HFBoards

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

Kevin Bieksa signs 5-Year, $23m Deal ($4.6m/year cap hit - NTC)

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
06-27-2011, 04:42 PM
  #301
Bleach Clean
Moderator
 
Bleach Clean's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 17,236
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Drop the Sopel View Post
But in no way are these 2 players comparable when you lopk at their respective careers. Dan Hamhuis has been an impact player dating back to his teens. Bieksa's impact more often than not makes people cringe.

If he wanted the 5th year there should have been some consessions on salary - if he demanded to be the highest paid defenseman on the team he shouldn't have got the 5th year...

IMO he got it all and then some. Like I said, this is akin to paying Alex Burrows $5mil to score 30-35 goals with the twins. Paying complimentary players these types of dollars in a cap system will cause trouble down the line, unless of course the cap proceeds to rise at a fast, steady rate. Hopefully that's the case - and hopefully we get better value out of Bieksa this time around.

I somewhat disagree (that killed me to say because I'm not a Bieksa fan).

- First, we don't know if the NTC is full or limited.

- Next, Hamhuis is _also_ a complimentary player. He anchors a pairing defensively, but he doesn't do nearly enough offensively. He is the defensive compliment to a more offensive partner.

- Over their careers, Hamhuis has been _much_ more consistent - on that I wholeheartedly agree. But again, most of his consistency comes at the defensive side of the ice. It's easier to appreciate that for fans of a team that has traditionally had a luxury of PMDs, and a shortage of DFD that aren't injury prone or slow.

- A related question here is: What stay at home defender that can skate well have the Canucks put consistently beside Bieksa during his time of here? Mitchell can't skate well. Salo plays right side. So that leaves? If a defender needs a specific compliment to excel, then the Canucks haven't consistently provided that compliment to Bieksa over his entire tenure here. As an aside, I believe that is part of the reason Ballard looks so much better with Tanev.

- It's harder to create offense from the back end, which is why it costs more to retain Dmen that can create offense back there. That has to be factored in when analyzing the value of Hamhuis vs. Bieksa.

Bleach Clean is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-27-2011, 04:44 PM
  #302
Tiranis
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Toronto, ON
Country: Czech_ Republic
Posts: 22,113
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Horrorshow View Post
Ryan Whitney is an absolute steal at 4M. In the 54 games he's played with the Oilers, he has 38 points and is a +20

Though he's only played 54 games in a year and a half so there's that.

Edit: I should also note that I've barely seen Whitney play last season since I can't bring myself to watch that train wreck of a team. Only going by stats.
You are indeed correct. Whitney was excellent in the games he played with the Oilers, a true #1 that barely got scored on when he was on the ice (his relative +/- per 60 minutes was ridiculous, even compared to power-house teams). The Oilers should hope he can recover to that form and stay healthy because he was just dominant.

From that list I would also pick Pitkanen but he's going to get more than Bieksa, so the point is moot.

Tiranis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-27-2011, 04:48 PM
  #303
rye&ginger
Registered User
 
rye&ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,162
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by opendoor View Post
Not when his contract came into effect. His contract began under a $56.7 million cap, so his $3.75 million cap hit was 6.61% of the cap. His current deal is 7.15% of the cap.
meh, close enough and puts the fact that he got a $850,000 raise into perspective. Fair deal...he got a tiny bit more money relative to current salary and cap.

rye&ginger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-27-2011, 04:49 PM
  #304
0123456789*
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 1,812
vCash: 500
Not only would he have gotten more on the free agent market but he would have gotten a much longer term. I would think 5mill for 7 years would of been the minimum he would have gotten.

Vancouver gott him for 4.6mill for 5 years, that means he is signed only through his prime until he is 34, not bad. Imagine having him for a biger cap hit until he is 36 or older because that is what he would have gotten on the free agent market.

People need to look at the term its just as important as the actuall dollar amount, his cap hit is good for what he brings and a slight discount, BUT the term is where he clearly took a big cut.

7 years at 5 mill = 35mill for him guranteed
5 years at 4.6 mill = 23mill for him guranteed

imo he gave up a minimum 12million guranteed dollars to be here, thats a lot of money, infact that is 50% more than what he signed for.

Sure he could still play well at the end of the contract and sign for a few more years and make most of that money that he left on the table back but its far from guranteed. There are no gurantees and risk has a dollar value to, at the end of the day he left crap load of money on the table.

