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

Expansion Draft Discussion

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
03-17-2016, 05:06 PM
  #76
Mayor Bee
\/me_____you\/
 
Mayor Bee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 17,612
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by major major View Post
Can someone explain this idea to me that Vegas would select Clarkson or Tyutin? I can't figure out why a team would ever do that.

Is it the salary floor? Even if the salary floor isn't waived, I'm sure they can find more cost effective ways to get there. Think "second liner paid like a first liner" not "fourth liner paid like a first liner" (Clarkson).
I can explain the idea. It's a natural side effect of people who are unable to think in anything other than straight lines, and then get in front of a keyboard and write dumb articles in between making stupid political posts on Facebook.

That said, I can't see a scenario where one of those two gets taken, even if unprotected, unless there are some serious extenuating circumstances in the form of acquiring additional assets. If I'm the GM of an expansion team and looking at a list of 20 unprotected CBJ players, which is about the number that will be on there, and I have to take a player without having reached an agreement to acquire those additional assets, then I'm taking an AHL player off the list. Or an NHL player who has one year left on his contract. Or an NHL player who's a pending UFA and has seven days left in his contract. But under no circumstances would I take one of those two unless Columbus is making it worth my while.

Mayor Bee is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-17-2016, 05:09 PM
  #77
KlichkoBro*
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Country: Ukraine
Posts: 831
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mayor Bee View Post
I can explain the idea. It's a natural side effect of people who are unable to think in anything other than straight lines, and then get in front of a keyboard and write dumb articles in between making stupid political posts on Facebook.

That said, I can't see a scenario where one of those two gets taken, even if unprotected, unless there are some serious extenuating circumstances in the form of acquiring additional assets. If I'm the GM of an expansion team and looking at a list of 20 unprotected CBJ players, which is about the number that will be on there, and I have to take a player without having reached an agreement to acquire those additional assets, then I'm taking an AHL player off the list. Or an NHL player who has one year left on his contract. Or an NHL player who's a pending UFA and has seven days left in his contract. But under no circumstances would I take one of those two unless Columbus is making it worth my while.
Tyutin gonna have exactly 1 year left on his contract if expansion draft happens next summer.

KlichkoBro* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-17-2016, 06:10 PM
  #78
Mayor Bee
\/me_____you\/
 
Mayor Bee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 17,612
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by KlichkoBro View Post
Tyutin gonna have exactly 1 year left on his contract if expansion draft happens next summer.
With no way to get out from under it if his game goes completely to hell, meaning that a roster spot is locked in.

It would be one thing on a rebuilding team, but on an expansion team that would likely have multiple project players who need the ice time and wouldn't clear waivers, it wouldn't be a great idea.

Mayor Bee is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-17-2016, 06:33 PM
  #79
EspenK
Registered User
 
EspenK's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 10,284
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mayor Bee View Post
With no way to get out from under it if his game goes completely to hell, meaning that a roster spot is locked in.

It would be one thing on a rebuilding team, but on an expansion team that would likely have multiple project players who need the ice time and wouldn't clear waivers, it wouldn't be a great idea.
If I'm an expansion team GM I'm going to go for youth whenever possible. I am not trying to finish with the 10th pick. I want a top 3. I'll add some additional quality prospects after season 1. I'll pass on a guy like Tyutin although I'd take him over a vet with 3 or so years left on his deal if those are the choices.

EspenK is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-18-2016, 06:35 AM
  #80
JacketsDavid
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 1,183
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by major major View Post
Can someone explain this idea to me that Vegas would select Clarkson or Tyutin? I can't figure out why a team would ever do that.

Is it the salary floor? Even if the salary floor isn't waived, I'm sure they can find more cost effective ways to get there. Think "second liner paid like a first liner" not "fourth liner paid like a first liner" (Clarkson).
No one would ever take Clarkson unless it's 3 years down the road when his cap hit is high and salary rather low (if a team is trying to get to cap floor, but maybe wants to save in salary actually spent) - but in 2017 and 2018 it's not going to happen. To many years to tie up an up productive roster spot - but in the final year of his contract - maybe (and again that would only help if NHL comes in and says Vegas in 2018, then other city a year or so later).

JacketsDavid is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
03-18-2016, 07:36 AM
  #81
CBJSlash
Registered User
 
CBJSlash's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: The Bus
Posts: 8,613
vCash: 500
With the rules the way they are set today, there's no reason at all to take Clarkson. They'll actually get a decent team. They will get the best backup goalie in the league, 4 or 5 top four defensemen and a group of forwards that resembles a middle of the pack team, but will probably be weak down the middle.

