HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > Trade Rumors and Free Agent Talk
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.

More Luongo Talk

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
12-08-2012, 02:23 PM
  #176
Ho Borvat
Registered User
 
Ho Borvat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 4,249
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by tempest2i View Post
Vancouver clears over 5.5M in cap space in that deal.

Kulemin is not the main piece going back to the Canucks. It's the 5.5M+ player the Canucks will be able to afford to to sign from free agency.
If the Canucks were able to sign a 5.3 million dollar player, why not just move Ballard?

Ho Borvat is offline  
Old
12-08-2012, 02:26 PM
  #177
Numbers
Registered User
 
Numbers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 2,029
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Liferleafer View Post
Numbers and i kinda tweeked it to Kadri,Bozak,Colborne and Blacker. I'll be honest, i agreed to it just because i'm not overly high on either Kadri or Colborne but was reluctant to move Frattin or Finn.
Finn would be better, but in a lot of ways Blacker is a better fit for Vancouver. He is more NHL ready and the Canucks need to get younger soon. Also the RH is a big bonus to me. Colbourne vs. Frattin, well Frattin is better but gotta compromise sometimes. Also Canucks have much more prospect depth at RW (Jensen, Kassian, Grenier, Rodin) than C basically just (Schroeder, Gaunce). Colbourne will be a much bigger risk-reward prospect, big upsize because of physical tools. All in all trade tweaks in a lot of ways benefits Vancouver and not just Leafs. I think it is a pretty fair deal.

Bozak
Kadri
Colbourne
Blacker

Numbers is offline  
Old
12-08-2012, 02:30 PM
  #178
seanlinden
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 17,680
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vankiller Whale View Post
I simply stated possiblities about what happens when Luongo is 39 if his play starts declining.

All of those are possible avenues to get out of his contract. There's no guesswork involved.

Facts:
-Luongo does not have a NMC, and can be forced to play in the minors
-Luongo's salary dramatically drops off after he's 38, making it less appealing for him to play then instead of retiring.
-Cap floor teams like Florida would love to have a high cap hit with a low salary to take them to the cap floor, and it's very likely they'd be interested in bringing in Luongo as a veteran backup to save the owners money.
Facts:
-Both the NHL and NHLPA have expressed a desire to count salary in the minors.
-Luongo presumably has competitive desire like anyone in the league. None of us are in a position to comment on when that runs out.
-Luongo's contract could presumably last longer than the new CBA... so none of us are in a position to comment on the exact options associated with his long term deal.

Furthermore, none of us are in a position to predict how or if his play will decline over the life of the deal. He could have substantial regression in year 2, or not at all. At the end of the day, it doesn't make sense for a team that has to look at the long term to pay a huge price to take such a risk.

seanlinden is offline  
Old
12-08-2012, 02:32 PM
  #179
Liferleafer
Golf....again....
 
Liferleafer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 9,244
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Saurus View Post
I'm glad you aren't making decisions for the Leafs because you'd make JFJ look competent. Terrible talent analysis that has no grounds in reality.
Care to prove me wrong? Kadri has decent offensive abilities but terrible defense. Doesn't pass enough and is to small to play physical. Colborne has shown absolutely nothing. Bozak is decent, that's why i said 2-3C. What have you seen that makes me wrong?

Liferleafer is offline  
Old
12-08-2012, 02:34 PM
  #180
The Saurus
Registered User
 
The Saurus's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Country: United Nations
Posts: 8,165
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Numbers View Post
I think it is a pretty fair deal.

Bozak
Kadri
Colbourne
Blacker
Of course you do. Why am I not surprised that you'd be satisfied with the Leafs getting bent over here?

Thankfully the Leafs have Brian Burke running the show. His past track record shows he would never include that amount of youth and potential for an aging talent.

Any deal involving the Leafs and Vancouver regarding Roberto will more than likely include short-term salary relief going the other way and maybe a mid-range prospect and mid-round pick. Nothing more, nothing less. Check out GMBB's previous deals as a GM of the Maple Leafs: when he was giving up draft picks or young players, he was getting back young established talent / potential in return. Shipping out prospects for older veterans that could decline in the near future is not in Brian's playbook.

The Saurus is offline  
Old
12-08-2012, 02:39 PM
  #181
Numbers
Registered User
 
Numbers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 2,029
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Saurus View Post
Of course you do. Why am I not surprised that you'd be satisfied with the Leafs getting bent over here?

Thankfully the Leafs have Brian Burke running the show. His past track record shows he would never include that amount of youth and potential for an aging talent.

