nd+2n d+3rd

Of note: Ryan Parent was traded from Philly to Nashville for Dan Hamhuis before both came to Vancouver. Two careers on significantly different paths through those three cities.

pdd is offline  
Old
11-17-2012, 10:50 PM
  #996
Shawnathon
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 319
vCash: 500
Florida isn't going to let Vancouver rob them again. Bertuzzi played 7 games for them. We aren't giving Petrovic.

Shawnathon is offline  
Old
11-17-2012, 11:06 PM
  #997
Ched Brosky
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,872
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ricky Bobby View Post
The top 4 in Hamhuis, Bieksa, Edler and Garrison is just fine.

But that bottom 3 leaves a lot to be desired.

Ballard has been an absolutely horrible fit with the Nucks (for both him and the organization I hope he gets an opportunity elsewhere).

Tanev is a useful Dman but he has limited upside as well as experience. He is fine as a # 5 or 6 but if an injury occur having him play 20 minutes a night would be a bad thing.

Alberts isn't someone you'd even want in your lineup regularly.

Vancouver by adding Gunnarson would get themselves a # 4 quality dman who can fit into the cap structure of the team this year and beyond, he's good 5 on 5 and on the PK. He isn't good on the PP but you've got 4 great options so he wouldn't be needed there. The only issue with Gunnarson is that he plays the left side.

Gardiner and Phaneuf are both out of the question. Komi has a terrible contract. Liles contract doesn't fit within your cap structure and he needs PP that isn't available on your team to be successful. Franson has defensive shortcomings and needs PP time to excel (which he wouldn't get). Holzer is a project with limited upside and won't help much with winning now well your core is in its peak. So we`re left with Gunnarson as the best D to offer.
so the the 5-7 d-men leave something to be desired? Correct me if I'm wrong but almost every team in the league has that problem do they not?

Also Ballard turned the corner last season, he was our best d-man in the playoffs and had been playing well all season.

Tanev is a #6 who was a very good roookie and is only going to improve, no reason not to take him out of that #6 spot when he has shown he deserves it.

Alberts is a very experienced #6 d-man who we have the luxury of using as a #7

we have a former top 2 d who could probably at worst be a #4 on half the teams in the league in our 3rd pairing, i'm sure our defense is fine

Plus if we do need a d-man we have to move one of our LHD out for an improvement that is a RHD. Getting Gunnarsson just creates the same log jam of too many LHD. we have 5 LHD currently and 2 RHD


Last edited by Ched Brosky: 11-17-2012 at 11:13 PM.
Ched Brosky is offline  
Old
11-17-2012, 11:12 PM
  #998
Numbers
Registered User
 
Numbers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 2,065
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ricky Bobby View Post
The top 4 in Hamhuis, Bieksa, Edler and Garrison is just fine.

But that bottom 3 leaves a lot to be desired.

Ballard has been an absolutely horrible fit with the Nucks (for both him and the organization I hope he gets an opportunity elsewhere).

Tanev is a useful Dman but he has limited upside as well as experience. He is fine as a # 5 or 6 but if an injury occur having him play 20 minutes a night would be a bad thing.

Alberts isn't someone you'd even want in your lineup regularly.

Vancouver by adding Gunnarson would get themselves a # 4 quality dman who can fit into the cap structure of the team this year and beyond, he's good 5 on 5 and on the PK. He isn't good on the PP but you've got 4 great options so he wouldn't be needed there. The only issue with Gunnarson is that he plays the left side.

Gardiner and Phaneuf are both out of the question. Komi has a terrible contract. Liles contract doesn't fit within your cap structure and he needs PP that isn't available on your team to be successful. Franson has defensive shortcomings and needs PP time to excel (which he wouldn't get). Holzer is a project with limited upside and won't help much with winning now well your core is in its peak. So we`re left with Gunnarson as the best D to offer.
Ok we'll apparently you do not watch the Canucks play enough, because Ballard in the last playoffs actually played pretty good. At any rate Ballard and Tanev are a great 3rd pairing, ask most Canucks fans and they will agree. He also gives us depth at the position which is great. The only reason to get rid of Ballard is to save cap space because he is an expensive 5 dman. Tanev is great defensively and has really good poise for his age. Tanev will get more opportunity to play and that will be part of his development. Alberts isn't great but he is fine as depth player. Are you a Toronto fan by any chance? I'm sorry to say your analysis is just not true. I watch almost every Canucks game and out 3rd pairing is fine, as I mentioned the only reason to dump Ballard is to save cap space. At the moment the Canucks have one of the best defensive units in the game.

Numbers is offline  
Old
11-17-2012, 11:35 PM
  #999
racerjoe
Registered User
 
racerjoe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 2,102
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shawnathon View Post
Florida isn't going to let Vancouver rob them again. Bertuzzi played 7 games for them. We aren't giving Petrovic.
Weather true or not I hate this logic. The Value of bert during the trade was still there. Can't help what happens after that.

racerjoe is offline  
Old
11-18-2012, 12:23 AM
  #1000
Ho Borvat
Registered User
 
Ho Borvat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 4,603
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ricky Bobby View Post
Nucks by trading Luongo can attempt to address 3 major depth areas:

1. 3rd line center: Bozak

2. Depth defender with a manageable contract: Gunnarson

3. Depth winger or prospect: CMac, 2nd round pick or a B forward prospect like Colborne
In all fairness, I don't quite think the 3C is as pressing of an issue as people make it.

- Lapierre has been up to the task whenever given 3rd line duty.
- Malhotra was a VERY good 3rd line C just 2 years ago (you could argue that his lack of an offseason was more detrimental than the injury itself to his last season).
- Jordan Schroeder is also knocking at the door and could surprise some people.

Bozak obviously would be more qualified than those 3... But i dont think Gillis should pay a premium on him by any means.

Ho Borvat 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 09:12 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.