HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Western Conference > Central Division > Dallas Stars
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

Lehtinen will most probably not return to NHL

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
09-02-2010, 05:54 PM
  #26
Chad_
 
Chad_'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Dallas
Country: United States
Posts: 3,100
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alistar View Post
Not all of those guys were paid while they were out. Morrow and Zubov were because they were out for the duration of the season. Tom Hicks did that out of the kindness of his heart, and wasn't forced to. Usually when you go on injury reserve you don't get paid.
Injured players get paid for the duration of their injury, outside of the off-season since a player's contract is paid out during the regular season, unless a player is injured in a non-sports injury that is in direct conflict with their contract (i.e. motorcycle accident). Even then, usually there is some form of pay given out. In fact, since contracts are guaranteed in hockey, there are only a few ways a team can get out of paying out the length of the contract (i.e. retirement or violation of contract).

Do you not recall what happens almost every year at the start of the season, where some scrub AHL player is kept on the NHL roster because he's injured? He's kept on the NHL IR because he cannot be sent down while injured for the express purpose a team has to pay full compensation for an injured player. If, for example, Fortunas had torn his ACL last year during his call-up, he would have been on the NHL roster for the rest of the year even though he'd also be on IR.

Quote:
Originally Posted by glovesave_35 View Post
On the leadership/team chemistry front, are we seriously going back to the summer of...what was it, 2006? I'm not really sure what any of that has to do with the current state of team chemistry.
Not that I agree or disagree with the rest of your comment or those of others, however until this past month many of the same 'big' figures in the room have been on the team since 2006. Even Barnes has stayed with the team. The fact there has been so little turnover of those guys, assuming there is indeed a problem to begin with, certainly could linger from 2006 through the end of last season.

Chad_ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-22-2010, 01:30 PM
  #27
helicecopter
Registered User
 
helicecopter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: give me higher shots
Posts: 8,102
vCash: 500
Any news on this? any chance left Lehtinen will return?

helicecopter is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-24-2010, 06:34 AM
  #28
Verbal Kint
Registered User
 
Verbal Kint's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 388
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by helicecopter View Post
Any news on this? any chance left Lehtinen will return?
2 weeks ago Lehtinen skated first time in several months. He was skating with some random amateur guys in Dallas.

Don't count on him coming back. At least this fall. He will either retire or come back to Dallas in mid season, to play 20-30 games and possible playoffs.

Verbal Kint is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-24-2010, 06:10 PM
  #29
Kritter471
Registered User
 
Kritter471's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Dallas
Country: United States
Posts: 7,719
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Kritter471
From the DMN:

Quote:
The Stars are still trying to sort through the Jonathan Cheechoo tryout and the possible push from AHL players such as Tomas Vincour, Colton Sceviour or Sean Backman, so there's no need for Lehtinen to be in training camp. If any of these options work out, the door might close on the opportunity for Lehtinen to come back with the Stars. But, as of right now, Nieuwendyk said there's no reason to close that door.

...

Lehtinen is working out, but has skated just a few times. Stars insiders believe he would not have trouble returning to the ice because of his fitness level, and also believe that missing the first few months of the season wouldn't be the worst thing for Lehtinen.
http://starsblog.dallasnews.com/arch...htinen-to.html

Kritter471 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-24-2010, 06:32 PM
  #30
DaStars99
Purdue Alumnus
 
DaStars99's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Dallas
Country: United States
Posts: 14,166
vCash: 500
I'd welcome Lehtinen back even if he can only go for the second half of the year

DaStars99 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-24-2010, 07:56 PM
  #31
Dr GLU
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Northern Hemisphere
Country: Liechtenstein
Posts: 2,682
vCash: 500
I've thought from the moment that he denied that he had retired that he would return in the second half ala Selanne.

Dr GLU is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-25-2010, 03:06 AM
  #32
Hagged
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Country:
Posts: 1,795
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jon Casey 91 View Post
You always knew what you were going to get from Jere, but I'm not sure I agree with his jersey being retired for some Selke's and for the most part a secondary scoring role...
With a case like this, you have to also account some other facts also. How big was his role in how the games ended. Would Dallas have been as good without him. It can't be only about the goals. Even some stay-at-home defenders have gotten their jerseys retired, so your argument doesn't stand on it's own. You have to also convince that Lehtinen wasn't that big of an impact on the team.

