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.

More Luongo Talk

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
01-04-2013, 10:38 AM
  #976
Spazmatic Dan
Force Beyond Measure
 
Spazmatic Dan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Chatham, ON
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,071
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bleach Clean View Post
Possible vs. Likely. That's the contention. SC listed something that is possible, even in extreme, as the likely case. Hope that's clear.



And I'm not the only one who responded the way that I did. Take some note from that as well.








What type of discussion did it incite? Look at the responses he got. We disagree, in short order, because the claim is outlandish. If he had made a reasonable claim, there wouldn't be such a dismissive attitude towards it.



You say that it was meant to incite discussion, does a troll (Not calling SC one, just listing an extreme) post incite discussion? Yes. It does. What type of discussion does it incite? The quality of the response falls in line with the post, more often than not.



If the possibility is remote, the basis is thin. But let's leave the cap considerations aside for a moment, and the possibility of a waiver wire resolving all, when was the last time a player this good was bought out? This CBA is unprecedented, but with guys like Ballard and even Booth on the team, how does Luongo even enter the discussion as a buyout candidate? The calibre of player that he is, despite him wanting out, is never bought out. That's why the premise of the statement is thin.
Its a possibility he believes to be the likely outcome given certain conditions. He voiced that opinion. That is a counter point to other's viewpoints; hence, it is meant to be discussed. He went on to explain why he felt that way based on the reported conditions of the most recent NHL proposal. It wasn't rude and it wasn't baseless. Everything is speculative at this point. The block to meaningful discussions in my humble opinion is when you (and others, not just picking on you) jump on him (and others who share the viewpoint) for it.

The point comes in that Luongo, while an excellent goalie, is replaceable for the Canucks in Schneider. Buying out a guy like Booth on the other hand leaves a hole in the winger position, does it not?

The question in this purely hypothetical scenario becomes is it better to drop a (sort of) redundant asset or create another hole to become cap compliant?

Again, just to clarify, I think Luongo will be able to garner something at the very least regardless of the CBA (unless its something crazy like his contract length bites the acquiring team horribly...which seems unlikely). But the ever changing CBA makes things both interesting and uncertain.

Spazmatic Dan is offline  
Old
01-04-2013, 10:43 AM
  #977
jumptheshark
the burn out
 
jumptheshark's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: hf retirement home
Country: United Nations
Posts: 54,166
vCash: 136
Quote:
Originally Posted by y2kcanucks View Post
I'm kinda rooting for this actually. At least it would make things more interesting. Would feel very bad for Edmonton though...
you assuming all players would flock back to Vancouver

twins would, but 50-50 Kesler would.

__________________
not sure how--but the fish just jumped in the boat and put the hook in it's mouth
52299/14814
The twenty year rebuild is on!!! Embrace the suck
Heaven wont take me and hell is afraid I'd take 0ver
jumptheshark is offline  
Old
01-04-2013, 10:50 AM
  #978
Vankiller Whale
All hail WMD
 
Vankiller Whale's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 24,934
vCash: 400
Quote:
Originally Posted by jumptheshark View Post
you assuming all players would flock back to Vancouver

twins would, but 50-50 Kesler would.
Bieksa, Burrows, and Kesler are all real good friends and would likely all want to sign on the same team.

I think I can reasonably assume that all of:

Sedins
Hamhuis
Bieksa
Burrows
Kesler
Garrison
Schneider

Would re-sign with us. Booth, Edler, and depth players are more of a toss-up, but we'd also be active buyers ourselves.

Of course, that also means Luongo would likely leave, but the opportunity to go after superstars like Shea Weber or Corey Perry as well as the average players more than makes up for it imo.