Had they come in with the rules we had and had to reach the floor. He could have been picked. It's possible if we package him with picks or prospects.

Best case, we trade him to Vegas at 50% with a prospect and Vegas buys him out.

CBJSlash is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-18-2016, 08:52 AM
  #82
Rufio035
Registered User
 
Rufio035's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Columbus
Country: United States
Posts: 70
vCash: 500
They can have the lot

As far as protection goes I really only see Jenner, saad, and jones worth protecting. They can have all the other prospects and they can have anyone else's contracts. Why protect a losing team. I love dubi but not his contract. I love bob but not his injuries. Jury is really still out on korpi. We are going to lose someone so why not their contract with them. We are stuck with clarkson, if jarmo can swing a trade for our high first to a middle first that unloads clarkson on someone that d be great but I can keep on dreaming. We are crap for the past 2 years and a cap team. Time to loosen the load or just keep watching a losing team without any room to build. Foligno, savard, Atkinson, and anyone else times up. we should be in fire sale mode because it is just going to get worse

Rufio035 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-18-2016, 02:39 PM
  #83
Cyclones Rock
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 3,621
vCash: 500
If NMC/NTC have to be protected, then these expansion teams are going to be competitive from day one.

The Jackets new GM and management team (hopefully) will look at this as an opportunity to shed salary and give cap flexibility to the organization. I would expect Saad and Bob to be exposed to the draft given that Dubinsky, Foligno, Tyutin, Hartnell and Clarkson will automatically be on the protected list.

As the roster stands today:

Three dmen to be protected: Murray, Jones and Tyutin.

Seven forwards: 4 NMC/NTC (#17, #71, #43, #23) plus Jenner, Wennberg (if he needs to be protected) and Atkinson.

Goalie: Protect Korpisalo if need be.

I'll take both expansion teams to finish above the CBJ in 2017-18.


Last edited by Cyclones Rock: 03-18-2016 at 02:50 PM.
Cyclones Rock is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-18-2016, 02:50 PM
  #84
JoeyDangles19
Registered User
 
JoeyDangles19's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Posts: 1,429
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cyclones Rock View Post
If NMC/NTC have to be protected, then these expansion teams are going to be competitive from day one.

The Jackets new GM and management team (hopefully) will look at this as an opportunity to shed salary and give cap flexibility to the organization. I would expect Saad and Bob to be exposed to the draft given that Dubinsky, Foligno, Tyutin, Hartnell and Clarkson will automatically be on the protected list.

As the roster stands today:

Three dmen to be protected: Murray, Jones and Tyutin.

Seven forwards: 4 NMC/NTC (#17, #71, #43, #23) listed above plus Jenner, Wennberg (if he needs to be protected) and Atkinson.

Goalie: Protect Korpisalo if need be.

I'll take both expansion teams to finish above the CBJ in 2017-18.
They will sooner protect Saad over Atkinson, gave up too much to get him only to potentially lose him for NOTHING.

JoeyDangles19 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-18-2016, 03:23 PM
  #85
cslebn
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 1,010
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by major major View Post
Can someone explain this idea to me that Vegas would select Clarkson or Tyutin? I can't figure out why a team would ever do that.

Is it the salary floor? Even if the salary floor isn't waived, I'm sure they can find more cost effective ways to get there. Think "second liner paid like a first liner" not "fourth liner paid like a first liner" (Clarkson).
Bribes with other picks/players is the first example that comes to mind. It's happened historically pretty well.

cslebn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-18-2016, 03:41 PM
  #86
Cyclones Rock
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 3,621
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeyDangles19 View Post
They will sooner protect Saad over Atkinson, gave up too much to get him only to potentially lose him for NOTHING.
This management group, no doubt. The next one, who knows?

Cyclones Rock is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-18-2016, 04:01 PM
  #87
major major
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 11,454
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by cslebn View Post
Bribes with other picks/players is the first example that comes to mind. It's happened historically pretty well.
In this case Vegas would still only take him on if there are massive bribes (like a very good prospect). Their incentives won't be much different than any other team.

major major is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-20-2016, 06:11 AM
  #88
Double-Shift Lassť
Moderator
Just post better
 
Double-Shift Lassť's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Semirural Cbus
Country: United States
Posts: 21,672
vCash: 500
So if Bjorkstrand is going to be good, he's going to have to go on the protected list, right? Instead of one of Saad, Wennberg and Jenner.

