Sharks sign Hjalmarsson to Offer Sheet - Hawks can't match without dumping Sharp, Bolland, Seabrook or Niemi
by Quisp on Jul 9, 2010 10:07 AM PDT
in Capmania, Capaphobia, Capaphilia, Capnesia
74 comments
Bob McKenzie (TSNBobMcKenzie) on Twitter
# CHI has seven days to match. Back to vacation. 3 minutes ago
# I am not working, but I can tell you TSN's Gord Miller reports San Jose has signed Niklas Hjalmarsson to a four-year, $14M offer sheet.
$3.5MM cap hit (and compensation would be San Jose's 1st, 2nd and 3rd 2011 picks). Can Chicago match? Let's go to Cap Geek:
With Hjalmarsson at $3.5MM and Niemi at $4MM (which is a reasonable expectation of the outcome of arbitration, if you ask me), promoting the cheapest players available to fill out a minimum roster of 20, and burying Huet in the minors at the end of the summer, the Hawks will find themselves $1.13MM over the cap.
- Bowman can of course gamble that the arbiter will give Niemi closer to $3MM. But he will have to decide on Hjalmarsson before the Niemi award, so that's quite a gamble, given:
- In order to match Hjalmarsson and keep Niemi@$4MM, the Hawks will have to let go of at least $1.7MM in cap hit (the overage plus $600K to replace the player the Hawks get rid of). There is no one left on the roster who makes that amount or near it.
- The eligible candidates are Patrick Sharp, Dave Bolland or Brent Seabrook. And there's no way that's going to happen. The Hawks aren't trading those guys.
- So the only option for Bowman is to choose between Hjalmarsson and Niemi. And given Bowman's lust for high picks lately, I am going to assume he's going to let Hjalmarsson walk and take the compensation. I would bet on it actually.
- So add Hjalmarsson to the list of cap casualties. The hold-overs from the cup run are now numbered at eleven. Now what did I say months ago?
0 recs |
74 comments
|
Email
Print
Comments
1st 2nd and 3rd….
and this just makes the sharks a little tougher to play against….
"It's not illegal. It's frowned upon, like masturbating on an airplane."-Alan Garner
got to account for average salary increase
each year compensation ranges are adjusted from the previous year value, with original CBA values being the starting point, in proportion to the increase in average salary. I don’t have this years numbers, but the compensation lines have moved up over the years so 3.5 should now be a 1st and 3rd, no second involved.
by -J on Jul 9, 2010 2:17 PM PDT up reply actions
How interesting does Devin Setoguchi sound to you?
The Spirit of MeatTrain'10!
by DodgerBlueBalls on Jul 9, 2010 11:28 AM PDT up reply actions
Wilson
Is there any chance that Wilson is doing Bowman a favor because now bowman isn’t forced choose between Hjalmarhfjdfhaja (however you spell his name) and Niemi?? Hawks fans can be mad at Wilson for poaching, and, Bowman easily gets through Niemi’s arbitration and he gets more in return that he would have through salary-dumping trades.
NHL.com says it’s a first and third.
I don’t know anything about Hjalmarsson, but a first and third seems steep. Is he worth it?
How is a move like this perceived? DL has spoken strongly about anyone poaching his guys. The Sharks are clearly exploiting the Hawks here. Could there be any repercussions against the Sharks for this?
"We love going to Canadian cities and beating Canadian teams." - Drew Doughty
Well the Sharks 1st and third will likely be late round picks. I’d say he’s worth it. He should be a top 4 guy and still hasn’t reached potential.
http://www.prosportsblogging.com
by Great Ice-Pectations on Jul 9, 2010 10:40 AM PDT up reply actions
Yes, he shows a lot of promise — they made re-signing him a priority. Now that leaves their D just…HA HA HA.
I guess they could let Niemi walk instead?
In Dinglebarn We Trust
Yeah but that would look much worse. Hjalmarsson is more valuable than Niemi? It would look really bad on them.
It does look bad that they only have 3 of their cup winning D back though. I will however commend them for getting John Scott, who is 6’8" and very inexpensive. Younger Hal Gill type pylon.
http://www.prosportsblogging.com
by Great Ice-Pectations on Jul 9, 2010 10:55 AM PDT up reply actions
I’m just thinking — there’s a glut of goalies out there right now. Not so much a glut of good young defensemen. Or maybe I just want to distract myself from the K-word some more. :)
Burying Huet would look really bad on them too, but do they have a choice?
