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

Retire Brad Park's #?

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
02-11-2014, 08:35 PM
  #101
Lindberg Cheese
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: VA
Posts: 742
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lindberg Cheese View Post
If, if, if. Compelling argument.
Still haven't heard why Park gets a banner???

Lindberg Cheese is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-11-2014, 09:17 PM
  #102
Cake or Death
.
 
Cake or Death's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Country: United States
Posts: 2,081
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lindberg Cheese View Post
Still haven't heard why Park gets a banner???
The sheer fact that you're comparing a forward's scoring to a defenseman's scoring doesn't justify anyone wasting their time responding to you. If you are going to argue the merits, I'd at least suggest comparing apples to apples, defenseman to defenseman if you can't figure it out. Despite being 13th in GP by a NYR d-men, Park sits at second in points per game behind Leetch (.87 to .81) with NYR d-men who've played over 5 seasons with us and 4th in total points. His lack of games played here, something not in his control, is about the only argument anyone can make against him, though it is a legit argument nonetheless. But you look at Park's numbers against fellow NYR d-men and scoring-wise it's basically Leetch and Park, then everyone else...

PlayerGP GPGAPGPPG+/-
B. Leetch11290.210.660.87+24
B. Park4650.200.610.81+173
J. Patrick6710.150.540.69+70
R. Greschner9820.180.440.62-80
B. Gadsby4570.130.470.60NA

I can grasp the argument for lack of GP in NY, but any other attempt at a valid argument, especially comparing d-men to forwards, makes zero sense to me.

Cake or Death is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-12-2014, 11:24 AM
  #103
bernmeister
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 8,298
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cake or Death View Post
The sheer fact that you're comparing a forward's scoring to a defenseman's scoring doesn't justify anyone wasting their time responding to you. If you are going to argue the merits, I'd at least suggest comparing apples to apples, defenseman to defenseman if you can't figure it out. Despite being 13th in GP by a NYR d-men, Park sits at second in points per game behind Leetch (.87 to .81) with NYR d-men who've played over 5 seasons with us and 4th in total points. His lack of games played here, something not in his control, is about the only argument anyone can make against him, though it is a legit argument nonetheless. But you look at Park's numbers against fellow NYR d-men and scoring-wise it's basically Leetch and Park, then everyone else...

PlayerGP GPGAPGPPG+/-
B. Leetch11290.210.660.87+24
B. Park4650.200.610.81+173
J. Patrick6710.150.540.69+70
R. Greschner9820.180.440.62-80
B. Gadsby4570.130.470.60NA

I can grasp the argument for lack of GP in NY, but any other attempt at a valid argument, especially comparing d-men to forwards, makes zero sense to me.
Bravo, well said!

I especially note that +/- number, which is outstanding

bernmeister is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-12-2014, 11:27 AM
  #104
bernmeister
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 8,298
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crease View Post
Facts can become useless without context, as they are here.

A defenseman with 378 points in 465 games. A forward with 502 points in 653 games. When put in the context of the different positions they played, one is much much more impressive than the other.

And with regards to trophies, a little context helps too. If generational talent Bobby Orr doesn't lace them up, Park wins four Norrises. The voting records support that. If generational talent Wayne Gretzky doesn't lace them up, Don Maloney wins zero Art Rosses, zero Rocket Richards, zero Harts, and so on. The voting records support that also.

Park is miles ahead of Maloney in terms of what he did for this franchise. And I mean miles. That doesn't mean he should get a banner, but context is important when evaluating a player's resume and comparing one player to another.
99% crease.
Permit me to slightly amend, that Orr was not merely a generational talent, but is viewed by many as possibly
best
player
ever

bernmeister is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-12-2014, 12:44 PM
  #105
Chief
Registered User
 
Chief's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: NY, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 1,838
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Section32 View Post
Did Park play long enough 7 1/2 years to have his number retired?

I think his play on the ice certainly stands for itself.

If not, who would be next?
I'm on the fence about Park but have no problem with his number not being retired. If he had a longer tenure and/or won some hardware (Norris Trophies or Cups), then it would be an entirely different discussion. I understand the qualifiers on those statements - that he was traded and didn't decide to leave town on his own, that he was #2 to Orr, etc...but in the end, those justifications don't make someone worthy of retiring their number. I would celebrate the honor if his number was retired but I'm not going to lose sleep over the fact he hasn't been so honored.

