HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Eastern Conference > Atlantic Division > Montreal Canadiens
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

Does Bergevin have to sign PK Subban before the season start ?

View Poll Results: should bergy sign PK before the season start ?
yes 76 32.20%
no 67 28.39%
it doesn't matter 93 39.41%
Voters: 236. You may not vote on this poll

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
07-22-2013, 08:43 AM
  #526
PricePkPatch
Registered User
 
PricePkPatch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Montreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 15,935
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DAChampion View Post
It's not rocket science bro.
Go back to your video game

PricePkPatch is online now  
Old
07-22-2013, 08:44 AM
  #527
417
Registered User
 
417's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Ottawa
Country: Haiti
Posts: 19,440
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Estimated_Prophet View Post
You would think that after a while, One would question why they never seem to be on the same page as the experts......

Most of the arguments that I have read here that are taking shots at Bergevin come off as juvenile whining without any plausible alternatives.
I don't think there's anything wrong with trying to control the cost of a player while you have the luxury (ELC's + 2nd contracts)

The 2nd contracts seem to be the trickiest negotiations for GM's, some GM's capitulate and just give in to player demands. Sometiems it works out, sometimes it doesn't. I don't necessarily think it's important to figure that part out

The point is GM's only have a limited window in which they can control costs, there's nothing wrong with taking advantage of that.

417 is online now  
Old
07-22-2013, 08:48 AM
  #528
417
Registered User
 
417's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Ottawa
Country: Haiti
Posts: 19,440
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DAChampion View Post
In this case there was a plausible alternative.

Lock up Subban long term last summer.
Bergevin was wrong in his underestimation of Subban. He made a mistake, hopefully he doesn't make too many like it.

I hope he doesn't repeat the error with Galchenyuk.
They haven't lost the opportunity to sign him long term...matter of fact, they'll likely sign him to a longer term then they would have had they signed him last summer.

Who cares if its at more money, there will be more money available to do that...

417 is online now  
Old
07-22-2013, 09:05 AM
  #529
Estimated_Prophet
Registered User
 
Estimated_Prophet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,166
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DAChampion View Post
In this case there was a plausible alternative.

Lock up Subban long term last summer.

Bergevin was wrong in his underestimation of Subban. He made a mistake, hopefully he doesn't make too many like it.

I hope he doesn't repeat the error with Galchenyuk.
He will do the same thing with Galchenyuk.....as he should. There is clearly a team philosophy of making players earn their contracts while under team control. That is exactly how it should be. This is how a perennial contender is maintained as the youngsters are kept at a low cap hit for as long as possible while the vets make their money. When the youngster approaches a veteran leadership role on the team he bumps out a high priced vet and another youngster signs a bridge contract behind him.

Perpetual success and cap harmony are the intended goals and this is exactly how it is done.

Estimated_Prophet is offline  
Old
07-22-2013, 09:06 AM
  #530
Estimated_Prophet
Registered User
 
Estimated_Prophet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,166
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by 417 View Post
I don't think there's anything wrong with trying to control the cost of a player while you have the luxury (ELC's + 2nd contracts)

The 2nd contracts seem to be the trickiest negotiations for GM's, some GM's capitulate and just give in to player demands. Sometiems it works out, sometimes it doesn't. I don't necessarily think it's important to figure that part out

The point is GM's only have a limited window in which they can control costs, there's nothing wrong with taking advantage of that.
I was agreeing with you....

Estimated_Prophet is offline  
Old
07-22-2013, 09:08 AM
  #531
417
Registered User
 
417's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Ottawa
Country: Haiti
Posts: 19,440
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Estimated_Prophet View Post
He will do the same thing with Galchenyuk.....as he should. There is clearly a team philosophy of making players earn their contracts while under team control. That is exactly how it should be. Thus is how a perennial contender is maintained as the youngsters are kept at a low cap hit for as long as possible while the vets make their money. When the youngster approaches a veteran leadership role on the team he bumps out a high priced vet and another youngster signs a bridge contract behind him.

Perpetual success and cap harmony are the intended goals and this is exactly how it is done.
This is the point that some people keep ignoring...

The window that teams can control salaries are so small these days. They only have that control with entry-level contracts and sometimes, depending on team philosophy, the 2nd contract.

The precedent has been set with Price, Pacioretty, Eller and Subban...it'll be the same for Galchenyuk, Gallagher and whoever else will be in the same situation.