Any deal involving the Leafs and Vancouver regarding Roberto will more than likely include short-term salary relief going the other way and maybe a mid-range prospect and mid-round pick. Nothing more, nothing less. Check out GMBB's previous deals as a GM of the Maple Leafs: when he was giving up draft picks or young players, he was getting back young established talent / potential in return. Shipping out prospects for older veterans that could decline in the near future is not in Brian's playbook.
So do other Leaf fans. I'm not alone on this. Unfortunately you are in the minority on this. By the way why keep coming back to Luongo thread when it's obvious you do not want him. Classic case of trolling for fun......

Numbers is offline  
Old
12-08-2012, 02:40 PM
  #182
The Saurus
Registered User
 
The Saurus's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Country: United Nations
Posts: 8,165
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Liferleafer View Post
Care to prove me wrong? Kadri has decent offensive abilities but terrible defense. Doesn't pass enough and is to small to play physical. Colborne has shown absolutely nothing. Bozak is decent, that's why i said 2-3C. What have you seen that makes me wrong?
The bold in your post above shows me that you have not been watching Nazem Kadri play this year or at the end of last year. He has improved leaps and bounds defensively and I've spoken to the Marlies coaching staff who seem to agree, with a bit of hesitation on their part, but they thought his defensive abilities were on the upswing. Ironically, they thought he would benefit from the strict positioning systems that Randy Carlyle demands of his players and Dallas Eakins is attempting to institute this year.

Regarding Nazem's physical play: you couldn't be more wrong. He is engaging physically on most of his shifts. His problem is balance and Barbara Underhill has been working with him at least once a week -- sometimes two.

I'm not about to argue the other points, but uninformed opinions often become widespread to the point that people start viewing them as reality.

The Saurus is offline  
Old
12-08-2012, 02:42 PM
  #183
Vankiller Whale
Maybe HE can score
 
Vankiller Whale's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,925
vCash: 5555
Quote:
Originally Posted by seanlinden View Post
Facts:
-Both the NHL and NHLPA have expressed a desire to count salary in the minors.
Do you have a link saying the NHLPA wants that? As it doesn't make much sense to me. Also, teams like the NYR that have Redden in the minors are unlikely to be for that. But none of this means anything unless the new CBA actually changes the rule.

Either way, because
Quote:
-Luongo presumably has competitive desire like anyone in the league. None of us are in a position to comment on when that runs out.
Do you think he'd want to play out the end of his career riding the bus, regardless of if his cap hit still counts? I doubt it, but it seems like your own argument works against you here.

All I said was that Luongo will be paid much less so there is much less incentive for him to play. But I suppose it does make sense that he would purposely force himself on a team when he knows he's no longer wanted, as that seems absolutely consistent with how he's conducted himself so far.[sarcasm]

Quote:
-Luongo's contract could presumably last longer than the new CBA... so none of us are in a position to comment on the exact options associated with his long term deal.
So because no one knows anything just assume the contract is bad. In my opinion GMs are smart enough to realize that there are enough options available that it's virtually impossible for there to be no options left.

Quote:
Furthermore, none of us are in a position to predict how or if his play will decline over the life of the deal. He could have substantial regression in year 2, or not at all. At the end of the day, it doesn't make sense for a team that has to look at the long term to pay a huge price to take such a risk.
Yeah, and Kadri might bust, Kulemin remain a 7 goal scorer, etc, etc. Risk cuts both ways. It's not like any of the offers have included any surefire impact players for us.

Vankiller Whale is online now  
Old
12-08-2012, 02:51 PM
  #184
Numbers
Registered User
 
Numbers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 2,029
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Saurus View Post
The bold in your post above shows me that you have not been watching Nazem Kadri play this year or at the end of last year. He has improved leaps and bounds defensively and I've spoken to the Marlies coaching staff who seem to agree, with a bit of hesitation on their part, but they thought his defensive abilities were on the upswing. Ironically, they thought he would benefit from the strict positioning systems that Randy Carlyle demands of his players and Dallas Eakins is attempting to institute this year.

Regarding Nazem's physical play: you couldn't be more wrong. He is engaging physically on most of his shifts. His problem is balance and Barbara Underhill has been working with him at least once a week -- sometimes two.

I'm not about to argue the other points, but uninformed opinions often become widespread to the point that people start viewing them as reality.



Now I remember where I heard this before! Any chance you work on Richard Nixon's presidential campaign?

Numbers is offline  
Old
12-08-2012, 02:52 PM
  #185
Liferleafer
Golf....again....
 
