HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > Trade Rumors and Free Agent Talk
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Trade Rumors and Free Agent Talk Trade rumors, transactions, and free agent talk. Rumors must contain the word RUMOR in post title. Proposals must contain the word PROPOSAL in post title.

The All Purpose Lu Thread (MOD WARNING IN OP)

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
10-31-2012, 09:47 PM
  #176
bcjonny
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Vancouver, B.C.
Posts: 209
vCash: 500
The players Dubinsky, Anismov, Erixon and Johnson may not be as flashy & sexy as Nash and Carter...

But they may have a lot more influence on bringing wins to Columbus.

The funny thing is ...

Goaltending is the single most important position on the ice.

Yet we see it so so disrespected on these boards. No wonder there is so much contempt for it as a position as it is continually taken for granted. When a team gets a good one there is little turn over and hence the indifference. We all seem to be in awe over the amazing offensive moves a young power forward may do but we are fairly quick to forget the similarly amazing saves a goalie makes night after night.

bcjonny is offline  
Old
10-31-2012, 11:00 PM
  #177
blankall
Registered User
 
blankall's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 5,286
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by LuckyLager View Post
What about the clause in the proposed CBA that lets the trading team keep up to $3mil per year of the contract? You don't think Luongo would be more desirable to a small market team with a $5.3mil dollar caphit, at $3.7mil in real dollars, with the caphit guaranteed to come off their books when he retires?
that is not what that clause says. A major aspect of the new CBA involves holding richer teams accountable for their signings. What you're proposing would just allow them to buy their way out.

blankall is offline  
Old
10-31-2012, 11:02 PM
  #178
Vankiller Whale
All hail WMD
 
Vankiller Whale's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 24,963
vCash: 400
Quote:
Originally Posted by blankall View Post
that is not what that clause says. A major aspect of the new CBA involves holding richer teams accountable for their signings. What you're proposing would just allow them to buy their way out.
No it wouldn't. It said salary, not cap hit. So for the sake of parity a richer team could pay for part of the salary for a cap floor team to make them more able to accomodate star players.

Vankiller Whale is offline  
Old
10-31-2012, 11:58 PM
  #179
Spazmatic Dan
Force Beyond Measure
 
Spazmatic Dan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Chatham, ON
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,103
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by LuckyLager View Post
What do you mean by planned date, and longer than scheduled?
As was said by my man Blue, I just meant "planned" as in most Vancouver fans are thinking Luongo will retire before the end of his contract. Basically I'm saying there is a risk of Luongo deciding to play longer than a team would like him to (AKA declining play, upcoming young goalie, etc.) and thus the cap hit stays longer than desired. This has to be taken into consideration by any GM acquiring the contract because that GM was not privy to any implied retirement date at the time of the signing (assuming one existed of course).

Quote:
Originally Posted by LuckyLager View Post
What about the clause in the proposed CBA that lets the trading team keep up to $3mil per year of the contract? You don't think Luongo would be more desirable to a small market team with a $5.3mil dollar caphit, at $3.7mil in real dollars, with the caphit guaranteed to come off their books when he retires?
If this proposal were to become a reality in the CBA it will definitely make Luongo more viable for small market teams. However, the length of the contract still has to be a factor. For example, if Luongo were to play into his 40s and his play declined significantly but he insisted on playing, a small market team may not be able to afford paying him whereas a big market team is in a better position to handle that sort of thing. Its all hypothetical of course but I would assume GMs take it into consideration.

In short, Luongo's contract was designed for big market teams who are mostly concerned with cap hit. A big market team would likely still have concerns with Luongo's contract length at the very least until the new CBA is finalized and we find out what the actual impact will be. Obviously the new contract rules will have a major impact on both the market (as in what teams would be financially able to acquire Luongo) and the desirability and thus value.

Spazmatic Dan is offline  
Old
11-01-2012, 12:02 AM
  #180
Vankiller Whale
All hail WMD
 
Vankiller Whale's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 24,963
vCash: 400
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spasmatic Dan View Post
If this proposal were to become a reality in the CBA it will definitely make Luongo more viable for small market teams. However, the length of the contract still has to be a factor. For example, if Luongo were to play into his 40s and his play declined significantly but he insisted on playing, a small market team may not be able to afford paying him whereas a big market team is in a better position to handle that sort of thing. Its all hypothetical of course but I would assume GMs take it into consideration.
Luongo's last few years of his contract are 3 mil, 1.6 mil, 1 mil, 1mil. For a cap floor team to only have to pay a fifth of the salary to get to the cap floor would be great for them. Luongo as a veteran backup and in a leadership role making minimal salary in Florida would probably be the best way for him to end his career for everyone even if he's initially traded somewhere else, as Vancouver doesn't get his cap hit, Florida gets their former franchise player back as a stabilizing presence who also keeps them over the cap floor for pennies on the dollar.

