HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Eastern Conference > Metropolitan Division > Columbus Blue Jackets
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

Matt Calvert

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
08-20-2014, 08:03 PM
  #51
Sore Loser
Sorest of them all
 
Sore Loser's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Spokane, WA.
Country: United States
Posts: 6,630
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by jordanwill21 View Post
i truly do wonder about some of you supposed experts. I am done arguing this subject but i will leave you with this. If UMBERGER can get 18 the year before, you are telling me that calvert wont produce as much as umberger did the year before?????Unless he is hurt half the season i dont see why he doesn't get more than 20 g. check this. if he is healthy all season and plays 80 games all he has to do is score a goal every four games. doesn't seem insurmountable at all to me.
Awful opinionated for someone with 18 posts ... you aren't going to make many friends saying things like that, FYI...

And no, I was not one of those people arguing against you.

Sore Loser is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-20-2014, 08:24 PM
  #52
jordanwill21
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Posts: 30
vCash: 500
you just made your own opinion at least mine was related to the topic (hockey). say what you want but at least keep it hockey oriented after all it is hf boards not facebook !

jordanwill21 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-20-2014, 09:17 PM
  #53
Sore Loser
Sorest of them all
 
Sore Loser's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Spokane, WA.
Country: United States
Posts: 6,630
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by jordanwill21 View Post
you just made your own opinion at least mine was related to the topic (hockey). say what you want but at least keep it hockey oriented after all it is hf boards not facebook !
The actual reason I checked in on this thread:

Over/under on Matt Calvert being mentioned in a trade thread to the Leafs this year?


Last edited by EastonBlues22: 08-21-2014 at 12:35 AM. Reason: flame
Sore Loser is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-20-2014, 09:24 PM
  #54
WannabeFinn
Duuuuuub?
 
WannabeFinn's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Columbus
Country: United States
Posts: 5,321
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sore Loser View Post
The actual reason I checked in on this thread:

Over/under on Matt Calvert being mentioned in a trade thread to the Leafs this year?
Calvert++ for Winnik sound good?!?!?!


WannabeFinn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-20-2014, 10:49 PM
  #55
TheOllieC
cajun filet
 
TheOllieC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Columbus, OH
Country: United States
Posts: 12,471
vCash: 600
Quote:
Originally Posted by WannabeFinn View Post
Calvert++ for Winnik sound good?!?!?!

More like Calvert+ for Frattin

TheOllieC is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
08-20-2014, 10:54 PM
  #56
WannabeFinn
Duuuuuub?
 
WannabeFinn's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Columbus
Country: United States
Posts: 5,321
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheOllieC View Post
More like Calvert+ for Frattin
Calvert and D'Amigo for Frattin? Deal!

WannabeFinn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-20-2014, 11:07 PM
  #57
Sore Loser
Sorest of them all
 
Sore Loser's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Spokane, WA.
Country: United States
Posts: 6,630
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by WannabeFinn View Post
Calvert and D'Amigo for Frattin? Deal!
Not unless we throw in our first round pick.

You guys are way overvaluing Calvert.

Sore Loser is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-20-2014, 11:18 PM
  #58
hardkorejackets
Registered User
 
hardkorejackets's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Coldwater, OH
Country: United States
Posts: 353
vCash: 678
Quote:
Originally Posted by jordanwill21 View Post
i truly do wonder about some of you supposed experts. I am done arguing this subject but i will leave you with this. If UMBERGER can get 18 the year before, you are telling me that calvert wont produce as much as umberger did the year before?????Unless he is hurt half the season i dont see why he doesn't get more than 20 g. check this. if he is healthy all season and plays 80 games all he has to do is score a goal every four games. doesn't seem insurmountable at all to me.
I don't know if this was partially directed towards me or not, but I didn't see anybody claim to be an expert. People just seem to be weighing in. I could see Calvert getting 15-19 in a "full season", which might not be insurmountable, but I personally don't feel confident enough to guarantee a full season and 20 goals..

