HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Western Conference > Pacific Division > Vancouver Canucks
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

Luongo Thread: Still Haven't Found What I'm Looking For (Mod Warning in OP)

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
11-08-2012, 02:43 PM
  #151
ginner classic
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Kitsilano
Posts: 6,785
vCash: 500
As I posted on the main forum, I really think Washington is a dark horse team in any goalie trade for Vancouver. Schneider and Luongo are both significant upgrades over what they have and there are a few nice assets that we could use from them.

Mike Green in a Lou deal (enabling a trade of Edler for forward help or Ballard for picks)

Forsberg and Holtby in a Schneider deal

Wasington can't seriously consider going forward with what they have in net. They have great talent but there are legit questions if either of those guys can play a starter role on a contending team anytime soon.

Edit: Before I get flamed for suggesting Forsberg, remember that was the first round pick they got for trading Varly (along with a second). Schneider > Varlamov.

Couturier is a realistic return for Edler (maybe with some sweeteners)
Luongo and Edler for Green and Couturier essentially.


Last edited by ginner classic: 11-08-2012 at 02:55 PM.
ginner classic is offline  
Old
11-08-2012, 02:49 PM
  #152
kthsn
Registered User
 
kthsn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 2,892
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DJOpus View Post
Let's play pretend here for a minute and assume Getzlaf and Perry are of equal value at their respective positions (I think so anyways)...would you rather:

Option 2
Sedin - Sedin - Burrows
Booth - Getzlaf - Kassian
Higgins - Kesler - Hansen
Raymond - Lappy - Weise/Maholtra
Option 2 by far.

C depth of Hank - Getzlaf - Kesler is the best in the league, by far. Much more of a matchup nightmare than 2 scoring lines.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DJOpus View Post
I think we need another centre more than we need another winger. Especially if we continue to play Kesler on the #1 PP unit.
Me too. I should have re phrased the Canucks need secondary scoring. A winger for Kesler is the most likely source.

I've been advocating getting Grabovski all along from the Leafs. As far as secondary scoring goes it's the best they can offer. Kulemin isn't a legit top 6er and Lupul can't play defense.

kthsn is offline  
Old
11-08-2012, 02:56 PM
  #153
Alflives
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 2,539
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tiranis View Post
Your argument for him not being fast is that he couldn't quite keep up (and it was damn close considering he also had to turn whereas Hansen kept going in a straight line) with Hansen who is much smaller and one of the fastest skaters on our team? Phaneuf is a great skater, especially when you consider his height and weight.

Don't really care that we don't need Phaneuf if the option was actually there to acquire him, you absolutely do it. It would be one of the biggest returns the Canucks could possibly get.



And then you end up like Calgary, giving up a prime asset (Phaneuf, or in our case Luongo) for a bunch of pieces that are all worthless on their own. They also thought they would be better off with someone to anchor their 3rd line Matt Stajan.
Well done. Now I don't need to reply to these posters, who are clearly wrong. Thank you Mr. Gillis. I appreciate your taking time from a busy day to straighten out our board.

Alflives is offline  
Old
11-08-2012, 03:01 PM
  #154
Alflives
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 2,539
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ddawg1950 View Post
Have you watched the Dion play?


Phaneuf is an abysmal defenseman and there is absolutely no way Gillis is pursuing him.

This is a very ill informed post.
Have you watched the Dion play?


"Phaneuf is a [fabulous] defenseman and [...] absolutely [...] Gillis is pursuing him.

This is a very ill informed post.

I could not write a better response than echoing your own words.

Alflives is offline  
Old
11-08-2012, 03:02 PM
  #155
vanuck
Griffiths Way Goons
 
vanuck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Country: Hong Kong
Posts: 10,733
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tiranis View Post
And then you end up like Calgary, giving up a prime asset (Phaneuf, or in our case Luongo) for a bunch of pieces that are all worthless on their own. They also thought they would be better off with someone to anchor their 3rd line Matt Stajan.
It depends on the asset you're getting back, no? I would probably trade him straight up for Grabovski.

vanuck is offline  
Old
11-08-2012, 03:05 PM
  #156
Alflives
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 2,539
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ginner classic View Post
As I posted on the main forum, I really think Washington is a dark horse team in any goalie trade for Vancouver. Schneider and Luongo are both significant upgrades over what they have and there are a few nice assets that we could use from them.

Mike Green in a Lou deal (enabling a trade of Edler for forward help or Ballard for picks)


Couturier is a realistic return for Edler (maybe with some sweeteners)
Luongo and Edler for Green and Couturier essentially.
In what way is Green an upgrade over the current Canucks' defense?