__________________
"Every game, every point is a necessity." -- Ty Conklin, January 2007
"I'll have a chance to compete for the post of first issue. This is the most important thing." -- Sergei Bobrovsky, June 2012
Double-Shift Lassť is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
03-20-2016, 06:44 AM
  #89
Mayor Bee
\/me_____you\/
 
Mayor Bee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 17,612
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Double-Shift Lassť View Post
So if Bjorkstrand is going to be good, he's going to have to go on the protected list, right? Instead of one of Saad, Wennberg and Jenner.
If the expansion draft takes place next year, he'd most likely be exempt as a second-year pro and wouldn't need protected.

Mayor Bee is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-20-2016, 06:48 AM
  #90
EspenK
Registered User
 
EspenK's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 10,284
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Double-Shift Lassť View Post
So if Bjorkstrand is going to be good, he's going to have to go on the protected list, right? Instead of one of Saad, Wennberg and Jenner.
Interesting thing this expansion draft.

We could go with the 8 skater option leaving Savard, Cam & our G unprotected. This would necessitate buying out Hartnell (or trading him somehow) and Clarkson too if NMC guys have to be protected.

Assuming we keep Clarkson next year his remaining signing bonuses would be reduced by 4 million leaving 12 million. That is going to have to be paid regardless so why not do it to protect all the young guys?

The Jackets really screwed up with the Clarkson deal. To lose one of the young guys in addition would be taking it to an even higher level of screw up.

Edit:
I was just looking at capfriendly and it indicates Tyutin has a NMC too? WTF? I'd add him to the buyout pool.

If we can't trade one of Hartnell or Tyutin we could really get screwed if NMC's have to be protected.


Last edited by EspenK: 03-20-2016 at 06:57 AM. Reason: added Tyutin comment
EspenK is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-20-2016, 06:59 AM
  #91
EspenK
Registered User
 
EspenK's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 10,284
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mayor Bee View Post
If the expansion draft takes place next year, he'd most likely be exempt as a second-year pro and wouldn't need protected.
He will have completed 2 years as a pro. I have read that it is the going forward look that determines if a player is a 2 or 3 year guy. In my reading I think he would be eligible.

http://espn.go.com/nhl/story/_/id/14...on-draft-rules

Quote:
First- and second-year pros -- including those playing pro hockey at any level -- will be exempt from the expansion draft. But if they're entering their third year of pro hockey, they're no longer exempt. Teams would have to either protect them or expose them.


Last edited by EspenK: 03-20-2016 at 07:06 AM.
EspenK is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-20-2016, 07:30 AM
  #92
Double-Shift Lassť
Moderator
Just post better
 
Double-Shift Lassť's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Semirural Cbus
Country: United States
Posts: 21,672
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mayor Bee View Post
If the expansion draft takes place next year, he'd most likely be exempt as a second-year pro and wouldn't need protected.
Quote:
Originally Posted by EspenK View Post
He will have completed 2 years as a pro. I have read that it is the going forward look that determines if a player is a 2 or 3 year guy. In my reading I think he would be eligible.

http://espn.go.com/nhl/story/_/id/14...on-draft-rules
As major said a couple pages back, it's a futile exercise if we don't really know/understand the parameters. That the ESPN story starts by describing players as "_ year pros" and then later in the same paragraph starts using "entering" as its criteria... I think we've still got some sorting to do. That's pretty poor reporting. I wonder if it's been clarified somewhere else since?

Quote:
Originally Posted by EspenK View Post
Interesting thing this expansion draft.

We could go with the 8 skater option leaving Savard, Cam & our G unprotected. This would necessitate buying out Hartnell (or trading him somehow) and Clarkson too if NMC guys have to be protected.

Assuming we keep Clarkson next year his remaining signing bonuses would be reduced by 4 million leaving 12 million. That is going to have to be paid regardless so why not do it to protect all the young guys?

The Jackets really screwed up with the Clarkson deal. To lose one of the young guys in addition would be taking it to an even higher level of screw up.

Edit:
I was just looking at capfriendly and it indicates Tyutin has a NMC too? WTF? I'd add him to the buyout pool.

If we can't trade one of Hartnell or Tyutin we could really get screwed if NMC's have to be protected.

At least one player is, IMO, going to have to be bought out, even if the organization doesn't like the idea of "lost" money. And if you aren't going to buy another one out, then one has to be traded.

