HFBoards

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

XM Radio/TSN: Carolina gets Mark Recchi

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
03-10-2006, 09:34 AM
  #101
Jester
Registered User
 
Jester's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: St. Andrews
Country: Scotland
Posts: 34,075
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Evilo
Now that makes me feel better.
The fact that you, Jester thinks Patrick is a retard and an idiot.
Now we know that HOFers and Stanley Cup winners are.

Thanks to you for letting us know.
fine... Patrick has done a bang-up job... when is the last good trade he made? has he done anything to inspire confidence in his abilities as a General Manager?

Jay Feaster has won a Cup, i think he's an idiot too.

Jester is offline  
Old
03-10-2006, 10:03 AM
  #102
Evilo
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: France
Country: France
Posts: 27,197
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jester
Jay Feaster has won a Cup, i think he's an idiot too.
That's great. You seem to use that notion with ease.

Evilo is offline  
Old
03-10-2006, 10:11 AM
  #103
Jester
Registered User
 
Jester's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: St. Andrews
Country: Scotland
Posts: 34,075
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Evilo
That's great. You seem to use that notion with ease.
dumb is as dumb does.

if you have a high opinion of Patrick after what he got out of the Jagr and Kovalev deals i find that amazing... very similar to Ed Wade with the Phils following his trades of Rolen and Schilling.

Jester is offline  
Old
03-10-2006, 10:55 AM
  #104
Jaded-Fan
Registered User
 
Jaded-Fan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 32,950
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jester
dumb is as dumb does.

if you have a high opinion of Patrick after what he got out of the Jagr and Kovalev deals i find that amazing... very similar to Ed Wade with the Phils following his trades of Rolen and Schilling.
Patrick got $5 m. out of the Jagr deal, something he was ordered to do and something your team never has had to deal with. I do not think that is the best example to lean on to tar and feather the guy with because the players involved were very secondary to the deal. Take out the money exchanging hands and the deal would have been much more equitable. As for the players, they did not pan out but were fairly highly thought of here and elsewhere at the time and were some of Washington's best prospects. But again, move that aside, had the massive dollars not been involved the Jagr deal would have been for established players and you would have a better means for evaluating what he did.

Jaded-Fan is offline  
Old
03-10-2006, 11:07 AM
  #105
Jester
Registered User
 
Jester's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: St. Andrews
Country: Scotland
Posts: 34,075
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jaded-Fan
Patrick got $5 m. out of the Jagr deal, something he was ordered to do and something your team never has had to deal with. I do not think that is the best example to lean on to tar and feather the guy with because the players involved were very secondary to the deal. Take out the money exchanging hands and the deal would have been much more equitable. As for the players, they did not pan out but were fairly highly thought of here and elsewhere at the time and were some of Washington's best prospects. But again, move that aside, had the massive dollars not been involved the Jagr deal would have been for established players and you would have a better means for evaluating what he did.
the cash meant squat to Leonsis... he was trying to revitalize that franchise on the model of approach that was being shown off by Dan Snyder with the 'Skins. he was trading for the best player in the world...

that being said, your comment suggests that the Pens are simply awful at evaluating and developing players... which should make you nervous about just about everything that they do as a management group...

Jester is offline  
Old
03-10-2006, 11:12 AM
  #106
jb**
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Planet Lovetron
Country: Italy
Posts: 8,556
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jester
i'm not ignoring it. Patrick is a friggin idiot... you can toot about the draft itself all you want, but you can basically devalue a pick a round based on years you have to wait to use it. if he had gotten that pick for this draft and didn't like what he saw when it came to using it he probably could have parlayed a 2006 2nd round pick into a 2007 2nd round pick + another pick. so, no... regardless of the depth of a draft a 2007 draft pick isn't as valuable as a 2006 draft pick... there is ALWAYS a player someone wants at your spot and you can get something out of them.

2007 2nd < 2006 2nd

think of it inductively...

