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.

Luongo: Light at the end of the tunnel?

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
01-08-2013, 02:39 PM
  #926
marty111
Registered User
 
marty111's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,565
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter Griffin View Post
It's quite relevant. The Leafs are arguably two key pieces away from being a legit playoff contending team, a solid, #1 goaltender and a proven #1 center. Acquiring Luongo could very well help them to acquire that other piece this off-season when there are a number of options that could be available during UFA. Is a Getzlaf, Zajac or Weiss more likely to re-sign with Toronto after another disappointing year where their goaltending questions haven't been answered or with a proven, elite goaltender in the mix? What about Phil Kessel, is he likely to re-sign when the teams most important position hasn't been addressed? Sure, Reimer/Scrivens or something else could present itself down the road and fix the Leafs' goaltending issue, but given Burke's track record with "finding" goaltending talent, I wouldn't count on it.
It has nothing to do with the validity or strength or disadvantage of Luongo's contract. So it is off point and irrelevant to my point, sorry.

marty111 is offline  
Old
01-08-2013, 02:39 PM
  #927
MajorPain
Registered User
 
MajorPain's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 310
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vankiller Whale View Post
The salary being paid is meaningless to Toronto. 5.3 million for Luongo compared to Bryzgalov at 5.7 mil, Lehtonen at 6 mil, Price at 6.5 million, etc is excellent cap usage for any team that spends to the cap. It's only when his salary drops and his play declines and he retires that the team would get hit with a 2 mil slap on the wrist.
You could add Kipper in there at 5.833 at age 36.

MajorPain is offline  
Old
01-08-2013, 02:40 PM
  #928
Vankiller Whale
Maybe HE can score
 
Vankiller Whale's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 24,265
vCash: 5555
Quote:
Originally Posted by marty111 View Post
IT'S NOT! They will be penalized on the cap for it.
In 7 years time, they would be hit with 2.1 mil penalty. That has nothing to do with the previous 6 years that they were contending while trying to maximize cap space.

Vankiller Whale is offline  
Old
01-08-2013, 02:40 PM
  #929
racerjoe
Registered User
 
racerjoe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 2,099
vCash: 500
You can argue it both ways, that is the problem. For the near future his contract is very good. After he retires, it MAY hurt, but there is a lot of red tape to work through here.

I think the fact EF, came out and called it good in his blog, shows you what most hockey people are thinking.

Also I have heard three guys on the radio today say RL value has gone up. Especially if they can trade salary. I didn't catch all of their names, but one was Ray Ferraro, they were all "experts" the two I don't know the names of were national reporters, so this isn't Vancouver bias either. Just saying.

racerjoe is offline  
Old
01-08-2013, 02:40 PM
  #930
Bleach Clean
Registered User
 
Bleach Clean's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 15,292
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by marty111 View Post
Paying Luongo 6.7M for the next six seasons in NOT market value. The only reason those numbers made sense is if the cap hit was advantageous.

Now it's not and in effect any Vancouver fans who feel paying a 38, 39 year old 6.7M is market value is crazy.

Show me a comparable.

The recapture feature most certainly hurts his value and was a mistake by Gillis. How much is debatable but all these excuses how it's now a 'fair contract' or a 'negligible difference' is absolutely kidding themselves.


Paying or cap-hit? His payment falls in line. It's fair. His cap hit is a discount.



The only comparables would be other cap-circumvention contracts. Compare it to Zetterberg/Franzen and Kovalchuk or Hossa to your own contentment.

Bleach Clean is offline  
Old
01-08-2013, 02:40 PM
  #931
marty111
Registered User
 
marty111's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,565
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter Griffin View Post
Martin Brodeur's salary last season was $5.2M which he signed back in 06/07 under a $44M cap.
Oh ok, so theres one salary 1.5M less. Not a strong argument. That would put it above fair market price.

marty111 is offline  
Old
01-08-2013, 02:45 PM
  #932
Peter Griffin
Registered User
 
Peter Griffin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Country: Canada
Posts: 26,713
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by marty111 View Post
It has nothing to do with the validity or strength or disadvantage of Luongo's contract. So it is off point and irrelevant to my point, sorry.
Sorry, didn't realize you were having a side discussion with Vankiller Whale, I thought it was just a general thread question he had posed.

Quote:
Originally Posted by marty111
Oh ok, so theres one salary 1.5M less. Not a strong argument. That would put it above fair market price.
When you factor in inflation and the likely rising cap, then I'd say it's very comparable.

