HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Eastern Conference > Metropolitan Division > New York Rangers
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

Michael Sauer Signs

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
08-09-2006, 09:42 AM
  #51
msuhockey
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 7
vCash: 500
Falardeau is going to shock you all in a year or two when he is playing full time in the NHL whether it is for the Rangers or not... especially when all your favorites (dawes) do not translate into NHL players... just because you can score in the AHL doesn't mean you can do it at the next level. Falardeau will be in the NHL, between his size, skating ability, and from what i hear work ethic he will have a long career as an NHL player. So you go ahead and keep knocking him... but this kid has a bright future as an NHLer.

msuhockey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-09-2006, 09:45 AM
  #52
TheRedressor
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Country: United Nations
Posts: 3,705
vCash: 500
I see Falardeau as an excellent 3rd line center, but to say that Dawes won't make the NHL is a little far off.

TheRedressor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-09-2006, 09:49 AM
  #53
msuhockey
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 7
vCash: 500
I am not saying that he won't, but have any of you actually seen him play? He scored a lot of points when playing with Genoway and Helminan but when that line was taken apart Dawes struggled. All I'm saying is that scoring points is great if you can do it consistently... but if a guy like Dawes isn't scoring consistently the other aspects of his games that are lacking become much more apparent.

msuhockey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-09-2006, 09:57 AM
  #54
Levitate
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 20,528
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by msuhockey View Post
I am not saying that he won't, but have any of you actually seen him play? He scored a lot of points when playing with Genoway and Helminan but when that line was taken apart Dawes struggled. All I'm saying is that scoring points is great if you can do it consistently... but if a guy like Dawes isn't scoring consistently the other aspects of his games that are lacking become much more apparent.
I don't believe that. Dawes wasn't being carried by Genoway and Helminen at all. Not in the games I saw, and Pack fans who saw many many games agree with me. I don't know if Dawes will make it in the NHL...I think he will, but there's no guarantees. However, just because you like Falardeau doesn't mean you have to tear down Dawes to try to prove your point.

I actually like Lee too and to me last year showed that he can really be a player. He skates well, works really hard, he definitely looks like he has a NHL future if he keeps it up. I'd like to see some more scoring, but at this point he could be a quality 4th liner, and hopefully a 3rd liner. Not the best pick in retrospect, but it's also looking like it might not be a wasted pick.

Levitate is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
08-09-2006, 09:58 AM
  #55
TheRedressor
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Country: United Nations
Posts: 3,705
vCash: 500
Having seen Dawes played on several occasions I feel that he will be an NHLer. His work ethic is impeccable. He will definetly make it as an eneregy guy without a doubt. However he has the speed and the hands to be a top line winger. He has scored and scored consistantly at every level he has played hockey on. The guy was putting up a goal a game at the WHL level which IMO is the best in terms of its closeness to the NHL.

TheRedressor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-09-2006, 09:59 AM
  #56
True Blue
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 15,012
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Levitate View Post
Not the best pick in retrospect, but it's also looking like it might not be a wasted pick.
Wasted pick is a little ambiguos. It was a waste to pick him in the 2nd round, he would have been available latter. To be hopefull that your 2nd round pick makes the NHL as a 4th liner is where the "wasted" part would come in.

True Blue is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-09-2006, 10:02 AM
  #57
Levitate
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 20,528
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by True Blue View Post
Wasted pick is a little ambiguos. It was a waste to pick him in the 2nd round, he would have been available latter. To be hopefull that your 2nd round pick makes the NHL as a 4th liner is where the "wasted" part would come in.
Jesus you always have to nitpick something don't you? I'm saying a wasted pick = a player who never sniffs the NHL. Your definition was covered when I said "not the best pick".

edit: and I'm irritable today. cuz I'm hungry. grr.


Last edited by Levitate: 08-09-2006 at 10:19 AM.
Levitate is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
08-09-2006, 10:11 AM
  #58
Fletch
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Brooklyn
Posts: 21,456
vCash: 500
I don't know...

if it's a forgone conclusion that Falardeau would've been availble later, for the Rangers. But the draft's a crapshoot. Sather picks a guy like Lundqvist in the seventh round - if Falardeau was in the same draft, people wouldn't be saying today that it was a great draft because they could've had Stoll (and two or three other teams somehow passed on Stoll) too because that was a no-brainer. Although Lundqvist was not a no-brainer (what 7th round pick is). I've stopped looking at who the Rangers could've had in the draft. I also don't necessarily get upset if the #1 pick doesn't pan-out. I look at how the entire draft affected the Rangers. You get a guy like Prucha in the 8th round - that draft shouldn't be tainted by a Falardeau in the second.

