HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Western Conference > Central Division > St. Louis Blues
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

Blues Trade Proposals Part 3

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
02-14-2013, 01:25 PM
  #851
PerryTurnbullfan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Penalty Box
Country:
Posts: 2,148
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alklha View Post
In terms of a bridge contract, we could only offer him 2 years, any longer takes him into UFA. Our history is to give out bridge deals, it would also somewhat keep the cost down in the short term.

I want to have both signed to 8 year deals asap. If Shattenkirk is going to be looking for $5m+ long term, then things could become problematic for us.
Why wouldn't he expect 4.5-5 million a year minimum?


Last edited by PerryTurnbullfan: 02-14-2013 at 01:52 PM.
PerryTurnbullfan is offline  
Old
02-14-2013, 02:21 PM
  #852
Alklha
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 7,281
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by PerryTurnbullfan View Post
Why wouldn't he expect 4.5-5 million a year minimum?
I'm not saying what he should or shouldn't expect, rather what impact it will have on our budget. I think that it probably is going to to $4.75m+ to get Shattenkirk on a long term deal.

If it was going to take $6.5m for Petro and $5.25m for Shattenkirk, then we'd have $18.1m committed to 4 defensemen next season. For a budget team, getting $0.75m off their combined earnings would be huge.

Alklha is offline  
Old
02-14-2013, 02:36 PM
  #853
PerryTurnbullfan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Penalty Box
Country:
Posts: 2,148
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alklha View Post
I'm not saying what he should or shouldn't expect, rather what impact it will have on our budget. I think that it probably is going to to $4.75m+ to get Shattenkirk on a long term deal.

If it was going to take $6.5m for Petro and $5.25m for Shattenkirk, then we'd have $18.1m committed to 4 defensemen next season. For a budget team, getting $0.75m off their combined earnings would be huge.
I agree. It would be tough to swallow, but he has a resume that says he deserves it. Hopefully, Pietro and he take a team attitude in the business of St. Louis Blues hockey. However, I wouldn't blame them for asking for what they are worth.

PerryTurnbullfan is offline  
Old
02-14-2013, 03:02 PM
  #854
TheOrganist
Don't Call Him Alex
 
TheOrganist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 2,874
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alklha View Post
In terms of a bridge contract, we could only offer him 2 years, any longer takes him into UFA. Our history is to give out bridge deals, it would also somewhat keep the cost down in the short term.

I want to have both signed to 8 year deals asap. If Shattenkirk is going to be looking for $5m+ long term, then things could become problematic for us.
Regarding the "bridge" deals, I think it's just different timelines for different players. It depends on how accelerated a players progression is and how quickly management can make a decision if X young player is 100% part of the core of the team going forward.

Oshie, for example, was very much an undefined commodity for most of his career from a role and points perspective before he embraced his gifts as a two-way player. So his fuzzy trajectory coupled with his maturation issues off the ice made it clear why the team didn't invest in him long-term until recently.

Shattenkirk on the other hand is much more defined and projectable despite being younger.

He has the numbers and stats all moving in the right direction, he has attributes to his game that every team kills for, he's improving in the areas that aren't his strong-suit, and perhaps most importantly he's very coachable, very mature, and by all accounts will blossom into a great leader as he captained the NTDP U18 team and BU.

Armstrong has proven to be an excellent negotiator but unlike in his dealings with other agents, Shatty's representatives have raw numbers to back up whatever their demands might be.

The fact is that since he was called up in 2010-11, only Karlsson and Petro are in his class among defenseman in his [relative] age bracket when it comes to offensive output.

-----

Separately, I believe they could give Shatty a 3-yr bridge contract not 2 since he won't turn 27 until the middle of the 2015-16 season.

TheOrganist is offline  
Old
02-14-2013, 06:21 PM
  #855
sh724
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Missouri
Country: United States
Posts: 2,048
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheOrganist View Post
Regarding the "bridge" deals, I think it's just different timelines for different players. It depends on how accelerated a players progression is and how quickly management can make a decision if X young player is 100% part of the core of the team going forward.

Oshie, for example, was very much an undefined commodity for most of his career from a role and points perspective before he embraced his gifts as a two-way player. So his fuzzy trajectory coupled with his maturation issues off the ice made it clear why the team didn't invest in him long-term until recently.

Shattenkirk on the other hand is much more defined and projectable despite being younger.

He has the numbers and stats all moving in the right direction, he has attributes to his game that every team kills for, he's improving in the areas that aren't his strong-suit, and perhaps most importantly he's very coachable, very mature, and by all accounts will blossom into a great leader as he captained the NTDP U18 team and BU.