2006 2nd == 2007 2nd +
2007 2nd == 2008 2nd +
etc... etc...
.
Absolutly, there will always be a player a team is drooling for in the first few rounds. If you don’t like that pick You trade that pick and can also acquire another asset. To compare a late first round pick to a late second round pick is not comparable. How can you say the late second in 2007 may be better than the late first in 2006? I bet you, you could trade that first in 2006 on draft day and get more than you would if you trade a 2nd in 2007. The weak draft argument is weak as said above their will always be a player a team really wants regardless if it is a weak draft year.I think CP overvalued Recchi’s value or he got taken again. They should have received more when you look at what was traded yesterday for what was given in return.

jb** is offline  
Old
03-10-2006, 11:25 AM
  #107
Jester
Registered User
 
Jester's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: St. Andrews
Country: Scotland
Posts: 34,075
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by NWO
Absolutly, there will always be a player a team is drooling for in the first few rounds. If you don’t like that pick You trade that pick and can also acquire another asset. To compare a late first round pick to a late second round pick is not comparable. How can you say the late second in 2007 may be better than the late first in 2006? I bet you, you could trade that first in 2006 on draft day and get more than you would if you trade a 2nd in 2007. The weak draft argument is weak as said above their will always be a player a team really wants regardless if it is a weak draft year.I think CP overvalued Recchi’s value or he got taken again. They should have received more when you look at what was traded yesterday for what was given in return.
don't know enough about the players... from Clarke's quotes, it seems he doesn't think they represent a horrible return. however, if it is true that Patrick was requesting a 2007 as opposed to a 2006 that is beyond dumb.

Jester is offline  
Old
03-10-2006, 11:29 AM
  #108
jb**
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Planet Lovetron
Country: Italy
Posts: 8,556
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jester
don't know enough about the players... from Clarke's quotes, it seems he doesn't think they represent a horrible return. however, if it is true that Patrick was requesting a 2007 as opposed to a 2006 that is beyond dumb.
On both GM's part. I think it had to do with the players involved IMO

jb** is offline  
Old
03-10-2006, 11:33 AM
  #109
Evilo
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: France
Country: France
Posts: 27,197
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by NWO
I think CP overvalued Recchi’s value or he got taken again. They should have received more when you look at what was traded yesterday for what was given in return.
Erh, excuse me, weren't you among those that claimed Recchi was not worth Umberger?
Is Umberger's value a first rounder?
Because Recchi notched a second+.
I think CP got exactly what any reasonnable fan envisionned : a second rounder.
As I said in the other thread : Umberger=Recchi=Malone=2nd rounder

Evilo is offline  
Old
03-10-2006, 11:34 AM
  #110
Evilo
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: France
Country: France
Posts: 27,197
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jester
the Pens are simply awful at evaluating
which is why they manage to draft this well.

Evilo is offline  
Old
03-10-2006, 11:38 AM
  #111
jb**
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Planet Lovetron
Country: Italy
Posts: 8,556
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Evilo
Erh, excuse me, weren't you among those that claimed Recchi was not worth Umberger?
Is Umberger's value a first rounder?
Because Recchi notched a second+.
I think CP got exactly what any reasonnable fan envisionned : a second rounder.
As I said in the other thread : Umberger=Recchi=Malone=2nd rounder
Yes I was and I guess Clarke felt the same way. If Umberger were traded he would have fetced more than a 2nd without a doubt, remember there is a salary cap and he is under control for a few more years cheaply. Recchi got a 2nd the other players are junk and i think you know that but you try to always put a positive spin which is fine. Kolanos could have bene claimed how many times this year for free? A lot of people thought Recchi would get a bigger return. I always thought a 3rd

jb** is offline  
Old
03-10-2006, 11:38 AM
  #112
Jaded-Fan
Registered User
 
Jaded-Fan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 32,950
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jester
don't know enough about the players... from Clarke's quotes, it seems he doesn't think they represent a horrible return. however, if it is true that Patrick was requesting a 2007 as opposed to a 2006 that is beyond dumb.
“We’re very happy. A big part of it is a second-round pick in 2007,” Patrick said. “We feel that is going to be a good draft. We picked up two picks in the 2007 draft for that specific reason.”

http://www.pittsburghpenguins.com/t...arts/1729.0.php

Top-heavy 2006 draft pool looking weak overall
We hate to start the annual ritual of complaining about draft depth so early, but it's unavoidable. We can't remember the last time so many veteran NHL scouts have noted this early just how bad a draft year it's going to be ... and it's only October!

.............

At Red Line Report, we believe it's starting to look like (gulp, dare we say it?) 2002 all over again. Ugh! 2002 and 1996 stand out as the truly woeful draft classes of the past 10 years, but if the early returns are any indication, the 2006 crop will not do much to distinguish itself. (Related item: Red Line Report's top 10 draft prospects)

.......

Despite our concerns, the top 10-12 prospects are all worthy candidates, but there seems to be a huge drop-off after that. Players who would normally be early second-rounders are in the teens on many lists this year. Guess the honeymoon is already over.


http://www.usatoday.com/sports/hocke...e-report_x.htm

............... add to the above that people with crappy mid to low firsts this year will still have to pay first round money, and cap space, and give me a second in 2007 any day of the week.

