HFBoards

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

2013 Offseason roster build thread part Additional Nauseum

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
07-23-2013, 12:02 PM
  #126
joshjull
Moderator
 
joshjull's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Hamburg,NY
Country: United States
Posts: 35,269
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by haseoke39 View Post
Nabakov is 37, ******, and making what they could be paying Miller on a retained salary deal. You're telling me that upgrade wouldn't have been worth any assets to them?

And that's just the one deal out there where the goaltender is plainly older and worse than Miller. You can't even argue that the Islanders valued Nabby more for his play.
And Miller can name a handful of teams he won't go to. What Are the odds the NY Isles are on it? I'd say pretty good.



You could definitely give Miller away but that would be incredibly stupid to do.

joshjull is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-23-2013, 12:06 PM
  #127
Rob Paxon
⚔Z E M G U S⚔
 
Rob Paxon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: corfu, ny
Country: United States
Posts: 20,428
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Rob Paxon
Quote:
Originally Posted by haseoke39 View Post
This bubble chamber is the only place on the planet where there isn't and never was any interest in trading for Ryan Miller. Half of you will apparently argue now that you obviously couldn't even give Ryan Miller away, and it's mostly the same half of you who argued not to bother taking a lousy 2nd rounder before the draft because there would be better offers in a month.

Meanwhile, the only evidence of the goalie market that exists for either side showed half a dozen teams make moves to get goalies over the last month. I know it's not conclusive evidence, but it strongly suggests that they'd likely have been willing to part with something in order to get a better goaltender. You just don't have a player like Miller being flat out worthless purely because of his age and contract - not when Evgeni Nabakov is being paid what the Islanders would have had to pay Miller if we'd retained salary.

Just think about that. The Islanders paid Nabakov, at age 37, what they could have been paying Miller with retained salary. Don't even try to tell me they wouldn't prefer Miller.
This is such an obnoxious response. You have the condescending tone down, but not anything to back it up.

Nabakov was already their goalie and re-signing him only cost cap space. How does that indicate they were interested in or willing to trade for Miller? "Retained salary" is irrelevant... it would have cost them more cap space to re-sign him. Use your brain before telling everyone their wrong.

I'm simply saying there's no reasonable way of knowing there is less of a market for Miller now, whereas you're adamant that there is, yet have no more basis for saying that than I have for being reasonable and open-minded. You haven't cited a single example of a team that would've wanted to bring in Miller but have since brought in someone else. You kind of need to do that if you're going to act like you're right about this.

Rob Paxon is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
07-23-2013, 12:06 PM
  #128
Jame
Dream '16
 
Jame's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Florida
Country: Pitcairn Islands
Posts: 35,522
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by haseoke39 View Post
Nabakov is 37, ******, and making what they could be paying Miller on a retained salary deal. You're telling me that upgrade wouldn't have been worth any assets to them?

And that's just the one deal out there where the goaltender is plainly older and worse than Miller. You can't even argue that the Islanders valued Nabby more for his play.
Based on reality, the answer was No (since they did not trade for Miller)

(I dispute that Miller is an "upgrade" in NY)

Jame is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-23-2013, 12:06 PM
  #129
haseoke39
**** Cycle 4 Eichel
 
haseoke39's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 7,061
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by joshjull View Post
You could definitely give Miller away but that would be incredibly stupid to do.
Seriously? We're not making the playoffs with or without him, and he walks at the end of the year. You're looking Briere-Drury in the face, only instead of a contender, we're hanging onto him just to hurt out draft position.

haseoke39 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-23-2013, 12:07 PM
  #130
haseoke39
**** Cycle 4 Eichel
 
haseoke39's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 7,061
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jame View Post
Based on reality, the answer was No (since they did not trade for Miller)

(I dispute that Miller is an "upgrade" in NY)
Oh, I get it. If a move didn't happen, that means a team didn't value a player at all. 29 other teams obviously believe Sidney Crosby is worth less than nothing. Got it.

haseoke39 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-23-2013, 12:10 PM
  #131
Jame
Dream '16
 
Jame's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Florida
Country: Pitcairn Islands
Posts: 35,522
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by haseoke39 View Post
This bubble chamber is the only place on the planet where there isn't and never was any interest in trading for Ryan Miller. Half of you will apparently argue now that you obviously couldn't even give Ryan Miller away, and it's mostly the same half of you who argued not to bother taking a lousy 2nd rounder before the draft because there would be better offers in a month.
which half do i belong to?