Fletch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-09-2006, 11:03 AM
  #59
McRanger
Registered User
 
McRanger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 2,705
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by True Blue View Post
The reason that this argument never dies is because it was such a far-out pick. It's not like he drafted someone who was seen as a high draft pick and just did not pan out. He took someone whom nearly everyone (from fans to scouts to GMs)would never have picked that high. And how much better could this organization have been with another top-2 line player that was very young and homegrown? THe argument does not die becuae the effects of it are still being felt thoughout the organization.
How about the effects of the 9 years prior to 2003, with not a single Rangers 1st rounder making a significant impact in the NHL? You want to talk about "still being felt throughout the organiziation", you should start there, and work your way up to Jessiman.

How does this keep coming up? We are talking about a defensive prospect from the 2005 draft and somehow Jessiman becomes the topic of conversation? Its like some people are only happy if we are talking about Ranger failures.

McRanger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-09-2006, 11:03 AM
  #60
Bird Law
Daisy's back.
 
Bird Law's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Country Roads
Country: United States
Posts: 72,860
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Bird Law
I think that True Blue bashes Hugh more than I bash Nigel Williams on the prospects board.

__________________
"Of course giving Sather cap space is like giving teenagers whiskey and car keys." - SBOB
"Watching Sather build a team is like watching a blind man with no fingers trying to put together an elaborate puzzle." - Shadowtron
"Used to be only Twinkies and cockroaches could survive a nuke. I'd add Habs to that. I'm convinced the CH stands for Club du Hypocrisy." - Gee Wally
Bird Law is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-09-2006, 11:16 AM
  #61
Levitate
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 20,528
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jon Prescription View Post
I think that True Blue bashes Hugh more than I bash Nigel Williams on the prospects board.
you always have to bring him up, don't you?!


Levitate is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
08-09-2006, 11:48 AM
  #62
FLYLine24*
 
FLYLine24*'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: NY
Country: United States
Posts: 29,102
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by msuhockey View Post
I am not saying that he won't, but have any of you actually seen him play? He scored a lot of points when playing with Genoway and Helminan but when that line was taken apart Dawes struggled. All I'm saying is that scoring points is great if you can do it consistently... but if a guy like Dawes isn't scoring consistently the other aspects of his games that are lacking become much more apparent.
Huh? If anything it was Dawes carrying them on his back. Dawes creates his own chances by getting open or moving with the puck.

Falardeau will not be an NHL player. Maybe you were his classmate or something at MSU so you feel the need to try to pimp him out to the board, but ill be shocked if he is ever a regular NHLer. His size doesn't make up for the total lack of hockey sense/skill needed to play in the NHL.

FLYLine24* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-09-2006, 11:49 AM
  #63
True Blue
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 15,012
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jon Prescription View Post
I think that True Blue bashes Hugh more than I bash Nigel Williams on the prospects board.
And I like Williams......
Two points of parlimentary procedure here. First of all, I do not think that Hugh is a bust yet. I have yet to call him that. I DO think that he has been disappointing, though. With that in mind, I don't think that I bash him. Hossa, I bash. In Hugh, I express my disappointment.

True Blue is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-09-2006, 11:51 AM
  #64
True Blue
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 15,012
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by McRanger View Post
How about the effects of the 9 years prior to 2003, with not a single Rangers 1st rounder making a significant impact in the NHL? You want to talk about "still being felt throughout the organiziation", you should start there, and work your way up to Jessiman.

How does this keep coming up? We are talking about a defensive prospect from the 2005 draft and somehow Jessiman becomes the topic of conversation? Its like some people are only happy if we are talking about Ranger failures.
There is a big difference in those and what happened with Hugh. During Hugh's draft, he was seen as a project and one that was not to be taken until much latter. Drafting players like Brendl & Lundmark was widel regarded as good moves.

In the context of the current conversation, it was brought up about the shape of the system and what was a killer draft. I simply added my 2 cents about what shape the farm system could have appeared to be in had a safer pick been made.

True Blue is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-09-2006, 12:30 PM
  #65
Bird Law
Daisy's back.
 
Bird Law's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Country Roads
Country: United States
Posts: 72,860
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Bird Law
Quote:
Originally Posted by True Blue View Post
And I like Williams......