Alflives is offline  
Old
11-08-2012, 03:07 PM
  #157
kthsn
Registered User
 
kthsn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 2,892
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alflives View Post
Phaneuf is a [fabulous] defenseman and [...] absolutely [...] Gillis is pursuing him.
I doubt that, Phaneuf would probably cost us too much.

Phaneuf is a good defensemen (top 30 in the league) but we're loaded on defense and Phaneuf is terribly overpaid.

I doubt Gillis brings in Phaneuf for 6.5M.

Hamhuis, Bieksa and Garrison all make ~4.6M. Sedins make 6.1M. Kesler only makes 5M.

kthsn is offline  
Old
11-08-2012, 03:07 PM
  #158
Alflives
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 2,539
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by vanuck View Post
It depends on the asset you're getting back, no? I would probably trade him straight up for Grabovski.
How is that filling a need? You feel the Canucks need another soft forward? Is it the west-coast air that affects us so?

Alflives is offline  
Old
11-08-2012, 03:12 PM
  #159
Alflives
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 2,539
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by kthsn View Post
I doubt that, Phaneuf would probably cost us too much.

Phaneuf is a good defensemen (top 30 in the league) but we're loaded on defense and Phaneuf is terribly overpaid.

I doubt Gillis brings in Phaneuf for 6.5M.

Hamhuis, Bieksa and Garrison all make ~4.6M. Sedins make 6.1M. Kesler only makes 5M.
That is a good argument. Do you think the current Canucks' players would have difficulty with a player coming to their roster who was paid more than they are?

Alflives is offline  
Old
11-08-2012, 03:13 PM
  #160
kthsn
Registered User
 
kthsn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 2,892
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alflives View Post
That is a good argument. Do you think the current Canucks' players would have difficulty with a player coming to their roster who was paid more than they are?
If the player pushed them over the top, no.

Would Phaneuf push us over the top? I don't think so.

kthsn is offline  
Old
11-08-2012, 03:14 PM
  #161
pahlsson
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 6,836
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ginner classic View Post
As I posted on the main forum, I really think Washington is a dark horse team in any goalie trade for Vancouver. Schneider and Luongo are both significant upgrades over what they have and there are a few nice assets that we could use from them.

Mike Green in a Lou deal (enabling a trade of Edler for forward help or Ballard for picks)

Forsberg and Holtby in a Schneider deal

Wasington can't seriously consider going forward with what they have in net. They have great talent but there are legit questions if either of those guys can play a starter role on a contending team anytime soon.

Edit: Before I get flamed for suggesting Forsberg, remember that was the first round pick they got for trading Varly (along with a second). Schneider > Varlamov.
what would suggest that washington isn't ok with going with "questionable" goaltending. that's what they've done the past two seasons, trading varlamov and keeping neuvirth, then letting go of vokoun for a 7th round pick and going with a duo that have like a hundred regular season starts between them. honestly i doubt washington would be anywhere near trade discussions for schneider, let alone luongo.

pahlsson is offline  
Old
11-08-2012, 03:14 PM
  #162
Nuckles
RIP Capgeek
 
Nuckles's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Burger King bathroom
Country: Canada
Posts: 18,700
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tiranis View Post
And then you end up like Calgary, giving up a prime asset (Phaneuf, or in our case Luongo) for a bunch of pieces that are all worthless on their own. They also thought they would be better off with someone to anchor their 3rd line — Matt Stajan.
While that is a good point, it seems unlikely that the Canucks will get one or two very good pieces for Luongo.
I honestly would be fine with something based around Luongo + Raymond for Bozak, Connolly, Franson, and Toronto's 1st round pick 2013 (not protected).

I know many of you will disagree with me, but Tim Connolly could be something much needed on the 2nd line with Kesler and Booth. Both of them are guys who like to shoot, they don't always look to pass. Connolly is a very good playmaker, in Buffalo he was a solid top 6 forward who could put up 60 points per season.
Obviously his weaknesses are his lack of physicality and he's injury prone.

Bozak would be a good 3rd liner, he's good at faceoffs, solid two-way player. He isn't afraid to throw his body around either.

Franson is big, good offensively, and a decent skater. He has a big shot, and could be used on the powerplay. (and he's a BC boy)
He could split time with Tanev on the bottom pairing.
I personally think that he could still develop into a solid #4 d-man.

The 1st round pick could be anywhere from 10th-20th overall, and that should get us a pretty good prospect.

