-ahahahahahahaaaaa.
Please dear God no.
2026 T25U25 Week 4 Summary
-
A progression of centres and young defenders that culminated in a
controversial goalie ranking.
2 weeks ago
Friday, August 28, 2009
Monday, August 17, 2009
Once again, with feeling
As we progress towards the start of the season, and you see more and more articles saying things like this -
"Burke, however, failed to add a top six forward to the mix prompting worries that the Leafs will not be able to score goals this coming season."
- just keep this in mind:
The Leafs placings in league standings among all 30 teams for G/F since the lockout: 10, 11, 8, 9.
The Leafs placings in league standings among all 30 teams for G/A since the lockout: 30, 27, 25, 21.
Every single year scoring (or rather, our ratio of "top six forwards") is brought up as a weakness for the team, every single year those suggestions have been blatantly inaccurate. The fact that the Leafs have tried to cut down on their goals against in lieu of adding scoring is not a negative. It shows our management can actually read, unlike most pundits, and is trying to address the problems that actually plague the team.
"Burke, however, failed to add a top six forward to the mix prompting worries that the Leafs will not be able to score goals this coming season."
- just keep this in mind:
The Leafs placings in league standings among all 30 teams for G/F since the lockout: 10, 11, 8, 9.
The Leafs placings in league standings among all 30 teams for G/A since the lockout: 30, 27, 25, 21.
Every single year scoring (or rather, our ratio of "top six forwards") is brought up as a weakness for the team, every single year those suggestions have been blatantly inaccurate. The fact that the Leafs have tried to cut down on their goals against in lieu of adding scoring is not a negative. It shows our management can actually read, unlike most pundits, and is trying to address the problems that actually plague the team.
Wednesday, August 12, 2009
We are not the kids we used to be
(stop wishing for yesterday!)
Alright, so this offseason is winding down with Kaberle's trade window looking to expire once again without movement on our part on Saturday.
I recently read a post about an Edmonton fan wondering how many people actually remained on the team since the lockout. I think the answer came out to 4.
Assuming we don't move Tomas Kaberle, we'll also have 4 Leafs remaining on the team who played at least one game in 2005-2006:
Kaberle
Ponikarovsky
Stajan
White
That's it.
Now, is this unusual for clubs across the NHL? Both Toronto and Edmonton have been on playoff-barren streaks these past few years. So I decided to go check out the other teams in our division (these are players that played games at the NHL level in 05/06):
Montreal - 3:
Markov
Plekanec
A. Kostitsyn
Ottawa - 8:
Alfredsson
Heatley (maybe)
Spezza
Fisher
Neil
Kelly
Volchenkov
Schubert
Boston - 4:
Bergeron
Sturm
Stuart
Alberts (thanks Cornelius)
Thomas
Buffalo - 9:
Connolly
Vanek
Roy
Hecht
Gaustad
Lydman
Paille
Paetsch
Miller
Not even double-digit holdovers on any team in the Northeast. It's pretty obvious that turnover is the norm in the NHL, not the exception, and that it can happen in a surprisingly short amount of time. This is 4 seasons, noting that the 4th has yet to even be played at this point. Kind of reinforces the idea that all these long, cap circumventing contracts are generally a bad idea.
What does this mean to a Leafs fan? For one, think twice before buying that next jersey.
Seriously though, it's that one can't look at their current roster and then project the next 3, 4 seasons on it. Will Schenn be with the team forever? Ask any Bruins fan that has an '05 Thornton jersey what they think about "franchise players". Do Komisarek and Beauchemin anchor our D for the length of their contracts? Remember that Kubina was a highly touted high-cost free agent signing of similar age.
Steen, Colaiacovo, and Wellwood sure looked like future bright lights for the team back on 05, didn't they? When Pascal Leclaire set the NHL on fire for the Blue Jackets in 07, could we really guess that in a year he'd be supplanted and then become a Senator? How about when Wade Redden and Zdeno Chara/Joe Corvo were part of a threatening Ottawa power play?