Vankiller Whale is online now  
Old
01-04-2013, 11:04 AM
  #979
Bleach Clean
Registered User
 
Bleach Clean's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 15,580
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spasmatic Dan View Post
Its a possibility he believes to be the likely outcome given certain conditions. He voiced that opinion. That is a counter point to other's viewpoints; hence, it is meant to be discussed. He went on to explain why he felt that way based on the reported conditions of the most recent NHL proposal. It wasn't rude and it wasn't baseless. Everything is speculative at this point. The block to meaningful discussions in my humble opinion is when you (and others, not just picking on you) jump on him (and others who share the viewpoint) for it.



Point out to me the "conditions" in his _initial_ post. He just refers to the new CBA. That's what makes it baseless. SC didn't protect
himself from making an outlandish claim in his initial post by listing caveats. Here it is again:



Quote:
Originally Posted by SufferingCatFan View Post
I have already expressed my view that Lou is far more likely to be amnestied than traded because under the new CBA it makes no sense to pay 6.7 million per year to Lou until he turns 40. If that occurs and Lou is paid in full, then Lou will have made $80 million for playing 3 or 4 seasons for the Nucks. If paid two thirds of the remaining balance, he will have made about $60 million. Either way, he will then be free to sign with another team, where he will be able to make another $20 million or so. Either way, I hope Lou sent his agent something nice for Christmas.

No Caveats.






It is not a counter to an equally opposed view point. It is a counter to what is likely to occur. He adopts the stance of the unlikely vs. the likely.



And no, the block is still the original, baseless claim. It brings about no meaningful discussion, as evidenced by the responses it garnered.




Quote:
The point comes in that Luongo, while an excellent goalie, is replaceable for the Canucks in Schneider. Buying out a guy like Booth on the other hand leaves a hole in the winger position, does it not?


So trade the far better player vs evening out the roster? That's not a tough call at all to make.



Quote:
The question in this purely hypothetical scenario becomes is it better to drop a (sort of) redundant asset or create another hole to become cap compliant?

Again, just to clarify, I think Luongo will be able to garner something at the very least regardless of the CBA (unless its something crazy like his contract length bites the acquiring team horribly...which seems unlikely). But the ever changing CBA makes things both interesting and uncertain.



The hypothetical you pose isn't put forth in SC's initial post. He's not arguing redundant asset vs. positional needs. He's just saying Luongo is likely to be bought out. That's it.



To contend what you are saying: Redundant asset or not, Luongo still carries far more value than Booth. So you should be able to recoup value better in the long-run. Regardless of current positional needs.

Bleach Clean is offline  
Old
01-04-2013, 11:39 AM
  #980
BlueBaron
Registered User
 
BlueBaron's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Toronto, On
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,507
vCash: 500
Ok, so the current talk is in the new CBA that any contract where the players remaining years are not honored due to early retirement will see the cap hit return to the Team that signed the contract for the remainder if it's term.

This does not seem like a contract with the potential to be bought out while amnesty still exists ? (because everyone wants to spend a 12th of their payroll on someone who retired )

Add to this that he has asked to be traded. So naturally you should trade Schnieder and stick with the guy who says " It's time to move on " . Yes, this sends a fine message to the Team.

Not trading Luongo would in no way be a distraction to the Team because Vancouver is a magical land immune to distractions that would affect other teams and so there is no need to trade him quickly.

It is logical to spend 1/6 of your payroll on goaltending (in a 60 mil cap senerio)....

None of these things in any way impact Luongo's trade value because other Gm's are too stupid to see the difficult position Gillis is in.


I'm sorry, if the new Cap is 60 Mil with 2 buy outs and the Canuckas are forced to pay the full life of the contract regardless of wether Luongo is playing or not, Gillis would be an idiot not to consider a buy out. His other option is try to trade him and swallow the Cap hit in later years. In the latter senerio Luongo would be tradable but would not command the true value of a player of his quality.

I know there are some Canuck fans that will refuse to believe any of this but many of you will know it's true. This new CBA is going to hurt all teams already commited to over 60 Mil next year and they will probably have to shed assets at a loss or consider the buy out.