The fact that you're concerned about what could happen in 6/7 years from now and not the future 3-5 years is the main issue. I guarantee most GM's don't plan for 6/7 years from now as the likelihood is they won't even be around and if they are, they've been successful! On top of that, so many things can happen in even a few years that worrying about a cap hit 6/7 years from now is futile.

Peter Griffin is offline  
Old
01-08-2013, 02:46 PM
  #933
Bleach Clean
Registered User
 
Bleach Clean's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 15,292
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by marty111 View Post
Because my point is strictly based on the value of his contract and whether it's fair or whatever each new Vancouver fan is spewing.

Skipping over that conversation is again turning a blind eye to the problem, sorry.


What was your assessment poor/fair/good, prior to the recapture formula?


I look at it like this: His contract was illegally great prior to the new CBA. Now, it's still good, but only if you have a shrewd GM. It's dropped in value slightly because their is the re-capture formula in play. However, it's so pathetic or miniscule that it only slightly affects how you see the deal.


What var is saying is that it was a discount before. This cannot be denied. Now, they "punish" the tail end of the deal. Again, slightly. So do the teams still get the _cap_ discount for another 6 years? Yup. Does the ding at the final 3 years overrule or outweigh the discount received for twice as long a term before hand? No. So overall it just balances (and I'm being kind, it's really just a slap on the wrist) the deal.

Bleach Clean is offline  
Old
01-08-2013, 02:47 PM
  #934
marty111
Registered User
 
marty111's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,565
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bleach Clean View Post
Paying or cap-hit? His payment falls in line. It's fair. His cap hit is a discount.



The only comparables would be other cap-circumvention contracts. Compare it to Zetterberg/Franzen and Kovalchuk or Hossa to your own contentment.
Bleach for goodness sakes, I'm talking about goaltending. Maybe you don't fully understand the new CBA. Whatever is being paid to Luongo [6.7M] and his cap hit [5.3M] will factor into the penalty given out depending on when he retires.

So yes, a team will get him on the cap now at 5.3M [below value] but will be later penalized for it so in effect the savings are gone in the long term.

THAT'S THE ENTIRE POINT OF CAP CIRCUMVENTING CONTRACTS. To get a lower cap hit on a longer deal, NOT being penalized for it when it's all done.

So I ask you, is a goalie at 33 worth close to 7M for the next 6 years? Hell no he's not. That's above market value now and thus Luongo when it's all said and done is a goalie getting paid above market value. Even then there are still 11 years on the contract which is a further detriment to whole concept itself.

I think there's been way too much Luongo and Gillis love going on in Vancouver to realize this. It is official, the contract is not a good one and Gillis made a boo boo here.

I'm not saying he is untradeable but to anyone suggesting that the cap penality makes NO DIFFERENCE is sniffing glue or something.

marty111 is offline  
Old
01-08-2013, 02:47 PM
  #935
sully1410
Registered User
 
sully1410's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Turner Valley, Alta.
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,126
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by marty111 View Post
IT'S NOT! They will be penalized on the cap for it.
I'm pretty sure thats not how that works.

Also worth mentioning...the cap will be much higher then.

sully1410 is offline  
Old
01-08-2013, 02:50 PM
  #936
colchar
Registered User
 
colchar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,217
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Al Swearengen View Post
To continue this analogy, at least with Luongo you have someone who can run the whole race.

Yeah but how far back do they finish with a slow starter? How much of the season will be gone by the time he gets going?

colchar is offline  
Old
01-08-2013, 02:53 PM
  #937
marty111
Registered User
 
marty111's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,565
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bleach Clean View Post
What was your assessment poor/fair/good, prior to the recapture formula?


I look at it like this: His contract was illegally great prior to the new CBA.
I think you are confusing the point that Gary Bettman - for example - hated these contracts because they provided unfair advantage to teams in a league he wanted to excel at parity.

It goes two ways. Vancouver would have an unfair advantage now and would have a disadvantage when it's over [penatly].

Gary doesn't want either and in addition doesn't want GM's spending money so carelessly that it cripples the function of the league [no insurance on deal over 7 years - sound familiar?]

These contracts effect parity in both the short term AND the long term of the league and the problem with that is that short sighted GM's like Gillis - who will be long gone before the effects of the deal - signed them for selfish reasons.

marty111 is offline  
Old
01-08-2013, 02:53 PM
  #938
The Saurus
Registered User
 
The Saurus's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Country: United Nations
Posts: 8,194
vCash: 500
Vancouver fans: "Toronto, you're going to trade for Roberto, and you're going to pay this particular price!"
Toronto fans: "No we aren't paying that price!"

