HFBoards

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

Kings re-sign Armstrong for 2 more Years

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
02-15-2007, 03:10 AM
  #101
Venom_17
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,093
vCash: 500
Yup Osprey, I have to agree. I don't necessarily hate Armstrong, but he is constantly MISUSED in LA in a role where he doesn't belong. In DL's eyes, we now have Kopitar, Frolov, Cammalleri and Armstrong as top 6 forwards. "One of these things is not like the other, one of these things just doesn't belong..."

Venom_17 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-15-2007, 03:52 AM
  #102
kingsholygrail
Interference = Cup
 
kingsholygrail's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Derpifornia
Country: United States
Posts: 43,189
vCash: 500
The guy's on route to another career high productive season and this is a bad thing?

kingsholygrail is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-15-2007, 08:31 AM
  #103
Fat Elvis
Registered User
 
Fat Elvis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: The Money Pit
Country: United States
Posts: 5,290
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by King'sPawn View Post
Are you serious?

He's putting up 2nd line numbers while getting 3rd liner's pay. Until we have a young player who's ready to fill in the 2nd line center role, Armstrong is a good filler who's a good guy, a good presence to have in the locker room, AND he has good chemistry with Frolof and Cammalleri.

I know Kings fans would have been much happier if we traded Armstrong and signed a sexy UFA to the Kings instead, but this is a SOLID signing for developmental and competitive purposes, not to mention it's a very low cap hit.

Armstrong was the least of our problems, in terms of veterans on the team. I really don't know what more some of you want.
Good post, agree with everything said here. Army is perfect for this team in that he just wants to play, doesn't matter which line. Fact is that he's having another solid season and until there is a better option ON the team, he acts as the great fill in the blank. I find it hard to believe he was signed solely as the #2 center for the next 2 seasons, because he is able to is just a bonus imo. Some here just like to whine, I imagine that's just how they are.

Fat Elvis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-15-2007, 08:35 AM
  #104
GKJ
Global Moderator
Entertainment
 
GKJ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Do not trade plz
Country: United States
Posts: 110,422
vCash: 5602
I don't get it.

GKJ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-15-2007, 11:35 AM
  #105
BigKing
Spot Picker
 
BigKing's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Belmont Shore, CA
Posts: 3,402
vCash: 500
If you have ever sat in or around Section 306 over the last few years, then you've probably heard the moaning, laughter, and occasional crying after a flubbed Derek Armstrong breakaway or, my personal favorite, a wasted rush up the ice as he skates into the corner, stops, and immediately turns the puck over. I've changed my tune though because he is more valuable to a rebuilding team like LA that wants to have good leadership and character guys than he was to teams that expected to contend or, at the least, make the playoffs.

That being said, the guy has played much better this year and has always done whatever he's been asked to do for this team. Armstrong actually has good hockey sense and really understands the offensive side of the game, it's just that his skills are not really up to par. He gets in good position to score but has the worst shot on the team but, as evidenced this season, he is a very good passer. Like someone said earlier, he is doing what Conroy was supposed to do while being younger and cheaper.

I read a poster say that he doesn't "hate Armstrong but rather the idea of Derek Armstrong". That's the camp I fell into as well and, if the anti-Armstrong faction really looked into it, that's where they would be as well. He gets a bad rap because he epitomized the injury-plagued seasons we've had to endure because he became the #1 center by default. It's like hating a 2nd grader and calling him stupid because he/she has been placed in a high school algebra class and is obviously not prepared to succeed.

I also think that his locker room presence and leadership is vastly underrated. You see him on the bench and he is always positive and very vocal. This team has been soft as a marshmallow for a few years now and, while I'm not saying Armstrong is a tough guy, outside of Ivanans he has been THE ONLY guy to come to his teammates aid whenever a little scrum breaks out in front of the net. At the slightest sign of a problem, he jumps in for everybody and is willing to take the punishment. He also doesn't take any crap when someone on his line is hit hard or he himself is run. When one of his linemates is run at he starts picking up his hitting game and, in the couple of fights he's had at Staples, it's always been at a time when the team was losing and needed a boost. He's also gone away from these fights hitting the glass or pumping his fist to try to get the crowd into the game. Consumate team guy and, from all accounts, a fantastic locker room presence.