BlueBaron is offline  
Old
01-04-2013, 11:48 AM
  #981
Vankiller Whale
All hail WMD
 
Vankiller Whale's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 24,934
vCash: 400
I'd like to see even one example of a player being bought out with 9 years left on his contract. Even if the cap hit goes back to Vancouver, the salary would not. And even Vancouver wouldn't simply burn all that money in remaining on his contract so easily.

Vankiller Whale is online now  
Old
01-04-2013, 11:49 AM
  #982
JuniorNelson
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: E.Vancouver
Country: Australia-Aboriginal
Posts: 4,861
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vankiller Whale View Post
Bieksa, Burrows, and Kesler are all real good friends and would likely all want to sign on the same team.

I think I can reasonably assume that all of:

Sedins
Hamhuis
Bieksa
Burrows
Kesler
Garrison
Schneider

Would re-sign with us. Booth, Edler, and depth players are more of a toss-up, but we'd also be active buyers ourselves.

Of course, that also means Luongo would likely leave, but the opportunity to go after superstars like Shea Weber or Corey Perry as well as the average players more than makes up for it imo.
Why would any of those guys re-sign in Vancouver? Everyone on the top line has signed for low money with the understanding that this team would persue a cup. They thought it was the Stanley Cup, not the President's trophy, you see.

Vancouver is not now, nor have they during Gillis' tenure stacking up for a cup run. This team is philosophically opposed to it, in fact, if you accept that goons are part of a cup winner. Even after it was proven to everyone no changes were made. I'd argue they have no desire to persue the Stanley Cup. "Win-now-mode" refers to the regular season in Vancouver.

Gillis has stated he thinks the Sedins will play longer because of the great amenities this team provides. Any player will tell you that a beating is a beating and warm blankets do not make that go away. Yet, Gillis doesn't get it. He also has not provided any on ice deterrent, as he is opposed to goons.

So, you absorb nightly beatings with no hope of a cup, accepting less money for a shortened career?

JuniorNelson is offline  
Old
01-04-2013, 11:54 AM
  #983
BlueBaron
Registered User
 
BlueBaron's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Toronto, On
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,507
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vankiller Whale View Post
I'd like to see even one example of a player being bought out with 9 years left on his contract. Even if the cap hit goes back to Vancouver, the salary would not. And even Vancouver wouldn't simply burn all that money in remaining on his contract so easily.
Yeah it happened that other year they dropped the Cap by 10 Mil and gave 2 amnesty buy-outs. Bizarre to be looking for a precident in a new, unique situation .

BlueBaron is offline  
Old
01-04-2013, 11:59 AM
  #984
Vankiller Whale
All hail WMD
 
Vankiller Whale's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 24,934
vCash: 400
Quote:
Originally Posted by JuniorNelson View Post
Why would any of those guys re-sign in Vancouver? Everyone on the top line has signed for low money with the understanding that this team would persue a cup. They thought it was the Stanley Cup, not the President's trophy, you see.

Vancouver is not now, nor have they during Gillis' tenure stacking up for a cup run. This team is philosophically opposed to it, in fact, if you accept that goons are part of a cup winner. Even after it was proven to everyone no changes were made. I'd argue they have no desire to persue the Stanley Cup. "Win-now-mode" refers to the regular season in Vancouver.

Gillis has stated he thinks the Sedins will play longer because of the great amenities this team provides. Any player will tell you that a beating is a beating and warm blankets do not make that go away. Yet, Gillis doesn't get it. He also has not provided any on ice deterrent, as he is opposed to goons.

So, you absorb nightly beatings with no hope of a cup, accepting less money for a shortened career?
With no salary cap there's no reason for players to take pay cuts...

Vankiller Whale is online now  
Old
01-04-2013, 12:03 PM
  #985
Vankiller Whale
All hail WMD
 
Vankiller Whale's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 24,934
vCash: 400
Quote:
Originally Posted by BlueBaron View Post
Yeah it happened that other year they dropped the Cap by 10 Mil and gave 2 amnesty buy-outs. Bizarre to be looking for a precident in a new, unique situation .
Oh, so if you're just assuming stuff with nothing to back it up, I'll just assume Bryzgalov will be bought out, making them the most likely destination for Luongo, then.