Last year he had 9 goals in 56 games, prior season he had 9 goals in 42 games. Highest output is 11 goals in 42 games back in 2010-2011. So his scoring output would place him right at 15-20 goals for a full season. Like Major, I just don't know if he can play a full healthy season with no minor or nagging injuries that would end up slowing him down. His style of play, knowing the role that minor but playable injuries can slow down a player, and just how frequent injuries occur in the NHL make me hesitant. Only 3 players scored 20 goals for us last season.

hardkorejackets is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-21-2014, 09:14 AM
  #59
blahblah
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 19,544
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by thebus2288 View Post
I also want to add that while the CBJ may have it spread out a little more evenly and fully through 3 lines, most teams in the league don't have a "top line" or "top-6" anymore. Matt Calvert could or would play on the 1st, 2nd or 3rd line on 90% of the teams in the league and it wouldn't matter who his linemates were or what role the line was asked to fill. That is a legit attribute. The only teams he couldn't play on the top line would be those with coaches who like to load up on 1 line.
I'm not going to get into this premise with you beyond saying that teams still get their top players the most minutes. Calvert, on most teams, wouldn't be given 18+ minutes. He's developed into a great role player, but he's also have a 35+ minute PROD the last two seasons. Teams wouldn't be looking to him for offense, which can affect match ups and, ultimately, lead to less minutes.

What I really wanted to comment on is I'm not sure where your "spread things around" is coming from. Here are the minutes for Jackets forwards, removing Horton and Gaborik who had comparable minutes in limited games.

Dubinsky - 18:47 - ES 14:17
Johansen - 17:39 - ES 14:01
AA - 16:36 - ES 12:28
Umberger - 16:11 - ES 13:00
Calvert - 16:06 - ES 13:00
Foligno - 16:04 - ES 14:06
Atkinson - 15:47 - ES 13:23
Letestu - 14:41 - ES 11:10
Jenner - 14:05 - ES 13:08

Seems like the minutes were pretty well spread around; not much of a disparity at ES.

Quote:
Originally Posted by hardkorejackets View Post
I could see Calvert getting 15-19 in a "full season", which might not be insurmountable, but I personally don't feel confident enough to guarantee a full season and 20 goals..

Only 3 players scored 20 goals for us last season.
Took out some stuff. First off, I'm a bit surprised that we've managed to talk about Calvert this long. He is capable of 20 goals, but he's not going to get there averaging less than 2 shots a game. He has 207 SoG's in 153 career games. Over the course of an 82 game season that is around 111 SoG's. At a 10% shooting pct that is 11 goals with 16-17 goals at a 15% shoot pct. He's probably not going to shoot at a 22% rate like he did his rookie season very often.

To your last comment, I really wouldn't use the word "only" when describing our number of players with 20+ goals. 3 is a very common number in the league and only 1 less than NY and LA had combined in the regular season; your Cup finalists.

blahblah is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-23-2014, 12:08 AM
  #60
WannabeFinn
Duuuuuub?
 
WannabeFinn's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Columbus
Country: United States
Posts: 5,321
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by blahblah View Post
To your last comment, I really wouldn't use the word "only" when describing our number of players with 20+ goals. 3 is a very common number in the league and only 1 less than NY and LA had combined in the regular season; your Cup finalists.
To be fair, LAK went from bottom 5 in league scoring to being the highest scoring team in the playoffs by far. They had terrible regular season offense and it's nothing to strive towards, even if they did make it to and win the Cup finals. NYR actually scored slightly less in the playoffs than in the regular season, but they just happened to be riding a hot goalie.

3 20 goal scorers on a team might be commonplace, but surely it isn't something to strive for (unless 1 or 2 of those players score well above 20, a la Capitals (who actually scored fewer goals per game than the CBJ..))

WannabeFinn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-26-2014, 10:29 AM
  #61
blahblah
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 19,544
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by WannabeFinn View Post
To be fair
I don't know what you are trying to define as fair. The point stands. I wouldn't focus on the number of 20+ goal scorers and look at team scoring as a whole - however just from the offensive perspective.

The point was, the number of 20 goal scorers in the regular season doesn't mean much. The Flyers had 7 and we were just, barely, below them in goals scored. The Ducks only had 4 (1 more than us) but where tops in the league (when you consider SO's, they topped Chicago).

Two of the better defensive teams with good goal tending made their way to the Cup finals. We can fit that description, even if we have work to do defensively, and hopefully compete for the Cup.

blahblah is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-26-2014, 06:40 PM
  #62
thebus2288*
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Michigan
Country: United States
Posts: 1,270
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by blahblah View Post
I'm not going to get into this premise with you beyond saying that teams still get their top players the most minutes. Calvert, on most teams, wouldn't be given 18+ minutes. He's developed into a great role player, but he's also have a 35+ minute PROD the last two seasons. Teams wouldn't be looking to him for offense, which can affect match ups and, ultimately, lead to less minutes.

What I really wanted to comment on is I'm not sure where your "spread things around" is coming from. Here are the minutes for Jackets forwards, removing Horton and Gaborik who had comparable minutes in limited games.