In Dinglebarn We Trust
Burying Huet will look a little bad on them, but justified considering how his play sloped off. I think it looks worse that they signed him to so much, but I think few people will take pity on Huet since he isn’t worth the money.
Remember when the Sharks buried the Kyle McLaren in the Minors for a year when he was for sure NHL level talent, simply because they couldn’t afford him? I bet few people do.
http://www.prosportsblogging.com
by Great Ice-Pectations on Jul 9, 2010 11:18 AM PDT up reply actions
Well, scanning the Chicago blog, it looks like they expect to choose Hjalmarsson over Niemi. I think that’s warranted — Niemi’s young, and you have no idea if he’s going to be one of those flashes in the pan. He came up big time in the Sharks series, but wasn’t lights-out in the others.
In Dinglebarn We Trust
Wow, not the reaction I’d expect. I guess they feel it would be more justifiable to keep Huet considering the money they’re spending? I would not feel the same way.
If they plan to keep Huet as their starter they better expect to lose another valuable player then because he’ll be making about $16mm more than Niemi’s projected salary, which means another $1.6mm to shed. Am I right on that one Quisp?
That’s a lot of pressure for Huet to step into as well. Oh hey, our other keeper won us a cup last year, what can you do?
http://www.prosportsblogging.com
by Great Ice-Pectations on Jul 9, 2010 11:40 AM PDT up reply actions
If they choose Hjalmarsson over Niemi
that works fine, but they would need to find a starting goalie, for less than $2MM probably (i’m not at my normal computer, so I can’t do the precise numbers). If they want to keep Huet, however, that makes their situation much worse than I outlined above. Instead of Niemi at $4MM, they’ve got Huet at 5MM+. They would still have to dump one of Sharp, Bolland or Seabrook AND they would have Huet as their goalie. That seems crazy.
Wait till this year.
Exactly what I figured. Keeping Huet means losing someone more valuable than they’d have to give up to retain Niemi. And Niemi was in net to win the Cup.
You ever see the movie Drowning Mona? There’s this scene where Bette Midler is telling Casey Affleck how he has no way of getting them to leave their joint business and says some thing to the effect of “You have 2 options; buy us out or pray for an early death!”
http://www.prosportsblogging.com
by Great Ice-Pectations on Jul 9, 2010 12:00 PM PDT up reply actions
Hawks fan here
I’d like to set a few things straight.
1) Huet is getting buried in the minors or will be sent packing to Euro / KHL leagues. This is done deal.
2) Hawks will not lose Hammer. He’s the #3 d-man on the team and if you look around the league he’s arguably the most underrated d-man in the NHL. Scotty Bowman looks at him like a Nick Lindstrom Jr. He isn’t going anywhere.
3) You can’t go by the numbers on cap geek as they are not entirely accurate. Things are bad but there is no way that Niemi gets 4+ (that’s more than Halak money with same stats / less shots). If he does by chance get that I think they’ll gladly let him go and snag Turco. I think Turco would jump at the chance to play on the Hawks team with a puck possession style + great team defense.
good to know
which numbers are wrong?
certainly, if Niemi’s arbitration award comes in at $3MM, they won’t have get rid of Sharp, Bolland or Seabrook (or Niemi…which means they would just let Niemi walk if his award was too big, as you say).
re capgeek:
i find that they have been incredibly reliable especially in the last year. it’s also true that people said I couldn’t believe the cap geek numbers last year when i said the hawks were going to have to lose two of Seabrook, Sharp, Byfuglien, Ladd, Bolland, Versteeg, Barker or Sopel while also dealing buying out or burying Huet and Campbell. I also said watch out for that bonus cushion penalty and beware of offer sheets.
as it turned out, the hawks kept campbell and lost SIX (not two) of the names I mentioned, plus Eager, Fraser, Aliu and now either Hjalmarsson or Niemi.
Wait till this year.
Cap geek is an approx dollar amount, thus you don’t really know exactly what is on hand. No one knows how much cash was left under the cap (except StanBow) from last year for portions of the bonus to be applied to last years cap with the rest carrying over to this years cap. So as such we can say 4.1m is applied to this years cap but no one knows the real number. Hawks could be dealing with 500k-1m more than what we think they have. Not to mention it’s calculated day to day not on a year basis and a few Hawks players did the Rockford to Chicago shuffle in between games to lessen the cap hits.