Etc. etc. etc.

It feels as if Vancouver fans are actively pushing Roberto out the door and dictating to other teams what they will pay for his services. Unfortunately, it doesn't work that way in real life. Based on past deals and the philosophy in Toronto's front office at the moment, I would be very surprised if Brian Burke offers anything of significant value for Roberto. That includes prospects like Nazem Kadri, Jake Gardiner, Morgan Rielly, Matt Frattin, etc., or high draft picks.

Brian is a stubborn man. Once he feels a GM is being outrageous in their trade demands, he usually hangs up and refuses to call back. I could see that being the case with Gillis.

The Saurus is offline  
Old
01-08-2013, 02:54 PM
  #939
HamhuisHip
LeggsOverMyHamhuis
 
HamhuisHip's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Victoria
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,088
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by sully1410 View Post
I'm pretty sure thats not how that works.

Also worth mentioning...the cap will be much higher then.
Yes, and it could be approaching $90M by the time this CBA ends. $2M is just a drop in the cap bucket by year 7 = $77M cap.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/sport...rticle7029575/

HamhuisHip is offline  
Old
01-08-2013, 02:55 PM
  #940
Hoss
Registered User
 
Hoss's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,033
vCash: 500
I say keep him, Luo usually ***** the bed till December anyway. The lockout was the Canucks' most effective tool for bypassing meh-hockey.

Hoss is offline  
Old
01-08-2013, 02:56 PM
  #941
racerjoe
Registered User
 
racerjoe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 2,099
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by marty111 View Post
Bleach for goodness sakes, I'm talking about goaltending. Maybe you don't fully understand the new CBA. Whatever is being paid to Luongo [6.7M] and his cap hit [5.3M] will factor into the penalty given out depending on when he retires.

So yes, a team will get him on the cap now at 5.3M [below value] but will be later penalized for it so in effect the savings are gone in the long term.

THAT'S THE ENTIRE POINT OF CAP CIRCUMVENTING CONTRACTS. To get a lower cap hit on a longer deal, NOT being penalized for it when it's all done.

So I ask you, is a goalie at 33 worth close to 7M for the next 6 years? Hell no he's not. That's above market value now and thus Luongo when it's all said and done is a goalie getting paid above market value. Even then there are still 11 years on the contract which is a further detriment to whole concept itself.

I think there's been way too much Luongo and Gillis love going on in Vancouver to realize this. It is official, the contract is not a good one and Gillis made a boo boo here.

I'm not saying he is untradeable but to anyone suggesting that the cap penality makes NO DIFFERENCE is sniffing glue or something.

The other point to be made here is as the cap is low, so is his cap hit, as it goes up you get hurt.

What I mean is the 1.5 mil savings now is better value than the 2 mil cap hit in later years.

Lets take the NHL's own numbers of 5% growth, and the NHL's lowest cap ceiling this season of 60 mil. In 6 years, the cap would be about 75 mil.(I rounded numbers to make it easier math). Keep in mind it is the worst case too.

So 1.5mil saving in 64.3mil cap > than 2 mil cap hit in 75 mil Cap.

racerjoe is offline  
Old
01-08-2013, 02:57 PM
  #942
colchar
Registered User
 
colchar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,217
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bourne Endeavor View Post
A) We have been over this. No we do not. I know this typical Leaf rhetoric; "You must trade player x for cap/salary/oversaturation/lulz" but like practically every team who endure this tactic. You are wrong.
No, you are. The situation dictates that he be dealt.


Quote:
1A) Edmonton and Chicago both kicks the tires prior to the lockout debacle. There is nothing to suggest Gillis is not in talks with both again.
There is very little chance he is dealt in conference.


Quote:
B) Once again, no we will not. If we retained Luongo, yes cap crunching would be difficult but certainly feasible. Contrary to popular belief, Vancouver fans have a greater idea of their roster than fans of other teams. Shocking, I know.
Yes, you most certainly will have cap issues. And Canucks fans might know their roster but they seem to have a tough time understanding the realities of the cap. Vancouver is one of the teams the media used an an example when talking about cap difficulties when that part of the CBA was being worked out.


Quote:
C) Aye, but only from demands of Gardiner, not to the extent of Bozak+2nd no matter how often it's perpetuated.
It likely won't be Bozak and a 2nd but it sure as hell isn't going to be 2-3 players and a 1st as has been posted here. It will be Bozak and another player but not much more.