0123456789* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-27-2011, 04:50 PM
  #305
Canucker
Go Hawks!
 
Canucker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Frisco, Texas
Posts: 19,484
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by LeftCoast View Post
People's perception of how a player is playing is 90% based on how they expect him to play. Ballard came in with a clean slate and a reputation as a top 2 or top 3 defender. Bieksa had the baggage of 2 really bad, injury riddled seasons and a large contract which he hadn't lived up to. Ballard was given a pass for all of his mistakes while Bieksa was castigated for others errors'.

I was skeptical of Bieksa coming into the season. I've always liked what he brings in terms of leadership and attitude, but his play the last 2 years was more than disappointing. I was however open minded enough to wonder if entering a season 100% healthy (and with the wake up call of being a trade target until the Salo injury) he could return to his earlier form.

Early in the season - people were all over Vigneault for giving Bieksa top minutes while Ballard got bottom pairing or press box time. It didn't matter how they played, Ballard got a pass, Bieksa took the criticism. Initially, I wasn't convinced either. But I looked at the video and broke down play after play after play. After looking at 12 different miscues that were blamed on Bieksa, I determined that 6 were other peoples mistakes, 3 were Bieksa's fault, 2 were total team break downs (including Bieksa) and 1 was a fluke.

By mid-season, Bieksa was begrudgingly afforded 5th defenseman status by fans while AV played him every night against the toughest opponents (and he led the team in +/-). Fans still decried Ballard's lack of ice time - attributing it to Vigneault's bias or man-crush on so called scrubs, Bieksa, Alberts and Rome.

By the end of the regular season, it was obvious to anyone with an open mind that Bieksa was our most consistent defender and Rome and Alberts were more reliable than Ballard. By this point it was only injuries that kept Ballard in the line up while Bieksa was the Go-To guy in all situations. But a sizeable portion of the fan base continued the complain about AV's ice time allocations.
People will blame find a reason to blame anyone if it fits their agenda. Luongo gets it, Bieksa gets it, the Sedins get it, Rome gets it....everyone gets it. Bieksa wasn't as bad as he had been in the previous post season and most of the last couple seasons but he still wasn't very good for the first 2 months of the season. I have no axe to grind against Bieksa and I'm happy he turned his game around but IMO he wasn't very good. And you might be right about people wanting to give Ballard some breaks that he may not have earned but early on in the season, after several years of Bieksa's poor play, people (myself included) wanted to see what Ballard could do if he were afforded the same opportunity that Bieksa had been given. If he failed miserably, so be it, put Bieksa back into his spot. He was never given the same chance to succeed as Bieksa. Things worked out well in the end (unless you are Ballard) but it wasn't smooth sailing in the beginning IMO.

Also, IMO, the only reason why Rome and Alberts were deemed "more reliable" than Ballard at the end of the season was because of how he was improperly utilized throughout the season. I believe it takes an open mind to see that part as well.

Canucker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-27-2011, 04:51 PM
  #306
huntison
Registered User
 
huntison's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 4,090
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by James Woolf View Post
Wow.

We re-sign one of the core members of our Finals team, as well as perhaps the most likeable guy on our team, days before potentially losing him to a conference opponent on July 1, and the thread to announce this fantastic signing is filled with bickering over 0.1 to 0.5 of his cap hit.

Agreed!

Would people have been happier if he didn't sign with Vancouver?

huntison is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-27-2011, 04:52 PM
  #307
Horrorshow
Registered User
 
Horrorshow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 703
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by huntison View Post
Agreed!

Would people have been happier if he didn't sign with Vancouver?
I would have, yes. But I'm definitely not in the majority.

Horrorshow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-27-2011, 04:53 PM
  #308
LiquidSnake*
Agent of Chaos...
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Vancouver, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 31,519
vCash: 500
I'm happy with this signing. Good salary number. Gillis does a good job with this signing and Hats off to Bieksa for taking less than what he would have gotten in free agency.

LiquidSnake* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-27-2011, 04:56 PM
  #309
ugghhh
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 1,647
vCash: 500
I think people are under-estimating how much he would have made on the free market. There aren't many good defenders (or players) available, and with the cap moving up, teams have money to burn. Bieksa would get .5-1M more than what the Canucks offered, imo. Wouldn't have been surprised to see a team give him something like 5.75M per for 4-6 years.