Liferleafer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 9,244
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Saurus View Post
The bold in your post above shows me that you have not been watching Nazem Kadri play this year or at the end of last year. He has improved leaps and bounds defensively and I've spoken to the Marlies coaching staff who seem to agree, with a bit of hesitation on their part, but they thought his defensive abilities were on the upswing. Ironically, they thought he would benefit from the strict positioning systems that Randy Carlyle demands of his players and Dallas Eakins is attempting to institute this year.

Regarding Nazem's physical play: you couldn't be more wrong. He is engaging physically on most of his shifts. His problem is balance and Barbara Underhill has been working with him at least once a week -- sometimes two.

I'm not about to argue the other points, but uninformed opinions often become widespread to the point that people start viewing them as reality.
I didn't say he didn't engage physically, i said he was to small to be effective at it. While you were speaking to the coaching staff, what was their report on Colborne and our goaltending?

Liferleafer is offline  
Old
12-08-2012, 03:05 PM
  #186
The Saurus
Registered User
 
The Saurus's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Country: United Nations
Posts: 8,165
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Liferleafer View Post
I didn't say he didn't engage physically, i said he was to small to be effective at it. While you were speaking to the coaching staff, what was their report on Colborne and our goaltending?
I'll be sure to ask if I get the chance to in the future.

Joe Colborne's struggles of late are well known. He's not a blue-chip prospect but he certainly has the tools and drive to become a solid contributor at the NHL level. It's how he works through these difficult times that will define him as a player. You don't give up on a prospect with his abilities because he has struggled for a couple of months in the AHL.

The Saurus is offline  
Old
12-08-2012, 03:08 PM
  #187
sniper81
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: toronto
Posts: 1,050
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Liferleafer View Post
Care to prove me wrong? Kadri has decent offensive abilities but terrible defense. Doesn't pass enough and is to small to play physical. Colborne has shown absolutely nothing. Bozak is decent, that's why i said 2-3C. What have you seen that makes me wrong?
I think your analysis of Kadri is off, the last 3 games i watched he was very physical, very good on the cycle and almost over passed.

sniper81 is offline  
Old
12-08-2012, 03:09 PM
  #188
DougGilmour93
Registered User
 
DougGilmour93's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 5,133
vCash: 500
My offer

Bozak
Kadri
Percy
2nd

Their offer that was accepted

Bozak
Kadri
Colborne
Blacker


Not at all that different, looks like more of a preference.

My modified offer...

Bozak
Kadri
Blacker
2nd

DougGilmour93 is offline  
Old
12-08-2012, 03:26 PM
  #189
New Liskeard
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 8,789
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Numbers View Post
Finn would be better, but in a lot of ways Blacker is a better fit for Vancouver. He is more NHL ready and the Canucks need to get younger soon. Also the RH is a big bonus to me. Colbourne vs. Frattin, well Frattin is better but gotta compromise sometimes. Also Canucks have much more prospect depth at RW (Jensen, Kassian, Grenier, Rodin) than C basically just (Schroeder, Gaunce). Colbourne will be a much bigger risk-reward prospect, big upsize because of physical tools. All in all trade tweaks in a lot of ways benefits Vancouver and not just Leafs. I think it is a pretty fair deal.

Bozak
Kadri
Colbourne
Blacker
If you're talking about Kessler, you may be on to something. Good luck finding anyone willing to take on that extended cap hit with the overall cap going down, as it relates to Lou. Also, if you are assuming the Leafs take the cap hit, and risk, and give little to no cap space back in a trade, and prospects is beyond ridiculous.I highly doubt Lou goes anywhere, have fun with your two goalies taking up nearly 1/6 of your total cap hit in the new CBA.

New Liskeard is offline  
Old
12-08-2012, 03:34 PM
  #190
New Liskeard
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 8,789
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vankiller Whale View Post
Do you have a link saying the NHLPA wants that? As it doesn't make much sense to me. Also, teams like the NYR that have Redden in the minors are unlikely to be for that. But none of this means anything unless the new CBA actually changes the rule.
Either way, because

Do you think he'd want to play out the end of his career riding the bus, regardless of if his cap hit still counts? I doubt it, but it seems like your own argument works against you here.

All I said was that Luongo will be paid much less so there is much less incentive for him to play. But I suppose it does make sense that he would purposely force himself on a team when he knows he's no longer wanted, as that seems absolutely consistent with how he's conducted himself so far.[sarcasm]



So because no one knows anything just assume the contract is bad. In my opinion GMs are smart enough to realize that there are enough options available that it's virtually impossible for there to be no options left.