Only two goaltenders have actually stuck with their team in this sample, All Stars Ryan Miller and Tim Thomas. Toronto managed to run through 3-4 guys, Montreal at least 4, Boston parted ways with promising young goalie Hannu Toivonen, not to mention a goalie a year removed from a Calder in Raycroft.
The NHL's a crazy place, players come and go with incredible frequency, doesn't matter if they're young, expensive, or a "sure thing". Just a little perspective for all us future-crazed sports fans.
Alright, so this offseason is winding down with Kaberle's trade window looking to expire once again without movement on our part on Saturday.
I recently read a post about an Edmonton fan wondering how many people actually remained on the team since the lockout. I think the answer came out to 4.
Assuming we don't move Tomas Kaberle, we'll also have 4 Leafs remaining on the team who played at least one game in 2005-2006:
Kaberle
Ponikarovsky
Stajan
White
That's it.
Now, is this unusual for clubs across the NHL? Both Toronto and Edmonton have been on playoff-barren streaks these past few years. So I decided to go check out the other teams in our division (these are players that played games at the NHL level in 05/06):
Montreal - 3:
Markov
Plekanec
A. Kostitsyn
Ottawa - 8:
Alfredsson
Heatley (maybe)
Spezza
Fisher
Neil
Kelly
Volchenkov
Schubert
Boston - 4:
Bergeron
Sturm
Stuart
Alberts (thanks Cornelius)
Thomas
Buffalo - 9:
Connolly
Vanek
Roy
Hecht
Gaustad
Lydman
Paille
Paetsch
Miller
Not even double-digit holdovers on any team in the Northeast. It's pretty obvious that turnover is the norm in the NHL, not the exception, and that it can happen in a surprisingly short amount of time. This is 4 seasons, noting that the 4th has yet to even be played at this point. Kind of reinforces the idea that all these long, cap circumventing contracts are generally a bad idea.
What does this mean to a Leafs fan? For one, think twice before buying that next jersey.
Seriously though, it's that one can't look at their current roster and then project the next 3, 4 seasons on it. Will Schenn be with the team forever? Ask any Bruins fan that has an '05 Thornton jersey what they think about "franchise players". Do Komisarek and Beauchemin anchor our D for the length of their contracts? Remember that Kubina was a highly touted high-cost free agent signing of similar age.
Steen, Colaiacovo, and Wellwood sure looked like future bright lights for the team back on 05, didn't they? When Pascal Leclaire set the NHL on fire for the Blue Jackets in 07, could we really guess that in a year he'd be supplanted and then become a Senator? How about when Wade Redden and Zdeno Chara/Joe Corvo were part of a threatening Ottawa power play?
Only two goaltenders have actually stuck with their team in this sample, All Stars Ryan Miller and Tim Thomas. Toronto managed to run through 3-4 guys, Montreal at least 4, Boston parted ways with promising young goalie Hannu Toivonen, not to mention a goalie a year removed from a Calder in Raycroft.
The NHL's a crazy place, players come and go with incredible frequency, doesn't matter if they're young, expensive, or a "sure thing". Just a little perspective for all us future-crazed sports fans.
Monday, July 27, 2009
Did trading Stralman actually free up space?
So the Leafs have traded Anton Stralman, Colin Stuart, and a 7th round pick in exchange for Wayne Primeau and a 2nd.
First off, there's still some confusion over Stralman's status with regards to waiver eligibility, and in looking it over I see I was wrong the last time I looked it up too:
The Leafs signed Anton Stralman to a 3 year entry level contract on May 16, 2007. Stralman was born on August 1, 1986, meaning that he was still technically 20 years old at the time of the signing, but according to the NHL he was 21 for the purposes of waiver eligibility (as player age is decided by the calendar year he turns 21, not the player's age the day he signs).