Quote:
D) Only to fans with a belief GMs are concerned over a minuscule cap hit nearly a decade from now. Many GMs have spent more on buyouts or poor signings. Elite goaltending supersedes a possible slap on the wrist.
GMs who have long term plans should be concerned. Hell, people are still complaining about the Leafs paying Tucker and his hit is minimal.


Quote:
E) A decrease to $64.3M does not have the negative effects toward most teams as you are attempting to illustrate.
For many teams it won't but for some teams, Vancouver included, it most certainly will.


Quote:
We could also keep both and gamble they perform up to or exceeding expectations, increasing their value in the off season.
Good luck with that.

colchar is offline  
Old
01-08-2013, 02:58 PM
  #943
Vankiller Whale
Maybe HE can score
 
Vankiller Whale's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 24,265
vCash: 5555
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Saurus View Post
Vancouver fans: "Toronto, you're going to trade for Roberto, and you're going to pay this particular price!"
Toronto fans: "No we aren't paying that price!"

Etc. etc. etc.

It feels as if Vancouver fans are actively pushing Roberto out the door and dictating to other teams what they will pay for his services. Unfortunately, it doesn't work that way in real life. Based on past deals and the philosophy in Toronto's front office at the moment, I would be very surprised if Brian Burke offers anything of significant value for Roberto. That includes prospects like Nazem Kadri, Jake Gardiner, Morgan Rielly, Matt Frattin, etc., or high draft picks.

Brian is a stubborn man. Once he feels a GM is being outrageous in their trade demands, he usually hangs up and refuses to call back. I could see that being the case with Gillis.
I was about to say "Good riddance", but then I realized we're all just fans speculating on why Luongo would go for "x" value, and it's absolutely ludicrous to blame any GM for something that hasn't happened yet.

And while we're on to fan base bashing, there's been a lot of Toronto fans saying "Gillis has no choice but to trade Luongo to us for scraps, we're the only quasi-interested team". So it cuts both ways.

Vankiller Whale is offline  
Old
01-08-2013, 02:59 PM
  #944
colchar
Registered User
 
colchar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,217
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bourne Endeavor View Post
Two of our best players were injured, the powerplay was abysmal and the team itself was simply underperforming. That could very well have been an anomaly, hence a great deal of us feel we could run the gauntlet again.

What is your excuse for the year before?

colchar is offline  
Old
01-08-2013, 02:59 PM
  #945
frag2
Registered User
 
frag2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,395
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bleach Clean View Post
What was your assessment poor/fair/good, prior to the recapture formula?


I look at it like this: His contract was illegally great prior to the new CBA. Now, it's still good, but only if you have a shrewd GM. It's dropped in value slightly because their is the re-capture formula in play. However, it's so pathetic or miniscule that it only slightly affects how you see the deal.


What var is saying is that it was a discount before. This cannot be denied. Now, they "punish" the tail end of the deal. Again, slightly. So do the teams still get the _cap_ discount for another 6 years? Yup. Does the ding at the final 3 years overrule or outweigh the discount received for twice as long a term before hand? No. So overall it just balances (and I'm being kind, it's really just a slap on the wrist) the deal.
You do know that if Luongo gets traded this year, retires with 1 year remaining, the penalty for that 1 year is ~6M right? For the Nucks sake, once traded, they hope he retires early as the 6M gets spread over X years remaining.

The longer they hold onto Luongo, they're better off cap wise [and barring his performance declining drastically] to just hang onto him till he retires.

Mike Gillis put himself in a tough position now with the new CBA rules and uncertainty of cap direction in 2 years.

frag2 is offline  
Old
01-08-2013, 03:00 PM
  #946
racerjoe
Registered User
 
racerjoe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 2,099
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by colchar View Post
What is your excuse for the year before?
It sure sucks to make it to Game 7 of the Stanley cup finals...

racerjoe is offline  
Old
01-08-2013, 03:01 PM
  #947
Bleach Clean
Registered User
 
Bleach Clean's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 15,292
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by marty111 View Post
Bleach for goodness sakes, I'm talking about goaltending. Maybe you don't fully understand the new CBA. Whatever is being paid to Luongo [6.7M] and his cap hit [5.3M] will factor into the penalty given out depending on when he retires.


Based on the responses you have been getting from others, I'm pretty sure I have the understanding down. You might want to re-evaluate though.


I am the first to post in this thread when recapture was being discussed, even talked with the person doing the excel sheet breakdown, and have studied the friedman + Lebrun articles. I know what the penalty is likely to be depending on when he retires. If he plays to 39, the penalty is 6m over 3 years. It's in the friedman article for reference.