Quote:
Meanwhile, the only evidence of the goalie market that exists for either side showed half a dozen teams make moves to get goalies over the last month. I know it's not conclusive evidence, but it strongly suggests that they'd likely have been willing to part with something in order to get a better goaltender. You just don't have a player like Miller being flat out worthless purely because of his age and contract - not when Evgeni Nabakov is being paid what the Islanders would have had to pay Miller if we'd retained salary.
you seem to be arguing about the fruit market, and then pointing to the sale of oranges and apples as examples for the market for kiwi.

Quote:
Just think about that. The Islanders paid Nabakov, at age 37, what they could have been paying Miller with retained salary. Don't even try to tell me they wouldn't prefer Miller.
They didn't prefer Miller at the asset costs, to Nabakov... that's a fact now

Jame is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-23-2013, 12:10 PM
  #132
Jame
Dream '16
 
Jame's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Florida
Country: Pitcairn Islands
Posts: 35,522
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by haseoke39 View Post
Oh, I get it. If a move didn't happen, that means a team didn't value a player at all. 29 other teams obviously believe Sidney Crosby is worth less than nothing. Got it.
cool straw man dude

Jame is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-23-2013, 12:12 PM
  #133
haseoke39
**** Cycle 4 Eichel
 
haseoke39's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 7,061
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob Paxon View Post
This is such an obnoxious response. You have the condescending tone down, but not anything to back it up.

Nabakov was already their goalie and re-signing him only cost cap space. How does that indicate they were interested in or willing to trade for Miller? "Retained salary" is irrelevant... it would have cost them more cap space to re-sign him. Use your brain before telling everyone their wrong.
Um...ditto? They don't have to re-sign him to get comparable value to Nabby. Nabby's on a one year deal.

Quote:
I'm simply saying there's no reasonable way of knowing there is less of a market for Miller now, whereas you're adamant that there is, yet have no more basis for saying that than I have for being reasonable and open-minded. You haven't cited a single example of a team that would've wanted to bring in Miller but have since brought in someone else. You kind of need to do that if you're going to act like you're right about this.
I kind of don't. In the NHL, there's zero evidence of any trade that didn't happen could've. Does that mean that Buffalo never could have been willing to offer anything for Bobby Ryan, or that no one ever made a single offer for Luongo? Of course it doesn't. Common sense suggests there is always some level of interest for high value players. You seem to think common sense means if an offer isn't reported to the media, it precludes us from assuming there's any interest at all. That's very strange.

haseoke39 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-23-2013, 12:13 PM
  #134
haseoke39
**** Cycle 4 Eichel
 
haseoke39's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 7,061
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jame View Post
cool straw man dude
Necessary conclusion from your logic, so make a different argument than "if the Isles didn't actually trade for him, then they were never interested."

haseoke39 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-23-2013, 12:13 PM
  #135
Jame
Dream '16
 
Jame's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Florida
Country: Pitcairn Islands
Posts: 35,522
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by haseoke39 View Post
I kind of don't. In the NHL, there's zero evidence of any trade that didn't happen could've. Does that mean that Buffalo never could have been willing to offer anything for Bobby Ryan, or that no one ever made a single offer for Luongo? Of course it doesn't. Common sense suggests there is always some level of interest for high value players. You seem to think common sense means if an offer isn't reported to the media, it precludes us from assuming there's any interest at all. That's very strange.
if you originally stated that the basis of your post was that you would presume whatever you wanted, I would've just ignored the conversation.

next time, a heads up would be nice

Jame is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-23-2013, 12:15 PM
  #136
haseoke39
**** Cycle 4 Eichel
 
haseoke39's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 7,061
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jame View Post
They didn't prefer Miller at the asset costs, to Nabakov... that's a fact now
True. But "at the asset costs" is the operative thing here. I'm saying, and have been saying, move him for the best offer available. If there's any assets coming back our way, you do it, because his only purpose here is to watch his value depreciate, ruin our draft position and then walk.

haseoke39 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-23-2013, 12:16 PM
  #137
Jame
Dream '16
 
Jame's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Florida
Country: Pitcairn Islands
Posts: 35,522
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by haseoke39 View Post
Necessary conclusion from your logic, so make a different argument than "if the Isles didn't actually trade for him, then they were never interested."
no, it's simply that you don't understand the context that you created with your assumption.