Bird Law is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-09-2006, 01:00 PM
  #66
Edge
Registered User
 
Edge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Sin City
Country: United States
Posts: 13,196
vCash: 500
I think what TB is trying to get at is not that the players didn't pan out, so much as they were really questionable moves at the time.

Yeah you have guys like Lundmark, Malhotra, etc. who didn't become stars but you back to that time and the Rangers weren't out in left field when picking them. Team's wanted them, even after being drafted team's were asking for them in any trade.

With Lee and Hugh, even at the time there was a lot "Argg" comments going around and they neither sought after nor have they really produced.

In regards to Lee, he is a player that was essentially kicked off his college team and has translated into an average 3rd/4th line AHL player. Unless something miraculous happens he is AT BEST a fringe NHL player.

It sounds annoying but the reason it keeps getting brought up is that it didn't even require hindsight to say "Bad move". It was said right there and then, not by just one or two people but by many people. Heck that's where the whole "SJ or Philly was going to take Hugh" comments came from which in years of asking around I've found to be nowhere near the truth (and these things aren't guraded secrets).

I think the reason it won't die is because it's a pretty painful. Unlike some drafts where you can "Well we weren't out of line taking that player", we're stuck with the memories of players most knew we should't have taken then and the players that were being screamed for have gone on to become very solid NHL'ers already.

When you look back 3 and 4 years later at players you didn't even want then scoring less than .5 points per game at the AHL level (coming off pretty medicre post draft seasons at lower levels to begin with) and compare it to the players a lot of people wanted who combined for 100 points at the NHL (and a trend that points upward since being drafted) you're going to have a lot of complaining.

It's not fun, but that's what happens. It's a tough pill to swallow, especially when you knew it was a bad idea in the first place.

5 years from now if Staal or Montoya or Sanguinetti don't make it, I don't think you'd see those kind of complaints because it wasn't really a stretch to get them where we did and under those circumstances. But you'll hear about this for a while, mainly because the Rangers are going to feel it for a long time.

Edge is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-09-2006, 02:05 PM
  #67
McRanger
Registered User
 
McRanger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 2,705
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Edge View Post
I think what TB is trying to get at is not that the players didn't pan out, so much as they were really questionable moves at the time.

Yeah you have guys like Lundmark, Malhotra, etc. who didn't become stars but you back to that time and the Rangers weren't out in left field when picking them. Team's wanted them, even after being drafted team's were asking for them in any trade.

With Lee and Hugh, even at the time there was a lot "Argg" comments going around and they neither sought after nor have they really produced.

In regards to Lee, he is a player that was essentially kicked off his college team and has translated into an average 3rd/4th line AHL player. Unless something miraculous happens he is AT BEST a fringe NHL player.

It sounds annoying but the reason it keeps getting brought up is that it didn't even require hindsight to say "Bad move". It was said right there and then, not by just one or two people but by many people. Heck that's where the whole "SJ or Philly was going to take Hugh" comments came from which in years of asking around I've found to be nowhere near the truth (and these things aren't guraded secrets).

I think the reason it won't die is because it's a pretty painful. Unlike some drafts where you can "Well we weren't out of line taking that player", we're stuck with the memories of players most knew we should't have taken then and the players that were being screamed for have gone on to become very solid NHL'ers already.

When you look back 3 and 4 years later at players you didn't even want then scoring less than .5 points per game at the AHL level (coming off pretty medicre post draft seasons at lower levels to begin with) and compare it to the players a lot of people wanted who combined for 100 points at the NHL (and a trend that points upward since being drafted) you're going to have a lot of complaining.

It's not fun, but that's what happens. It's a tough pill to swallow, especially when you knew it was a bad idea in the first place.

5 years from now if Staal or Montoya or Sanguinetti don't make it, I don't think you'd see those kind of complaints because it wasn't really a stretch to get them where we did and under those circumstances. But you'll hear about this for a while, mainly because the Rangers are going to feel it for a long time.
I'm not arguing that taking Jessiman was a good pick. I didnt want him then, and I hold out very little hope for him now.