Hagged is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-25-2010, 10:32 AM
  #33
Karitimes
JetsJetsJets
 
Karitimes's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: NS
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,357
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Henkine View Post
With a case like this, you have to also account some other facts also. How big was his role in how the games ended. Would Dallas have been as good without him. It can't be only about the goals. Even some stay-at-home defenders have gotten their jerseys retired, so your argument doesn't stand on it's own. You have to also convince that Lehtinen wasn't that big of an impact on the team.
That's fair, and I probably couldn't and personally wouldn't undervalue his contributions. It was mere opinion, and you're right Bob Gainey's (just using as a stay-at-home example) and such do get their numbers retired, but I just don't see it for Jere since he did slightly lack in the physical (break knees if it meant winning) and leadership (dive face first to block a shot) aspects of his game. Gainey was more heart and soul and was a key contributor/leader in multiple championships. Trust me, I would not be disappointed one bit to see 26 in the rafters of the AAC.

Karitimes is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-25-2010, 03:39 PM
  #34
glovesave_35
Name
 
glovesave_35's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: South Korea
Country: United States
Posts: 16,223
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jon Casey 91 View Post
That's fair, and I probably couldn't and personally wouldn't undervalue his contributions. It was mere opinion, and you're right Bob Gainey's (just using as a stay-at-home example) and such do get their numbers retired, but I just don't see it for Jere since he did slightly lack in the physical (break knees if it meant winning) and leadership (dive face first to block a shot) aspects of his game. Gainey was more heart and soul and was a key contributor/leader in multiple championships. Trust me, I would not be disappointed one bit to see 26 in the rafters of the AAC.
I see your last statement, so you're definitely not against the idea of Lehtinen's number being retired. But you're making arguments for the other side as well, which is fair. It's definitely not a case of an automatic.

I do have some questions though. What exactly do you mean by the bolded part? I'm unsure what you were saying on the first part, and on the second I just don't know where you're coming from.

Lehtinen blocked plenty of shots. More than that though he was the defensive conscience of a defense-first (winning) team. He was in the right position so often he hardly ever put himself in a position to have to block a shot diving head first. Blocked shots are great, but watching Karlis I'll Block A Million Shots Skrastins for a whole season last year it became clear why he is always near the league leaders in blocked shots: being out of position put him in position to block so many shots. Lehtinen is flat-out one of the most cerebral players I've had the pleasure of watching.

* Also, Lehtinen was definitely not a "secondary" scorer in my eyes. He was the club's primary (and most consistent) goal scorer during his prime.

Edit: It's pretty unfair to throw the multiple championships thing into the argument when comparing Gainey and Lehtinen. Those Habs teams that Gainey was a key piece to were some of the best hockey teams ever assembled, and in an era with fewer teams.

glovesave_35 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-25-2010, 04:29 PM
  #35
piqued
Registered User
 
piqued's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Dallas
Country: United States
Posts: 32,014
vCash: 3722
There's actually been some pretty amazing statistical work done that has shown that shot-blocking has zero correlation with reducing goals-against, and therefore winning. It has a sort of built-up old school romantic quality of associated sports-martyrdom, but it really doesn't mean a whole lot. Being in position, however, will always make a difference.

And Lehtinen should damn sure get his number retired when the time comes.

piqued is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-25-2010, 06:01 PM
  #36
KaylaJ
I like stories
 
KaylaJ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: hell
Country: United States
Posts: 15,330
vCash: 500
sounds like a case of won't know til we know what dallas looks like during mid season

and i kinda hate this thread cause i always see it as Lehtonen and not Lehtinen

KaylaJ is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
09-28-2010, 08:44 AM
  #37
Karitimes
JetsJetsJets
 
Karitimes's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: NS
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,357
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by glovesave_35 View Post
I see your last statement, so you're definitely not against the idea of Lehtinen's number being retired. But you're making arguments for the other side as well, which is fair. It's definitely not a case of an automatic.

I do have some questions though. What exactly do you mean by the bolded part? I'm unsure what you were saying on the first part, and on the second I just don't know where you're coming from.

Lehtinen blocked plenty of shots. More than that though he was the defensive conscience of a defense-first (winning) team. He was in the right position so often he hardly ever put himself in a position to have to block a shot diving head first. Blocked shots are great, but watching Karlis I'll Block A Million Shots Skrastins for a whole season last year it became clear why he is always near the league leaders in blocked shots: being out of position put him in position to block so many shots. Lehtinen is flat-out one of the most cerebral players I've had the pleasure of watching.