Armstrong has proven to be an excellent negotiator but unlike in his dealings with other agents, Shatty's representatives have raw numbers to back up whatever their demands might be.

The fact is that since he was called up in 2010-11, only Karlsson and Petro are in his class among defenseman in his [relative] age bracket when it comes to offensive output.

-----

Separately, I believe they could give Shatty a 3-yr bridge contract not 2 since he won't turn 27 until the middle of the 2015-16 season.
Three years is a horrible idea it is exactly what every team tried to avoid. If they sign him for 2 years then he will sign another contract when he is still an RFA at 26. If they sign him to a 3 year contract he will be a UFA when it ends. It is a much better idea for a 2 year deal and then long term deal once it ends. No team wants their players contracts to end at age 27.

I put this in another thread a while back and I do not think it will happen but they should sign Shatty for 2 years and Petro for 3. When those end sign them to 8 year deals which would make the following contracts 35+ deals.

sh724 is offline  
Old
02-14-2013, 07:04 PM
  #856
TheOrganist
Don't Call Him Alex
 
TheOrganist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 2,874
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by sh724 View Post
Three years is a horrible idea it is exactly what every team tried to avoid. If they sign him for 2 years then he will sign another contract when he is still an RFA at 26. If they sign him to a 3 year contract he will be a UFA when it ends. It is a much better idea for a 2 year deal and then long term deal once it ends. No team wants their players contracts to end at age 27
Right. That was retarded of me.

I just stick my original point that I think Shattenkirk's reps have enough ammo to ask for a longer, big money deal and I think Armstrong will view Shatty as an important part of the team moving forward, barring something unforeseen.

TheOrganist is offline  
Old
02-14-2013, 07:53 PM
  #857
Alklha
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 7,281
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by sh724 View Post
Three years is a horrible idea it is exactly what every team tried to avoid. If they sign him for 2 years then he will sign another contract when he is still an RFA at 26. If they sign him to a 3 year contract he will be a UFA when it ends. It is a much better idea for a 2 year deal and then long term deal once it ends. No team wants their players contracts to end at age 27.

I put this in another thread a while back and I do not think it will happen but they should sign Shatty for 2 years and Petro for 3. When those end sign them to 8 year deals which would make the following contracts 35+ deals.
That is not going to happen. Pietrangelo will have no interest at all in a short term deal, the benefit of waiting another couple of years isn't going to significantly increase his annual $ value. If he signs an 8 year deal he has that security, plus he is 31 at the end of the deal and is perfectly positioned to sign another 8 year deal. 6 is the minimum I expect for Petro.

The short term deal situation only really applies to Shattenkirk, because he might see his long term value being significantly higher than anything we'd put on the table now. 2 years @ $4m could well be more attractive than 8 years @ $4.5m to him.

I agree with TheOrganist that Shattenkirk has shown enough to have a long term deal offered to him, I'm not not sure he's done enough to be offered a long term deal both parties would find acceptable.

Continually offering bridge deals is playing it safe though, and ultimately means we are paying closer to market value for our players. There comes a point where you have to trust yourself and take calculated risks.

Alklha is offline  
Old
02-15-2013, 05:09 AM
  #858
PerryTurnbullfan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Penalty Box
Country:
Posts: 2,148
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alklha View Post
That is not going to happen. Pietrangelo will have no interest at all in a short term deal, the benefit of waiting another couple of years isn't going to significantly increase his annual $ value. If he signs an 8 year deal he has that security, plus he is 31 at the end of the deal and is perfectly positioned to sign another 8 year deal. 6 is the minimum I expect for Petro.

The short term deal situation only really applies to Shattenkirk, because he might see his long term value being significantly higher than anything we'd put on the table now. 2 years @ $4m could well be more attractive than 8 years @ $4.5m to him.

I agree with TheOrganist that Shattenkirk has shown enough to have a long term deal offered to him, I'm not not sure he's done enough to be offered a long term deal both parties would find acceptable.

Continually offering bridge deals is playing it safe though, and ultimately means we are paying closer to market value for our players. There comes a point where you have to trust yourself and take calculated risks.
I agree with this. I think something of significance with Shattenkirk is that his game really doesn't involve tools that he will lose as he gets older. They may only get better. What I see Shattenkirk has is an impeccable ability to make passes that few can make. Passes MacInnis, Bourque, and Lidstrom made. I see his positioning and defense getting better with age. Defense is above average at best right now. If he played a speed game or flashy game I would be more concerned over the long haul of diminishing skills. Shatty doesn't seem noticeable in a game, then all the sudden someone just got the puck and no one knows how in the world he got it to him or saw him open. I don't really know how to value that. I think if you can get a long term deal in the 4-4.5 million range, I would do it. He is one of the top 5 players on your team.