I agree with those who think the Rangers have done a bad job honoring their history and, at this point in time, I'm expecting you will only see players honored who played after the 94 Cup team...but I don't think you'll see many of them. So few players stay with teams for long tenures and usually, if a player isn't with a team for a very long time, they typically have to be a key to a Cup victory in order to be so honored.

I don't think it's going out on a limb to predict that Lundqvist will be honored one day.

A few other thoughts:

Grave totally deserved having his number retired. As I posted in the thread where we chose the greatest wingers in Ranger history, I think Graves' "good guy stuff" actually leads people to believe he was a lesser player than he actually was.

* Graves is #2 in career goals for Rangers wingers (also Top 10 in assists and points).

People seem to forget how important Graves' goal scoring was for his Ranger teams.
* He led his teams in goal-scoring 4 times.
* When he set the single season record for goals with 52, no other Ranger even scored 30.

* He wasn't a one-trick pony, he averaged 32 goals for 9 seasons.
* In 7 Ranger playoff runs, he was only out of the team's Top 3 in goal scoring once.
* Team MVP twice.
* And let's not forget that he played two-way hockey, not just offense, and played a robust physical game.

How have the Rangers not officially retired Gretzky's number? Even if you look at it from simply a marketing stand-point - which I would totally expect from the current Ranger regime. His number has been retired by the entire league, so it's retired anyway. I don't understand why they haven't had a ceremony for it and hung a red, white and blue 99 from the rafters.

Chief is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-12-2014, 08:06 PM
  #106
Lindberg Cheese
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: VA
Posts: 742
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chief View Post
I'm on the fence about Park but have no problem with his number not being retired. If he had a longer tenure and/or won some hardware (Norris Trophies or Cups), then it would be an entirely different discussion. I understand the qualifiers on those statements - that he was traded and didn't decide to leave town on his own, that he was #2 to Orr, etc...but in the end, those justifications don't make someone worthy of retiring their number. I would celebrate the honor if his number was retired but I'm not going to lose sleep over the fact he hasn't been so honored.

I agree with those who think the Rangers have done a bad job honoring their history and, at this point in time, I'm expecting you will only see players honored who played after the 94 Cup team...but I don't think you'll see many of them. So few players stay with teams for long tenures and usually, if a player isn't with a team for a very long time, they typically have to be a key to a Cup victory in order to be so honored.

I don't think it's going out on a limb to predict that Lundqvist will be honored one day.

A few other thoughts:

Grave totally deserved having his number retired. As I posted in the thread where we chose the greatest wingers in Ranger history, I think Graves' "good guy stuff" actually leads people to believe he was a lesser player than he actually was.

* Graves is #2 in career goals for Rangers wingers (also Top 10 in assists and points).

People seem to forget how important Graves' goal scoring was for his Ranger teams.
* He led his teams in goal-scoring 4 times.
* When he set the single season record for goals with 52, no other Ranger even scored 30.

* He wasn't a one-trick pony, he averaged 32 goals for 9 seasons.
* In 7 Ranger playoff runs, he was only out of the team's Top 3 in goal scoring once.
* Team MVP twice.
* And let's not forget that he played two-way hockey, not just offense, and played a robust physical game.

How have the Rangers not officially retired Gretzky's number? Even if you look at it from simply a marketing stand-point - which I would totally expect from the current Ranger regime. His number has been retired by the entire league, so it's retired anyway. I don't understand why they haven't had a ceremony for it and hung a red, white and blue 99 from the rafters.
So the thread question has finally been answered, no banner for Park despite weak comparisons...

Lindberg Cheese is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-12-2014, 10:31 PM
  #107
Brooklyn Ranger
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Brooklyn, of course
Posts: 7,821
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chief View Post
How have the Rangers not officially retired Gretzky's number? Even if you look at it from simply a marketing stand-point - which I would totally expect from the current Ranger regime. His number has been retired by the entire league, so it's retired anyway. I don't understand why they haven't had a ceremony for it and hung a red, white and blue 99 from the rafters.
I had so much fun watching him play when he was here. Yes, it was the twilight of his career, but there was a lot of what made him so very special still left. A very good friend of my mine hadn't seen him play very much and was somewhat skeptical when I would rave about him. We saw him play a lot the first (and every) season he was here and after a few games she understood why he was The Great One. The man knew where everyone was going to be on the ice, long before they even got there, much less knew they were going to be heading in that direction.

He may not pass the longevity test, but I would not be opposed to hanging 99 in the rafters.

Brooklyn Ranger is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
02-12-2014, 10:47 PM
  #108
30theking
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 691
vCash: 500
He wouldv'e won four norris trophies with the rangers if not for orr. Isn't that good enough?