Jame is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-23-2013, 12:17 PM
  #138
haseoke39
**** Cycle 4 Eichel
 
haseoke39's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 7,061
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jame View Post
if you originally stated that the basis of your post was that you would presume whatever you wanted, I would've just ignored the conversation.

next time, a heads up would be nice
I didn't realize "some team in the NHL at some point would give up something for Ryan Miller" was such an outlandish assumption that we can write off anyone who dares think so.

haseoke39 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-23-2013, 12:17 PM
  #139
haseoke39
**** Cycle 4 Eichel
 
haseoke39's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 7,061
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jame View Post
no, it's simply that you don't understand the context that you created with your assumption.
What?

haseoke39 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-23-2013, 12:17 PM
  #140
Jame
Dream '16
 
Jame's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Florida
Country: Pitcairn Islands
Posts: 35,522
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by haseoke39 View Post
True. But "at the asset costs" is the operative thing here. I'm saying, and have been saying, move him for the best offer available. If there's any assets coming back our way, you do it, because his only purpose here is to watch his value depreciate, ruin our draft position and then walk.
my mistake, i forgot the full nature of the premise you wish to create... the intentionally lose premise... the one not based in reality

ps How do you think giving away a player will affect Darcy's ability to negotiate trades in the future (im sure you gave this zero thought)

Jame is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-23-2013, 12:20 PM
  #141
haseoke39
**** Cycle 4 Eichel
 
haseoke39's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 7,061
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jame View Post
my mistake, i forgot the full nature of the premise you wish to create... the intentionally lose premise... the one not based in reality

ps How do you think giving away a player will affect Darcy's ability to negotiate trades in the future (im sure you gave this zero thought)
Nobody's going to deal with Lamiorello differently because he gave away Tallinder. Why would it affect his ability to negotiate trades in the future? So I'm not allowed to assume that any team in the NHL would be willing to give up any assets at any point for Ryan Miller, but you're allowed to assume that GMs all bizarrely look at a guy who made one bad trade and consequently never offer him fair value again, even to their own detriment?

If you have an unmarketable player, you have an unmarketable player. Do what's best for your team. The league will get over it.

haseoke39 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-23-2013, 12:29 PM
  #142
Jame
Dream '16
 
Jame's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Florida
Country: Pitcairn Islands
Posts: 35,522
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by haseoke39 View Post
Nobody's going to deal with Lamiorello differently because he gave away Tallinder.
you thought that was a good comparison?

Quote:
Why would it affect his ability to negotiate trades in the future? So I'm not allowed to assume that any team in the NHL would be willing to give up any assets at any point for Ryan Miller, but you're allowed to assume that GMs all bizarrely look at a guy who made one bad trade and consequently never offer him fair value again, even to their own detriment?
you've changed your assumption.

Your original, "i told you so" post, claimed that the market for Miller had changed. You've done a swell song and dance... but haven't backed up your claim with anything other than the assumption that teams that acquired goaltenders through UFA or Trade for younger potential franchise goalies would have traded "something" for Miller.

Your claim is that the market was better before these other goalie moves... and you have no evidence that the market was a "2nd round pick" THEN, and remains a "2nd round pick" now.... NONE.

Prove the market has changed... or move on.

Quote:
If you have an unmarketable player, you have an unmarketable player. Do what's best for your team. The league will get over it.
what impact would giving the starting goaltender away have on the lockerroom. If those running the team aren't committed to winning this year, why should the players be?

Jame is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-23-2013, 12:35 PM
  #143
haseoke39
**** Cycle 4 Eichel
 
haseoke39's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 7,061
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by joshjull View Post
And Miller can name a handful of teams he won't go to. What Are the odds the NY Isles are on it? I'd say pretty good.
Well, I think it's plausible, but less than likely. There are 14 teams with worse records last year, most teams are in crappier cities, and almost no other team can say they're improving as fast as the Isles by building around an MVP-candidate, 22 year old center.

Maybe five years ago, the Isles were on that list. I think they're actually a pretty choice destination now, though, given their trajectory. I doubt Miller would've blocked that trade. It's certainly better than staying on the Sabres.

haseoke39 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-23-2013, 12:40 PM
  #144
joshjull
Moderator
 
joshjull's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Hamburg,NY
Country: United States
Posts: 35,269
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by haseoke39 View Post
Seriously? We're not making the playoffs with or without him, and he walks at the end of the year. You're looking Briere-Drury in the face, only instead of a contender, we're hanging onto him just to hurt out draft position.
Miller leaving in free agency next summer would have little in common with Briere/Drury leaving.