I know I might catch heat for this, but since he's been placed with Frolov and Cam, I've decided that he is to the Kings what Steve Rucchin was to the Ducks in the late 90's. Rucchin, by all accounts, pretty much "sucks" like Armstrong but he was the guts of the Selanne/Kariya line. If Armstrong can produce the way he has so far this year for the next couple of seasons, then Crawford can work in Cliche and Lewis during Armstrongs final year, allowing them to get accustomed to the NHL without throwing too much pressure on them. This would be a nice change from expecting and banking on our prospects to come in and produce at a top-six level.

I know everyone thinks we will be Pittsburgh West in a couple of years, but I see more of a Buffalo type of plan with most of our prospects playing together, at least for one year, at Manchester as opposed to sticking them in the lineup right away. This signing helps that type of movement by locking up the #1 and #2 center positions for a couple of years, allowing our center prospects to flourish in the minors as opposed to being thrown to the wolves.

Shrewd signing IMO that will produce benefits that can't be measured on the score sheet.

BigKing is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-15-2007, 11:40 AM
  #106
Johnny Utah
Registered User
 
Johnny Utah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Santa Monica, CA
Posts: 6,921
vCash: 500
I think this says a lot about Derek that he is the first guy in the Lombardi era to receive a contract extension.

Met him at a bar once, seems like a good guy. Really come into his own the past two years. For 1.5 million, and the way he plays and handles himself in the locker room, I'd say that's a good deal.

Johnny Utah is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-15-2007, 02:42 PM
  #107
kingsfan25
Registered User
 
kingsfan25's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Canada
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,834
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Venom_17 View Post
Yup Osprey, I have to agree. I don't necessarily hate Armstrong, but he is constantly MISUSED in LA in a role where he doesn't belong. In DL's eyes, we now have Kopitar, Frolov, Cammalleri and Armstrong as top 6 forwards. "One of these things is not like the other, one of these things just doesn't belong..."
The problem is that, outside of being a fill-in top-sixer, he doesn't really have a role. You can put him on the third line if you want, but he doesn't have the defensive skills (mainly speed) to be a checker; you can also peg him on the fourth line, but, again, most teams refer to their fourth line as their energy line and Armstrong can't fill that role, either.

I'm not convinced that this re-signing means Lombardi is throwing in the towel for the next few years. He has to have seen the potential on this roster during the periods of goaltending stability (mainly the Burke games). The young players are only going to get better next season and bringing in a bona fide top-six player (as he tried to last season) has the potential to yield some tangible immediate results. I'll admit that having Armstrong as the 2nd line center might seem problematic, but I don't believe it necessarily shuts the door on bringing in another forward; we all know how Crow likes to move players around and it's possible that Army will be bounced back and forth along with his current teammates and a new top-six forward.

Then again, it's also possible that DL plans on moving Cammy or Brown at the deadline (if one had to go, I'd prefer Brown); at the beginning of the year, Brown and Gleason both signed 2 year contracts, the only conceivable value of which, from a Kings standpoint, was to make them more valuable in a trade this year. Gleason subsequently went to Carolina. It's very likely that DL only planned to trade one or that he eventually decided to keep Brown around. However, I don't think that you can rule a trade involving DB out just yet; he's a young player who seems to hold a decent level of esteem around the league and he's signed through next season. Should some team decide to make a move for him, another slot in the top-six would become available.

But, whatever ends up going down, I don't think we should look upon Derek Armstrong as the destroyer of a competitive 2007/2008 season just yet.

kingsfan25 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-15-2007, 05:35 PM
  #108
ukyo
Registered User
 
ukyo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Silicon Valley
Country: United States
Posts: 1,760
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Osprey View Post
I completely understand that argument, but if Armstrong provides close to what a top center like Gomez does, then why didn't the Kings get a kings' ransom for Derek in a trade and why did he settle for so little money? Clearly, what he provides pales when compared to a quality top-6 center.
Because Armstrong hasn't proven that he can have the same sort of chemistry with anyone else but between Cammy and Frolov. I doubt there is any argument over whether Armstrong has as much value as Gomez in absolute terms; of course he doesn't. But Frolov and Cammalleri both play well with Armstrong and in fact he does a great job of complimenting them. Both Frolov's and Cammalleri's production with Armstrong centering them is close enough to what I would expect from them with Gomez centering them that his price tag makes him extremely valuable specifically to the Kings. However, we are still talking about just those two linemates. Armstrong has been tried on other lines before without having nearly the sort of effect on the line's overall production.

The Kings tried a bunch of experiments and it just happened by some fluke chance that this one worked out particularly well (very similar to how Morrison ended up centering Bertuzzi and Naslund, and Rucchin fit in between Kariya and Selanne). But that's where other teams will balk. No other GM is going to say, "hey, Armstrong is having a great year, I'm sure he'd fit in great on our team," because up until this year playing with these two players, Armstrong has never been such a catalyst.