417 is online now  
Old
07-22-2013, 09:09 AM
  #532
417
Registered User
 
417's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Ottawa
Country: Haiti
Posts: 19,440
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Estimated_Prophet View Post
I was agreeing with you....
Oh I know...was more just adding to your post. Not arguing against it.

417 is online now  
Old
07-22-2013, 09:11 AM
  #533
E = CH²
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Country: Sri Lanka
Posts: 15,969
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by 417 View Post
I don't think there's anything wrong with trying to control the cost of a player while you have the luxury (ELC's + 2nd contracts)

The 2nd contracts seem to be the trickiest negotiations for GM's, some GM's capitulate and just give in to player demands. Sometiems it works out, sometimes it doesn't. I don't necessarily think it's important to figure that part out

The point is GM's only have a limited window in which they can control costs, there's nothing wrong with taking advantage of that.
And that's basically the root of all disagreements you have with most people. The GM doesn't capitulate. He comes to terms on a long term deal with a player whose value is only going to go up. It's a mutually beneficial agreement if the player is indeed on his way up. The player capitulates as much as the GM here because he relinquishes more money for more security.

The fact you do not even understand this basic principle makes any cap hit discussion with you entirely pointless. You're a good poster but on this issue I'll never understand the way you think.

E = CH² is online now  
Old
07-22-2013, 09:14 AM
  #534
Dr Gonzo
#1 Jan Bulis Fan
 
Dr Gonzo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Bat Country
Posts: 4,367
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Estimated_Prophet View Post
He will do the same thing with Galchenyuk.....as he should. There is clearly a team philosophy of making players earn their contracts while under team control. That is exactly how it should be. This is how a perennial contender is maintained as the youngsters are kept at a low cap hit for as long as possible while the vets make their money. When the youngster approaches a veteran leadership role on the team he bumps out a high priced vet and another youngster signs a bridge contract behind him.

Perpetual success and cap harmony are the intended goals and this is exactly how it is done.
I don't think bridge contracts are how perennial contenders are maintained. At least I can't think of any team that uses this practice and has built a yearly contender.

Chicago for example, doesn't go down this road. If they identify their players as elite talent, they'll lock them up long term coming out of their ELCs, and it seems to have worked wonders.

Boston doesn't really do down the bridge contract road either.

In fact, I am really scratching my head to identify a team that uses this practice (everyone gets a bridge contract, no exceptions) and is in good shape. Can you think of any?

Dr Gonzo is offline  
Old
07-22-2013, 09:16 AM
  #535
Estimated_Prophet
Registered User
 
Estimated_Prophet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,166
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by 417 View Post
Oh I know...was more just adding to your post. Not arguing against it.
Lol......wasn't sure

Estimated_Prophet is offline  
Old
07-22-2013, 09:17 AM
  #536
PricePkPatch
Registered User
 
PricePkPatch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Montreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 15,935
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by E = CH² View Post
And that's basically the root of all disagreements you have with most people. The GM doesn't capitulate. He comes to terms on a long term deal with a player whose value is only going to go up. It's a mutually beneficial agreement if the player is indeed on his way up. The player capitulates as much as the GM here because he relinquishes more money for more security.

The fact you do not even understand this basic principle makes any cap hit discussion with you entirely pointless. You're a good poster but on this issue I'll never understand the way you think.
You mean, "whose value is likely to go up". There is no telling what the upside of a player's skill will ultimately end up, nor if he will not regress. These things happen.


Bridge contracts give us a good 2 years of further evaluation for players to make sure they fulfill their potential, no bad surprise. Plus, these two years on the cheaper side gives us cap flexibility to sign Briere.

I don't want to be locked with another Kostityn because he showed good promise in his first 3 pro years.

PricePkPatch is online now  
Old
07-22-2013, 09:23 AM
  #537
Estimated_Prophet
Registered User
 
Estimated_Prophet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,166
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Gonzo View Post
I don't think bridge contracts are how perennial contenders are maintained. At least I can't think of any team that uses this practice and has built a yearly contender.

Chicago for example, doesn't go down this road. If they identify their players as elite talent, they'll lock them up long term coming out of their ELCs, and it seems to have worked wonders.

Boston doesn't really do down the bridge contract road either.

In fact, I am really scratching my head to identify a team that uses this practice (everyone gets a bridge contract, no exceptions) and is in good shape. Can you think of any?
Jersey used to do it until Lamiorello's hand was forced in the Kovalchuk deal which threw the whole team's structure into array. Montreal doesn't have the same financial difficulties that exist in the swamp so that dynamic should not come into play.