Players signing their first NHL contract at the age of 21 are waiver exempt for 3 years or until they have played 60 NHL games, according to NHLscap. Stralman's 38 games played last year added to his 50 the year before mean that he will be waiver eligible this year.
So the short answer is yes, trading Stralman gets one NHL defenseman off the roster. 3 more to go...
*****
With that in mind, is this a bad trade? It's tough to say.
Trading Stralie as he is for a 2nd is decent market value, and considering that he's likely too far down on the depth chart to make the club after camp calling him up next year would be impossible (or force us to do what we were doing last season, with the rotating carousel of defensemen). Unless he was going to have a massive showing at camp it's probably for the best that we got what assets we could.
Also, knowing Burke, this is another "give the kid a shot" move, letting someone go so that they can find success elsewhere. It's possible that Stralman asked for a trade, it's possible that he was considering bolting to Sweden.
On the flipside, this is exactly the kind of trade that has been historically biting the Leafs in the ass. Stralman's ceiling is high, and he was coming off career highs in points in both the AHL and NHL as well as improved defensive stats over his rookie season, despite what public perception of his play was. Stralman was not a regressing player, he was an improving one, and there's every chance to believe that if he can crack a lineup we'll be moaning about it later.
Also, this is a salary dump on Calgary's part, albeit a small one. They're a team right up against the salary cap, they're supposed to be paying for the priviledge of getting money off the books. So why did we trade two young guys and a pick? I'd be much happier with this trade if we'd actually added to our draft pool, but we didn't (and for the nay sayers that want to say 7th rounders never amount to resources, Stralman was a 7th round pick and he gave us 88 games and evidently some trade leverage).
There's also the issue of depth. I just made a post about the Leafs' success rate without Kaberle in the lineup in the event he goes, but Stralman was a big part of those games in terms of PP time and outlet passing. Beyond Schenn and Stralman, the Leafs blueline prospects were incredibly thin on talent, and are now even more so. There's also nobody on the Marlies or even close to the roster in the pipeline who possesses the same skill set as Stralman. 3 years down the line, when we've ditched just about all our blue line corps, will we be glad we dumped Stralie with nobody else to take a puck-moving role on our defense for one more year of Mike Van Ryn and Jonas Frogren?
The expectation this offseason was that we would get younger, and that we would add scoring talent. This trade does neither, and in the last few days all we've seen from Burke is the intention of dumping 23 year olds from the thinnest parts of our depth chart.
All told, it's hard to be ecstatic about getting a 2nd and a 33 year-old for two younger guys and a pick, especially for a team that has historically paid dearly for not developing it's players. But there's every chance that both Stralman and Stuart never play an NHL game again. There's also every chance that Stralman finds a way to live up to his potential. I'd give it about 50/50. But Burke had to do something, and this deal was certainly that.
First off, there's still some confusion over Stralman's status with regards to waiver eligibility, and in looking it over I see I was wrong the last time I looked it up too:
The Leafs signed Anton Stralman to a 3 year entry level contract on May 16, 2007. Stralman was born on August 1, 1986, meaning that he was still technically 20 years old at the time of the signing, but according to the NHL he was 21 for the purposes of waiver eligibility (as player age is decided by the calendar year he turns 21, not the player's age the day he signs).
Players signing their first NHL contract at the age of 21 are waiver exempt for 3 years or until they have played 60 NHL games, according to NHLscap. Stralman's 38 games played last year added to his 50 the year before mean that he will be waiver eligible this year.
So the short answer is yes, trading Stralman gets one NHL defenseman off the roster. 3 more to go...
*****
With that in mind, is this a bad trade? It's tough to say.
Trading Stralie as he is for a 2nd is decent market value, and considering that he's likely too far down on the depth chart to make the club after camp calling him up next year would be impossible (or force us to do what we were doing last season, with the rotating carousel of defensemen). Unless he was going to have a massive showing at camp it's probably for the best that we got what assets we could.