In fact, look at what Rucchin and Morrison are doing now without their superstar linemates. Both are being paid considerably more after Army's raise.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Osprey View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by ukyo
Accept it: there is no way we are going to keep a team full of superstars together. This holds true for every team in the league. The best any team can hope for is a handful of superstars playing with guys that can keep up, or even better complement them, but they need to be far less expensive.
The Kings have some of those now and an abundance coming up very soon, called youngsters. I'd like to see spots filled by them, and, if not them, then players who are exceptionally skilled at what they do and can teach the kids how to win. I just don't see much place for a 34-35yr-old who isn't that special. That makes some sense, doesn't it? He's not exceptionally skilled, he doesn't have NHL success under his belt, he has no upside like a youngster does and he'll be 34/35. I kind of thought that those were the players that everyone wanted to be rid of, not signed for two more years.
OK, the bottom line for a general manager is this: get the most production out of your payroll. That's it. This is true of all sports. You can't have a team completely made up of young talent because they wouldn't win due to all the risks involved with young players (inconsistency, inexperience, etc). In order to win, you need proven players on the roster. I'd fill the team with aging superstars year-in year-out if it was financially feasible. But it's not, so you have to surround your superstars with cheaper players. Young talent is great because if they're any good that's the cheapest and longest you're ever going to have them. But they are not necessarily going to be strong contributors right out of the gate like Kopitar is now.

Billy Beane has said it many times: the players that the Oakland A's draft are only valuable to him because they are stuck at such a low salary, but once they are ready for their payday when they are out of their rookie contracts they're too expensive for him to keep, so he has a revolving door of talent and supplements that talent with underpriced veterans. Some of these veterans gain a lot of value to other teams while playing for the A's (Frank Thomas, Billy Koch, Keith Foulke), but some of them don't for a long time despite their critical roles on the team (Chad Bradford, Scott Hatteberg, Ricardo Rincon). Because they are so cheap, these guys allowed the A's to operate under a budget while still being able to retain their stars (Hudson, Mulder, Zito, Chavez). I believe Armstrong is one of those types of players, and signing a guy like him relatively cheaply is what is going to be the difference between resigning a guy like Lubo or being forced to pick up a veteran 4th defenseman to take his place while he walks.

I know all fans dream of having a young all-star lineup, but in reality it isn't likely to happen because a) kids that come in playing like superstars like Kopitar are extremely rare and b) once they become superstars after a few years in the league they become too expensive to retain. We should stop asking ourselves whether or not Derek Armstrong is a marginal 2nd line center or a good 3rd liner because that role is going to be there whether we like it or not (it may turn into "marginal 2nd pairing defenseman"). The real question is whether or not we can get someone else to fill in Armstrong's current role for a comparable price? If you look at who else is on pace with Armstrong on the points list and what their salaries are, the answer is absolutely not.

ukyo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-15-2007, 05:46 PM
  #109
TubbyTerrion*
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Studio City
Country: United States
Posts: 3,974
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to TubbyTerrion*
Quote:
Originally Posted by Johnny Utah View Post
I think this says a lot about Derek that he is the first guy in the Lombardi era to receive a contract extension.
At least second

TubbyTerrion* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-15-2007, 08:08 PM
  #110
Quattro
Registered User
 
Quattro's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Country: United States
Posts: 4,212
vCash: 500
Great post, ukyo.

Quattro is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-15-2007, 08:20 PM
  #111
Captain Ron
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Gardnerville, NV
Country: United States
Posts: 17,409
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TubbyTerrion View Post
At least second
Exactly.....Lombardi screwed up the 1st......remember.

Captain Ron is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-15-2007, 08:41 PM
  #112
deano
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 1,130
vCash: 500
Big King and ukyo, big ups to you. With all the whining and absurdities being thrown around this site, it's nice to read knowledgable and observant posts like those.

deano is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-15-2007, 09:01 PM
  #113
Osprey
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 14,334
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Johnny Utah View Post
I think this says a lot about Derek that he is the first guy in the Lombardi era to receive a contract extension.
What that suggests to me is that the same wisdom that was employed in the decision to extend Cloutier may've been employed here. Am I the only one who sees that as not such a good thing?

Osprey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-15-2007, 09:07 PM
  #114
PSP
Couldn't Be Happier!
 