Vankiller Whale is offline  
Old
11-01-2012, 12:38 AM
  #181
StringerBell
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 10,000
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spasmatic Dan View Post
As was said by my man Blue, I just meant "planned" as in most Vancouver fans are thinking Luongo will retire before the end of his contract. Basically I'm saying there is a risk of Luongo deciding to play longer than a team would like him to (AKA declining play, upcoming young goalie, etc.) and thus the cap hit stays longer than desired. This has to be taken into consideration by any GM acquiring the contract because that GM was not privy to any implied retirement date at the time of the signing (assuming one existed of course).



If this proposal were to become a reality in the CBA it will definitely make Luongo more viable for small market teams. However, the length of the contract still has to be a factor. For example, if Luongo were to play into his 40s and his play declined significantly but he insisted on playing, a small market team may not be able to afford paying him whereas a big market team is in a better position to handle that sort of thing. Its all hypothetical of course but I would assume GMs take it into consideration.

In short, Luongo's contract was designed for big market teams who are mostly concerned with cap hit. A big market team would likely still have concerns with Luongo's contract length at the very least until the new CBA is finalized and we find out what the actual impact will be. Obviously the new contract rules will have a major impact on both the market (as in what teams would be financially able to acquire Luongo) and the desirability and thus value.
I agree with a lot of what you said, except I just don't see it being an issue. If a GM is worried about that he would presumably talk to Luongo before trading for him, as Tallon did this summer. Also I don't see why a GM who has all those concerns would be willing to trade for him. It might limit the market a bit, however I don't see it significantly impacting the valuation of teams who consider themselves a part of the market.

Like you said, we need a ratified CBA for any hopes at properly assessing his value. It'll be nice when this saga is over, I think most people are ready to move on.

StringerBell is offline  
Old
11-01-2012, 01:42 AM
  #182
Spazmatic Dan
Force Beyond Measure
 
Spazmatic Dan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Chatham, ON
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,103
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vankiller Whale View Post
Luongo's last few years of his contract are 3 mil, 1.6 mil, 1 mil, 1mil. For a cap floor team to only have to pay a fifth of the salary to get to the cap floor would be great for them. Luongo as a veteran backup and in a leadership role making minimal salary in Florida would probably be the best way for him to end his career for everyone even if he's initially traded somewhere else, as Vancouver doesn't get his cap hit, Florida gets their former franchise player back as a stabilizing presence who also keeps them over the cap floor for pennies on the dollar.
You're right that the later years swing in a small market team's favour, but at the same time 3 million can be significant for a team on an internal budget. 1.6 and 1 million not so much...but I think you catch the drift.

At this point in time though I think you can see why Luongo's contract is a concern for a potential suitor. Big market teams will be concerned about his cap hit and its effect on the future (imagine Vancouver acquiring him with this contract - you'd probably have some concerns over cap flexibility long term) and small market on actual salary commitment over the next ten years (or however long Luongo decides to play).

Basically yes you get an elite goalie, but the price is a risk to cap flexibility for a long time into the future and, reportedly, a significant asking price. I think you'll find fans of other teams who consider the risk worth it in exchange for a lowered price or who would be hypothetically willing to pay something more significant if there was a shorter term contract. Its the part where both are required that has fans feeling uneasy and why you'll find offers that normally wouldn't be worth Luongo's playing ability.

Of course I can't speak for GMs...

Spazmatic Dan is offline  
Old
11-01-2012, 01:45 AM
  #183
BayStBullies
Burn the Boats!
 
BayStBullies's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: @BayStBullies
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,876
vCash: 500
Something to keep in mind: Luongo's gargantuan decade contract, will see at least 2 CBA updates. This contract could take a horrible twist in the NEXT CBA...

BayStBullies is offline  
Old
11-01-2012, 01:48 AM
  #184
Spazmatic Dan
Force Beyond Measure
 
Spazmatic Dan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Chatham, ON
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,103
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by LuckyLager View Post
I agree with a lot of what you said, except I just don't see it being an issue. If a GM is worried about that he would presumably talk to Luongo before trading for him, as Tallon did this summer. Also I don't see why a GM who has all those concerns would be willing to trade for him. It might limit the market a bit, however I don't see it significantly impacting the valuation of teams who consider themselves a part of the market.