Also, knowing Burke, this is another "give the kid a shot" move, letting someone go so that they can find success elsewhere. It's possible that Stralman asked for a trade, it's possible that he was considering bolting to Sweden.
On the flipside, this is exactly the kind of trade that has been historically biting the Leafs in the ass. Stralman's ceiling is high, and he was coming off career highs in points in both the AHL and NHL as well as improved defensive stats over his rookie season, despite what public perception of his play was. Stralman was not a regressing player, he was an improving one, and there's every chance to believe that if he can crack a lineup we'll be moaning about it later.
Also, this is a salary dump on Calgary's part, albeit a small one. They're a team right up against the salary cap, they're supposed to be paying for the priviledge of getting money off the books. So why did we trade two young guys and a pick? I'd be much happier with this trade if we'd actually added to our draft pool, but we didn't (and for the nay sayers that want to say 7th rounders never amount to resources, Stralman was a 7th round pick and he gave us 88 games and evidently some trade leverage).
There's also the issue of depth. I just made a post about the Leafs' success rate without Kaberle in the lineup in the event he goes, but Stralman was a big part of those games in terms of PP time and outlet passing. Beyond Schenn and Stralman, the Leafs blueline prospects were incredibly thin on talent, and are now even more so. There's also nobody on the Marlies or even close to the roster in the pipeline who possesses the same skill set as Stralman. 3 years down the line, when we've ditched just about all our blue line corps, will we be glad we dumped Stralie with nobody else to take a puck-moving role on our defense for one more year of Mike Van Ryn and Jonas Frogren?
The expectation this offseason was that we would get younger, and that we would add scoring talent. This trade does neither, and in the last few days all we've seen from Burke is the intention of dumping 23 year olds from the thinnest parts of our depth chart.
All told, it's hard to be ecstatic about getting a 2nd and a 33 year-old for two younger guys and a pick, especially for a team that has historically paid dearly for not developing it's players. But there's every chance that both Stralman and Stuart never play an NHL game again. There's also every chance that Stralman finds a way to live up to his potential. I'd give it about 50/50. But Burke had to do something, and this deal was certainly that.
Sunday, July 26, 2009
Better Know a Leaf: Jeff Finger
Finger Money
-noun
1. Being paid an amount that is not commensurate with one's value.
2. $14 million dollars over 4 years.
ex. I wanted the team to sign him, but then I found out he wanted Finger Money.
On today's segment of Better Know a Leaf, we'll be looking at last year's big free agent splash Jeff Finger.
Jeff was born December 18th 1979 in Houghton Michigan. He was drafted 240th overall in the 1999 entry draft by the Colorado Avalanche. He played in the NHL for the first time in the 2006-2007 season, notching a goal and four assists in 22 games. He spent the following season on the Avs full-time, going 8-11-19 with a +12 rating in 72 games.
Following his first full season in the NHL, Finger was signed to a 4 year, 14 million dollar contract by the Toronto Maple Leafs on July 1st, 2008, on which day the term "Finger Money" was added to the public lexicon of Leaf bashing.
Now, first a sample of the total BS floating around the web about Finger:
via sportsnet
Now, I believe I'd covered some of this in a previous post just after the Finger signing, but I'll reiterate. Last year Finger put up 136 hits, good enough for 2nd on the Leafs and 30th among all NHL defensemen. His 158 blocked shots were good enough for first on the team and 18th overall for an NHL defenseman. Sounds to me like he's using that 6-1 205-pound frame pretty well.
Plus he can do this. And this.
Now, as for the "never put up great offensive numbers" bit, it's worth noting Jeff had 48 points in 55 games in the USHL as a 21 year-old. In even-strength scoring last season, Finger's 6 goals are tied for 15th in the NHL among defensemen, and his 15 assists tie him for 36th. Both of those numbers, by the way, lead the Leafs in even-strength scoring on the blueline. Finger's first goal as a Leaf was scored on November 25th, against the Thrashers.