As far as who the Hawks lost, yeah it sucked to lose Ladd. Eager is replaceable and has some concussion concerns so getting what we got for them is pretty good. Buff was inconsistent for his salary range even if he is a beast of a man.
Guys over at the Fifth Feather have a great post breaking down the arbitration hearing. I highly suggest taking a look at it (not sure if direct links are ok here but you can google it) I think even 3 million per year is over what will come out. I’d be totally fine with losing Niemi to keep Hammer. As it stands I don’t think 2 million or 2.25m is that out of the question for Neimi coming out of arbitration.
Well even if it’s an approximate dollar amount, 500k – 1mm is not enough to change the fates. Even with shuffling a few players day to day, that doesn’t change the fact that Chicago has to enter the season under the salary cap or it will result in penalties.
http://www.prosportsblogging.com
by Great Ice-Pectations on Jul 9, 2010 5:14 PM PDT up reply actions
Also, the players with large enough salaries to make a difference with shuffling are likely under one-way contracts which means they would have to pass waivers in order to make it down or up.
http://www.prosportsblogging.com
by Great Ice-Pectations on Jul 9, 2010 5:18 PM PDT up reply actions
You’d be surprised what you can do day to day with the shuffle between Rockford and Chicago. Stan Bowman is known to be a master of the cap so I trust him when he says we don’t have anything to worry about.
They can go 10% over now and will still be able to dump Huet in the minors. If the arb comes back with something crazy 3+ million range then yeah I wouldn’t be upset with parting ways with Niemi. Plus as I mentioned we don’t have official numbers of where they were in relation to last years cap so we have no idea what the final bonus total affecting this years cap is.
Yes, I would be surprised
since what you’re saying doesn’t add up to anything. Yes, when you send a player down to the AHL, his cap hit comes off the books. So what? The Hawks are going to have trouble fitting more than 20 players on their active roster due to their cap brilliance. So you send a guy down, he’s making $700K, and you save almost $4,000 against the cap. Seriously? That’s ridiculous. More after dinner. But come on.
Wait till this year.
waiver exemption and one-way/two-way contracts are not related, though
it just so happens that players which are waiver-exempt are many times on two-way deals. but those are independent issues.
one-way/two-way just means that the player either has one salary no matter where he is (one way) or he has an NHL salary and an AHL salary (two way).
waiver-exemption has to do with when the player signed his first contract and how old he was at the time, and how many games the player has played. There is a link off on the left margin of the main page that goes through the break-down.
Bottom line: skaters usually are exempt for 80 or 160 games (lower numbers for goalies) depending on how young the player was when they signed the ELC.
Wait till this year.
No, no and no.
CapGeek and NHLNumbers are NOT approximate dollar amounts. They are exact in terms of the cap hit and the term. The only room for error is with regard to how many days of the season a given player in on the active roster. Keep in mind that players on LTIR count against the cap. Players do not come off the cap hit because of injury. The only way a player’s cap hit comes off the team’s total is if the player is sent to the minors, loaned to a European club, traded, or he retires. If a player is not on the active roster (next year) for 10 days, then 176/186ths of his cap hit counts against the cap (because there are 186 days in the 2010-11 season; there were 193 days last season). That’s all there is to it. Capgeek/NHLNumbers both keep detailed records of when each player is added to or subtracted from the active roster of a club, so the cap figures for that player are exact.
As far as the bonus payments, they have to be paid and when they’re paid they’re recorded and that’s where the figures come from, when they become public. You can say no-one knows what the real figure is, but of course everyone knows, because everyone knows what every player is paid, including bonuses. The only reason there was any question at all about whether the bonus cushion penalty was going to be 3.7, 4 or what it ended up being is because the team had not yet paid its bonuses. Now they have and the numbers are public.
This notion of the cap “being calculated day-to-day” is b.s.. It’s not. If you’re Brian Campbell, your cap hit is 7.14 or whatever it is. If you get hurt, it’s still 7.14. If you get sent to the minors, your cap hit is reduced by the ratio of days spent in the AHL to total days in the season. It’s not some magical algorithm. It’s not calculus. It’s multiplying fractions.