I see Pietro wanting a long term deal, because his skill set will/may diminish as he gets older. If he loses a few steps due to age or injury (God forbid) and continues to play the way he does now, then I don't see him as effective as he gets older. He plays a speed game and uses it to recover from his overagressiveness. Not to say the rest of his game is lacking (he too is a great passer), I just wonder what it will be in 7-8 years. I don't think we totally know what we have in Pietro yet as a defenseman. His game has morphed since last year. I think I would like it more, if he had a better defensive partner that was just a shutdown stalwart.


Last edited by PerryTurnbullfan: 02-15-2013 at 05:16 AM.
PerryTurnbullfan is offline  
Old
02-15-2013, 01:19 PM
  #859
dandub
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: St. Louis
Country: United States
Posts: 36
vCash: 500
Strictly hypothetical here, but would you/they.

Elliott for Bouwmeester straight up

Calgary is hurting for a goalie bad, and i know Elliott's value has decreased a bit, but this seems like a fair trade to me, we may need to throw in a 3rd or 4th round. I'm not one of the people calling for Elliott's head and abandoning ship on him, but i think Halak/Allen is our future and we need that BIG D man that will rough people up in the crease.

dandub is offline  
Old
02-15-2013, 01:27 PM
  #860
bleedblue1223
OMAHA!!!
 
bleedblue1223's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 20,081
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by dandub View Post
Strictly hypothetical here, but would you/they.

Elliott for Bouwmeester straight up

Calgary is hurting for a goalie bad, and i know Elliott's value has decreased a bit, but this seems like a fair trade to me, we may need to throw in a 3rd or 4th round. I'm not one of the people calling for Elliott's head and abandoning ship on him, but i think Halak/Allen is our future and we need that BIG D man that will rough people up in the crease.
Do you know who Bouwmeester is?

I think Bouwmeester would actually be a decent option next to Pietrangelo, but when you factor in his contract, he quickly becomes on of the worst options.

bleedblue1223 is offline  
Old
02-15-2013, 01:32 PM
  #861
dandub
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: St. Louis
Country: United States
Posts: 36
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by bleedblue1223 View Post
Do you know who Bouwmeester is?

I think Bouwmeester would actually be a decent option next to Pietrangelo, but when you factor in his contract, he quickly becomes on of the worst options.
Haha what did I get wrong? He is listed as 6'4" 215. I figured he would be a guy that could clear the front of the net.

dandub is offline  
Old
02-15-2013, 01:34 PM
  #862
CarvinSigX
Registered User
 
CarvinSigX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Illinois
Country: United States
Posts: 7,953
vCash: 2616
Quote:
Originally Posted by dandub View Post
Haha what did I get wrong? He is listed as 6'4" 215. I figured he would be a guy that could clear the front of the net.
Capgeek, bro. Capgeek.

CarvinSigX is offline  
Old
02-15-2013, 01:34 PM
  #863
sh724
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Missouri
Country: United States
Posts: 2,048
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by dandub View Post
Strictly hypothetical here, but would you/they.

Elliott for Bouwmeester straight up

Calgary is hurting for a goalie bad, and i know Elliott's value has decreased a bit, but this seems like a fair trade to me, we may need to throw in a 3rd or 4th round. I'm not one of the people calling for Elliott's head and abandoning ship on him, but i think Halak/Allen is our future and we need that BIG D man that will rough people up in the crease.
There is no way in hell Calgary makes that trade. Even with Kipper being hurt they have 3 Backup caliber goalies already. If they traded for Elliott they would have to put a goalie on waivers and then when Kipper is back they would have to put another goalie on wavers. There is a much higher chance of Calgary selling off assets than them trying to compete this year.



Ottawa is interested in trading Bishop because of how well Anderson is playing and it will be hard for them to get Bishop enough games for them to keep his rights. Maybe the Blues look at bringing him back and sending Elliott some where. Although OTT will want defensive help which the Blues do not really have any extra.

sh724 is offline  
Old
02-15-2013, 01:43 PM
  #864
Bluesman91
Registered User
 
Bluesman91's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 4,627
vCash: 2357
Quote:
Originally Posted by sh724 View Post
There is no way in hell Calgary makes that trade. Even with Kipper being hurt they have 3 Backup caliber goalies already. If they traded for Elliott they would have to put a goalie on waivers and then when Kipper is back they would have to put another goalie on wavers. There is a much higher chance of Calgary selling off assets than them trying to compete this year.