1) we already know he's likely to leave and have made plans for it (trading for Hackett).

2) Miller would be older (34) and at the tail end of his career when he leaves unlike Briere (28)/Drury (30) when they left.

3) he also would be leaving a team rebuilding with youth not a Cup contender like the team Briere/Drury left. It would hardly be the severe blow that the co-caps leaving was.

4) him playing for one more year here actually has value to the development of our youth. Most directly it helps Enroth/Hackett but it also helps the young d-corp in Buffalo and Rochester by giving them solid goaltending to work in front of.

I think you view getting a top 3 pick as the only goal for next year. It takes away from any larger discussion on what's best for the overall team and organization's development going forward. I view the development of our current group of young players and prospects as priority #1 and I suspect that's Regiers thinking as well. That may lead to a top pick but its not the primary goal. We have a lot of talent in the system. If developed properly we should have the ability to be a successful team for many years to come and have the assets to maintain it. Giving away Miller IMO does little to advance this cause.

joshjull is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-23-2013, 12:41 PM
  #145
Jame
Dream '16
 
Jame's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Florida
Country: Pitcairn Islands
Posts: 35,522
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by haseoke39 View Post
Well, I think it's plausible, but less than likely. There are 14 teams with worse records last year, most teams are in crappier cities, and almost no other team can say they're improving as fast as the Isles by building around an MVP-candidate, 22 year old center.

Maybe five years ago, the Isles were on that list. I think they're actually a pretty choice destination now, though, given their trajectory. I doubt Miller would've blocked that trade. It's certainly better than staying on the Sabres.
players are pretty in tune with ownership, spending, etc.... the Sabres were a young, hot, team... and when Grier left he said it was because ownership wasn't committed to spending the money necessary to win.

The Isles have the tightest budget, the stingiest spending... it's a stretch to say they'd be the destination that Miller would want to go.

The Isles are on the right trajectory, but until they move, and Wang sells... they aren't going to be a player destination

Jame is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-23-2013, 12:42 PM
  #146
haseoke39
**** Cycle 4 Eichel
 
haseoke39's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 7,061
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jame View Post
you've changed your assumption.

Your original, "i told you so" post, claimed that the market for Miller had changed. You've done a swell song and dance... but haven't backed up your claim with anything other than the assumption that teams that acquired goaltenders through UFA or Trade for younger potential franchise goalies would have traded "something" for Miller.

Your claim is that the market was better before these other goalie moves... and you have no evidence that the market was a "2nd round pick" THEN, and remains a "2nd round pick" now.... NONE.

Prove the market has changed... or move on.
Can't. But I don't particularly want to move on either. If you find the assumption that Philly and NYI and Toronto would probably have been willing to offer something for Miller absurd and unworkable, you can check out of this conversation. I think it's pretty reasonable to assume that some market interest was there. I haven't asked you to defend why you assume Philly, NYI and Toronto would give nothing for him. Why don't we turn the tables? Defend your assumption. Do you really think the difference between Miller and Emery is null to Philly? And can you prove it??? Actually, wait, you probably do, because every goalie in the league is interchangeable to you.


Quote:
what impact would giving the starting goaltender away have on the lockerroom. If those running the team aren't committed to winning this year, why should the players be?
Because their jobs depend on it. Management's goals =/= players' goals.

haseoke39 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-23-2013, 12:43 PM
  #147
Jame
Dream '16
 
Jame's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Florida
Country: Pitcairn Islands
Posts: 35,522
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by joshjull View Post
Miller leaving in free agency next summer would have little in common with Briere/Drury leaving.

1) we already know he's likely to leave and have made plans for it (trading for Hackett).

2) Miller would be older (34) and at the tail end of his career when he leaves unlike Briere (28)/Drury (30) when they left.

3) he also would be leaving a team rebuilding with youth not a Cup contender like the team Briere/Drury left. It would hardly be the severe blow that the co-caps leaving was.

4) him playing for one more year here actually has value to the development of our youth. Most directly it helps Enroth/Hackett but it also helps the young d-corp in Buffalo and Rochester by giving them solid goaltending to work in front of.

I think you view getting a top 3 pick as the only goal for next year. It takes away from any larger discussion on what's best for the overall team and organization's development going forward. I view the development of our current group of young players and prospects as priority #1 and I suspect that's Regiers thinking as well. That may lead to a top pick but its not the primary goal. We have a lot of talent in the system. If developed properly we should have the ability to be a successful team for many years to come and have the assets to maintain it. Giving away Miller IMO does little to advance this cause.
I agree with everything except Enroth.