I'm not thrilled with the number, but he definitely left money on the table here, and his replacement cost would be significantly higher.

ugghhh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-27-2011, 04:56 PM
  #310
You Know
Registered User
 
You Know's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 175
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frkinator View Post
Not only would he have gotten more on the free agent market but he would have gotten a much longer term. I would think 5mill for 7 years would of been the minimum he would have gotten.

Vancouver gott him for 4.6mill for 5 years, that means he is signed only through his prime until he is 34, not bad. Imagine having him for a biger cap hit until he is 36 or older because that is what he would have gotten on the free agent market.

People need to look at the term its just as important as the actuall dollar amount, his cap hit is good for what he brings and a slight discount, BUT the term is where he clearly took a big cut.

7 years at 5 mill = 35mill for him guranteed
5 years at 4.6 mill = 23mill for him guranteed

imo he gave up a minimum 12million guranteed dollars to be here, thats a lot of money, infact that is 50% more than what he signed for.

Sure he could still play well at the end of the contract and sign for a few more years and make most of that money that he left on the table back but its far from guranteed. There are no gurantees and risk has a dollar value to, at the end of the day he left crap load of money on the table.
Excellent post and I agree completely.

Plus you have to consider that the cap went up 5 million just this year. Next year you have Winnipeg replacing Atlanta and the new US TV deal kicking in. It's going to jump again. His contract is very reasonable and will become increasingly so.

Remember Paul Martin signed for 5 million last year. That was before the cap increase. You're going to see some insane offers this year, like almost every year where people pencil in free agents at one number and UFAs pull down significantly more. It will be even worse this year given how many teams have to make the cap floor. When you see people like Campbell being moved and other players with "immovable" contracts you know there's going to be a serious jump.

Hamhuis also got a 6 year deal instead of a 5 year deal so is actually guaranteed 4 million more over the course of the two deals.


Last edited by You Know: 06-27-2011 at 05:30 PM.
You Know is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-27-2011, 04:56 PM
  #311
Canucker
Go Hawks!
 
Canucker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Frisco, Texas
Posts: 19,484
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by rye&ginger View Post
middle pairing? For teams with TWO all star d-men perhaps but he is clearly a #2 defensman. Who is our #1 if not Hamhuis?
Edler easily. Hamhuis doesn't have the offensive chops to be a #1 guy. On a less talented team he's a #2, on a contending team hes a #3.

Canucker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-27-2011, 04:57 PM
  #312
Mudshark50
Registered User
 
Mudshark50's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: NorthVancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,664
vCash: 500
Great signing by GMMG! I couldn't be happier.

Now lets go after Brad Richards...

Mudshark50 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-27-2011, 04:58 PM
  #313
Variant
Registered User
 
Variant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 133
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Horrorshow View Post
I would have, yes. But I'm definitely not in the majority.
I'm genuinely curious, who then would the Canucks sign to take his place and his minutes? This year's UFA crop is not particularly strong in terms of defensemen.

Variant is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-27-2011, 04:59 PM
  #314
wholesickcrew
Registered User
 
wholesickcrew's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Toronto
Posts: 2,118
vCash: 500
For those who think the cap hit is too high...

Pretend that the cap this year is 64.0 mil, a cap that a lot of people were estimating (even on the high end). Now with this cap, Bieksa makes 4.3 on all your capgeek rosters. Happy now?

(Seriously though, judge by percantage of the salary cap from year to year to properly consider cap inflation)

wholesickcrew is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-27-2011, 05:01 PM
  #315
skywarp75
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,096
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canucker View Post
Edler easily. Hamhuis doesn't have the offensive chops to be a #1 guy. On a less talented team he's a #2, on a contending team hes a #3.
Edler plays 1 game like a true #1, 3 more like a #4, and then a bunch like a #8/9. while he definitely has potential to be a #1, he turns into total crap often. Hamhuis, while never a true #1, is always a legit #2 game in game out, hence making him our 'best all around Dman'.

skywarp75 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-27-2011, 05:02 PM
  #316
Respect Your Edler
Thank You 52
 
Respect Your Edler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: China
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,221
vCash: 500
It's a good signing. Yes, Bieksa needs a specific type of defenceman beside him to play well, but that doesn't diminish his value. As long as Gillis makes sure that Hamhuis or someone like him is on the team, Bieksa will continue to be a significant contributor to this team.