Vankiller Whale is online now  
Old
01-04-2013, 12:13 PM
  #986
racerjoe
Registered User
 
racerjoe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 2,110
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by FerrisRox View Post
Considering I work for one of those networks, let me tell you, unequivocally, you are deep into fantasy land.
Go back and look through the Luongo threads, it is all over with sources, including when John Shannon of sportsnet on Sportsnet talked about how the leafs upped their offer because of EDM. It was right around when the lockout started.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BlueBaron View Post
Ok, so the current talk is in the new CBA that any contract where the players remaining years are not honored due to early retirement will see the cap hit return to the Team that signed the contract for the remainder if it's term.

This does not seem like a contract with the potential to be bought out while amnesty still exists ? (because everyone wants to spend a 12th of their payroll on someone who retired )

Add to this that he has asked to be traded. So naturally you should trade Schnieder and stick with the guy who says " It's time to move on " . Yes, this sends a fine message to the Team.

Not trading Luongo would in no way be a distraction to the Team because Vancouver is a magical land immune to distractions that would affect other teams and so there is no need to trade him quickly.

It is logical to spend 1/6 of your payroll on goaltending (in a 60 mil cap senerio)....

None of these things in any way impact Luongo's trade value because other Gm's are too stupid to see the difficult position Gillis is in.


I'm sorry, if the new Cap is 60 Mil with 2 buy outs and the Canuckas are forced to pay the full life of the contract regardless of wether Luongo is playing or not, Gillis would be an idiot not to consider a buy out. His other option is try to trade him and swallow the Cap hit in later years. In the latter senerio Luongo would be tradable but would not command the true value of a player of his quality.

I know there are some Canuck fans that will refuse to believe any of this but many of you will know it's true. This new CBA is going to hurt all teams already commited to over 60 Mil next year and they will probably have to shed assets at a loss or consider the buy out.
40 mil to buy out<10 mil to retire

It has been proven a few times, the Canucks can make a lineup just fine under 60 mil WITH Luongo. It is not ideal, and most likely won't be needed, but very achievable. This simply means, we don't have to trade him. We can wait for the best offer.

With 2 amnesty buy outs the Canucks can actually take back a bad contract.

racerjoe is offline  
Old
01-04-2013, 12:17 PM
  #987
blankall
Registered User
 
blankall's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 5,276
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bleach Clean View Post
The cap decreases next year. 2013-2014. There is a season, or at least 6 months before anything _needs_ to occur to fit other pieces in. Plenty of time. Until such time, Luongo is in a Canucks jersey, helping the Canucks. That's all that really matters to people here.



It's not a choice between losing a chance at the cup, and riding it out either. That is a false dichotomy you are creating. Last year, the Canucks ran both goalies to the PT. The year before that, they had both goalies, onto the 2011 SCF run and the other PT. There is no choice here that precludes the other option. The chance at the cup is still there.



In the end, Luongo is helping the Canucks win in the meantime, and the fans don't see that as a negative here. No matter how much it is being coloured as such. We've seen the tandem work here for 2 years straight, a 3rd isn't likely going to change things.

And, both runs expossed major holes in the team. With the goalie tandem situation you can probably run the same team this year, if there is a season.

Next year when the cap drops, however, not only will you be unable to improve the team, you'll have to part with depth players like Higgins, Malhotra, Raymond, etc.. and replace them with players like Volpatti, Weise, etc... You'll also be relying on players like Schroeder, Kassian, etc.. to make a huge jump forward in their play and become full time tween line (2nd/3rd line) players.