It hurts Enroth. Enroth needs to be given the reigns to take his next step (succeed or fail). He needs a season where he can get AT LEAST 40 games... and that won't happen with Miller here.

Jame is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-23-2013, 12:44 PM
  #148
Jame
Dream '16
 
Jame's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Florida
Country: Pitcairn Islands
Posts: 35,522
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by haseoke39 View Post

Because their jobs depend on it. Management's goals =/= players' goals.

if failure is your goal, management and players being on different pages is definitely a good way to go

Jame is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-23-2013, 12:49 PM
  #149
haseoke39
**** Cycle 4 Eichel
 
haseoke39's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 7,061
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by joshjull View Post
Miller leaving in free agency next summer would have little in common with Briere/Drury leaving.

1) we already know he's likely to leave and have made plans for it (trading for Hackett).

2) Miller would be older (34) and at the tail end of his career when he leaves unlike Briere (28)/Drury (30) when they left.

3) he also would be leaving a team rebuilding with youth not a Cup contender like the team Briere/Drury left. It would hardly be the severe blow that the co-caps leaving was.

4) him playing for one more year here actually has value to the development of our youth. Most directly it helps Enroth/Hackett but it also helps the young d-corp in Buffalo and Rochester by giving them solid goaltending to work in front of.

I think you view getting a top 3 pick as the only goal for next year. It takes away from any larger discussion on what's best for the overall team and organization's development going forward. I view the development of our current group of young players and prospects as priority #1 and I suspect that's Regiers thinking as well. That may lead to a top pick but its not the primary goal. We have a lot of talent in the system. If developed properly we should have the ability to be a successful team for many years to come and have the assets to maintain it. Giving away Miller IMO does little to advance this cause.
I agree that Miller leaving for nothing would not be as damaging as Briere-Drury. It's similar in kind, not necessarily degree. It's lost value for nothing.

And I agree it's important to give players the right kind of development. But (1) I disagree that playing on a losing team is necessarily the problem we should be avoiding. Almost every elite player in the league has played on a stinker. Playing with a coach who gives them the right kind of minutes, sets the right expectations, and encourages them to develop a complete game even if it means losing in the short term is vastly more important than having them look at the standings and feel a little bit better. And (2) I don't think the talent to win a cup is in our pipeline yet. I think we'll be very lucky if we have elite talent come out of this group. For that reason, I think it's more important to go back to the trough than to try to teach the kids we have to win now. Reasonable minds can differ on that. But I think it's a huge assumption that just being around a good player makes a player better, especially if it means they don't get to play while he does. That's all Miller really offers, is a nice guy to look up to. I don't think the development value of that is that strong.


Last edited by haseoke39: 07-23-2013 at 12:54 PM.
haseoke39 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-23-2013, 12:50 PM
  #150
Jame
Dream '16
 
Jame's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Florida
Country: Pitcairn Islands
Posts: 35,522
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by haseoke39 View Post
Can't. But I don't particularly want to move on either. If you find the assumption that Philly and NYI and Toronto would probably have been willing to offer something for Miller absurd and unworkable, you can check out of this conversation. I think it's pretty reasonable to assume that some market interest was there.
even if i were to agree with you (i dont), it does NOT support your claim that the market has changed.

Toronto WAS offering something reasonable (darcy says no)
St Louis IS offering something reasonable (darcy still says no)

there is nothing to infer that the market for Miller has changed

Darcy is asking for X
1 month ago Team A offered Y
Today Team B is offering Y

same market.... until you prove otherwise... or recognize that your self serving assumption is totally meaningless

Quote:
I haven't asked you to defend why you assume Philly, NYI and Toronto would give nothing for him.
History


Quote:
Why don't we turn the tables? Defend your assumption. Do you really think the difference between Miller and Emery is null to Philly? And can you prove it??? Actually, wait, you probably do, because every goalie in the league is interchangeable to you.
.
Yes, I think GMs around the league have learned that building a good team, allows you to plug in an NHL caliber starter... and therefore trading assets for a 34 year old rental goalie who hasn't done much in 5 of the last 6 seasons would be a waste of assets.

I don't think there exists much of a market for 1 year, aging goalies (in trade)... but feel free to point out some good examples of trades that could be comparables.

I also don't think the LIMITED market for such a goalie has changed much because of what other teams did.

Jame 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 02:19 AM.

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

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2015 All Rights Reserved.