Respect Your Edler is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-27-2011, 05:02 PM
  #317
NuxFan09
Registered User
 
NuxFan09's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Edmonton
Country: Canada
Posts: 16,166
vCash: 500
I'm happy with this signing, as long as it doesn't prevent the Canucks from re-signing Ehrhoff. I would be a little choked if Bieksa was the priority ahead of Ehrhoff.

NuxFan09 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-27-2011, 05:04 PM
  #318
LiquidSnake*
Agent of Chaos...
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Vancouver, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 31,519
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by NuxFan09 View Post
I'm happy with this signing, as long as it doesn't prevent the Canucks from re-signing Ehrhoff. I would be a little choked if Bieksa was the priority ahead of Ehrhoff.
Bieksa is the priority over Ehrhoff. Ehrhoff is going to want some stupid money and I dont think that he'll sign here.

LiquidSnake* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-27-2011, 05:06 PM
  #319
NuxFan09
Registered User
 
NuxFan09's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Edmonton
Country: Canada
Posts: 16,166
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by skywarp75;34192689[B
]Edler plays 1 game like a true #1, 3 more like a #4, and then a bunch like a #8/9[/B]. while he definitely has potential to be a #1, he turns into total crap often. Hamhuis, while never a true #1, is always a legit #2 game in game out, hence making him our 'best all around Dman'.
Does not compute. Edler plays most of his games like a #1. Before he got injured, he was the highest minute muncher on the team and he led all Canucks defensemen in scoring. The only reason the Hamhuis - Bieksa pairing became the Canucks' #1 pairing was because Edler got injured and his partner, Ehrhoff, is not the type to anchor a pairing defensively. What happened was defensive responsibilities got shifted to Hamhuis and Bieksa and they both ran with it.

No defenseman on the team is as much a complete package as Edler.

NuxFan09 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-27-2011, 05:09 PM
  #320
Canucker
Go Hawks!
 
Canucker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Frisco, Texas
Posts: 19,484
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by skywarp75 View Post
Edler plays 1 game like a true #1, 3 more like a #4, and then a bunch like a #8/9. while he definitely has potential to be a #1, he turns into total crap often. Hamhuis, while never a true #1, is always a legit #2 game in game out, hence making him our 'best all around Dman'.
You sir embellish. Your memory must be short because he was easily our best defenseman before his back injury and in extremely rare cases played like a "#8-9". Hamhuis had a few smelly games himself so lets not cannonize him just yet. And to say he's our best "All around Dman" is a joke because his lack of offensive game removes that possibility.

Canucker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-27-2011, 05:10 PM
  #321
Variant
Registered User
 
Variant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 133
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by LiquidSnake View Post
Bieksa is the priority over Ehrhoff. Ehrhoff is going to want some stupid money and I dont think that he'll sign here.
Agreed, I think people may need to accept the reality that Ehrhoff is pricing himself off the Canucks. I find it hard to believe the team is willing to pay more than 5 million per year, though they might. Of course, he could well be signed tomorrow, who knows?

But if there isn't any movement in terms of a new contract, I hope MG has back-up plan and is looking at the possible options in dealing his rights.

Variant is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-27-2011, 05:11 PM
  #322
LeftCoast
Registered User
 
LeftCoast's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,157
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canucker View Post
People will blame find a reason to blame anyone if it fits their agenda. Luongo gets it, Bieksa gets it, the Sedins get it, Rome gets it....everyone gets it. Bieksa wasn't as bad as he had been in the previous post season and most of the last couple seasons but he still wasn't very good for the first 2 months of the season. I have no axe to grind against Bieksa and I'm happy he turned his game around but IMO he wasn't very good. And you might be right about people wanting to give Ballard some breaks that he may not have earned but early on in the season, after several years of Bieksa's poor play, people (myself included) wanted to see what Ballard could do if he were afforded the same opportunity that Bieksa had been given. If he failed miserably, so be it, put Bieksa back into his spot. He was never given the same chance to succeed as Bieksa. Things worked out well in the end (unless you are Ballard) but it wasn't smooth sailing in the beginning IMO.

Also, IMO, the only reason why Rome and Alberts were deemed "more reliable" than Ballard at the end of the season was because of how he was improperly utilized throughout the season. I believe it takes an open mind to see that part as well.
I agree to an extent.