30theking is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-12-2014, 10:52 PM
  #109
Brooklyn Ranger
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Brooklyn, of course
Posts: 7,821
vCash: 500
Not for everyone.

Brooklyn Ranger is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
02-13-2014, 01:56 AM
  #110
Cake or Death
.
 
Cake or Death's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Country: United States
Posts: 2,081
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by 30theking View Post
He wouldv'e won four norris trophies with the rangers if not for orr. Isn't that good enough?
That is somewhat valid, but imho, no. In that case, you retire Orr in Boston and not Park, because you could also argue that Orr was such an easy first choice that not too much thought was put into who was 2nd and onward. Similarly, can you imagine the additional Hart Trophies Trottier might have won w/o Gretzky? Trots was widely regarded as the best two-way center/player in the game, but I don't think, with Park or Trottier, what ifs really work. And in extending the what if issue, Trottier managed to erase them beyond his Hart with Cups and a Smythe and his team performing a thorough thrashing of Gretzky's Oilers, to boot.

The retired number thing should be a combination, imo, of truly great players who had a long tenure/majority of their career with a given team. This is something the Rangers have never gotten right, and still to this day epic fail at. Adding Park just waters down an already watered down group which is missing a large core of players who actually should be retired. If Park wasn't traded, maybe. But the fact is, he was traded.

Cake or Death is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-13-2014, 10:08 AM
  #111
Crease
Registered User
 
Crease's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 9,833
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cake or Death View Post
Similarly, can you imagine the additional Hart Trophies Trottier might have won w/o Gretzky?
Just one more, in '82, according to voting records. But you're correct that Trottier, to his rightful credit, did fend off Gretzky for a period of time, before the Oilers really took off.

Crease is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-13-2014, 12:31 PM
  #112
chosen
Registered User
 
chosen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 5,639
vCash: 500
The one thing no one has been able to define is the parameters for retiring a number.

An argument against Park is that he only played a little over 7 years. So, how many years is necessary?

The hardware argument is flat-out stupid because he was against the greatest player I ever saw. If no Orr, Park has a bag full of trophies. How can that be held against Park?

If talent as a Ranger is a point to consider, he is at worst the second best talent of the last 50 seasons.

So, does anyone have a set of rules to determine who deserves it? The answer is no.

The single most overrated reason cited is winning a Cup. This Is idiotic. I used to hear that argument used to say that Hasek was not great enough as a Sabre or Boutique great enough as a Bruin.

The truth is that this is all about opinions and we are all using different facts as an argument.

One thing indisputable is that Park was a far, far better player as a Ranger than Graves. Anyone who saw Park knows this to be true. Once Graves got a banner, it all ceased to have real meaning.

chosen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-13-2014, 01:12 PM
  #113
Bleed Ranger Blue
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 14,811
vCash: 500
I never saw Park play. My father raves about him much in the same way the old-timers on this board do. It speaks volumes.

Im guessing the majority of this board is young - thats fine. Whats not fine is them spouting off like they know anything about a player they never saw take a shift.

Bleed Ranger Blue is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-13-2014, 04:51 PM
  #114
chosen
Registered User
 
chosen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 5,639
vCash: 500
Another point.

Not only was Park a great offensive talent, but he was probably the best checking defenseman I ever saw on the Rangers. He used to routinely flip players over his hip and send them flying through the air, and he did not care who you were. I remember him doing it to Gordie Howe and Beliveau.

Toss in that he would fight any goon in the league and you have a player that if playing today would be revered here.

But Don Maloney is more deserving. Unbelievable. Not really. People often look at a stat book and proclaim certitude never understanding that they don't have a clue.

chosen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-13-2014, 06:46 PM
  #115
Lindberg Cheese
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: VA
Posts: 742
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bleed Ranger Blue View Post
I never saw Park play. My father raves about him much in the same way the old-timers on this board do. It speaks volumes.

Im guessing the majority of this board is young - thats fine. Whats not fine is them spouting off like they know anything about a player they never saw take a shift.
I never spouted off on Park, in fact quite the opposite. However, I maintain my position that he shouldn't get a banner which isn't a popular opinion with the codger crowd but so what.


Last edited by Kane One: 02-17-2014 at 10:21 PM.
Lindberg Cheese is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-18-2014, 12:58 PM
  #116
bernmeister
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 8,298
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by IMLACHnME View Post
....
Quote:
Your description of Emile Francis and explanation of his motivation for making that trade indicate that you know little about him or his Rangers team of the 60s/70s.
Wrongo.
That is not a statement of fact.
It is a statement about your opinion as to my opinion.
We agree to disagree on the above, at best.