Jaded-Fan is offline  
Old
03-10-2006, 11:40 AM
  #113
jb**
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Planet Lovetron
Country: Italy
Posts: 8,556
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Evilo
which is why they manage to draft this well.
that is why they have been near the bottom of the league for what 5-6 years now, those draft picks are really reaping rewards.

jb** is offline  
Old
03-10-2006, 11:40 AM
  #114
The Pens Are Back*
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 5,068
vCash: 500
i think part of the reason why they took a 2007 2nd rounder was they considered how good carolina is doing. right now its a late 2nd rounder ... close to 3rd round. in the 2006 season carolina could do a lot worse (posssible becasue they are playing so well this year) there by improving the draft pick

The Pens Are Back* is offline  
Old
03-10-2006, 12:02 PM
  #115
Jester
Registered User
 
Jester's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: St. Andrews
Country: Scotland
Posts: 34,075
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Pens Are Back
i think part of the reason why they took a 2007 2nd rounder was they considered how good carolina is doing. right now its a late 2nd rounder ... close to 3rd round. in the 2006 season carolina could do a lot worse (posssible becasue they are playing so well this year) there by improving the draft pick
i'm confused how this is complex to understand. it's very very simple. if you want a 2007 pick in the end that's fine. you take a 2006 2nd (at least you have an option to take a player there this year... thus getting something out of the trade faster)... if you don't like what you see, you can then TRADE that pick again and acquire that 2007 2nd from someone + something in all liklihood.

2006 2nd > 2007 2nd regardless of the draft... because you can GET that 2007 pick from the 2006 pick.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Evilo
which is why they manage to draft this well.
2005 - Crosby was a tough choice... took a lot of brainpower there. (1st overall)
2004 - Malkin 'nother brain-teaser (2nd overall)
2003 - Fleury we shall see, as goalies develop slower... but he hasn't quite lived up to the billing yet... and Staal was picked 2nd. (1st overall... again)
2002 - Whitney... decent pick, probaly would have been worth it to try and jump up to get Jay-Bo or Pitkanen... (5th overall)
2001 - Armstrong... meh (21st overall.. could have had Perezhogin)
2000 - Orpik... looks like he'll be solid (18th overall... Frolov, Hale, Justin Williams, and Niklas Kronvall taken after)

hard to judge a team that has had a bunch of top 5 picks (i question taking Whitney when they could have gone up in that draft with a little bit of effort)

Jester is offline  
Old
03-10-2006, 12:24 PM
  #116
Jaded-Fan
Registered User
 
Jaded-Fan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 32,950
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jester
i'm confused how this is complex to understand. it's very very simple. if you want a 2007 pick in the end that's fine. you take a 2006 2nd (at least you have an option to take a player there this year... thus getting something out of the trade faster)... if you don't like what you see, you can then TRADE that pick again and acquire that 2007 2nd from someone + something in all liklihood.

2006 2nd > 2007 2nd regardless of the draft... because you can GET that 2007 pick from the 2006 pick.


2005 - Crosby was a tough choice... took a lot of brainpower there. (1st overall)
2004 - Malkin 'nother brain-teaser (2nd overall)
2003 - Fleury we shall see, as goalies develop slower... but he hasn't quite lived up to the billing yet... and Staal was picked 2nd. (1st overall... again)
2002 - Whitney... decent pick, probaly would have been worth it to try and jump up to get Jay-Bo or Pitkanen... (5th overall)
2001 - Armstrong... meh (21st overall.. could have had Perezhogin)
2000 - Orpik... looks like he'll be solid (18th overall... Frolov, Hale, Justin Williams, and Niklas Kronvall taken after)

hard to judge a team that has had a bunch of top 5 picks (i question taking Whitney when they could have gone up in that draft with a little bit of effort)

How can you possibly say this with certainty? Teams basically crapped all over the 2006 picks, I linked you a quote from Craig Patrick saying that he demanded 2007 picks because this draft sucks, and redline report that says the same. And what do you offer in rebuttal? Some **** and bull definitive statement with no backup that you can always trade a current year pick no matter how crappy the players at any position in the draft because to paraphrase, 'someone is going to want a certain player and will pay you much more next year.' To use your words, that is stupid. And forgive me for not being impressed with just your opinion with no back-up when I provided three sources that said otherwise.

Jaded-Fan is offline  
Old
03-10-2006, 12:25 PM
  #117
Evilo
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: France
Country: France
Posts: 27,197
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by NWO
If Umberger were traded he would have fetced more than a 2nd without a doubt
No way.