__________________

Richer's Ghost made my avatar
Nuckles is offline  
Old
11-08-2012, 03:19 PM
  #163
y2kcanucks
Cult of Personality
 
y2kcanucks's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Surrey, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 48,060
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to y2kcanucks
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nuckles37 View Post
While that is a good point, it seems unlikely that the Canucks will get one or two very good pieces for Luongo.
I honestly would be fine with something based around Luongo + Raymond for Bozak, Connolly, Franson, and Toronto's 1st round pick 2013 (not protected).

I know many of you will disagree with me, but Tim Connolly could be something much needed on the 2nd line with Kesler and Booth. Both of them are guys who like to shoot, they don't always look to pass. Connolly is a very good playmaker, in Buffalo he was a solid top 6 forward who could put up 60 points per season.
Obviously his weaknesses are his lack of physicality and he's injury prone.

Bozak would be a good 3rd liner, he's good at faceoffs, solid two-way player. He isn't afraid to throw his body around either.

Franson is big, good offensively, and a decent skater. He has a big shot, and could be used on the powerplay. (and he's a BC boy)
He could split time with Tanev on the bottom pairing.

The 1st round pick could be anywhere from 10th-20th overall, and that should get us a pretty good prospect.
So you would essentially be okay with giving Luongo away?

Connolly is a cap dump who should have zero trade value. He couldn't hack it in Toronto last year, so what makes you think he would be any good here?

Bozak is not a good two-way player. He isn't that good defensively at all, and offensively he won't get the same opportunities in Vancouver as he did in Toronto where he was a 40 point 1st line center.

Franson was a healthy scratch in Toronto quite frequently. Remind me again why we want him? Why would we want a number 7 defenseman to split time and hamper the development of Chris Tanev who has looked very very good in his role?

I agree with your assessment of where the 1st round pick will end up, but that isn't nearly enough for Luongo.

Absolutely terrible proposal. We don't need a bunch of spare parts and a draft pick for Luongo, we need players to fit specific roles who can add value to this team. We need quality players. I don't see any quality coming back to us in what you suggested.

__________________
http://www.vancitynitetours.com
y2kcanucks is online now  
Old
11-08-2012, 03:20 PM
  #164
vanuck
Griffiths Way Goons
 
vanuck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Country: Hong Kong
Posts: 10,733
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alflives View Post
How is that filling a need? You feel the Canucks need another soft forward? Is it the west-coast air that affects us so?
I'd much rather have a 'soft', skilled impact 2-way player who can also score instead of another not-so-talented but 'tough' forward.

And where do you get the impression that the Canucks are soft? Did we lose to the Kings because of a lack of toughness?

vanuck is offline  
Old
11-08-2012, 03:21 PM
  #165
Reverend Mayhem
Registered User
 
Reverend Mayhem's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Port Coquitlam, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 20,058
vCash: 500
Send a message via Skype™ to Reverend Mayhem
Quote:
Originally Posted by kthsn View Post
If the player pushed them over the top, no.

Would Phaneuf push us over the top? I don't think so.
I'd be willing to wager that there would be more than 15 teams willing to pay a pretty penny if Phaneuf was made available.

Reverend Mayhem is offline  
Old
11-08-2012, 03:23 PM
  #166
Barney Gumble
Registered User
 
Barney Gumble's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 20,703
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alflives View Post
That is a good argument. Do you think the current Canucks' players would have difficulty with a player coming to their roster who was paid more than they are?
Would go against the main argument by those that didn't want to re-sign Ehrhoff.

Barney Gumble is offline  
Old
11-08-2012, 03:26 PM
  #167
kthsn
Registered User
 
kthsn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 2,892
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Reverend Mayhem View Post
I'd be willing to wager that there would be more than 15 teams willing to pay a pretty penny if Phaneuf was made available.
Very true. The same problem would arise though, the teams who need a #1D like Phaneuf will more than likely offer us a package of secondary assets.

Canucks very much need one impact player for Luongo not depth players.

kthsn is offline  
Old
11-08-2012, 03:30 PM
  #168
Reverend Mayhem
Registered User
 
Reverend Mayhem's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Port Coquitlam, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 20,058
vCash: 500
Send a message via Skype™ to Reverend Mayhem
Quote:
Originally Posted by kthsn View Post
Very true. The same problem would arise though, the teams who need a #1D like Phaneuf will more than likely offer us a package of secondary assets.

Canucks very much need one impact player for Luongo not depth players.
If there were of quality secondary assets like Dubinsky and Anisimov, I'd do it. Having 4 really good lines is just as valuable as having 2 very good scoring lines.