* Also, Lehtinen was definitely not a "secondary" scorer in my eyes. He was the club's primary (and most consistent) goal scorer during his prime.

Edit: It's pretty unfair to throw the multiple championships thing into the argument when comparing Gainey and Lehtinen. Those Habs teams that Gainey was a key piece to were some of the best hockey teams ever assembled, and in an era with fewer teams.
You're right, I'm definitely not against his number being retired, but I originally stated I don't think it should or will be. I see him as more of a walk of fame, like a Clark or Gilmour in Toronto.

Per the bolded part and your question, I was being a bit dramatic. Gainey would do exactly what it takes to win; he's a player who'd sacrifice himself and was one of the key leaders, if not the key leaders on one of the greatest teams ever assembled. Where a player like Lehtinen might figure on that team...who really knows, but I see him as less impact overall than a player like Gainey was.

You're probably right about the rest, I just hate to see Karlis always given a hard time. He's 'headier' (and I'm not talking about the size of his car battery head) than most people realize.

Add: And I think we'll agree to disagree on the secondary scorer thing. BTW, I said,"for the most part" a secondary scorer. He's Brenden Morrow-like in that department IMO. They both have their highs, but generally play second fiddle to someone younger and/or better skilled at putting the puck in the net. (Morrow with Neal, Eriksson, Benn in the future) (Jere with Hull, Nieuwy, Guerin or Modano in the past) That said Morrow will have scored (likely a good portion) more than him at the end of his career, and will have lent himself as much to the leadership and physicality aspects of the game as Jere has to the defensive aspect of the game (yes, I know this is debatable, just opinion). Does that mean his number will be retired? I have my doubts. Jere is the most tremendous 4th round pick you could ever ask for.


Last edited by Karitimes: 09-28-2010 at 09:02 AM.
Karitimes is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-28-2010, 11:50 AM
  #38
txomisc
Registered User
 
txomisc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: California
Country: United States
Posts: 8,621
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by piqued1457 View Post
There's actually been some pretty amazing statistical work done that has shown that shot-blocking has zero correlation with reducing goals-against, and therefore winning. It has a sort of built-up old school romantic quality of associated sports-martyrdom, but it really doesn't mean a whole lot. Being in position, however, will always make a difference.

And Lehtinen should damn sure get his number retired when the time comes.
I've often wondering about this. Just pulling a random number but it seems like 99% of shots that are blocked aren't likely goals anyway. Sometimes people act as if blocking a shot is almost the same as making a save. But yeah, people love the shotblocker who will sacrifice his body to block a shot that the goalie will almost certainly save anyway.

txomisc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-28-2010, 12:06 PM
  #39
Alistar
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Country: Azores
Posts: 9,328
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by piqued1457 View Post
There's actually been some pretty amazing statistical work done that has shown that shot-blocking has zero correlation with reducing goals-against, and therefore winning. It has a sort of built-up old school romantic quality of associated sports-martyrdom, but it really doesn't mean a whole lot. Being in position, however, will always make a difference.

And Lehtinen should damn sure get his number retired when the time comes.
You're backwards on this. There's been statistical work done that increased shot blocking has no correlation with increased winning, simply because the teams that tend to block the most shots are in some cases (not all) also the teams that spend most of their time in their own end trying to block shots.

In Corsi ratings as well as GVT the cheif role of a player on defense is to prevent shots at the goaltender. You can obviously accomplish this by a) not allowing the opposition to get in position to take a shot in the first place or b) blocking the shot

So yeah, if you're a team like the Chicago Blackhawks were last year where you dominate possession but also have some strong shot blockers (Duncan Keith, Brent Seabrook, Nicklas Hjalmarsson, and Brent Sopel) it's a big bonus because you're reducing an already limited amount of scoring oppurtunities for the opposition. If you're a team like the Toronto Maple Leafs that has some strong shot blockers but is a terrible possession team, then it's simply not enough to win games or prevent the opponent from running up the score. It's still not a bad thing to do, because without the shot blocking the score would be even worse.


**all that being said, the disclaimer on this is that some arenas around the league historically overcount blocked shots totals, so like most rts stats in the NHL you can't completly trust the numbers. It's also acknowledged that a good defensive system like the one that the Wild employed under Jacques Lemaire massively limits the opposition from shooting in the high scoring percentage areas while allowing more shots than average from the points and sideboards (aka the low scoring percentage areas), so teams that let up more shots against aren't neccessarily worse defensively. It's still an area of statistical research in development. I've never read any article though that claims that blocking shots is useless.