The point is more hypothetical than historical. This is the way to do it but most teams don't have the resolve to do it. It appears as though MB is trying to do something similar to what I have outlined.

As for Chicago, they are gambling in a high stakes game and so far they have been quite lucky. They have had to let many players go over the years including this off season. Time will tell if this truly is a recipe for longevity or if Chicago has simply been very fortunate. It was a series of high picks after years of futility that set them up for this run. They are only a bad contract or two from ruining it and long term deals founded on speculation are the loaded pistol that can quickly turn on a team.


Last edited by Estimated_Prophet: 07-22-2013 at 09:34 AM.
Estimated_Prophet is offline  
Old
07-22-2013, 09:27 AM
  #538
E = CH²
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Country: Sri Lanka
Posts: 15,969
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by PricePkPatch View Post
You mean, "whose value is likely to go up". There is no telling what the upside of a player's skill will ultimately end up, nor if he will not regress. These things happen.
By this amazing logic you should never ever sign a player long term because there's no telling what will happen for any player at any point.

And obviously, you only do this with special players. Toews, Ovechkin, Crosby, Subban, Kane, etc. You roll the dice and figure that the odds are pretty damn good that you'll get above 2.

Quote:
Bridge contracts give us a good 2 years of further evaluation for players to make sure they fulfill their potential, no bad surprise. Plus, these two years on the cheaper side gives us cap flexibility to sign Briere.
Except the bridge deal doesn't ensure **** all. In some cases, players have already proven that they are worth the deal they sign for coming out of their ELC. This was the case with Subban. Bergevin hadn't followed the habs as closely as most fans here. He didn't know Subban at all.

Quote:
I don't want to be locked with another Kostityn because he showed good promise in his first 3 pro years.
Are you serious ?

AK was well worth the 3Mish/per. He did a decent job. It didn't burn us, never prevented us from doing anything. He was a decent 2nd liner for us. We were never really "locked" with him.

It's not the 3M for 3 years that killed his motivation, that's ridiculous. We gave him a normal contract. It was closer to a bridge deal than a long term deal.

And I am not seeing the relation between Subban and AK. You couldn't be speaking about two more different players with different backgrounds, different motivations, skill, position...

Just an altogether ridiculous comparison/example/point to make. If I had tried to come up with a worse example to illustrate a point I don't think I could have succeeded.

E = CH² is online now  
Old
07-22-2013, 09:27 AM
  #539
417
Registered User
 
417's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Ottawa
Country: Haiti
Posts: 19,440
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by E = CH² View Post
And that's basically the root of all disagreements you have with most people. The GM doesn't capitulate. He comes to terms on a long term deal with a player whose value is only going to go up. It's a mutually beneficial agreement if the player is indeed on his way up. The player capitulates as much as the GM here because he relinquishes more money for more security.

The fact you do not even understand this basic principle makes any cap hit discussion with you entirely pointless. You're a good poster but on this issue I'll never understand the way you think.
Maybe a poor choice of words...I realize that for certain teams, certain situations. The signing of a long term deal following the ELC is mutually beneficial

But it's just as equally ridiculous to think that a bridge deal, followed by a long term deal isn't just as mutually beneficial

So I DO understand that basic principle, i'm not an idiot...I just disagree that it's always the preferred method of operation.

417 is online now  
Old
07-22-2013, 09:30 AM
  #540
417
Registered User
 
417's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Ottawa
Country: Haiti
Posts: 19,440
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Gonzo View Post
I don't think bridge contracts are how perennial contenders are maintained. At least I can't think of any team that uses this practice and has built a yearly contender.

Chicago for example, doesn't go down this road. If they identify their players as elite talent, they'll lock them up long term coming out of their ELCs, and it seems to have worked wonders.

Boston doesn't really do down the bridge contract road either.

In fact, I am really scratching my head to identify a team that uses this practice (everyone gets a bridge contract, no exceptions) and is in good shape. Can you think of any?
crazy thought here...

But maybe neither has anything to do with building a perennial contender

Salaries and cap hits don't win Stanley Cups...players, coaches, management do (and several other mitigating factors do).

417 is online now  
Old
07-22-2013, 09:31 AM
  #541
Dr Gonzo
#1 Jan Bulis Fan
 
Dr Gonzo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Bat Country
Posts: 4,367
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Estimated_Prophet View Post
Jersey used to do it until Lamiorello's hand was forced in the Kovalchuk deal which threw the whole team's structure into array. Montreal doesn't have the same financial difficulties that exist in the swamp so that dynamic should not come into play.