I don't doubt you can keep the goalie tandem going for this year, but after that, you'll have to move a goalie to remain competitive. Once again, the Sedins are now 32, you should try and capitalize on the chance to make the team as good as possible now. Stubbornly hanging onto both Luongo and Schneider, because you think you are entitled to top end prospects/picks that noone is offering is ridiculous.

blankall is offline  
Old
01-04-2013, 12:22 PM
  #988
blankall
Registered User
 
blankall's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 5,276
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by racerjoe View Post
Go back and look through the Luongo threads, it is all over with sources, including when John Shannon of sportsnet on Sportsnet talked about how the leafs upped their offer because of EDM. It was right around when the lockout started.



40 mil to buy out<10 mil to retire

It has been proven a few times, the Canucks can make a lineup just fine under 60 mil WITH Luongo. It is not ideal, and most likely won't be needed, but very achievable. This simply means, we don't have to trade him. We can wait for the best offer.

With 2 amnesty buy outs the Canucks can actually take back a bad contract.
No it really hasn't. All the lineups posted so far have absolutely abysmal bottom sixes. With Edler and Burrows getting meaty raises next year, you need to move as much cap as possible to maintain a competitive team.

blankall is offline  
Old
01-04-2013, 12:24 PM
  #989
racerjoe
Registered User
 
racerjoe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 2,110
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by blankall View Post
And, both runs expossed major holes in the team. With the goalie tandem situation you can probably run the same team this year, if there is a season.

Next year when the cap drops, however, not only will you be unable to improve the team, you'll have to part with depth players like Higgins, Malhotra, Raymond, etc.. and replace them with players like Volpatti, Weise, etc... You'll also be relying on players like Schroeder, Kassian, etc.. to make a huge jump forward in their play and become full time tween line (2nd/3rd line) players.

I don't doubt you can keep the goalie tandem going for this year, but after that, you'll have to move a goalie to remain competitive. Once again, the Sedins are now 32, you should try and capitalize on the chance to make the team as good as possible now. Stubbornly hanging onto both Luongo and Schneider, because you think you are entitled to top end prospects/picks that noone is offering is ridiculous.
Just thought I would point out we are most likely not resigning Manny or Raymond at the end of the season, and most likely this year will see Schreoder and Kassian in the lineup. Also Weise and Volpati were our fourth line players last year, so having them still there is not a step down.

It's not as bad as you are trying to make it out to be. I still think he will be traded before any of this matters.

racerjoe is offline  
Old
01-04-2013, 12:29 PM
  #990
blankall
Registered User
 
blankall's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 5,276
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by racerjoe View Post
Just thought I would point out we are most likely not resigning Manny or Raymond at the end of the season, and most likely this year will see Schreoder and Kassian in the lineup. Also Weise and Volpati were our fourth line players last year, so having them still there is not a step down.

It's not as bad as you are trying to make it out to be. I still think he will be traded before any of this matters.
It's a massive gamble to assume that either of Kassian or Schreoder can step into a top 6 role immediately, as without Higgins, you'd missing that.

Although Weise and Volpati were on the team last year, they saw very limited minutes and games. Both averaged less than 9 minutes a game of ice time. Volpatti played in only 23 games. To know rely on both players to play an expanded role in 82 games would be a big step down.

Although you may not have been signing Manny or Raymond anyways, you have to admit they both bring talents to the game, despite their flaws. You'd be much better off having extra money to bring in similar bonifide NHLers than hoping players like Volpatti, Weise, etc.. can somehow expand their roles and pick up the slack.

blankall is offline  
Old
01-04-2013, 12:29 PM
  #991
Spazmatic Dan
Force Beyond Measure
 
Spazmatic Dan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Chatham, ON
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,071
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bleach Clean View Post
Point out to me the "conditions" in his _initial_ post. He just refers to the new CBA. That's what makes it baseless. SC didn't protect
himself from making an outlandish claim in his initial post by listing caveats. Here it is again:






No Caveats.






It is not a counter to an equally opposed view point. It is a counter to what is likely to occur. He adopts the stance of the unlikely vs. the likely.