Last edited by Alistar: 09-28-2010 at 12:16 PM.
Alistar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-28-2010, 12:18 PM
  #40
Karitimes
JetsJetsJets
 
Karitimes's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: NS
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,357
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by txomisc View Post
But yeah, people love the shotblocker who will sacrifice his body to block a shot that the goalie will almost certainly save anyway.
That is unless you have a goalie who's very prone to letting in the softie. Also, certain angles are and rolling/hopping pucks can be tricky to deal with.

99.9% (allowing for stantion bounces and unique carems and poor luck) of shots that don't hit the net, don't go in, and of the shots that do hit the net, a certain smaller (low 90s) % don't go in. Just me, but I'd say it pays to be safe. I'm sure Michael Leighton would like to forget the one he should have had, and maybe would not have had to make a save on, assuming some Philly defender had sprawled in front of that softie (In game 6 SCF).

Karitimes is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-28-2010, 01:21 PM
  #41
glovesave_35
Name
 
glovesave_35's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: South Korea
Country: United States
Posts: 16,223
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alistar View Post
You're backwards on this. There's been statistical work done that increased shot blocking has no correlation with increased winning, simply because the teams that tend to block the most shots are in some cases (not all) also the teams that spend most of their time in their own end trying to block shots.

In Corsi ratings as well as GVT the cheif role of a player on defense is to prevent shots at the goaltender. You can obviously accomplish this by a) not allowing the opposition to get in position to take a shot in the first place or b) blocking the shot

So yeah, if you're a team like the Chicago Blackhawks were last year where you dominate possession but also have some strong shot blockers (Duncan Keith, Brent Seabrook, Nicklas Hjalmarsson, and Brent Sopel) it's a big bonus because you're reducing an already limited amount of scoring oppurtunities for the opposition. If you're a team like the Toronto Maple Leafs that has some strong shot blockers but is a terrible possession team, then it's simply not enough to win games or prevent the opponent from running up the score. It's still not a bad thing to do, because without the shot blocking the score would be even worse.


**all that being said, the disclaimer on this is that some arenas around the league historically overcount blocked shots totals, so like most rts stats in the NHL you can't completly trust the numbers. It's also acknowledged that a good defensive system like the one that the Wild employed under Jacques Lemaire massively limits the opposition from shooting in the high scoring percentage areas while allowing more shots than average from the points and sideboards (aka the low scoring percentage areas), so teams that let up more shots against aren't neccessarily worse defensively. It's still an area of statistical research in development. I've never read any article though that claims that blocking shots is useless.
The truth lies somewhere between lionization and uselessness.

Obviously, if a player blocks a shot that was being directed toward the net that is better (in most cases) than not doing anything. The fact remains that blocking a shot is hugely secondary in terms of playing defense to sound positioning. Unless we're talking about shots that hit a defensive player already in position (i.e. in the leg or skate while being in the shooting lane), the act of blocking a shot is almost always a make-good for having been beaten by your man.

glovesave_35 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-28-2010, 02:40 PM
  #42
Ambassador Of Fun
Registered User
 
Ambassador Of Fun's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 2,903
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by glovesave_35 View Post
The truth lies somewhere between lionization and uselessness.

Obviously, if a player blocks a shot that was being directed toward the net that is better (in most cases) than not doing anything. The fact remains that blocking a shot is hugely secondary in terms of playing defense to sound positioning. Unless we're talking about shots that hit a defensive player already in position (i.e. in the leg or skate while being in the shooting lane), the act of blocking a shot is almost always a make-good for having been beaten by your man.
This is not true. If you are out position, you more than likely won't even be able to block a shot.

Ambassador Of Fun is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-28-2010, 04:39 PM
  #43
glovesave_35
Name
 
glovesave_35's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: South Korea
Country: United States
Posts: 16,223
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by tomhicksnightmare View Post
This is not true. If you are out position, you more than likely won't even be able to block a shot.
It's not black and white. There is a range of how out of position one may be.

glovesave_35 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-28-2010, 06:09 PM
  #44
Ambassador Of Fun
Registered User
 
Ambassador Of Fun's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 2,903
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by glovesave_35 View Post
It's not black and white. There is a range of how out of position one may be.
Shots come of the stick between 60-100mph. You have to be in decent position to be able to block one. I'm just saying, in general, if you are able to get your body/stick on a shot, you are in pretty good position.