Dubinsky - 18:47 - ES 14:17
Johansen - 17:39 - ES 14:01
AA - 16:36 - ES 12:28
Umberger - 16:11 - ES 13:00
Calvert - 16:06 - ES 13:00
Foligno - 16:04 - ES 14:06
Atkinson - 15:47 - ES 13:23
Letestu - 14:41 - ES 11:10
Jenner - 14:05 - ES 13:08

Seems like the minutes were pretty well spread around; not much of a disparity at ES.

I can't tell if you're for or against what I said. The "tone" of your response seems like your against it but everything you posted seems to match up with it. Yes, most of the time, coaches do manage to get their most productive(not just point based) players out there more than less important players. My point is, like the CBJ, most teams nowadays don't rely that strongly on a loaded up "top 6" like in the past, and for the most part have watered it down into a "top-9" like situation while also giving the 4th line a regular shift. However this is not the case for every team/coach and I get that.

You say "on most teams" Calvert wouldn't be given 18+ min a game and I agree for the most part. My point is simply that I believe Calvert COULD play on most teams top line, with highly skilled guys, and not negatively affect them or the team. That wouldn't mean he's the 3rd best forward on the team as that's not really how MOST teams are building their lineups. I will add as I have said before that I do think he's got more offensive skill than most give him credit for, and would flourish in a more scoring role. There's roughly 90 forwards last year that had 18+ a game, and I guess most would consider them as the "1st liners" of the league. 1 big problem with looking at it like that is that 50 of the 90 are listed as centers, and besides a few, play regular shifts at center. Another issue, without looking much at other teams, is that not all teams have 3 guys playing 18+ a game. Our top minutes guy is Dubinsky and he ranks 67th. Johansen supposedly carried our team on his back while playing the 104th most minutes per game for forwards. #3 is our unskilled and worthless 3rd liner coming in at 144.


1st obvious quick thing that you can see is that like the "top 90" list our top 3 minutes guys are all centers. The next thing that stands out to me is who our top 2 wingers were in minutes. Seeing Umberger's as our highest played winger is where a lot of my questions of Richards stem from. The fact that he continued to put him out there with Johansen AND a pretty regular PP shift for most of the year is probably my biggest issue with the coaching staff the last 2 years. That brings us back to Matt Calvert, who if you haven't noticed, will be our highest minute playing winger on the team going into next year. Now I understand that Hartnell and a hopefully "healthy" Horton will affect things, and I don't have any CORSI's or PROD's to throw out there but what that is, is a hard fact that you cannot argue. The dude is a very PRODUCTIVE member to our team. More productive than Jenner, Atkinson and Letestu and I believe will be more valuable to us than Hartnell and Horton going forward.


The issue is what peoples definition of productive really is. To most of you it seems production is a number or numbers. These numbers can be as simple as goals and assists or as "advanced" as dividing and multiplying other random numbers being tracked by many other people to prove whatever point your trying to make. Also not a fan of all these backhanded compliments towards him either. Its like if your not a true elite 2 way allstar(Crosby, Toews, Kopitar, Getzlaf) then you simply cant be just a very good two way guy. The guys we have like Calvert, Foligno and Anisimov who can play any role on the ice or fill in on any line asked of them are not "role" players. Even by calling them "great" role players, it takes away how important they really are to the team. Role players are those who have to find and continuously bring 1 or 2 things they're good at to be productive to a team. But that also doesn't mean that a point producer cannot be a role player. Look at how Gaborik was for us.


Back to my 1st couple lines. Blahblah, you act as if you have an issue with me saying that the CBJ seem to have their "top 9" forwards spread out more evenly than most teams and you ask where I got the idea. Then you posted the numbers and agreed with me that it is spread out pretty evenly. Just cant get over the Wiz stuff or what?? If anything, all those numbers prove is that Matt Calvert is more valuable or PRODUCTIVE than most of you want to admit or can understand.

thebus2288* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-28-2014, 08:56 AM
  #63
jordanwill21
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Posts: 30
vCash: 500
You said it all my friend fantastic and accurate post sir

jordanwill21 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-28-2014, 09:03 AM
  #64
EDM
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 4,082
vCash: 500
Let's be realistic. Calvert will win the scoring title this year. No doubt. (insert smiley).

EDM is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-24-2015, 04:22 PM
  #65
WannabeFinn
Duuuuuub?
 
WannabeFinn's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Columbus
Country: United States
Posts: 5,321
vCash: 500
Calvert's our top RFA this year. To date he's played 209 games for the CBJ with 42 goals and 86 points on 300 shots. This averages out to roughly 33 points per 82 games played, fairly typical 3rd line production. Calvert has so far been a non-stop motor for the CBJ (when he's not injured), and a quality bottom 6 player that can slot into the top 6 in the case of injuries. However, the CBJ have acquired other forwards that have pushed him down the depth chart likely leaving him as a 4th liner when we're (mostly) healthy.