Evilo is offline  
Old
03-10-2006, 12:26 PM
  #118
Evilo
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: France
Country: France
Posts: 27,197
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by NWO
that is why they have been near the bottom of the league for what 5-6 years now, those draft picks are really reaping rewards.
5 years ago the Penguins were in the conference finals.
Just thought I'd let you know.
And just so you know, hard picks don't produce instantly.

Evilo is offline  
Old
03-10-2006, 12:27 PM
  #119
Evilo
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: France
Country: France
Posts: 27,197
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jester
2005 - Crosby was a tough choice... took a lot of brainpower there. (1st overall)
2004 - Malkin 'nother brain-teaser (2nd overall)
2003 - Fleury we shall see, as goalies develop slower... but he hasn't quite lived up to the billing yet... and Staal was picked 2nd. (1st overall... again)
2002 - Whitney... decent pick, probaly would have been worth it to try and jump up to get Jay-Bo or Pitkanen... (5th overall)
2001 - Armstrong... meh (21st overall.. could have had Perezhogin)
2000 - Orpik... looks like he'll be solid (18th overall... Frolov, Hale, Justin Williams, and Niklas Kronvall taken after)

hard to judge a team that has had a bunch of top 5 picks (i question taking Whitney when they could have gone up in that draft with a little bit of effort)
Obviously, drafting only consists of first rounder (I disagree with moving up to avoid Whitney - he looks like a real keeper, I'd take Armstrong before Perezhogin with the rate Armstrong is developping).
I'd suggest you do your homework and check who the Pens picked late (Talbot, Moulson and cie).

Evilo is offline  
Old
03-10-2006, 12:57 PM
  #120
Pens1566
Registered User
 
Pens1566's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: WV
Country: United States
Posts: 11,618
vCash: 500
Come on guys. Show some respect for Clarke. He has put together all those cup winning teams, and got Lindros for next to nothing.

Pens1566 is offline  
Old
03-10-2006, 01:14 PM
  #121
Jester
Registered User
 
Jester's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: St. Andrews
Country: Scotland
Posts: 34,075
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pens1566
Come on guys. Show some respect for Clarke. He has put together all those cup winning teams, and got Lindros for next to nothing.
brilliant! 'cept for the fact that clarke wasn't the GM when we traded for Lindros...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Evilo
Obviously, drafting only consists of first rounder (I disagree with moving up to avoid Whitney - he looks like a real keeper, I'd take Armstrong before Perezhogin with the rate Armstrong is developping).
I'd suggest you do your homework and check who the Pens picked late (Talbot, Moulson and cie).
you'd honestly rather have Whitney than Jay-Bo or Pitkanen? especially given the fact that it would have taken very little to move up a spot or two with that pick involved? i think he's a good player, not sure Jay-Bo is definite (much more higly touted at the time obviously), but Pitkanen is clearly a better player.

i wasn't about to write a research paper on the Penguins drafting history... there are numerous teams that have gotten more out of the draft with lower picks... Flyers, NJ, Detroit, and Ottawa jump out quickly.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Jaded-Fan
How can you possibly say this with certainty? Teams basically crapped all over the 2006 picks, I linked you a quote from Craig Patrick saying that he demanded 2007 picks because this draft sucks, and redline report that says the same. And what do you offer in rebuttal? Some **** and bull definitive statement with no backup that you can always trade a current year pick no matter how crappy the players at any position in the draft because to paraphrase, 'someone is going to want a certain player and will pay you much more next year.' To use your words, that is stupid. And forgive me for not being impressed with just your opinion with no back-up when I provided three sources that said otherwise.
do you honestly believe you can't get a 2nd in the NEXT draft for a 2nd in the current draft? there is always someone that wants a player at your spot in the draft... and that isn't "[paying] much more."

here's how it work.

Patrick has the pick, calls around... looking to move this pick, anyone want to move up and take it? ask for 2007 2nd and like a 4th. ooooh... Clarke makes these trades EVERY year... just stockpiles picks and then uses them to do other stuff.

Jester is offline  
Old
03-10-2006, 01:19 PM
  #122
Evilo
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: France
Country: France
Posts: 27,197
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jester

you'd honestly rather have Whitney than Jay-Bo or Pitkanen? especially given the fact that it would have taken very little to move up a spot or two with that pick involved? i think he's a good player, not sure Jay-Bo is definite (much more higly touted at the time obviously), but Pitkanen is clearly a better player.

i wasn't about to write a research paper on the Penguins drafting history... there are numerous teams that have gotten more out of the draft with lower picks... Flyers, NJ, Detroit, and Ottawa jump out quickly.
Not over Pitkanen obviously.
But right now, I don't feel bad with Whitney rather than Bouwmeester.
And if you had followed hockey that draft year (seem you haven't), you'd have known that the top 4 was clear cut. Whitney was seen as on par with Lupul and a few others, but was considered a drop off after Pitkanen. It would have taken more than a little to get one of the top 4. I'd say I'm pretty happy CP stayed put and grabbed Whitney who sure has closed the gap over that top 4.
Oh and at the time I was saying Pitkanen would be better than Bouwmeester, obviously everyone was laughing at me.