Reverend Mayhem is offline  
Old
11-08-2012, 03:40 PM
  #169
kthsn
Registered User
 
kthsn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 2,892
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Reverend Mayhem View Post
If there were of quality secondary assets like Dubinsky and Anisimov, I'd do it. Having 4 really good lines is just as valuable as having 2 very good scoring lines.
If we received a Nash like package for Luongo I'd be content.

Anisimov - youngish 40pt C
Dubinsky - 4.2M 2nd liner...had a bad year
Erixon - B grade prospect
late 1st - 25th - 30th

What's the Leafs equivalent?
Bozak (slighty worse than Anisimov)
Kulemin (slightly worse than Dubinsky but cheaper)
Finn (slightly worse than Erixon)
1st (probably 10 spots higher than NYRs)

kthsn is offline  
Old
11-08-2012, 03:44 PM
  #170
Reverend Mayhem
Registered User
 
Reverend Mayhem's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Port Coquitlam, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 20,058
vCash: 500
Send a message via Skype™ to Reverend Mayhem
Anisimov is somewhat competent on the defensive side of the puck. I don't trust Bozak with that at all.

Reverend Mayhem is offline  
Old
11-08-2012, 03:46 PM
  #171
Nuckles
RIP Capgeek
 
Nuckles's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Burger King bathroom
Country: Canada
Posts: 18,700
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by y2kcanucks View Post
So you would essentially be okay with giving Luongo away?

Connolly is a cap dump who should have zero trade value. He couldn't hack it in Toronto last year, so what makes you think he would be any good here?

Bozak is not a good two-way player. He isn't that good defensively at all, and offensively he won't get the same opportunities in Vancouver as he did in Toronto where he was a 40 point 1st line center.

Franson was a healthy scratch in Toronto quite frequently. Remind me again why we want him? Why would we want a number 7 defenseman to split time and hamper the development of Chris Tanev who has looked very very good in his role?

I agree with your assessment of where the 1st round pick will end up, but that isn't nearly enough for Luongo.

Absolutely terrible proposal. We don't need a bunch of spare parts and a draft pick for Luongo, we need players to fit specific roles who can add value to this team. We need quality players. I don't see any quality coming back to us in what you suggested.
Yes, Connolly didn't have a good year last season. He's a riskier player to acquire, but I'm saying he could mesh well with Kesler and Booth on the 2nd line. He's mostly a passer, which is what the 2nd line currently needs unless Kesler decides to start passing again.
And while Kesler is injured, he could center the 2nd line.
I had hopes for Schroeder to get some time on the 2nd line while Kesler is recovering, but he isn't looking too great in the AHL right now, and I cant think of anyone else who is good enough to center that line.

I'm not expecting Bozak to get 50 points like he did in Toronto last season, I'd only expect him to get 30-35 points, which is what your average 3rd line center would get.
He's good at faceoffs, and he's DECENT defensively, not horrible, but decent. If he's playing with Higgins and Hansen, defensive play should not be an issue with that line.

We currently have 7 d-men who will likely play in the NHL this season. Our d-core always suffers tons of injuries throughout the season, and the Canucks usually have 8 guys signed. Franson gives us a good depth d-man with a bit of potential.
And he wasn't scratched "quite frequently" as you put it, he played 57 games (and missed a couple of games with a facial injury).


If we can get Grabovski or Lupul, then great, I'd love it! But I just don't see Burke moving either of them, they're too important to the team right now. (as they lack high-end talent)
Bozak fills our need for a 3rd line center, Connolly fills our need for a 2nd line center while Kesler is injured (and he if he can put up points like he did in Buffalo, then we fill our need for a 2nd liner), Franson gives us our 8th NHL quality d-man.

This trade also leaves us with over $3 mil in cap space, which allows us to get a high cap hit player at/near the trade deadline. (and we all know about the number of very good upcoming UFAs who could be moved at the deadline)

Nuckles is offline  
Old
11-08-2012, 03:54 PM
  #172
y2kcanucks
Cult of Personality
 
y2kcanucks's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Surrey, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 48,060
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to y2kcanucks
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nuckles37 View Post
Yes, Connolly didn't have a good year last season. He's a riskier player to acquire, but I'm saying he could mesh well with Kesler and Booth on the 2nd line. He's mostly a passer, which is what the 2nd line currently needs unless Kesler decides to start passing again.
And while Kesler is injured, he could center the 2nd line.
I had hopes for Schroeder to get some time on the 2nd line while Kesler is recovering, but he isn't looking too great in the AHL right now, and I cant think of anyone else who is good enough to center that line.