If offer sheeted in the $1,682,195 to $3,364,391, do we let him go? Compensation is a 2nd round pick. A 2nd rounder for a 3rd liner is pretty fair value but if the salary per year is low enough I would likely match it rather than let him go.

Let's say some team offers between 2.75m and 3.36m per year for Calvert. Do you match that and accept the fact that you're paying 3rd line money to a likely 4th liner? Or do you take the 2nd rounder and slot another depth guy in his place (Anderson, Bourque, etc.)

Jenner-Johansen-Atkinson
Anisimov-Dubinsky-Foligno
Hartnell-Wennberg-Dano
Calvert-Letestu-Boll

^ This was our lineup at the end of last season. By letting Letestu walk via UFA and Calvert leave via offer sheet we could see a lineup like this...

Jenner-Johansen-Atkinson
Anisimov-Dubinsky-Foligno
Hartnell-Wennberg-Dano
Clarkson/Bourque-Karlsson/Chaput-Boll

Clearly our 4th line takes a bit of a hit in terms of scoring (or so it appears) but we save several million in cap and gain a 2nd round pick compensation in addition to the ice time available for younger guys (Karlsson, Chaput, Rychel, Anderson) and vets (Bourque, Clarkson).

So CBJ HFboards, what say you? Do you love Calvert enough to match a hypothetical 2.75m+ offer sheet?

WannabeFinn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-24-2015, 05:30 PM
  #66
major major
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 11,779
vCash: 500
Good job framing a really tough decision.

If it wasn't for his injuries, and the risk of a shortened career, I would definitely resign him for anything up to $3m.

major major is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-24-2015, 05:40 PM
  #67
WannabeFinn
Duuuuuub?
 
WannabeFinn's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Columbus
Country: United States
Posts: 5,321
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by major major View Post
Good job framing a really tough decision.

If it wasn't for his injuries, and the risk of a shortened career, I would definitely resign him for anything up to $3m.
Even without the injuries it's tough to justify signing him to such a deal, no? All of the forwards in the top 9 are here long term save for potentially Hartnell and Anisimov. Even then we've got other young guns pushing for top 9 spots like Milano, Bjorkstrand, Karlsson, Rychel, etc.

Not only would it be a lot of money to pay Calvert, but the years could also put us in a tricky situation. You could propose the idea of signing him now and trading him later but are you sure that down the road you can get equal/better value than a 2nd round pick for him?

WannabeFinn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-24-2015, 05:45 PM
  #68
Cyclones Rock
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 3,811
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by WannabeFinn View Post
Even without the injuries it's tough to justify signing him to such a deal, no? All of the forwards in the top 9 are here long term save for potentially Hartnell and Anisimov. Even then we've got other young guns pushing for top 9 spots like Milano, Bjorkstrand, Karlsson, Rychel, etc.

Not only would it be a lot of money to pay Calvert, but the years could also put us in a tricky situation. You could propose the idea of signing him now and trading him later but are you sure that down the road you can get equal/better value than a 2nd round pick for him?
I'm with you. At $2.75 million, I'd let him walk.

The FO had no problem playing hardball with Johansen, they ought to do it with Calvert. Calvert is precisely the kind of player that one should use his CBA leverage upon.

Cyclones Rock is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-24-2015, 06:06 PM
  #69
ndd17
Fire John Madden!
 
ndd17's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Russia
Country: Russian Federation
Posts: 1,383
vCash: 500
I think $ 2.15 million AVV for 2 years.And hands off from Matt Calvert. Who scored the most important goal at the Blue Jackets history?

ndd17 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-24-2015, 06:18 PM
  #70
Crede777
Deputized
 
Crede777's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Country: United States
Posts: 10,462
vCash: 500
For anything less than $3 mill a year I think we should keep Calvert. He holds an important spot even when this team is fully healthy and I think he has a little bit of growth in terms of ability left in him.

Decent physicality, great speed, decent hands. That is what we want in a 3rd line LW. He used to be too small but he has bulked up a bit so he is just slightly undersized in my opinion and I think he can play more than effectively in this league. He isn't pushed off the puck too easily.

He can play up to the 2nd line, is at home on the 3rd line, or can play down to the 4th line.

Youth, versatility, speed. I would take him on this team easily.