PSP's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Lake Forest, CA
Country: United States
Posts: 4,290
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Osprey View Post
What that suggests to me is that the same wisdom that was employed in the decision to extend Cloutier may've been employed here. Am I the only one who sees that as not such a good thing?

Clearly, no...

PSP is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-15-2007, 09:09 PM
  #115
Live in the Now
Administrator
HFBoards
 
Live in the Now's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: LA
Country: United States
Posts: 31,403
vCash: 50
Quote:
Billy Beane has said it many times: the players that the Oakland A's draft are only valuable to him because they are stuck at such a low salary, but once they are ready for their payday when they are out of their rookie contracts they're too expensive for him to keep, so he has a revolving door of talent and supplements that talent with underpriced veterans. Some of these veterans gain a lot of value to other teams while playing for the A's (Frank Thomas, Billy Koch, Keith Foulke), but some of them don't for a long time despite their critical roles on the team (Chad Bradford, Scott Hatteberg, Ricardo Rincon). Because they are so cheap, these guys allowed the A's to operate under a budget while still being able to retain their stars (Hudson, Mulder, Zito, Chavez). I believe Armstrong is one of those types of players, and signing a guy like him relatively cheaply is what is going to be the difference between resigning a guy like Lubo or being forced to pick up a veteran 4th defenseman to take his place while he walks.
Somebody read Moneyball! The amazing thing is that usually, Beane is operating at a number figure lower than the salary cap in the NHL. You have to get players that nobody appreciates at a lower cost. Then in turn, you could possibly have enough money to re-sign the guys you have (given that there is the cap, unlike Major League Baseball). You can't just trot out a lineup fully made up of guys that haven't hit the UFA period once.

Live in the Now is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-15-2007, 09:20 PM
  #116
PSP
Couldn't Be Happier!
 
PSP's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Lake Forest, CA
Country: United States
Posts: 4,290
vCash: 500
Correct me if I'm wrong, but "Moneyball" only gets you a team that performs better than their salary suggests. It doesn't guarantee success - just financial sense.

PSP is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-15-2007, 09:24 PM
  #117
Live in the Now
Administrator
HFBoards
 
Live in the Now's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: LA
Country: United States
Posts: 31,403
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by PSP View Post
Correct me if I'm wrong, but "Moneyball" only gets you a team that performs better than their salary suggests. It doesn't guarantee success - just financial sense.
Success on the field through your cheap acquisitions and home grown talent. The owner doesn't let Beane spend over his cap, so he has to get all of his players while they're cheap through the draft, or acquire past their prime players that contribute at a bargain price. Like a Frank Thomas, who had a monster year last year on a near minimum contract.

He also uses his players in his system that have the things other GM's overvalue and trades them for rentals at the deadline that he knows he won't be able to re-sign in the offseason because they cost too much.

So, to answer your question, little of both.


Last edited by Live in the Now: 02-15-2007 at 09:34 PM.
Live in the Now is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-15-2007, 09:25 PM
  #118
Osprey
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 14,334
vCash: 500
Look, here's the crux of my confusion: I thought that we were mostly all agreed that Lombardi's signings have turned out brutally. His judgment when it comes to signings (especially "character," "competent" guys) is suspect, right? Well, then, what's so special about Armstrong that it convinces most of you that he's one of the very few good signings of Lombardi's and not just another to add to the list of regrettable signings? I just don't understand how this is much different.

Sure, I was in favor of the Thornton signing at the time, and I praised the signing in much the same way people are praising this extension, but I think that I've learned my lesson to be skeptical of Lombardi's signings. I don't understand why I'm the only one who feels this way after the way that most here have complained all season (and, curiously, why people who are guilty of that complaining are now accusing me of "whining"). I'm open to being convinced, but, while a lot of good points have been made, I'm not there yet.

Osprey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-15-2007, 09:31 PM
  #119
Fingolfin
Registered User
 
Fingolfin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 467
vCash: 500
The only signing I see fit to complain about is the Cloutier extension. As terrible as this team has been this season, they haven't given up and rolled over like the team did last season. I attribute a lot of this to the change in character within the locker room. Regardless of Blake, McCauley, Thornton and Willsie's production on the ice, we have no evidence to suggest that their arrival didn't affect the mentality of the team. And when you consider the fact that none of the 4 are signed beyond 3 years, their contracts will have virtually no effect on Lombardi's ability to continue to rebuild the team.

- Fin

Fingolfin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-15-2007, 09:45 PM
  #120
Osprey
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 14,334
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by PSP View Post
Clearly, no...
True, but I'm not getting much help. I suppose that the rest of you know which battles to fight and which to mostly stay out of. I don't appear to have that gene.