My point is that plenty of teams, even ones with good draft records, make extremely questionable picks. The Isles with Rupp, Phoenix with Wheeler, Toronto with Antropov, Ottawa and their whole Chouinard fiasco... Occasionally a team takes a player way too early or one completely off the board. Sometimes is works, usually it doesnt. The difference is good teams make up for that with solid drafting in the later rounds, and with early round consistency from year to year. The Rangers have done that. Even without Jessiman (I guess its too early to write him off) the Rangers have put together a few good drafts in a row and now have a nice pool of young talent, something we havent had since before we won the cup. In other words I'm not questioning whether it was a poor pick or not, I'm questioning how detrimental it will be to the future of the organization.

One pick doesnt make or break a team, even if it was the 12th overall pick in an extremely deep draft. Even the best prospect can get hurt or turn out to be a bust. I would love to have a Getzlaf or a Richards on our team, but otherwise I am content with the job the Rangers have done.

Honestly, this sounds more like "I need a reason to ***** and moan" than genuine concern.

McRanger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-09-2006, 02:30 PM
  #68
Edge
Registered User
 
Edge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Sin City
Country: United States
Posts: 13,196
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by McRanger View Post
I'm not arguing that taking Jessiman was a good pick. I didnt want him then, and I hold out very little hope for him now.

My point is that plenty of teams, even ones with good draft records, make extremely questionable picks. The Isles with Rupp, Phoenix with Wheeler, Toronto with Antropov, Ottawa and their whole Chouinard fiasco... Occasionally a team takes a player way too early or one completely off the board. Sometimes is works, usually it doesnt. The difference is good teams make up for that with solid drafting in the later rounds, and with early round consistency from year to year. The Rangers have done that. Even without Jessiman (I guess its too early to write him off) the Rangers have put together a few good drafts in a row and now have a nice pool of young talent, something we havent had since before we won the cup. In other words I'm not questioning whether it was a poor pick or not, I'm questioning how detrimental it will be to the future of the organization.

One pick doesnt make or break a team, even if it was the 12th overall pick in an extremely deep draft. Even the best prospect can get hurt or turn out to be a bust. I would love to have a Getzlaf or a Richards on our team, but otherwise I am content with the job the Rangers have done.

Honestly, this sounds more like "I need a reason to ***** and moan" than genuine concern.
I don't really disagree with you about other teams. To me that really isn't a huge issue, the Rangers are not alone in that category. But whether they are alone or in a grouping with 30 other teams doesn't really impact that it's going to hurt.

The question really isn't whether the Rangers have done well outside of that, so much as how easy/close it is to being even better. Regardless of whether the team has 8 good prospects or 12, every pick matters, especially for a rebuilding team. Maybe the guy gets packaged or traded, but every time you take away a resource it has an impact.

On the surface, sure the Rangers look good right now. But consider how many 6'4, 215 pound centers there are who can play in today's NHL? Consider how many 24 year old, 70 point two way centers with awesome leadership skills.

That's going to have an impact for a long time. The Rangers have some prospects at center, but there isn't a soul on the planet who'd trade them for those two guys. That's going to have an impact. And both guys they passed are already legit and successful NHL players who have helped their respective team's get VERY deep in the playoffs and will for many years. We drafted two guys who are trying desperatly to stick in the AHL at the moment.

One draft doesn't make or break a team, you're 100% right. But it sure as heck can have a HUGE impact on a team for many many years. Taking a chance on guys like Lee or Hugh is what a team does about now, not what a team does in 02 and 03.

Edge is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-09-2006, 02:31 PM
  #69
Levitate
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 20,528
vCash: 500
here we go again...

Levitate is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
08-09-2006, 02:35 PM
  #70
Edge
Registered User
 
Edge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Sin City
Country: United States
Posts: 13,196
vCash: 500
It's going to be happening for a long time Levitate...

Especially when the score could very easily and realisitcally be 140 NHL points to 60 AHL points a year in a few seasons.

Edge is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-09-2006, 02:46 PM
  #71
Levitate
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 20,528
vCash: 500
it wouldn't bother me except that it's the same arguments with nothing new really added. I know this is a discussion board, etc etc, but I like to think that some discussions can be put to bed for awhile until there's some more info to argue them with.

everything that can be said about Lee and Hugh has been said at this point and the only thing left to do is wait and see what happens with them.

Levitate is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
08-09-2006, 03:02 PM
  #72
McRanger
Registered User
 
McRanger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 2,705
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Edge View Post
I don't really disagree with you about other teams. To me that really isn't a huge issue, the Rangers are not alone in that category. But whether they are alone or in a grouping with 30 other teams doesn't really impact that it's going to hurt.