As for the Flyers drafting better than the Pens, I'd say that's VERY arguable.
The other three represent the top 3 drafting teams, so yes I'd agree.

Still your statement that the Pens can't evaluate is absolutely wrong.
I remember this very HFboard site laughing at CP for taking a no name with a second rounder a couple of years ago. That guy, Goligoski, would be a first rounder right now.

Evilo is offline  
Old
03-10-2006, 01:24 PM
  #123
jb**
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Planet Lovetron
Country: Italy
Posts: 8,556
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Evilo
Obviously, drafting only consists of first rounder (I disagree with moving up to avoid Whitney - he looks like a real keeper, I'd take Armstrong before Perezhogin with the rate Armstrong is developping).
I'd suggest you do your homework and check who the Pens picked late (Talbot, Moulson and cie).
And those guys have accomplished what? Talbot borderline NHL player. Moulson has a much better chance of being career minor league player than NHL player. Armstrong was thoguh of so highly all the other teams could have claime dhim on waivers in october. Why don't you think Umberger would get more than Recchi in a trade?

jb** is offline  
Old
03-10-2006, 01:29 PM
  #124
jb**
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Planet Lovetron
Country: Italy
Posts: 8,556
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Evilo
Not over Pitkanen obviously.
But right now, I don't feel bad with Whitney rather than Bouwmeester.
And if you had followed hockey that draft year (seem you haven't), you'd have known that the top 4 was clear cut. Whitney was seen as on par with Lupul and a few others, but was considered a drop off after Pitkanen. It would have taken more than a little to get one of the top 4. I'd say I'm pretty happy CP stayed put and grabbed Whitney who sure has closed the gap over that top 4.
Oh and at the time I was saying Pitkanen would be better than Bouwmeester, obviously everyone was laughing at me.

As for the Flyers drafting better than the Pens, I'd say that's VERY arguable.
The other three represent the top 3 drafting teams, so yes I'd agree.

Still your statement that the Pens can't evaluate is absolutely wrong.
I remember this very HFboard site laughing at CP for taking a no name with a second rounder a couple of years ago. That guy, Goligoski, would be a first rounder right now.
Every GM takes a chance on a player no one thought would go that high so what is your point? Stop tutuing CP's horn. In your opinion he would be a first rounder, who else has said this. I have seen him play a lot and he is not that good int he defensive zone and would get eaten alive in the NHL, he needs to bulk up which he can do but his Defensive play is not even great for college hockey. Whitney need much much improvemnt defensiveyl as well as he is invisable. While he will never be physical player he is the most unintimitdating 6'4 225 player I have seen in a while.

jb** is offline  
Old
03-10-2006, 01:38 PM
  #125
Jester
Registered User
 
Jester's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: St. Andrews
Country: Scotland
Posts: 34,075
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Evilo
Not over Pitkanen obviously.
But right now, I don't feel bad with Whitney rather than Bouwmeester.
And if you had followed hockey that draft year (seem you haven't), you'd have known that the top 4 was clear cut. Whitney was seen as on par with Lupul and a few others, but was considered a drop off after Pitkanen. It would have taken more than a little to get one of the top 4. I'd say I'm pretty happy CP stayed put and grabbed Whitney who sure has closed the gap over that top 4.
Oh and at the time I was saying Pitkanen would be better than Bouwmeester, obviously everyone was laughing at me.

As for the Flyers drafting better than the Pens, I'd say that's VERY arguable.
The other three represent the top 3 drafting teams, so yes I'd agree.

Still your statement that the Pens can't evaluate is absolutely wrong.
I remember this very HFboard site laughing at CP for taking a no name with a second rounder a couple of years ago. That guy, Goligoski, would be a first rounder right now.
i'm aware dude... that's why i think Feaster is a moron for getting so little out of us.

we do very well in the draft... Gagne, Williams, Pitkanen, Downie, Nittymaki (6th), etc. part of the reason that Clarke was always capable of being aggressive in the trading market was his good drafting.

Jester 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 04:32 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.