I'm not expecting Bozak to get 50 points like he did in Toronto last season, I'd only expect him to get 30-35 points, which is what your average 3rd line center would get.
He's good at faceoffs, and he's DECENT defensively, not horrible, but decent. If he's playing with Higgins and Hansen, defensive play should not be an issue with that line.

We currently have 7 d-men who will likely play in the NHL this season. Our d-core always suffers tons of injuries throughout the season, and the Canucks usually have 8 guys signed. Franson gives us a good depth d-man with a bit of potential.
And he wasn't scratched "quite frequently" as you put it, he played 57 games (and missed a couple of games with a facial injury).


If we can get Grabovski or Lupul, then great, I'd love it! But I just don't see Burke moving either of them, they're too important to the team right now. (as they lack high-end talent)
Bozak fills our need for a 3rd line center, Connolly fills our need for a 2nd line center while Kesler is injured (and he if he can put up points like he did in Buffalo, then we fill our need for a 2nd liner), Franson gives us our 8th NHL quality d-man.

This trade also leaves us with over $3 mil in cap space, which allows us to get a high cap hit player at/near the trade deadline. (and we all know about the number of very good upcoming UFAs who could be moved at the deadline)
If these are the players that Burke is offering then we will have Roberto Luongo in a Vancouver Canucks uniform this season, or we will trade him elsewhere. That package you suggest is pure garbage.

y2kcanucks is online now  
Old
11-08-2012, 04:00 PM
  #173
Nuckles
RIP Capgeek
 
Nuckles's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Burger King bathroom
Country: Canada
Posts: 18,700
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by y2kcanucks View Post
If these are the players that Burke is offering then we will have Roberto Luongo in a Vancouver Canucks uniform this season, or we will trade him elsewhere. That package you suggest is pure garbage.
I'd rather have what you consider garbage than $5.3 mil sitting on the bench all season long while his value decreases over time.

Toronto and Florida were the only teams reported to be interested in Luongo.
Florida has flat out stated that Bjugstad wont be moved for Luongo, and they don't have any other players available that are better than "pure garbage".

Burke has shown he's willing to wait a very long time to make a trade happen (Schenn-JVR). Like I said, Toronto doesn't have many high-end NHL assets, so they probably cant afford to trade away a good top 6 forward, and they aren't keen on moving their better prospects.

Nuckles is offline  
Old
11-08-2012, 04:40 PM
  #174
y2kcanucks
Cult of Personality
 
y2kcanucks's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Surrey, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 48,060
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to y2kcanucks
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nuckles37 View Post
I'd rather have what you consider garbage than $5.3 mil sitting on the bench all season long while his value decreases over time.

Toronto and Florida were the only teams reported to be interested in Luongo.
Florida has flat out stated that Bjugstad wont be moved for Luongo, and they don't have any other players available that are better than "pure garbage".

Burke has shown he's willing to wait a very long time to make a trade happen (Schenn-JVR). Like I said, Toronto doesn't have many high-end NHL assets, so they probably cant afford to trade away a good top 6 forward, and they aren't keen on moving their better prospects.
Well then we agree to disagree. I personally don't see Schneider playing every single game during the season, nor do I see Luongo sitting on the bench like a traditional backup would. In fact, I'm not even sure that Schneider would beat Luongo outright for the starters job even. So I don't see how his value would necessarily decrease. In fact, I think once teams get more pressure from losing due to poor goaltending his value will increase.

There are several teams reported to have shown interest in Luongo, so I'm not sure what you're talking about.

If Toronto can't afford to trade what we want for Luongo, then Toronto can't afford to acquire Luongo. It's that simple. If I can't afford to buy a BMW, I don't offer the dealership $5K, a coupon to Superstore, and a handshake. I move on to something else and someone else who can afford that BMW will buy it.

y2kcanucks is online now  
Old
11-08-2012, 04:51 PM
  #175
Reverend Mayhem
Registered User
 
Reverend Mayhem's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Port Coquitlam, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 20,058
vCash: 500
Send a message via Skype™ to Reverend Mayhem
I think I'd reluctantly take Grabo for Luo. He's got a similar hit to Luo but gets more than Kesler.

Sedin-Sedin-Burrows
Booth-Kesler-Higgins
Raymond-Grabovski-Hansen
Weise-Lapierre/Malhotra-Kassian

3 scoring lines, 2 of which can be checking lines as well is damn good.

Reverend Mayhem 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 01:33 PM.

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.