The question really isn't whether the Rangers have done well outside of that, so much as how easy/close it is to being even better. Regardless of whether the team has 8 good prospects or 12, every pick matters, especially for a rebuilding team. Maybe the guy gets packaged or traded, but every time you take away a resource it has an impact.

On the surface, sure the Rangers look good right now. But consider how many 6'4, 215 pound centers there are who can play in today's NHL? Consider how many 24 year old, 70 point two way centers with awesome leadership skills.

That's going to have an impact for a long time. The Rangers have some prospects at center, but there isn't a soul on the planet who'd trade them for those two guys. That's going to have an impact. And both guys they passed are already legit and successful NHL players who have helped their respective team's get VERY deep in the playoffs and will for many years. We drafted two guys who are trying desperatly to stick in the AHL at the moment.

One draft doesn't make or break a team, you're 100% right. But it sure as heck can have a HUGE impact on a team for many many years. Taking a chance on guys like Lee or Hugh is what a team does about now, not what a team does in 02 and 03.
I more or less agree with what you said. Let me just put it this way, messing up a good draft pick would be much much more damaging to the Rangers if they were being run the way the late 90's Rangers were. I'm confident that the Rangers will continue to draft well and develop well, and that takes a bit of the sting off of Jessiman for me.

In 1984 experts said the Devils missing out on Lemiuex would be the death of the organization. 20 years and 3 cups later, I'd say they did pretty well for themselves. Its all about consistency.

As for you TB, if our bright future doesnt take the sting off of drafting Jessiman, come to Jeremys Ale house after work and I'll buy you one of those 32ozers. After a few of them, you will start to believe that Falardeau is the second coming of Joel Otto.

McRanger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-09-2006, 03:05 PM
  #73
Edge
Registered User
 
Edge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Sin City
Country: United States
Posts: 13,196
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Levitate View Post
it wouldn't bother me except that it's the same arguments with nothing new really added. I know this is a discussion board, etc etc, but I like to think that some discussions can be put to bed for awhile until there's some more info to argue them with.

everything that can be said about Lee and Hugh has been said at this point and the only thing left to do is wait and see what happens with them.
I agree with you, but on the flip side I do believe the same can be said about every topic here.

Lines before the season starts.

When Weekes is going to get traded.

The value of Rozsival

Who will be the Rangers captain

Where Prucha will be play.

Mike York's trade

I think this one just hurt's a little more because even if your on the more optimistic side, you still gotta be pissed that it happened.

I just think this is one of those topics that won't go away for a long time. Too much anger involved.

Right/wrong/indifferent, it's almost inevitable to come up when we talk about drafting/signing.

It's a pretty crucial moment from Rangers recent draft history. And unlike some incidents from the past that require hindsight, it was something many of experienced live and in real time.

But I do feel your pain.

Edge is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-09-2006, 03:05 PM
  #74
True Blue
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 15,012
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by McRanger View Post
As for you TB, if our bright future doesnt take the sting off of drafting Jessiman, come to Jeremys Ale house after work and I'll buy you one of those 32ozers. After a few of them, you will start to believe that Falardeau is the second coming of Joel Otto.
Be very, very carefull with offers like that. I just might take you up.

True Blue is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-09-2006, 03:07 PM
  #75
Edge
Registered User
 
Edge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Sin City
Country: United States
Posts: 13,196
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by McRanger View Post
I more or less agree with what you said. Let me just put it this way, messing up a good draft pick would be much much more damaging to the Rangers if they were being run the way the late 90's Rangers were. I'm confident that the Rangers will continue to draft well and develop well, and that takes a bit of the sting off of Jessiman for me.

In 1984 experts said the Devils missing out on Lemiuex would be the death of the organization. 20 years and 3 cups later, I'd say they did pretty well for themselves. Its all about consistency.

As for you TB, if our bright future doesnt take the sting off of drafting Jessiman, come to Jeremys Ale house after work and I'll buy you one of those 32ozers. After a few of them, you will start to believe that Falardeau is the second coming of Joel Otto.
And I agree with you, I see both sides of the argument, I really do.

For me it's more a matter of an upgrade. Let's say the Rangers have done a B+ job of drafting the last 5 years. Those two, (which unlike the Devils they actually passed on and so far haven't gotten a good NHL player out of) would easily make it a solid A or A+.

End of the world? No. But a def. need/benefit for the team that is very going to be felt for a number of years.

Edge is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

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 07:53 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.