This (usually) only ever even comes into play with ELC guys who don’t have to clear waivers yet. If they spend half the season in the AHL, half their cap hit counts against the cap. If they spend 150 days with the big club this year, then 150/186ths of their cap hit counts against the team’s total. These dates are known. They are announced to the world by the team. So anyone can make the calculation. Which is how Capgeek and nhlnumbers are able to exist.
If you carry a lot of ELCs on your roster, and you have a roster of more than 20, you can of course send guys down so you don’t have to pay them (if they have a two-way deal) and can lessen the cap hit by a few days worth. But let’s do a quick calculation:
You have to have 20 players. Chicago is not going to be able to have more than 21 players unless they do some shedding, maybe 22. Let’s say 22.
So they can dump 2 guys in the AHL for a couple of days here or there. They can do it all season. If they just leave those two guys in the minors all year, they’ve saved themselves $1MM-1.5MM in cap hit (assuming they are ELCs and that Chicago can’t even afford to have higher-priced ELCs on their roster). That’s the most they can squeeze out. But of course that’s not what will happen. Either they will have a roster of 20, in which case they can’t send anyone down at all, because they can’t drop below 20, or they will have 21 players, in which case they will send the guy down every chance they get, and if they magically are able to shave 30 days off the guy’s cap hit, they’ve managed to reduce their cap expense by 1/6th, or about $100K. Which is obviously not enough to help.
The Hawks can’t be “dealing with 500k-1m more than what we think they have.” They are dealing with what they are dealing with, which is the public numbers which we can all add, subtract, multiply or divide as we please.
I know the Fifth Feather. I get them confused with Second City Hockey though. I think those are the guys who said my cap calculations which turned out to be right were wrong, embarrassing, crazy, uninformed and idiotic. I could be wrong about that, though. There’s also a newsletter or something called, I think, The Obsessed Indian, or something like that. They appear to me to be inter-related in ways I haven’t quite figured out. Maybe it’s just that being bloggers they all know each other.
Anyway, yes, I had read the Fifth Feather post. It’s a bullet point list of what’s in the CBA. I didn’t see any special breaking down of anything. However, I found this paragraph interesting (my comments in brackets in bold):
The big news for the worrywarts among us is Niemi is almost 100% guaranteed to return to the Hawks next season. then you’re giving up Hjalmarsson or one of Seabrook, Sharp or Bolland Once the two sides agree to go to arbitration, opposing teams never send any kind of offer sheet. Never, because it’s prevented by the CBA.Not like that was ever a threat anyways (Though his agent Bill Zito and Niemi held out hope until the final hour as they waited until the final day to file). With established NHL goaltenders like Evgeni Nabokov and Marty Turco still looking for work, no one was going to give up something in return.
Your conclusion that $2-2.5MM is not out of the question is, while technically true, wishful thinking I believe. Niemi just backstopped the Hawks to the Stanley Cup. For the first time in 50 years or whatever. I thought he would get $3MM, before the arbitration. But arbitration is a crap shoot. The arbiter might agree with Bowman and say, sure $2MM is fair. But he might just as easily say “how much is a guy who won you the cup WORTH anyway?” and drop $4MM in Bownman’s lap. Or more.
Wait till this year.
I can see my brackets somehow didn't make it into the block quote above.
The bold parts are my comments. The rest is the quote from the 5th feather.
Wait till this year.
So as such we can say 4.1m is applied to this years cap but no one knows the real number. Hawks could be dealing with 500k-1m more than what we think they have.
I know Quisp also addressed this below, but for what it’s worth, Mirtle from the Globe and Mail says:
I’m told @capgeek’s bonus overage figures are very close to real deal. Could be a regular thing to have teams take that extra hit.
Bob McKenzie has also backed this up, and he has a reputation for being reliable.
In Dinglebarn We Trust
Same here
I don’t see Hjalmarsson going anywhere, I also see Bowman taking these 7 days looking for a Goalie just to solidify keeping Hjalmer.
…and Huet is gone and Hawks will have around 5.7 (CapGeek estimate) to fill the 6-9 (min/max range) open spots on the roster. I would assume 2-2.5 on a Netminder in FA.
3-4 million is too much for Niemi, I like him a lot and I am greatful but not that greatful.
Glut of Goalies?
There’s Turco, whose damaged goods, and?
Toskala, Valliquette, Danis and Theodore (Emery is probably going to retire)
Theodore and Turco would probably be too expensive to sign unless they got really desperate. The rest are just no.