And no, the block is still the original, baseless claim. It brings about no meaningful discussion, as evidenced by the responses it garnered.
He adopts a stance based on the "new CBA" which doesn't exist yet. I didn't even consider he would've meant something other than the NHL's proposals with a lowered cap and an amnesty buyout clause so I apologize if that wasn't your interpretation. What did you think he was talking about?



Quote:
So trade the far better player vs evening out the roster? That's not a tough call at all to make.








The hypothetical you pose isn't put forth in SC's initial post. He's not arguing redundant asset vs. positional needs. He's just saying Luongo is likely to be bought out. That's it.



To contend what you are saying: Redundant asset or not, Luongo still carries far more value than Booth. So you should be able to recoup value better in the long-run. Regardless of current positional needs.
As you can see above, I thought that the phrase "new CBA" implied more than you apparently did. I thought his "caveat" as you put it was a natural expansion on what he said. This is sort of what I mean by "meaningful discussion": instead of jumping on him, why not expand on his opinion and provide counter points? You can only have a meaningful discussion if both parties participate.

Anyways, on to the hypothetical. The scenario is that due to a proposed $60M cap and the two amnesty buyout clause, Luongo's value plummets and makes trading any salary difficult because most teams without a budget. If this happens does it then make sense for Vancouver worsen the rest of the team via buyout vs buying out Luongo when you have Schneider?

Are you thinking you would make the forward group worse and try to trade Luongo a year or two down the road?

Spazmatic Dan is offline  
Old
01-04-2013, 12:30 PM
  #992
Bleach Clean
Registered User
 
Bleach Clean's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 15,580
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by blankall View Post
And, both runs expossed major holes in the team. With the goalie tandem situation you can probably run the same team this year, if there is a season.

Next year when the cap drops, however, not only will you be unable to improve the team, you'll have to part with depth players like Higgins, Malhotra, Raymond, etc.. and replace them with players like Volpatti, Weise, etc... You'll also be relying on players like Schroeder, Kassian, etc.. to make a huge jump forward in their play and become full time tween line (2nd/3rd line) players.

I don't doubt you can keep the goalie tandem going for this year, but after that, you'll have to move a goalie to remain competitive. Once again, the Sedins are now 32, you should try and capitalize on the chance to make the team as good as possible now. Stubbornly hanging onto both Luongo and Schneider, because you think you are entitled to top end prospects/picks that noone is offering is ridiculous.



You are attributing a position to me that I have not taken. I'm talking about this year, and only this year. For this year, the tandem can be kept. _Can_ be, not _should_ be. So there is no immediate pressure to trade Luongo _this_year_. Savvy?


Next year, I agree, Luongo needs to be traded before hand.



Oh, and if this team had "major holes", they wouldn't have won back to back PTs and made a run to the SCF in 2011. I think this team will be fine _this_year_ as it is. As it has proven to be.

Bleach Clean is offline  
Old
01-04-2013, 12:42 PM
  #993
BlueBaron
Registered User
 
BlueBaron's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Toronto, On
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,507
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vankiller Whale View Post
Oh, so if you're just assuming stuff with nothing to back it up, I'll just assume Bryzgalov will be bought out, making them the most likely destination for Luongo, then.
Maybe you can't read. Firstly I did not say he would be bought out, I said it would have to be considered. A far more pragmatic statement than " He will never be bought out" . So yes I speculated based on the information available to all of us using logic to make a conclusion.

If you are seriously saying no one can speculate because this never happened before then you are really desperate to cling to your belief system. Some of us can think for ourselves and I am sorry if you cannot.

BlueBaron is offline  
Old
01-04-2013, 12:49 PM
  #994
spiny norman
Global Moderator
Dinsdale !!!
 
spiny norman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Winnipeg, MB
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,686
vCash: 500
New thread is open.

http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/sh....php?t=1315851

spiny norman 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 09:33 PM.

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

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