The point is more hypothetical than historical. This is the way to do it but most teams don't have the resolve to do it. it appears as though MB is trying to do something similar what I have outlined.

But again, I don't think 'that is the way to do it'.

Most of the perennial contenders do not practice the bridge contract policy.

If it was indeed the 'way to do it', wouldn't more teams be doing it?

Seems to me like the best teams do NOT follow that policy.

Quote:
Originally Posted by 417 View Post
crazy thought here...

But maybe neither has anything to do with building a perennial contender

Salaries and cap hits don't win Stanley Cups...players, coaches, management do (and several other mitigating factors do).

I never said bridge contracts or otherwise build contenders. I am disputing that they do.

As for the second part, obviously salaries and the cap hits are part of the deciding factors for winning teams. Managing them properly is key to building a contender.

Yes players and coaches are the important part, but to put those players in place you need to manage your cap properly.

Dr Gonzo is offline  
Old
07-22-2013, 09:35 AM
  #542
Habsterix*
@Habsterix
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 13,475
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Gonzo View Post
But again, I don't think 'that is the way to do it'.

Most of the perennial contenders do not practice the bridge contract policy.

If it was indeed the 'way to do it', wouldn't more teams be doing it?

Seems to me like the best teams do NOT follow that policy.
Who's to say that the bridging contract is not the way to do it? As I tell my kids: be leaders, not followers as by the time you follow a trend, a new one is starting.

I strongly believe that there is more than one way of being successful. Detroit won with an ordinary goalie and little fighting ability. Others like Anaheim and Boston won with solid goaltending and plenty of toughness and size. Some teams went through 3-4 years of tanking while others spent little time in the NHL basement.

If, as I anticipate, the Habs becomes a force to reckon with for years to come, teams (and fans) could just as easily say that this is the way of doing things.

Habsterix* is offline  
Old
07-22-2013, 09:36 AM
  #543
417
Registered User
 
417's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Ottawa
Country: Haiti
Posts: 19,440
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Gonzo View Post
But again, I don't think 'that is the way to do it'.

Most of the perennial contenders do not practice the bridge contract policy.

If it was indeed the 'way to do it', wouldn't more teams be doing it?

Seems to me like the best teams do NOT follow that policy.
This makes no sense...is there a way you can prove that;

long-term contracts following ELC's, is the only way to build perennial contenders?

So you think that the Chicago Blackhawks for example, ALL of their players have all been signed to long-term deals following ELC's?

I find the notion of player salaries having a direct effect on a team's success probability, completely ridiculous.

What a simplistic way to look at things

417 is online now  
Old
07-22-2013, 09:37 AM
  #544
Dr Gonzo
#1 Jan Bulis Fan
 
Dr Gonzo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Bat Country
Posts: 4,367
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Habsterix View Post
Who's to say that the bridging contract is not the way to do it?
.

I don't know. I didn't say that. I am saying that historically most teams that contend do not follow the practice of forcing every player to take a bridge contract.

I am arguing the idea that the best teams follow this model, as was stated.

Quote:
Originally Posted by 417 View Post
This makes no sense...is there a way you can prove that;

long-term contracts following ELC's, is the only way to build perennial contenders?

So you think that the Chicago Blackhawks for example, ALL of their players have all been signed to long-term deals following ELC's?

I find the notion of player salaries having a direct effect on a team's success probability, completely ridiculous.

What a simplistic way to look at things

Again, I never said long-term contracts following ELCs is the only way to build a contender.

I just argued that "the way to do it" is by giving out bridge contracts to everyone. It's not, as least no contender sticks to that policy.

Please, read more carefully before responding. And I do not appreciate your snarky comment at the end, especially when you are arguing against something that was never said. Try to remain respectful, it makes for a more legitimate conversation.

Again, I never said giving our long term contracts off the ELC is the absolute way to go.

Dr Gonzo is offline  
Old
07-22-2013, 09:39 AM
  #545
417
Registered User
 
417's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Ottawa
Country: Haiti
Posts: 19,440
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Gonzo View Post

I never said bridge contracts or otherwise build contenders. I am disputing that they do.

As for the second part, obviously salaries and the cap hits are part of the deciding factors for winning teams. Managing them properly is key to building a contender.