Yeah, and Kadri might bust, Kulemin remain a 7 goal scorer, etc, etc. Risk cuts both ways. It's not like any of the offers have included any surefire impact players for us.
It seems you have been too busy pretending to be an NHL GM trying to consumate fictitous trade proposals that have no bearing on real life. It was tabled and insisted that besides teams no longer having the option to put players in the minors (burying their contract), but minor league contracts will count against the cap. This excercise is to ensure no more cap cirumvention by NHL teams. You also probably didnt realize the insistance of the NHL owners on having 5 year max contracts and very little to no variation in the percentage of salary increase year over year on that contract. Its contracts like Lou, Richards and others that they are going to do everything to ensure this doesnt happen again. Keep Lou and enjoy the long term cap hit, to expect a team to bail out the Nucks and give up plenty of assets, and no cap hit in return is beyond the realm of common sense. The other issue that Nucks fans seem to like to overlook is the fact of insurance of the contract. To my understanding contracts extending 7 years cannot be insured, even the cost of a 7 year contract is very expensive and not something all teams can afford, let alone the fact Lou likely wont play out the length of the term, adding more risk to the cost. Combine that with the likelyhood teams will be unable to bury contracts in the new cba with an overall lower CBA, limits the suitors dramatically.


Last edited by New Liskeard: 12-08-2012 at 03:43 PM.
New Liskeard is offline  
Old
12-08-2012, 03:38 PM
  #191
TLinden16
Horse
 
TLinden16's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Victoria, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,933
vCash: 1200
I'm confused how 5.3M is considered an outrageous caphit for Lu. Debate all you want if he's Top 5, but I've yet to see anyone be able to reasonably argue that he is outside of the Top 10.

A Top 10 goaltender at just over 5M a year. Rinne is at 7, Miller 6.25, Lundqvist 6.75, Backstrom 6, Bryz 5.67, Hiller 4.5, Thomas 5, Ward 6.3, Kipper 5.83.

Luongo is cheaper than most of these, and still playing at an elite level. 33 is not old for a goaltender. 38+, sure, but inflation will see 5.3M being peanuts if the league continues to grow. Not to mention the ability for retirement/demotion to minors if his play drops off a cliff.


It's crazy how most realistic set of teams talking hypothetical trades on these boards can at some point come to a fair shake on value. Yet this has gone on for months, and people are still going on about Luongo's cap hit and how he's not worth more then a prospect whose development curve screams bust in Kadri.

TLinden16 is offline  
Old
12-08-2012, 03:42 PM
  #192
Ho Borvat
Registered User
 
Ho Borvat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 4,249
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by seanlinden View Post
Facts:
-Both the NHL and NHLPA have expressed a desire to count salary in the minors.
-Luongo presumably has competitive desire like anyone in the league. None of us are in a position to comment on when that runs out.
-Luongo's contract could presumably last longer than the new CBA... so none of us are in a position to comment on the exact options associated with his long term deal.

Furthermore, none of us are in a position to predict how or if his play will decline over the life of the deal. He could have substantial regression in year 2, or not at all. At the end of the day, it doesn't make sense for a team that has to look at the long term to pay a huge price to take such a risk.
I will bet money that both Burke and Gillis are not GMs of these teams by the time the next CBA expires. (8-10 year assumption)

Ho Borvat is offline  
Old
12-08-2012, 03:45 PM
  #193
Bourne Endeavor
Moderator
( _)>⌐■-■ (⌐■_■)
 
Bourne Endeavor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Montreal, Quebec
Country: Canada
Posts: 22,623
vCash: 13357
Question for Leafs. If Bozak is moved, who plays center? While not amazing by any means, he is considerably better than Lombardi. Just curious, as a good number of you prefer to toss him in over Kulemin.

Bourne Endeavor is offline  
Old
12-08-2012, 03:45 PM
  #194
Numbers
Registered User
 
Numbers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 2,029
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DougGilmour93 View Post
My offer

Bozak
Kadri
Percy
2nd

Their offer that was accepted

Bozak
Kadri
Colborne
Blacker


Not at all that different, looks like more of a preference.

My modified offer...

Bozak
Kadri
Blacker
2nd
The deal has been agreed upon by a couple Leaf fans and I think it is fair. I wouldn't do your trade for this reason unless you swapped the 2nd for Frattin.

Numbers is offline  
Old
12-08-2012, 03:45 PM
  #195
New Liskeard
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 8,789
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TLinden16 View Post
I'm confused how 5.3M is considered an outrageous caphit for Lu. Debate all you want if he's Top 5, but I've yet to see anyone be able to reasonably argue that he is outside of the Top 10.

A Top 10 goaltender at just over 5M a year. Rinne is at 7, Miller 6.25, Lundqvist 6.75, Backstrom 6, Bryz 5.67, Hiller 4.5, Thomas 5, Ward 6.3, Kipper 5.83.