Double-Shift Lassť is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
03-20-2016, 07:47 AM
  #93
Xoggz22
Registered User
 
Xoggz22's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Columbus, Ohio
Country: United States
Posts: 5,119
vCash: 500
Two things....

1) I don't believe the NMC & NTC information is accurate on cap friendly and general manager. Tyutin is a modified NTC and I'm pretty certain Hartnel is a full NTC. Dubi and Foligno might be NMC. No idea on Clarkson. There is a difference between NTC and NMC and I fully expect the NHL to force teams to protect NMC players.

2) The hockey calendar starts 7/1 every year so a draft in June would be during the current year pro. The NHLPA would fight anything other. Book that. And I don't see GMs agreeing to shorter terms like 1 year.

Still too little info to base anything on but all teams are going to have tough choices. Especially teams like EDM and TOR and BUF that have a lot of young talent. The financial exposure guideline is also interesting given the CBJ players at high salary also have specialty clauses. Not easy to wade through...

Xoggz22 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-20-2016, 08:18 AM
  #94
EspenK
Registered User
 
EspenK's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 10,284
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xoggz22 View Post
Two things....

1) I don't believe the NMC & NTC information is accurate on cap friendly and general manager. Tyutin is a modified NTC and I'm pretty certain Hartnel is a full NTC. Dubi and Foligno might be NMC. No idea on Clarkson. There is a difference between NTC and NMC and I fully expect the NHL to force teams to protect NMC players.

2) The hockey calendar starts 7/1 every year so a draft in June would be during the current year pro. The NHLPA would fight anything other. Book that. And I don't see GMs agreeing to shorter terms like 1 year.

Still too little info to base anything on but all teams are going to have tough choices. Especially teams like EDM and TOR and BUF that have a lot of young talent. The financial exposure guideline is also interesting given the CBJ players at high salary also have specialty clauses. Not easy to wade through...
re 1) I went back and looked at capgeek archive http://*****************/capgeek/Col...p%20Chart.html and it indicated that both Hartnell & Tyutin have NMC's. I trusted them.

re 2) not sure what you are trying to get at here?

the ***'s are hockey broa ds w/o the space

EspenK is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-20-2016, 08:24 AM
  #95
Mayor Bee
\/me_____you\/
 
Mayor Bee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 17,612
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by EspenK View Post
He will have completed 2 years as a pro. I have read that it is the going forward look that determines if a player is a 2 or 3 year guy. In my reading I think he would be eligible.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Double-Shift Lassť View Post
As major said a couple pages back, it's a futile exercise if we don't really know/understand the parameters. That the ESPN story starts by describing players as "_ year pros" and then later in the same paragraph starts using "entering" as its criteria... I think we've still got some sorting to do. That's pretty poor reporting. I wonder if it's been clarified somewhere else since?
It hasn't been officially clarified, but there is no precedent in previous expansion drafts for requiring players who are in their second pro year (July 1 to June 30, with the expansion draft coming in late June) to be anything but completely exempt.

I also believe that NHL GMs would absolutely flip out if an expansion team were allowed to cull from a list of everyone who's in their second pro year or higher; it changes the dynamic completely and would make an expansion team one of the best in the league right from the beginning (assuming a competent GM, of course). Teams with a young core would be faced with the loss of either one of their top prospects or one of their top players, rather than mid-range guys in either direction. The league has a vested interest in an incoming team being a competitive one in their first year, not necessarily a Cup-contending one.

Mayor Bee is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-20-2016, 08:31 AM
  #96
EspenK
Registered User
 
EspenK's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 10,284
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mayor Bee View Post
It hasn't been officially clarified, but there is no precedent in previous expansion drafts for requiring players who are in their second pro year (July 1 to June 30, with the expansion draft coming in late June) to be anything but completely exempt.

I also believe that NHL GMs would absolutely flip out if an expansion team were allowed to cull from a list of everyone who's in their second pro year or higher; it changes the dynamic completely and would make an expansion team one of the best in the league right from the beginning (assuming a competent GM, of course). Teams with a young core would be faced with the loss of either one of their top prospects or one of their top players, rather than mid-range guys in either direction. The league has a vested interest in an incoming team being a competitive one in their first year, not necessarily a Cup-contending one.
Many things are different in this expansion draft. Including the 500 million buy-in. I hope that 2nd year guys would be exempt but that is not what is being reported. Plus even if a guy is 2 years in the AHL he will have to be protected.