Last edited by Crede777: 04-24-2015 at 06:23 PM.
Crede777 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-24-2015, 06:25 PM
  #71
db2011
Registered User
 
db2011's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 3,139
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by WannabeFinn View Post
Calvert's our top RFA this year. To date he's played 209 games for the CBJ with 42 goals and 86 points on 300 shots. This averages out to roughly 33 points per 82 games played, fairly typical 3rd line production. Calvert has so far been a non-stop motor for the CBJ (when he's not injured), and a quality bottom 6 player that can slot into the top 6 in the case of injuries. However, the CBJ have acquired other forwards that have pushed him down the depth chart likely leaving him as a 4th liner when we're (mostly) healthy.

If offer sheeted in the $1,682,195 to $3,364,391, do we let him go? Compensation is a 2nd round pick. A 2nd rounder for a 3rd liner is pretty fair value but if the salary per year is low enough I would likely match it rather than let him go.

Let's say some team offers between 2.75m and 3.36m per year for Calvert. Do you match that and accept the fact that you're paying 3rd line money to a likely 4th liner? Or do you take the 2nd rounder and slot another depth guy in his place (Anderson, Bourque, etc.)

Jenner-Johansen-Atkinson
Anisimov-Dubinsky-Foligno
Hartnell-Wennberg-Dano
Calvert-Letestu-Boll

^ This was our lineup at the end of last season. By letting Letestu walk via UFA and Calvert leave via offer sheet we could see a lineup like this...

Jenner-Johansen-Atkinson
Anisimov-Dubinsky-Foligno
Hartnell-Wennberg-Dano
Clarkson/Bourque-Karlsson/Chaput-Boll

Clearly our 4th line takes a bit of a hit in terms of scoring (or so it appears) but we save several million in cap and gain a 2nd round pick compensation in addition to the ice time available for younger guys (Karlsson, Chaput, Rychel, Anderson) and vets (Bourque, Clarkson).

So CBJ HFboards, what say you? Do you love Calvert enough to match a hypothetical 2.75m+ offer sheet?
You left out Calvert's role on PK, which is important. He's very good at it.

It's a tough question. I still wonder how much he and Letestu are fighting for the same spot. I don't factor into my thinking the potential for ice time that prospects will get, though, I just don't think that's something that ought to be taken into account.

I don't really think he will get offer sheeted anyway

db2011 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-24-2015, 06:49 PM
  #72
leesmith
Still in.
 
leesmith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 19,970
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ndd17 View Post
I think $ 2.15 million AVV for 2 years.And hands off from Matt Calvert. Who scored the most important goal at the Blue Jackets history?
Bruce Gardiner.




leesmith is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-24-2015, 11:08 PM
  #73
ca5150
Registered User
 
ca5150's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Columbus, Ohio
Country: United States
Posts: 2,835
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cyclones Rock View Post
I'm with you. At $2.75 million, I'd let him walk.

The FO had no problem playing hardball with Johansen, they ought to do it with Calvert. Calvert is precisely the kind of player that one should use his CBA leverage upon.
Why am I not at all surprised that you don't see Calvert's value? Anyone that isn't strictly a scorer should be traded or let walk, in your opinion...we would have the softest team in the league if you had your way

ca5150 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-24-2015, 11:22 PM
  #74
stevo61
Registered User
 
stevo61's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Canada
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,588
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ca5150 View Post
Why am I not at all surprised that you don't see Calvert's value? Anyone that isn't strictly a scorer should be traded or let walk, in your opinion...we would have the softest team in the league if you had your way
Because it becomes a numbers game. Sure it's easy to sit here and ***** and moan to everyone who doesn't agree with 100% of everything you say but the team has to be smart. We have Dubi, Foligno, Bob and Cam jumping up in cap hits and I know Bourque is coming off next off season and possibly Anisimov but then after that seaon there is Jenner, Murray and Savard looking for deals plus you never know who is coming in or going out. If the cap makes sense then of course, everyone here would welcome him here fully. But, if he wants too much Jarmo has a tough decision to make

stevo61 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-24-2015, 11:43 PM
  #75
Cyclones Rock
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 3,811
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ca5150 View Post
Why am I not at all surprised that you don't see Calvert's value? Anyone that isn't strictly a scorer should be traded or let walk, in your opinion...we would have the softest team in the league if you had your way
Got an attitude issue toward me?

Can you read? I said I'd play hardball with him and let him walk for $2.75 million. That is a ridiculous salary for a player like Calvert.


Last edited by Cyclones Rock: 04-24-2015 at 11:50 PM.
Cyclones Rock is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

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

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



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:47 AM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2017 All Rights Reserved.