Luongo is cheaper than most of these, and still playing at an elite level. 33 is not old for a goaltender. 38+, sure, but inflation will see 5.3M being peanuts if the league continues to grow. Not to mention the ability for retirement/demotion to minors if his play drops off a cliff.


It's crazy how most realistic set of teams talking hypothetical trades on these boards can at some point come to a fair shake on value. Yet this has gone on for months, and people are still going on about Luongo's cap hit and how he's not worth more then a prospect whose development curve screams bust in Kadri.

It's the term of the contact. It has been stated at nauseum.

New Liskeard is offline  
Old
12-08-2012, 03:45 PM
  #196
Scurr
Registered User
 
Scurr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Whalley
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,502
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TLinden16 View Post
It's crazy how most realistic set of teams talking hypothetical trades on these boards can at some point come to a fair shake on value. Yet this has gone on for months, and people are still going on about Luongo's cap hit and how he's not worth more then a prospect whose development curve screams bust in Kadri.
When you think about where most hockey fans get their information, it isn't surprising that they are out to lunch. Hockey media is the worst. While the NFL has hall of fame QB's doing colour and teaching people about the game, we get backup goalies and hacks. The NFL has former players and management doing their articles, we get pencil necks who never even played the game. Terrible.

Scurr is offline  
Old
12-08-2012, 03:47 PM
  #197
Ho Borvat
Registered User
 
Ho Borvat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 4,249
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by New Liskeard View Post
It seems you have been too busy pretending to be an NHL GM trying to consumate fictitous trade proposals that have no bearing on real life. It was tabled and insisted that besides teams no longer having the option to put players in the minors (burying their contract), but minor league contracts will count against the cap. This excercise is to ensure no more cap cirumvention by NHL teams. You also probably didnt realize the insistance of the NHL owners on having 5 year max contracts and very little to no variation in the percentage of salary increase year over year on that contract. Its contracts like Lou, Richards and others that they are going to do everything to ensure this doesnt happen again. Keep Lou and enjoy the long term cap hit, to expect a team to bail out the Nucks and give up plenty of assets, and no cap hit in return is beyond the realm of common sense. The other issue that Nucks fans seem to like to overlook is the fact of insurance of the contract. To my understanding contracts extending 7 years cannot be insured, even the cost of a 7 year contract is very expensive and not something all teams can afford, let alone the fact Lou likely wont play out the length of the term, adding more risk to the cost. Combine that with the likelyhood teams will be unable to bury contracts in the new cba with an overall lower CBA, limits the suitors dramatically.
Common sense also says you don't acquire a star player for peanuts.

Ho Borvat is offline  
Old
12-08-2012, 03:47 PM
  #198
Bourne Endeavor
Moderator
( _)>⌐■-■ (⌐■_■)
 
Bourne Endeavor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Montreal, Quebec
Country: Canada
Posts: 22,623
vCash: 13357
Quote:
Originally Posted by New Liskeard View Post
If you're talking about Kessler, you may be on to something. Good luck finding anyone willing to take on that extended cap hit with the overall cap going down, as it relates to Lou. Also, if you are assuming the Leafs take the cap hit, and risk, and give little to no cap space back in a trade, and prospects is beyond ridiculous.I highly doubt Lou goes anywhere, have fun with your two goalies taking up nearly 1/6 of your total cap hit in the new CBA.
If you want to send us cap back, I can live with Connolly. Well, depending on the offer. Lombardi requires a much better return and Komisarek is a straight up no.

Bourne Endeavor is offline  
Old
12-08-2012, 03:50 PM
  #199
Ho Borvat
Registered User
 
Ho Borvat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 4,249
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by New Liskeard View Post
It's the term of the contact. It has been stated at nauseum.
Theres still a lot of people who insist 5.3 is a huge caphit.

The length is another argument, but im pretty sick of the whole "contract sucks vs you clearly know nothing" debates.

Ho Borvat is offline  
Old
12-08-2012, 03:52 PM
  #200
New Liskeard
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 8,789
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bourne Endeavor View Post
If you want to send us cap back, I can live with Connolly. Well, depending on the offer. Lombardi requires a much better return and Komisarek is a straight up no.
You nor I have any say or hand in what does or does not happen with Lou and the Leafs. I could care less either way, and personally dont want to take on that contract with the risk and implications it comes with. Once all the facts are acknowledged from all sides, reasonable conversations/discusions/debates can be had. Rutherford was recently quoted the sheer cost of insuring players is very costly to NHL teams, seems that part of it has been overlooked by many.

New Liskeard 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 01:03 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.