Osprey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-15-2007, 10:18 PM
  #121
Captain Ron
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Gardnerville, NV
Country: United States
Posts: 17,409
vCash: 500
I am indifferent to this signing. If it were for more than 3 years or for more than $2 million/year I would definitely hate it. But it is not a huge commitment to make to Armstrong and if it doesn't work out his contract is not too big to trade.

Captain Ron is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-15-2007, 10:31 PM
  #122
Reaper45
Registered User
 
Reaper45's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: South Bay
Country: United States
Posts: 30,742
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Reaper45
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fingolfin View Post
The only signing I see fit to complain about is the Cloutier extension. As terrible as this team has been this season, they haven't given up and rolled over like the team did last season. I attribute a lot of this to the change in character within the locker room. Regardless of Blake, McCauley, Thornton and Willsie's production on the ice, we have no evidence to suggest that their arrival didn't affect the mentality of the team. And when you consider the fact that none of the 4 are signed beyond 3 years, their contracts will have virtually no effect on Lombardi's ability to continue to rebuild the team.

- Fin
I agree completely.

Reaper45 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-15-2007, 10:57 PM
  #123
kingsfan25
Registered User
 
kingsfan25's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Canada
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,834
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fingolfin View Post
The only signing I see fit to complain about is the Cloutier extension. As terrible as this team has been this season, they haven't given up and rolled over like the team did last season. I attribute a lot of this to the change in character within the locker room. Regardless of Blake, McCauley, Thornton and Willsie's production on the ice, we have no evidence to suggest that their arrival didn't affect the mentality of the team. And when you consider the fact that none of the 4 are signed beyond 3 years, their contracts will have virtually no effect on Lombardi's ability to continue to rebuild the team.

- Fin
It's fine to not object to the signing of Thornton, McAuley and Willsie, etc. However, in the end, there were better role players put there. And, just like DL failed to sign the best skilled players, he failed to sign the best character guys and was forced to scoop the bottom of the barrel to find players to fill out the bottom lines.

I do like the plan the Lombardi has set in motion for this team...I just disagree with most of the personnel that have been chosen to implement it.

kingsfan25 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-15-2007, 11:04 PM
  #124
The Tikkanen
Pest
 
The Tikkanen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Yorba Linda
Country: United States
Posts: 6,411
vCash: 50
Send a message via AIM to The Tikkanen
Quote:
Originally Posted by Squidward View Post
I am indifferent to this signing. If it were for more than 3 years or for more than $2 million/year I would definitely hate it. But it is not a huge commitment to make to Armstrong and if it doesn't work out his contract is not too big to trade.
I agree with this. Armstrong can still be traded at any time. I would've preferred to see Armstrong traded, just don't see a place for 33 year old 3rd line centers on a team that is supposed to be re-building. I also don't buy into waiving the white flag for 3 seasons while stocking up on high draft picks. Right now, if Lombardi didn't pull off the Jack Johnson trade and I didn't know the Kings hired a new GM I would swear DT was still in charge. The Kings seem to be getting older.

The Tikkanen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-15-2007, 11:16 PM
  #125
kingsfan25
Registered User
 
kingsfan25's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Canada
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,834
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tikkanen View Post
I agree with this. Armstrong can still be traded at any time. I would've preferred to see Armstrong traded, just don't see a place for 33 year old 3rd line centers on a team that is supposed to be re-building. I also don't buy into waiving the white flag for 3 seasons while stocking up on high draft picks. Right now, if Lombardi didn't pull off the Jack Johnson trade and I didn't know the Kings hired a new GM I would swear DT was still in charge. The Kings seem to be getting older.
Well, there's also the Demitra trade.

And, honestly, I don't think you can claim that the Armstrong signing indicates any kind of band-aid, stagnant approach to running the franchise. You can't have an all under-25 team; you need a mix of veterans and youth when you're rebuilding. Obviously, DL feels that Armstrong is the kind of veteran that he wants to keep around. While I may not agree with DL's choices for veteran role players, I do agree with the notion that they are essential to the development of the youth.

For all of Army's shortcomings, I'd probably want him on the roster over the glut of 2-year deal players that DL signed in the offseason (though, the jury's still out on McAuley). He seems to be the only one who's consistently done what's expected of him. The others, while they might be good in the lockerroom, haven't impressed me on the ice to any great degree.


Last edited by kingsfan25: 02-15-2007 at 11:24 PM.
kingsfan25 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 05:34 PM.

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.