The Swiss are Coming, The Swiss are Coming!
Contributor to Lighthouse Hockey not sure if I'm the Sniper or the Enforcer.
Hey I have these magic beans here, I’ll give them to you for your house in exchange!
http://www.prosportsblogging.com
by Great Ice-Pectations on Jul 9, 2010 12:42 PM PDT up reply actions
There definitely could be, but I think he’s counting on the fact that the Hawks are/will be so vulnerable that they won’t be in a position to strike back.
Doesn’t mean other teams couldn’t offer-sheet their RFAs, though.
In Dinglebarn We Trust
In my opinion, it’s about improving your team first, and the Sharks see an opportunity to improve their team so good for them. I guess if you’re willing to risk your team taking a hit later from offer sheets, so be it.
http://www.prosportsblogging.com
by Great Ice-Pectations on Jul 9, 2010 10:41 AM PDT up reply actions
Definitely. Everyone keeps saying “It’s a business” but it’s not about the morality of the thing, it’s the tactical implications. I think the Sharks were in a better position to do that than we are, though (looking at the kind of RFAs we’d want to keep vs. the ones they risk losing).
In Dinglebarn We Trust
Oh for sure they were in a better position. As much as I don’t frown on the poaching practice, it’s not something I advocate the Kings doing. It has to be the right player and the right circumstances. If GM’s are so concerned with the ethics of poaching, it’s something that should be addressed in the next CBA.
http://www.prosportsblogging.com
by Great Ice-Pectations on Jul 9, 2010 10:51 AM PDT up reply actions
I agree with you. Wilson saw an opportunity to make his team better and he took advantage. I guess there are no unwritten moral laws when it comes to winning.
The bigger story is and has been how the Hawks have allowed themselves to be ravaged by the rest of the league.
"We love going to Canadian cities and beating Canadian teams." - Drew Doughty
Does anyone believe in the morality of the thing? Maybe I’m naive. I always thought it was “Don’t you dare, or I will make you pay. And I have a looooong memory.”
In Dinglebarn We Trust
Here’s where I think the Ethics thing comes into play; if a GM were to get a player to sign an absolutely ridiculous offer sheet that there is no possible way a team could match simply to spite them. As long as the intention is obtaining a player to improve their team, it’s fair game.
http://www.prosportsblogging.com
by Great Ice-Pectations on Jul 9, 2010 11:26 AM PDT up reply actions
I don't think so, though. There is no "morality" of offer sheets." It's about the wisdom of offer sheets as a strategy.
A ridiculous offer sheet hurts everyone by driving up salaries. So it’s not in the GMs’ self-interest to do that. On the other hand, if you never plan on being anywhere near the cap ceiling, you will always be able to match offer sheets, so you may as well throw caution to the wind. San Jose has no significant RFAs aside from Setoguchi for years to come. And they have plenty of space to match whatever anyone throws at them. They are gambling that nobody is going to offer the mythical “insane” Charles Wang offer sheet, and that’s probably a good bet. if that really worries them, they could wrap up Setoguchi ASAP and then they wouldn’t have to worry about it for awhile.
Wait till this year.
Yes, it's Mutual Assured Destruction
IIRC, offer sheets became dirty pool when Kevin Lowe stuck it to Brian Burke over Dustin Penner, giving him a huge raise that the Ducks couldn’t match. No one had ever really stuck it to another team like that before. Otherwise, they’re kind of a compromise meant to give younger players a little leverage in the marketplace without being full-fledged free agents.
In a sense, that’s what San Jose is doing to Chicago — taking advantage of their weakness in order to pry away a good young player. But the salary offer isn’t as egregious as Lowe’s offer to Penner… and, well, the Hawks just brought it upon themselves.
Right, it's a great number
High enough to get him but not complete overpayment.
Also, can’t we just call the Ridiculous Offer Sheet the “Wang” from now on? I mean, it makes complete sense.
e.g. Setoguchi was given a Wang in the offseason. It was a gigantic Wang. He took it right away with full force
by 88fingerslukee on Jul 9, 2010 7:29 PM PDT up reply actions
The Sharks were wanged.
Or, better
The Sharks burked violently at the wanging of Setoguchi.
Wait till this year.
oh the HAWKS can't sign any offer sheets
you have to have cap room in order to do that, and they don’t have it, even with the 10% summer overage.