Quote:
He had been the GM - and usually the coach - for more than a decade when he made that trade early in the 1975-76 season.
Whoop de do.
His tenure at that point had nothing to do with his desire to impose his will.
Whether it was new or continued.
What you're saying is true in a certain context to a certain extent.
In pre-free agency, players were at mercy of ownership/mgmt.
Given that, and his seniority, you could say it was a team he had already made in his image, at least at some point.
But then there was a little too much attention being paid to the name, skill guys, the celebs.
The fact that he moved Giacomin the way he did with a harsh waiver deal sell out instead of trying to hook him where he wanted to go for a graceful exit, assuming we agree it was time for the reins to be turned over to JD. Disgraceful. Unnecessarily harsh. Selfish. Not classy at all.
We need not quibble.
He wanted to RETAIN and RE-ESTABLISH that it was his team.
Close enough to what I said.

Quote:
That was his team, he hardly had to "put his personal imprint on the team." In fact, the 1975-76 season would be his last on Broadway.
You suggest that the '75-76 season being his last meant he had no upside in putting his imprint on the team prior.
I disagree.
He still had to justify a paycheck.
And he just chose the wrong way to go about it.
It could be argued that so many Ranger fans were incensed about that trade, plus the obvious Giacomin exit fiasco, that he chose to ran before he was forced out of town.

Quote:
The Rangers had been in steady decline since the 1971-72 season when they finished with 109 points; after that they had 102 (72-73), 94 (73-74) and 88 (74-75). In fact, in the playoffs of 1975, they were defeated in the first round by the New York Islanders. You don't think there was reason enough to "shake up" the roster?
Constant upgrading and tweaking, sure.
But there was no reason to move Park/Ratelle, not at that time for that return.
Espo-Vadnais (and let's not forget Joe Zanussi) were not an upgrade.
Espo had his legit pluses, but his numbers were padded by a healthy(healthier) Orr.
Not that good in Chicago, or here.
And Vadnais was a nice guy and a quality add, but nowhere near Park, even as Park started to decline physically.

If it could be shown it was a true upgrade, that's one thing.
He took less to show he was in charge, apparently able to make change for the sake of change.

Quote:
Early on during the 1975-76 season, Eddie Giacomin had been waived, and wound up with Detroit. Older fans of the Blueshirts will well recall his first game back at MSG.
I watched that game.
From behind a set, I too voiced my displeasure with "Eddie, Eddie!" chants.

Quote:
After 13 games, with his team 5-7-1, Francis made the big trade. Unfortunately, the Rangers continued to struggle, ...
Teams have slow starts. Regardless there are no sacred cows. Should always be willing to move guys for improvement.
But THIS deal did not achieve that, and it can be argued it was for the purposes I described.

Quote:
and "*&!# Emile Francis" was fired.
Good riddance.

PS if you ever get a chance to speak to guys from that team, get 'em on the side so they can speak freely and ask 'em.

You'll see I'm right.

bernmeister is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-13-2014, 08:25 AM
  #117
mrzero
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Halifax
Country: Canada
Posts: 11
vCash: 500
Brad Park was one of the greatest D-men of all time. Not only one of the best play makers but a great stickhandler who could control the game. Park was also a great defenseman at defending and being physical. He wouldn't hesitate to drop the gloves either and held his own in the fighting department.
Even though it is an old line " If it wasn't for Bobby Orr, Park would have been the best", we all should keep that in perspective. I believe that Brad Park is being more under appreciated as the years go by. Although it is hard to rate generations of players, anyone who is second to the best that ever played, must have been pretty dam good. If he had of won 4 Norris Trophies his popularity would be greater today.
Some interesting facts to add to Brad's accomplishments:
- His 6 time runner-up finish for the Norris is the most of any NHL player for any trophy never to win.
- In the 1978 playoffs tied Bobby Orr's record for 9 post season goals for a D-man. He finished as the Bruins leading playoff scorer with 15 GP, 9 G, 11 A, 20 PTS. If the B's could have won the Stanley Cup he no doubt would have won the Conn Smythe Trophy. That went to Larry Robinson. Once again Brad was runner-up.
I'm not sure if that is enough to have his number retired, but I just hope people remember how good he was.