Like you said, we need a ratified CBA for any hopes at properly assessing his value. It'll be nice when this saga is over, I think most people are ready to move on.
I too would consider it a necessary to talk to Luongo before acquiring him especially considering his NTC but its tough for a guy like Luongo to pinpoint time of retirement, etc. There's also the risk of him changing his mind.

Like I was saying in my last post to Vankiller, I don't think you'll find a potential suitor without these concerns. I think you'll find teams who consider Luongo's upside greater than the risks and be willing to acquire him for a lesser price and teams who would gladly pay a price appropriate to his talent level if they had no concerns. Its the fact that Vancouver will likely be asking teams to do both that may cause some GMs balk at it.

Again though this is my 2 cents. I have no clue what GMs are actually thinking.

Spazmatic Dan is offline  
Old
11-01-2012, 02:14 AM
  #185
Seatoo
Never Stop Poasting
 
Seatoo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: The Interior of BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,978
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BayStBullies View Post
Something to keep in mind: Luongo's gargantuan decade contract, will see at least 2 CBA updates. This contract could take a horrible twist in the NEXT CBA...
Yea dude totally...Who knows maybe the NHL will make it so the lifetime contracts count against the cap until the player actually dies


Now for some actual content...

I honestly don't think that the owners will allow a CBA which punishes 14 of 30 teams who have signed a player for 8 years or more, why would the owners vote to shoot themselves in the foot? The Flyers, Vancouver, Chicago, Boston, Washington, Pittsburgh, Minny, Tampa Bay, LA (Has Richards and Carter), Buffalo, New York, The Islanders, and The Devils ALL have players signed to a minimum of 8 years...


Last edited by Seatoo: 11-01-2012 at 02:21 AM.
Seatoo is offline  
Old
11-01-2012, 02:27 AM
  #186
SDig14
Registered User
 
SDig14's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Edmonton, AB
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,589
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Seatoo View Post
Yea dude totally...Who knows maybe the NHL will make it so the lifetime contracts count against the cap until the player actually dies


Now for some actual content...

I honestly don't think that the owners will allow a CBA which punishes 14 of 30 teams who have signed a player for 8 years or more, why would the owners vote to shoot themselves in the foot? The Flyers, Vancouver, Chicago, Boston, Washington, Pittsburgh, Minny, Tampa Bay, LA (Has Richards and Carter), Buffalo, New York, The Islanders, and The Devils ALL have players signed to a minimum of 8 years...
I don't think it's long term deals that are the worry, it's the deals that were signed with the understanding the player will never play the final few years of the deal.

While all those deals are of the 8+ variety, there are also deals that are 8+ years that take players to reasonable ages too, which won't be punished the same as deals taking guys into their 40s.

SDig14 is offline  
Old
11-01-2012, 02:34 AM
  #187
Seatoo
Never Stop Poasting
 
Seatoo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: The Interior of BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,978
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDig14 View Post
I don't think it's long term deals that are the worry, it's the deals that were signed with the understanding the player will never play the final few years of the deal.

While all those deals are of the 8+ variety, there are also deals that are 8+ years that take players to reasonable ages too, which won't be punished the same as deals taking guys into their 40s.
The point is does anyone seriously believe that owners like the ones in Van, Philly, Chi, Detriot, Boston, Minny, Nashville, Tampa Bay, Buffalo, Washington, NJD, NYI or NYR will vote to literally screw themselves over/punish themselves they have enough votes right there to not allow a CBA to be ratified that would punish them.

Seatoo is offline  
Old
11-01-2012, 02:49 AM
  #188
oilinblood
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 2,701
vCash: 553
Quote:
Originally Posted by Seatoo View Post
The point is does anyone seriously believe that owners like the ones in Van, Philly, Chi, Detriot, Boston, Minny, Nashville, Tampa Bay, Buffalo, Washington, NJD, NYI or NYR will vote to literally screw themselves over/punish themselves they have enough votes right there to not allow a CBA to be ratified that would punish them.
the owners trust in Bettman. If he is defeated in a vote --where his say over powers the vote of 10 teams- his resignation is immediate. Vote and win against him and he resigns and walks.

He is there to try to make sure those idiots cant find holes to make more and more issues. eventually the owners have to realize that their businesses need controls and stiff penalties. Wait...they already realized this when they gave Bettman supreme power over everything and 8 Mill a year to grow their revenues by a billion dollars.