Ottawa is interested in trading Bishop because of how well Anderson is playing and it will be hard for them to get Bishop enough games for them to keep his rights. Maybe the Blues look at bringing him back and sending Elliott some where. Although OTT will want defensive help which the Blues do not really have any extra.
Or they could possibly trade their pick back to Ottawa. I'm sure they wouldn't mind a high 2nd round pick this year, help with a little rebuild for once Karlsson and Spezza get back and healthy.

I see Bouwmeester and Iginla traded for picks/prospects at the deadline.

Bluesman91 is offline  
Old
02-15-2013, 01:46 PM
  #865
dandub
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: St. Louis
Country: United States
Posts: 36
vCash: 500
I see what you guys are saying. 6.6 Mil is steep as hell for Bouw especially when we are gonna have to fork up tons to keep Petro and Shatty at the end of the year. That being said, the small size on our back end is what was exposed in the playoffs last year, we need a big bruiser back there for sure. Who's it gonna be?

dandub is offline  
Old
02-15-2013, 01:55 PM
  #866
Bluesman91
Registered User
 
Bluesman91's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 4,627
vCash: 2357
Quote:
Originally Posted by dandub View Post
I see what you guys are saying. 6.6 Mil is steep as hell for Bouw especially when we are gonna have to fork up tons to keep Petro and Shatty at the end of the year. That being said, the small size on our back end is what was exposed in the playoffs last year, we need a big bruiser back there for sure. Who's it gonna be?
No one. The type of LD we are looking for all cost too much (as far as the Blues budget goes). We aren't willing to trade a whole lot of our core and aren't willing to take on any big contracts. Bouwmeester is on a bad contract yes but is really the best option without having to give anything up significant, or at least as far as I'm concerned.

Like I said I'm expecting Iginla and Bouwmeester to go this year if Calgary is out of it at the deadline, move forward with a rebuild and I can't see those 2 guys as part of their rebuild process. As much as Flames fans want Iginla to stay a flame for his career, wouldn't you want him to get one or 2 more shots at a cup? Unless Calgary pulls off something LA Kings like.

Bluesman91 is offline  
Old
02-15-2013, 03:58 PM
  #867
PocketNines
Only a 2 year window
 
PocketNines's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Crested Butte, CO
Posts: 9,298
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by dandub View Post
I see what you guys are saying. 6.6 Mil is steep as hell for Bouw especially when we are gonna have to fork up tons to keep Petro and Shatty at the end of the year. That being said, the small size on our back end is what was exposed in the playoffs last year, we need a big bruiser back there for sure. Who's it gonna be?
You're also talking about one of the softest, least physical d-men in the league.

PocketNines is offline  
Old
02-15-2013, 04:17 PM
  #868
MattyMo35
Moderator
Schwartz Be With You
 
MattyMo35's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: St. Louis, MO
Country: United States
Posts: 7,193
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by dandub View Post
I see what you guys are saying. 6.6 Mil is steep as hell for Bouw especially when we are gonna have to fork up tons to keep Petro and Shatty at the end of the year. That being said, the small size on our back end is what was exposed in the playoffs last year, we need a big bruiser back there for sure. Who's it gonna be?
I don't think JBo qualifies as a "big bruiser". He's in the league because he's a good passer and a GREAT skater. He has size in the same way that Berglund has size. It's there, but they don't really use it a whole lot. I would be willing to take on JBo's contract if he didn't cost too much to acquire. Yes, he's overpaid, but he is still a very good Dman, and a very reliable one at that. I don't see us going after him though. I think Philly will try to pry him out.

MattyMo35 is offline  
Old
02-15-2013, 04:44 PM
  #869
Multimoodia
Sicker Than Usual
 
Multimoodia's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: The Range
Posts: 1,907
vCash: 600
Quote:
Originally Posted by dandub View Post
Strictly hypothetical here, but would you/they.

Elliott for Bouwmeester straight up

Calgary is hurting for a goalie bad, and i know Elliott's value has decreased a bit, but this seems like a fair trade to me, we may need to throw in a 3rd or 4th round. I'm not one of the people calling for Elliott's head and abandoning ship on him, but i think Halak/Allen is our future and we need that BIG D man that will rough people up in the crease.
Various issues here

1) Calgary laughs at this.
2) Cap hit and real salary are awfully, awfully high for Bouwmeester
3) Jake Allen is not the answer at the moment as the backup, regardless of the status of Elliott.
4) You have mis-characterized Bouwmeester. He is not rough, he does very little in the crease. What he does do is skate well and make relatively good transitions through the neutral zone.
That said, he still wilts under a heavy forecheck which the Blues defense has trouble with already. He is still boxed out too easily in front of the net, and he still has games where he makes mystifying decisions.
While Bouwmeester would likely be an improvement over Redden and Cole (although perhaps not Cole in the future...hard to tell with that one) as Pietrangelo's partner, I do not believe it would be enough for what Calgary would want and the possibility of losing other players to free agency thanks to the large check JBo would be collecting.