Last edited by mrzero: 05-13-2014 at 08:28 AM. Reason: grammer
mrzero is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-13-2014, 09:51 AM
  #118
Amazing Kreiderman
Night-shift fan!
 
Amazing Kreiderman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Netherlands
Country: Netherlands
Posts: 5,208
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brooklyn Ranger View Post
No for Park--played more years as an opponent than as a Ranger.

At this point, I don't think any more players should have their numbers retired at this time. While players like Cook and Boucher are deserving, since they are not around anymore to enjoy the experience (and the vast majority of fans who saw or heard about their play from people who did see them play aren't around either), I would be opposed to retiring their numbers as well.
So did Messier. Not really the best argument to make

__________________
There are two types of people in this world: those who can extrapolate from incomplete data;
Amazing Kreiderman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-13-2014, 03:06 PM
  #119
Brooklyn Ranger
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Brooklyn, of course
Posts: 7,821
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Amazing Kreiderman View Post
So did Messier. Not really the best argument to make
I'm more than old enough to remember Brad Park playing for both New York and Boston. One thing I can say with certainty is that Brad Park never lifted the Stanley Cup as a Ranger. Mark Messier did. I consider that a major difference--a defining one even--between their careers in New York.

The time to retire Brad Park's number, if there ever was one, came and went almost 30 years ago. To the vast majority of current Rangers fans (and probably Boston fans as well), he is a player who their parents, or even gradparents talked about, nothing more. Sad, maybe. But true. Retiring a player's number is more about how the fans feel about him, rather than a bunch of statistics.

Brooklyn Ranger is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
05-13-2014, 04:48 PM
  #120
Giacomin
Registered User
 
Giacomin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 1,762
vCash: 500
I totally agree with the last post. Messier lead the Rangers to a Cup. Park never sniffed a cup in his long career. As someone who saw Park play almost his whole career he is a Hofer but is not worthy of having his number retired as a Ranger.
The Esposito trade gets bashed all the time but at least he was the leader on a Rangers team that went to the finals. If Brad Park had played his whole career as a Ranger then yes his number would be retired but he didn't .

Giacomin is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
05-13-2014, 05:40 PM
  #121
Zil
Registered User
 
Zil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Country: United States
Posts: 3,931
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Giacomin View Post
I totally agree with the last post. Messier lead the Rangers to a Cup. Park never sniffed a cup in his long career. As someone who saw Park play almost his whole career he is a Hofer but is not worthy of having his number retired as a Ranger.
The Esposito trade gets bashed all the time but at least he was the leader on a Rangers team that went to the finals. If Brad Park had played his whole career as a Ranger then yes his number would be retired but he didn't .
Wait, how was Esposito a great Ranger leader in comparison to Park when they both went to one finals as a Ranger and Park's team came closer to taking the series? My father always insisted that they might've won the cup if Ratelle hadn't hurt his ankle late in the 72 season. He was having his greatest year and was a shell of himself in that finals.

Plus, Epsosito is the reason Rick Middleton scored 400 NHL goals for the Bruins rather than the Rangers. I've made this argument before, but 79 was Middleton's breakout year and Park and Ratelle were still putting up HoF numbers. They might've won in 79, or at least had a better chance without the Esposito trade.

Zil is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
05-13-2014, 07:04 PM
  #122
Giacomin
Registered User
 
Giacomin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 1,762
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zil View Post
Wait, how was Esposito a great Ranger leader in comparison to Park when they both went to one finals as a Ranger and Park's team came closer to taking the series? My father always insisted that they might've won the cup if Ratelle hadn't hurt his ankle late in the 72 season. He was having his greatest year and was a shell of himself in that finals.

Plus, Epsosito is the reason Rick Middleton scored 400 NHL goals for the Bruins rather than the Rangers. I've made this argument before, but 79 was Middleton's breakout year and Park and Ratelle were still putting up HoF numbers. They might've won in 79, or at least had a better chance without the Esposito trade.
I started following the Rangers in 1970 so I remember the 72 team well. They might have won the Cup if Ratelle didn't hurt his ankle but the argument was about Park and he was not the leader of the 72 team it was Gilbert followed by Ratelle and Hadfield put up 50 goals. The 1979 team might have won the Cup if some as***** Potvin doesn't break Nilsson,s ankle in 79( you might remember the play) but Esposito was the leader of the team that lost to the Canadiens in 1979.
The bottom line is that Esposito and Park should not have their numbers retired but both are Hofers but only one was the leader of a Rangers team that lost in the finals.

Giacomin is online now   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 09:05 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.