BTW...unanimous decision in the NHL is Bettman saying yes or no. Votes are irrelevant. His contract dictates he needs no permission on anything relating to the CBA. The BOG can motion to terminate him, that is all. For the lockout Bettman chose to proceed since Fehr had his players strike when MLB negotiated on an expired contract through a season, and Fehr had not answered any requests to begin negotiating. As Bettman said " a vote was taken but i dont need a vote to proceed. the result was unanimous but irrelevant."

The guy is not hitler though. He tells owners, BOG, what has happened and how the League will proceed. He doesnt ask if they like it, he doesnt ask for advice or qualms... he is there just to inform. He wil do as he likes to make the league strong. The individual teams are not the league. The owners agreed to that when they signed him to his last 2 extensions where his power has been exponentialy increased.

This is something the players should really think about before testing Bettman and seeing if he is willing to declare legal impasse and move forward without the NHLPA. They know he had the paperwork ready to file in 05 when the players removed Goodenow from negotiations and fired him.

For the record the teams you chose are some of Bettmans biggest backers and will be making even more money if they have the excuse to their fans of beig unable to spend every cent to the cap...that damn bettman has tied our hands...i guess we just have to take more profit. Snyder and Wirtz family are Bettmans biggest 2 fans and want him in the commish chair until he chooses to leave. Ziegler - represents CHI in some BOG meetings...is also a huge Bettman fan. Out of that whole list only Illitch is seen as apathetic to Bettman... doesnt care either way other wise they just see dollar signs when looking at Bettman.


Last edited by oilinblood: 11-01-2012 at 03:12 AM.
oilinblood is offline  
Old
11-01-2012, 04:22 AM
  #189
Bleach Clean
Registered User
 
Bleach Clean's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 15,586
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by RogerRoeper View Post
They had no idea L.A's pick would be that low.

And you name Dubinsky, Anismov, Erixon and Johnson like it's an impressive list. It's not.


It's a list of NHLers. Do rebuilding teams insist on "now" players in return? No, they don't. The preference is picks or long-term prospects. CLB did the opposite. The late pick is nothing to them.

Bleach Clean is offline  
Old
11-01-2012, 06:57 AM
  #190
Coolburn
Registered User
 
Coolburn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: South Florida
Country: Hungary
Posts: 7,904
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Coolburn Send a message via MSN to Coolburn Send a message via Yahoo to Coolburn
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bleach Clean View Post
It's a list of NHLers. Do rebuilding teams insist on "now" players in return? No, they don't. The preference is picks or long-term prospects. CLB did the opposite. The late pick is nothing to them.
The only thing I'd say is that the players listed that you are considering "now" are all under 27 yrs old (Johnson=25, Anisimov=24, Erixon=21, Dubinsky=26) while Nash is 28. Columbus is retooling but still with an eye towards the future more than the right "now". They're doing just like what my Panthers did by signing a bunch of what are considered "now" players to bridge the gap until the top prospects are ready to take over, CBJ just did it via trades. And a 1st round pick is still a 1st round pick. Especially in what could be a lost season where no one knows the order of the 1st round...just imagine if it nets them McKinnon somehow (kinda like how the Pens were able to get Crosby)

Coolburn is offline  
Old
11-01-2012, 11:31 AM
  #191
TheGooooch
HFBoards Sponsor
 
TheGooooch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: San Francisco
Country: United States
Posts: 17,939
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Imagine17 View Post
But good for him for FINALLY finding 1 goalie! He had to basically give one away in Bryz to get Hiller in the League though. Just awful goalie management.
Him letting Bryz go for peanuts was because he was keeping his word to Bryz. I am no Burke fan but I respect that decision every time

TheGooooch is offline  
Old
11-01-2012, 01:33 PM
  #192
Scottrockztheworld*
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,301
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheGooooch View Post
Him letting Bryz go for peanuts was because he was keeping his word to Bryz. I am no Burke fan but I respect that decision every time
for peanuts... he wishes he even got peanuts for him.

The man is god awful when it comes to goalies. Always has been & always will be.