I think Ballard had problems early on absorbing a different system, adjusting to the Western Conference and he had some injury related conditioning issues. As a guy used to being a top pairing defender, he was used to doing something with the puck on the breakout. But as a bottom pairing defenseman, Vigneault expected him to simply get the puck out of the zone in a most conservative manner. This is not Ballard's strength and in trying to be creative with the puck, his mistakes compounded. Alberts and Rome don't take a lot of risks with the puck. They often just bang it off the glass and out. And for 8 minutes per game, that works.

He was also hurt being a LH shot - he is probably the least comfortable of our D-men in playing on his off side. That means he had to be paired with a RH shot - which at the beginning of the season meant Bieksa - because Salo was injured, and this was a terrible pairing. Both players took risks with the puck, but Ballard's risk seemed to end up in the back of the net. Vigneault fixed this by pairing Bieksa with Hamhuis - which worked. Edler and Ehrhoff were another working pairing, so that left Ballard paired with Rome or Alberts.

When Chris Tanev came into the lineup, Ballard looked much better because Tanev is a RH shot and is efficient and smart with the puck. It complemented Ballard. This may (as both players mature) be a good pairing going forward. If Ballard can regain some confidence as a top 4 player, this might work in the future.

LeftCoast is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-27-2011, 05:11 PM
  #323
Horrorshow
Registered User
 
Horrorshow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 703
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Variant View Post
I'm genuinely curious, who then would the Canucks sign to take his place and his minutes? This year's UFA crop is not particularly strong in terms of defensemen.
Honestly, I'm actually kinda okay with keeping him. If he plays the way he did this year or better then I think he's a valuable player for the team. If he plays like he did 2008-2010 then he is an absolute liability every shift. I just don't trust him for 5 years when he's only had 2 decent seasons in his career, both in contract years.

I also don't believe we will be able to sign both, so I guess to answer your question, Christian Ehrhoff would be my Kevin Bieksa replacement.

Earlier in the thread I said the team mishandled Keith Ballard this year. If Ballard is able to come into the season knowing he has the coaches confidence then I think he's got the potential to be a much more effective player (i also prefer his style of play to Bieksa's). Also, Chris Tanev has had a meteoric rise in development and I believe he will continue this into next season and be a reliable #6 d-man.

I'd prefer this lineup, personally:

Hamhuis-Ballard
Edler-Salo
Ehrhoff-Tanev
xx
Rome-Alberts

or some variation of that top 6.

Horrorshow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-27-2011, 05:13 PM
  #324
kanuck87
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 4,248
vCash: 500
I don't think it's a coincidence that Bieksa asked for more than Hamhuis. By getting 4.6 million, Bieksa wants everyone to know that he is the most important d-man on the team.

That being said, 4.6 million still represents quite a huge discount. Some people may not like it, but that's only due to the fact that they're not convinced that Bieksa has truly turned the corner and into a top-2 or 3 defenseman. Now it's up to Bieksa to earn that contract.

kanuck87 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-27-2011, 05:17 PM
  #325
Variant
Registered User
 
Variant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 133
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Horrorshow View Post
Honestly, I'm actually kinda okay with keeping him. If he plays the way he did this year or better then I think he's a valuable player for the team. If he plays like he did 2008-2010 then he is an absolute liability every shift. I just don't trust him for 5 years when he's only had 2 decent seasons in his career, both in contract years.

I also don't believe we will be able to sign both, so I guess to answer your question, Christian Ehrhoff would be my Kevin Bieksa replacement.

Earlier in the thread I said the team mishandled Keith Ballard this year. If Ballard is able to come into the season knowing he has the coaches confidence then I think he's got the potential to be a much more effective player (i also prefer his style of play to Bieksa's). Also, Chris Tanev has had a meteoric rise in development and I believe he will continue this into next season and be a reliable #6 d-man.
You lost me there

Quote:
Originally Posted by Horrorshow View Post
I'd prefer this lineup, personally:

Hamhuis-Ballard
Edler-Salo
Ehrhoff-Tanev
xx
Rome-Alberts

or some variation of that top 6.

I just can't imagine under any scenario that AV and this coaching staff would ever trust Ballard with top 4 minutes. Don't get me wrong, I would love to see that happen. But I find that doubtfull. And isn't Hamhuis injured? I may have misheard but I hear he won't be coming back until October or November? I could be wrong though.

Variant 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 01:17 PM.

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.