Wait till this year.
they have 9.2 right now
yes they only have 13 guys but they still have 9.2 million in Cap to play with.
Where are you getting that “13 guys, 9.2 million” part? Pretending Huet and someone else are already bye-bye?
Capgeek shows you with 113K of cap space with just 15 guys. Help me out.
In Dinglebarn We Trust
well, it might be a 1st and a 3rd, since i forgot to take into account the % by which salaries have increased since the CBA went into effect
at the time of the cba, the range was $3MM-4MM for 1st, 2nd, 3rd pick comp.. it’s entirely possible (likely now that I think about it) that the average salary has increased enough to drop the current offer sheet into the less painful category.
I humbly apologize.
Wait till this year.
This has got to be a Hawks fans nightmare. Of course they can always harp back to “Well, at least we won the cup…” But that’s little consolation to a dominant team you’ve become attached to getting shredded. It really make a team seem less unique and personal and more a collection of movable parts.
http://www.prosportsblogging.com
by Great Ice-Pectations on Jul 9, 2010 10:39 AM PDT reply actions
Well, we were going to be in this position whether we won the Cup or not. It doesn’t feel good, but it doesn’t feel as bad as it could have.
Just one Hawk fan here, but if you want my perspective, and I think a lot of Hawks fans share it, it’s that we’re likely now in a position where we match the offer and have to watch Niemi leave. Hjammer is 23 and shows nothing but promise; the guy’s rock solid in his own end and provides the perfect counterpart for Campbell, which is sorely needed (not to mention he seems to be the only player in our system able to do it). Hjammer is simply more valuable to this team than Niemi. Our goaltending was not our strength this year, it was our overall D.
Also, we have about 2 million available for a goalie (if we match Hjammer; and that takes into account the 4.15 million we need to lop off the 59.4 cap due to bonus overages). It’s still possible that Niemi comes in at around that 2 mil number in arbitration. If he and his agent are asking for 4 million (which is untenable … the guy’s had 42 NHL games!), and Hawks come in at 2, I think there’s a good chance they win arbitration. If not, he’ll walk. It is a gamble, but it would be foolish to think that Bowman hadn’t thought this scenario through.
www.mjt.org
I doubt Niemi comes in at $2mm, whether or not that is a reasonable number. With all of the inflated contracts flying around, he’ll likely be awarded on the high side, especially with Halak getting the numbers he did.
It’s a tough pill to swallow, but washing it down by drinking from the Cup eases the pain.
http://www.prosportsblogging.com
by Great Ice-Pectations on Jul 9, 2010 2:40 PM PDT up reply actions
That's what I figured, too
Before the arbitration announcement, I had Niemi pegged at $3.5-4 mil/year. Not only is there Halak’s deal as a precedent, but Pavelski signed for $4 mil+.
other contracts aren't suppose to come into play
I think as a second year goalie without a full season behind him it 3-4 million is a lot to find in Arbitration. Of course I am going by what I have seen happen in MLB.
The evidence that can be used in arbitration cases:
- The player’s “overall performance” including statistics in all previous seasons.
- Injuries, illnesses and the number of games played.
- The player’s length of service with the team and in the NHL.
- The player’s “overall contribution” to the team’s success or failure.
- The player’s “special qualities of leadership or public appeal.”
- The performance and salary of any player alleged to be “comparable” to the player in the dispute.
Evidence that is not admissible:
- The salary and performance of a “comparable” player who signed a contract as an unrestricted free agent.
- Testimonials, video and media reports.
- The financial state of the team.
- The salary cap and the state of the team’s payroll.
They should yes, but depending on the cap hit they may venture into their 10% summer cushion.
http://www.prosportsblogging.com
by Great Ice-Pectations on Jul 9, 2010 10:53 AM PDT up reply actions
crap, premature posting, sorry
I was trying to say, it may be part of San Jose’s conscious strategy to HURT chicago and thereby make San Jose’s biggest rival worse, thus increasing San Jose’s chances of getting past them in the playoffs. They have, in effect, forced a terrible trade with their (now) arch rivals. That’s great GM-ing I think.
Wait till this year.
After Wallin
I love this move. Swift kick to the nuts of the Hawks, now to wait and see how they take it.
"Douglas Murray is a humongous human being." – Drew Remenda
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
Related FanPosts on Jewels From The Crown
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2010 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