Scottrockztheworld* is offline  
Old
11-01-2012, 02:35 PM
  #193
Bleach Clean
Registered User
 
Bleach Clean's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 15,586
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Coolburn View Post
The only thing I'd say is that the players listed that you are considering "now" are all under 27 yrs old (Johnson=25, Anisimov=24, Erixon=21, Dubinsky=26) while Nash is 28. Columbus is retooling but still with an eye towards the future more than the right "now". They're doing just like what my Panthers did by signing a bunch of what are considered "now" players to bridge the gap until the top prospects are ready to take over, CBJ just did it via trades. And a 1st round pick is still a 1st round pick. Especially in what could be a lost season where no one knows the order of the 1st round...just imagine if it nets them McKinnon somehow (kinda like how the Pens were able to get Crosby)


You mentioned "re-tooling" and perhaps that's what it is, but it is not "rebuilding". The latter sacrifices the present to draft high. Clearly, that isn't happening here.


They have their eye on the present as well as the future. Not just the future. The pick means less to them considering that it comes from NYR, a team expected to finish high in the conference. It was not the key piece in the deal, Dubinsky was/is.

Bleach Clean is offline  
Old
11-01-2012, 03:03 PM
  #194
DJOpus
Registered User
 
DJOpus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 4,798
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bleach Clean View Post
You mentioned "re-tooling" and perhaps that's what it is, but it is not "rebuilding". The latter sacrifices the present to draft high. Clearly, that isn't happening here.


They have their eye on the present as well as the future. Not just the future. The pick means less to them considering that it comes from NYR, a team expected to finish high in the conference. It was not the key piece in the deal, Dubinsky was/is.
I'd trade Schneider or Luongo to CBJ for their three firsts. I bet they compete for a playoff spot if either is in net...make the CBJ pick top 5 protected in exchange for the option to swap firsts in 2014 if they make the playoffs in either year.

I would then trade the four firsts the team has + prospects and salary balancers for the best RW and C available on the market.

DJOpus is offline  
Old
11-01-2012, 03:55 PM
  #195
Cogburn
Registered User
 
Cogburn's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,814
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BayStBullies View Post
Something to keep in mind: Luongo's gargantuan decade contract, will see at least 2 CBA updates. This contract could take a horrible twist in the NEXT CBA...
Not that I am saying his contract is a sure fire plus for that reason, but if a CBA is agreed to that can penalize contracts that have already been made nice and legal and approved by the league...every team will have bigger problems then "what about Luongo's contract?".

Cogburn is offline  
Old
11-01-2012, 03:58 PM
  #196
TieClark
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 4,102
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Imagine17 View Post
for peanuts... he wishes he even got peanuts for him.

The man is god awful when it comes to goalies. Always has been & always will be.
Yeah.... because having Conn Smyth Giguere, Hiller and Bryzgalov in the same organization is god awful..

TieClark is offline  
Old
11-01-2012, 03:58 PM
  #197
Stats01
Registered User
 
Stats01's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 14,374
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cogburn View Post
Not that I am saying his contract is a sure fire plus for that reason, but if a CBA is agreed to that can penalize contracts that have already been made nice and legal and approved by the league...every team will have bigger problems then "what about Luongo's contract?".
Yes but for a goalie who is what? 33 years old? His circumstances are bit different than a player like Parise or Suter.

Stats01 is offline  
Old
11-01-2012, 04:05 PM
  #198
Cogburn
Registered User
 
Cogburn's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,814
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stats01 View Post
Yes but for a goalie who is what? 33 years old? His circumstances are bit different than a player like Parise or Suter.
Well I didn't mean just younger players, but guys like Franzen, Pronger, Savard, Ohlund, Kovalchuk and Hossa too, legitimate NHL players with star power, older then the two examples listed, on teams that provide a large chunk of the NHL's income and even smaller market teams, that would be penalized, not just the Canucks/Leafs.

My implications would, in essence, rewriting other contracts for other reasons, as if you let them do it once, even under tight circumstances, they will do it again, more frequently, with less justification. It is human nature after all.

Cogburn is offline  
Old
11-01-2012, 04:30 PM
  #199
Scottrockztheworld*
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,301
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TieClark View Post
Yeah.... because having Conn Smyth Giguere, Hiller and Bryzgalov in the same organization is god awful..

It wasn't about goalie depth while he was there it was about his own ability to find goalies.
Giguere & Bryz were already there. Hiller was the only good goalie Burke he has signed or traded for.


Scottrockztheworld* is offline  
Old
11-01-2012, 06:12 PM
  #200
RogerRoeper*
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 21,694
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Imagine17 View Post
for peanuts... he wishes he even got peanuts for him.

The man is god awful when it comes to goalies. Always has been & always will be.
Hiller instead of Bryz is a fine tradeoff.

RogerRoeper* is offline  
Closed Thread

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:53 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.