Multimoodia is offline  
Old
02-16-2013, 12:34 AM
  #870
bleedblue1223
OMAHA!!!
 
bleedblue1223's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 20,081
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by dandub View Post
Haha what did I get wrong? He is listed as 6'4" 215. I figured he would be a guy that could clear the front of the net.
He's softer than a teddy bear.

bleedblue1223 is offline  
Old
02-16-2013, 01:12 AM
  #871
rumrokh
I Bleed Blue
 
rumrokh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 5,643
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MattyMo35 View Post
I don't think JBo qualifies as a "big bruiser". He's in the league because he's a good passer and a GREAT skater. He has size in the same way that Berglund has size. It's there, but they don't really use it a whole lot. I would be willing to take on JBo's contract if he didn't cost too much to acquire. Yes, he's overpaid, but he is still a very good Dman, and a very reliable one at that. I don't see us going after him though. I think Philly will try to pry him out.
Wow. Wrong as hell. Berglund hits and protects the puck really well. He doesn't protect the puck like prime Thornton or hit like Reaves, but Berglund still uses his size well and is obviously more aggressive and physically competitive than Bouwmeester is.

rumrokh is offline  
Old
02-16-2013, 01:34 AM
  #872
MattyMo35
Moderator
Schwartz Be With You
 
MattyMo35's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: St. Louis, MO
Country: United States
Posts: 7,193
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by rumrokh View Post
Wow. Wrong as hell. Berglund hits and protects the puck really well. He doesn't protect the puck like prime Thornton or hit like Reaves, but Berglund still uses his size well and is obviously more aggressive and physically competitive than Bouwmeester is.
He protects the puck with it on occasion, but he could utilize his size MUCH more. He's one of the biggest guys on the team, yet is one of the easiest to get the puck off. He is slightly more physical than Bouwmeester, but not by a lot.

MattyMo35 is offline  
Old
02-16-2013, 02:23 AM
  #873
Bluesman91
Registered User
 
Bluesman91's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 4,627
vCash: 2357
Quote:
Originally Posted by Multimoodia View Post
While Bouwmeester would likely be an improvement over Redden and Cole (although perhaps not Cole in the future...hard to tell with that one) as Pietrangelo's partner, I do not believe it would be enough for what Calgary would want and the possibility of losing other players to free agency thanks to the large check JBo would be collecting.
Would actually like to keep Cole and drop Russell for a Bouwmeester/Polak pairing

Bluesman91 is offline  
Old
02-16-2013, 03:01 AM
  #874
rumrokh
I Bleed Blue
 
rumrokh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 5,643
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MattyMo35 View Post
He protects the puck with it on occasion, but he could utilize his size MUCH more. He's one of the biggest guys on the team, yet is one of the easiest to get the puck off. He is slightly more physical than Bouwmeester, but not by a lot.
You are nuts. Berglund has been the hardest competing scoring-line forward on the team all year and was the same in the playoffs last year, shoving guys off the puck deep in his own zone, winning pucks along the boards at both ends. Other players are better at forechecking, stealing the puck, and winning races for it; but when Berglund has the puck deep in the opposing zone, he holds onto it, buys time, and keeps the play alive for his linemates as well as anyone else on the team. And he has to do this frequently, since Stewart is so-so on the cycle and he's had a rotating cast of left wingers who range from a rookie to nightly scratches.

Backes is not a guy I've ever seen criticized for how he uses his body, and he hits, but doesn't protect and hold the puck nearly as well as Berglund does. Arnott last year is a great example of a big guy who didn't use his body. Berglund is in another universe by comparison.

rumrokh is offline  
Old
02-16-2013, 03:46 AM
  #875
BlueDream
Registered User
 
BlueDream's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Country: United States
Posts: 6,735
vCash: 500
I'm more than pleased with how Berglund uses his size. He picked up his physical game last year and when he gets pissed off he's a force and can really nail some people (ask Kulikov from Florida). He doesn't hit like Backes, but I'd say Berglund is fairly physical, especially for a Swede. And he's very good at protecting the puck.

I do think Russell is the weak link on this team right now. If we could keep Cole with Pietrangelo and upgrade Russell on defense, I would be cool with that.

BlueDream 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 12:43 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.