I also read somewhere in the reports that a guy drafted 2 years ago but not signed would have to be protected. Don't know if that is true but if it is Werenski then could come into play. Ugh.

EspenK is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-20-2016, 08:57 AM
  #97
Mayor Bee
\/me_____you\/
 
Mayor Bee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 17,612
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by EspenK View Post
Many things are different in this expansion draft. Including the 500 million buy-in. I hope that 2nd year guys would be exempt but that is not what is being reported. Plus even if a guy is 2 years in the AHL he will have to be protected.

I also read somewhere in the reports that a guy drafted 2 years ago but not signed would have to be protected. Don't know if that is true but if it is Werenski then could come into play. Ugh.
There's going to be a lot of legal language that's going to need to be cleaned up and clarified as situations warrant, because I can guarantee you that every GM in the league is going to be saying, "I don't want to lose X player because of this situation".

Here's what I can all but guarantee based on prior precedent. This assumes a 2017 expansion draft.
- A player whose first professional season is 2016-17 will be exempt.
- A player whose first professional season is 2015-16 will be exempt.
- A player whose first professional season is 2014-15 or earlier will need to be either protected or unprotected, however, there is likely to be clarification on what constitutes "pro season".
- The reason for this is because a handful of top young players appeared in a handful of games at the very end of the 2014-15 season: Dylan Larkin, Sonny Milano, Jake Virtanen, Sam Bennett, Sam Reinhart, and so on.

Ultimately, it'll come down to whether a large majority of NHL GMs are okay with being punished for doing things "the right way". Several teams have simply kept their 2014 1st-rounders down in juniors and not actually improved their on-ice product, and the GMs of better teams are going to lobby hard to make sure that their voice is heard: a team trying to develop a kid and get him into the NHL should not be punished because of 8 AHL games while the teams who seem to be continuously floundering around the bottom gain a benefit by having their kids all be exempt.

I would expect that we'll see something like this. Anyone drafted in 2015 or 2016 is exempt, North American players who have not signed their ELC by the pre-expansion roster freeze are exempt, and players on an ELC or ATO who played less than (25?) total pro games in 2014-15 are exempt as well. That will most likely satisfy all involved parties, with the possible exception of an expansion team; frankly, they're already looking at getting a better head start than a lot of previous expansion teams as it is anyway.

Mayor Bee is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-20-2016, 09:56 AM
  #98
major major
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 11,454
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by EspenK View Post
Many things are different in this expansion draft. Including the 500 million buy-in. I hope that 2nd year guys would be exempt but that is not what is being reported. Plus even if a guy is 2 years in the AHL he will have to be protected.
.
I'm also not taking it for granted that the guys finishing their 2nd pro year will be exempt. Not every team would be that worried about it, either because they don't have top tier prospects or because they have leftover protected spots. The Jackets are especially in trouble here.

major major is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-20-2016, 11:44 AM
  #99
Xoggz22
Registered User
 
Xoggz22's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Columbus, Ohio
Country: United States
Posts: 5,119
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by EspenK View Post
re 1) I went back and looked at capgeek archive http://*****************/capgeek/Col...p%20Chart.html and it indicated that both Hartnell & Tyutin have NMC's. I trusted them.

re 2) not sure what you are trying to get at here?

the ***'s are hockey broa ds w/o the space
I trust Capgeek as well so that may be the best information to pull from. I didn't bother looking becuase I knew the site was no longer active. I still recall discussions about Tyutin having to submit a list of teams that he could not be traded to which indicates a partial NTC. To my knowledge a player would not have both a NTC AND a NMC. The NMC covers all movement. We'll see what happens i guess.

As to point #2, if the league year isn't over until 6/30 then the player would still be in his 2nd year of professional service, not have completed their 2nd year. That's where the difference is, in my opinion, with this discussion. If they protect players with one or two years of professional service and the expansion draft is in June (prior to the amateur draft) than you would essentially only have to consider protection of players that are IN their 3rd year (which at that time would almost be over)

Xoggz22 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-20-2016, 11:49 AM
  #100
Tulipunaruusu*
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 2,193
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mayor Bee View Post
- A player whose first professional season is 2014-15 or earlier will need to be either protected or unprotected, however, there is likely to be clarification on what constitutes "pro season".
Does 2011-12 Danish champion Oliver Bjorkstrand qualify with his 46 games for Herning Blue Fox?


Tulipunaruusu* 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 08:36 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.