Quote:
So yes, a team will get him on the cap now at 5.3M [below value] but will be later penalized for it so in effect the savings are gone in the long term.

THAT'S THE ENTIRE POINT OF CAP CIRCUMVENTING CONTRACTS. To get a lower cap hit on a longer deal, NOT being penalized for it when it's all done.


Lol, really? I didn't know that? haha. So that's what cap-circumventing deals are about.



The effective savings are not "gone". They aren't even _leveled_off_. That's the point that is flying over your head. The recapture pathetically attempts to punish teams without really doing it in a meaningful way. Especially when you can use the superflous 2m cap-hit to bump against the cap and go into LTIR space. You just just need a smart GM to abuse that even further.


Quote:
So I ask you, is a goalie at 33 worth close to 7M for the next 6 years? Hell no he's not. That's above market value now and thus Luongo when it's all said and done is a goalie getting paid above market value. Even then there are still 11 years on the contract which is a further detriment to whole concept itself.

I think there's been way too much Luongo and Gillis love going on in Vancouver to realize this. It is official, the contract is not a good one and Gillis made a boo boo here.

I'm not saying he is untradeable but to anyone suggesting that the cap penality makes NO DIFFERENCE is sniffing glue or something.


Is a high end starter worth 6.7m of real salary over 6 years? Probably not. But then you have guys like Bryzgalov being 5.6m+, so who knows what the market value will be like as we go along? Luongo was worth 6.75m under a 41m cap IIRC. Remember that.



It's a official, the recapture formula is a joke.



The cap penalty does make a difference. Don't get me wrong. But it's of so little importance (2m over 3 years) that it shouldn't make much of one. It is easily resolved by adding just a bit more from VAN's end, or working out extra salary paid to TOR/FLA to compensate, via the the new rules to do so.



You are blowing this well out of proportion marty111.

Bleach Clean is offline  
Old
01-08-2013, 03:01 PM
  #948
Diamonddog01
Registered User
 
Diamonddog01's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,151
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Saurus View Post
Vancouver fans: "Toronto, you're going to trade for Roberto, and you're going to pay this particular price!"
Toronto fans: "No we aren't paying that price!"

Etc. etc. etc.

It feels as if Vancouver fans are actively pushing Roberto out the door and dictating to other teams what they will pay for his services. Unfortunately, it doesn't work that way in real life. Based on past deals and the philosophy in Toronto's front office at the moment, I would be very surprised if Brian Burke offers anything of significant value for Roberto. That includes prospects like Nazem Kadri, Jake Gardiner, Morgan Rielly, Matt Frattin, etc., or high draft picks.

Brian is a stubborn man. Once he feels a GM is being outrageous in their trade demands, he usually hangs up and refuses to call back. I could see that being the case with Gillis.
That's fine, then Toronto doesn't get Loungo and finishes 11th to 14th again. Doesn't affect Vancouver in any way.

Gillis moves on to the other teams that were interested, gets a deal done and this thread stops, Toronto is bad again, and Vancouver makes the playoffs. Sounds just fine to me.

Diamonddog01 is offline  
Old
01-08-2013, 03:01 PM
  #949
marty111
Registered User
 
marty111's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,565
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by sully1410 View Post
I'm pretty sure thats not how that works.

Also worth mentioning...the cap will be much higher then.
According the news reports it is. Both Vancouver and the team that acquires him will realistically have a cap penalty of 2-3M for multiple years after Lu retires.

And I get that the cap may be higher but that doesn't make it ok. Other teams will have more to spend then whatever team acquires him and the Canucks.

marty111 is offline  
Old
01-08-2013, 03:03 PM
  #950
Bleach Clean
Registered User
 
Bleach Clean's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 15,292
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by frag2 View Post
You do know that if Luongo gets traded this year, retires with 1 year remaining, the penalty for that 1 year is ~6M right? For the Nucks sake, once traded, they hope he retires early as the 6M gets spread over X years remaining.

The longer they hold onto Luongo, they're better off cap wise [and barring his performance declining drastically] to just hang onto him till he retires.

Mike Gillis put himself in a tough position now with the new CBA rules and uncertainty of cap direction in 2 years.


You do realize that with whatever team Luongo is traded to, there will be an understanding between GMs and player of exactly when Luongo _should_ officially retire correct? So as to decrease the burden on both.


Luongo will be gone at the end of the year at the very latest.

Bleach Clean 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 07:51 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.