Yes players and coaches are the important part, but to put those players in place you need to manage your cap properly.
They are? Can you quantify that?

I can assure you that teams have been successful with players who are making more money then they should and I can assure you that teams have won Cups despite not having a lot of wiggle room on the cap.

It's obviously part of it, but fans overstate it big time

417 is online now  
Old
07-22-2013, 09:42 AM
  #546
Dr Gonzo
#1 Jan Bulis Fan
 
Dr Gonzo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Bat Country
Posts: 4,367
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by 417 View Post
They are? Can you quantify that?

I can assure you that teams have been successful with players who are making more money then they should and I can assure you that teams have won Cups despite not having a lot of wiggle room on the cap.

It's obviously part of it, but fans overstate it big time

Now you are just arguing for the sake of arguing. I am not going to get into a semantics filled debate to discuss the value of good signings. You may think it's not important, but it definitely is, at least in my opinion.

Dr Gonzo is offline  
Old
07-22-2013, 09:43 AM
  #547
E = CH²
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Country: Sri Lanka
Posts: 15,969
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by 417 View Post
crazy thought here...

But maybe neither has anything to do with building a perennial contender

Salaries and cap hits don't win Stanley Cups...players, coaches, management do (and several other mitigating factors do).
Managing the cap is part of the equation. Do it well, and it gives you an advantage. Just like everything else, every little bit counts. Ultimately, it might not make the difference, or it might.

I've said this before but it bears repeating.. I think we should have signed Subban to a long term deal. I think Subban was as close as it comes to a sure bet that there is. But it's not the end of the world. We can sign him to a long term deal still. It's just a missed opportunity in what I felt was a no brainer situation. Ultimately, it's entirely possible that it turns out to be meaningless. I don't think anyone think it's a big deal really. It just has become a big deal because people have been arguing about it but I don't believe anyone think this is a major. It's one of those relatively minor thing that everyone loves to talk about endlessly it seems like.

E = CH² is online now  
Old
07-22-2013, 09:46 AM
  #548
417
Registered User
 
417's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Ottawa
Country: Haiti
Posts: 19,440
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Gonzo View Post

Again, I never said long-term contracts following ELCs is the only way to build a contender.

I just argued that "the way to do it" is by giving out bridge contracts to everyone. It's not, as least no contender sticks to that policy.

Please, read more carefully before responding. And I do not appreciate your snarky comment at the end, especially when you are arguing against something that was never said. Try to remain respectful, it makes for a more legitimate conversation.

Again, I never said giving our long term contracts off the ELC is the absolute way to go.
I was disrespectful? How exactly?

If I was, wasn't intentional...apologies if something was lost in translation.

Now, if you're not saying that giving out long term contracts off the ELC is the absolute way to go

Then what are you arguing against exactly?

That the Habs aren't following the trend of most teams??

417 is online now  
Old
07-22-2013, 09:47 AM
  #549
Estimated_Prophet
Registered User
 
Estimated_Prophet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,166
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Gonzo View Post
But again, I don't think 'that is the way to do it'.

Most of the perennial contenders do not practice the bridge contract policy.

If it was indeed the 'way to do it', wouldn't more teams be doing it?

Seems to me like the best teams do NOT follow that policy.
The fact is that most teams try and lock up their young players early. Considering that some of the biggest employers of this strategy (Islanders, Hurricanes, Leafs) have perpetually sucked I would say that the evidence points to the monkey eventually hitting a bulls eye theory in regards to successful teams like Chicago.

If everyone is using the same strategy, it is a certainty that one of them will eventually win. I am more impressed with New Jersey's strength in doing things their own way and winning for a long time doing so. The only reason that teams don't emulate this is because they succumb to public and internal pressure to take risks that history has shown to be more of a danger than a solution.

Estimated_Prophet is offline  
Old
07-22-2013, 09:48 AM
  #550
417
Registered User
 
417's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Ottawa
Country: Haiti
Posts: 19,440
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Gonzo View Post
Now you are just arguing for the sake of arguing. I am not going to get into a semantics filled debate to discuss the value of good signings. You may think it's not important, but it definitely is, at least in my opinion.
Value of 'good signings'

That's often quite subjective...fan A might think a contract is good value, fan B might think the player is overpaid

Neither is right and in the end, neither really matters.

There are many reasons why a team wins a Cup, the salary renumeration of their players ranks somewhere near the bottom

417 is online now  
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 05:47 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.