Ambassador Of Fun is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-28-2010, 06:50 PM
  #45
glovesave_35
Name
 
glovesave_35's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: South Korea
Country: United States
Posts: 16,223
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by tomhicksnightmare View Post
Shots come of the stick between 60-100mph. You have to be in decent position to be able to block one. I'm just saying, in general, if you are able to get your body/stick on a shot, you are in pretty good position.
Nobody is perfect, and getting beaten on occasion is simply part of the equation. I'm not going to be convinced that blocking shots is preferable as a form of defense to playing a sound positional game that forces opposing players to make ill-advised passes, or to hold onto the puck for that extra tick that may cause a turnover. (Not saying you are arguing that, but to make my point clear.)

Blocking shots is also largely based on the desire to do so, not being in good enough position to be able to, while others are more often in better position so as to not have to make that choice.

Some players are simply more likely to block shots than others. Therein lies some of the old-school mentality that people refer to.

glovesave_35 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-29-2010, 09:31 AM
  #46
Karitimes
JetsJetsJets
 
Karitimes's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: NS
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,357
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by glovesave_35 View Post
I'm not going to be convinced that blocking shots is preferable as a form of defense to playing a sound positional game that forces opposing players to make ill-advised passes
Depends on the situation. Even strength, sure you wan't the winger to be in a position that negates the shot from the point, but on the pk, i wan't a guy with the willingness to drop down and take one for the team.



Quote:
Originally Posted by glovesave_35 View Post
Some players are simply more likely to block shots than others. Therein lies some of the old-school mentality that people refer to.
it's the opposite of old-school mentality. our very own Craig Ludwig did his part to grandfather in the idea of playing for the shot block alone with those ridiculous knee pads, and ever since it's been an epidemic and a big part of what it takes to be a winner in the new NHL (imo). With the amount of traffic and crease crashing that goes on in the new NHL, i take a player with the willingness to get in front of the 'hummin' piece of rubber to avoid the unlucky deflections that certainly go on in the style of game that is being played.

Karitimes is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-29-2010, 04:12 PM
  #47
glovesave_35
Name
 
glovesave_35's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: South Korea
Country: United States
Posts: 16,223
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jon Casey 91 View Post
Depends on the situation. Even strength, sure you wan't the winger to be in a position that negates the shot from the point, but on the pk, i wan't a guy with the willingness to drop down and take one for the team.
I was talking specifically about five-on-five. Perhaps I should have specified. Obviously a different approach is needed in penalty killing situations.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Jon Casey 91 View Post
it's the opposite of old-school mentality. our very own Craig Ludwig did his part to grandfather in the idea of playing for the shot block alone with those ridiculous knee pads, and ever since it's been an epidemic and a big part of what it takes to be a winner in the new NHL (imo). With the amount of traffic and crease crashing that goes on in the new NHL, i take a player with the willingness to get in front of the 'hummin' piece of rubber to avoid the unlucky deflections that certainly go on in the style of game that is being played.
I make a distinction between pre and post-lockout hockey. The mid to late 90's - 2004 in this case being the "old-school", not the 1960's. Sure, I too want players with a willingness to block shots.

glovesave_35 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-30-2010, 04:28 PM
  #48
KaylaJ
I like stories
 
KaylaJ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: hell
Country: United States
Posts: 15,330
vCash: 500
not sure if anyone else heard or really if its any different from what's been said, but Strangis was on NHL Live this afternoon and he basically said that he doesn't believe Lehtinen has made up his mind officially and didn't seem like he'd be shocked if he came back,but didn't see him anywhere but Dallas.

KaylaJ is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
09-30-2010, 06:00 PM
  #49
Dominic Roussel
Adios HF
 
Dominic Roussel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: ATX
Country: United States
Posts: 4,751
vCash: 970
Wow.

Long day at work and it showed when I nearly **** myself because I thought it said "Lehtonen" instead of Lehtinen, lol.

Dominic Roussel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-28-2010, 09:24 AM
  #50
mattihp
Registered User
 
mattihp's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Årsta
Country: Finland
Posts: 15,000
vCash: 50
Is there any definite word yet?

mattihp 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 03:09 AM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. ©2015 All Rights Reserved.