Are those great offensive numbers? Not at first, it's hard to get excited over 23 points in 66 games. But that production is certainly valuable, and the fact that Finger was able to outscore two players in Kaberle and Kubina (who are paid more and are seasoned NHL vets) at even strength is pretty significant.
Now, Finger's had his mental lapses in the zone, and I'll never forget his performance on Wendel Night. But those nights happen for a player, and hopefully with more experience at the NHL level he can tighten up his game even more.
*****
There are 30 teams in the NHL, meaning that theoretically there are 120 top-4 defensemen in this league. Finger's being paid like a top-4 guy, and statwise he actually comes out pretty well given his lack of PP time (6th on the team in minutes, behind Van Ryn who played half as many games). If anything, it's hard to argue that he's not worth the money on this team for what he provides. Derek Morris just signed a similar contract with the Bruins and stat-wise they're almost the same player... except that Finger is the clear winner in terms of hits and shots blocked.
Unfortunately for Jeff, he's become the kind of Leaf that will always be known for his reputation, an overpaid AHL calibre player, than for his on-ice deeds. Hopefully he can put on a good enough performance in the next few years of his contract that he won't be remembered as a raspberry by most of the fan base.
Saturday, July 25, 2009
Life without Kabby?
There's been a lot of scuttlebutt about Kaberle and the moving of. We've gone from "definitely trading him to Boston" to Burke saying "hey now, this is Tomas friggin Kaberle. I'm not just gonna go trade him for some money-grubbing one season wonder over here." And good for him. But the fact remains that we have a logjam on D and Kabby remains our most tradable asset, so we might as well talk about it.
The main concern with Leafs fans and enemies alike is the state of Toronto's offense without their smooth skating cross-ice passer. After all, who wants to watch the Maple Leafs re-enact the Ottawa Senators 08-09 season?
But quite honestly, we're talking about a 31 point player who played 57 games last year. Is Kabby really the lynchpin of our offense?
So I figured, why not just take a look at how we did without the guy?
With Kaberle in the Leafs roster:
Record: 22-26-9 (0.464 win %)
Average GF/game: 2.96
Without Kaberle in the Leafs roster:
Record: 12-9-4 (0.520 win %)
Average GF/game: 3.24
So um, yeah. Huh. Without Kabby in the roster the Leafs managed to put up a better winning percentage and more goals per game. Not even I was expecting that one.
It's also worth noting that Kaberle missed most of the month of March, which was also when the team was missing Dominic Moore and Nik Antropov due to trades. As such, this month may give us a look into how the team might play out next year:
March w/o Kabby:
Record: 6-6-0
Average GF/game: 3.08
PP%: 21.9
PK%: 77.5
Defensemen (games played):
Finger: 12
Frogren: 3
Harrison:1
Kubina: 12
Oreskovic: 9
Schenn: 12
Stralman: 9
Van Ryn: 2
White: 12
Note that our powerplay % in the March games Kabby missed was actually better than our average for the whole season, as was (sadly) our PK.
*****
So, some things worth taking a huge grain of salt for:
The Leafs definitely got an added boost from Gerber and the defensive play of guys like Devereaux and Ondrus. Also, we're talking about a tiny sample size here, about a third of a season when the Leafs happened to get pretty hot. And there's no real way to factor Kubina out of the time Kabby had off.
But Scott, what does it all mean?
Nothing definitive, that's for sure.
Even so, the numbers are implying what I was thinking all this time, that while Kaberle's a good player the Leafs never really seemed to miss him as much as some would like to think. The Leafs got hot around last third of the season, but it seems suspicious that they managed to do so without two of the most highly thought of players on their roster, Kaberle and Antropov.
Is Kaberle a quality player? Most assuredly yes. Can we live without him, assuming we can nab an acceptable return back? I'm willing to go out on a limb here and say yes. It would certainly help if either Van Ryn or Beauchemin can re-discover the ability to put up 30 or so points, or if Stralman comes back with a good showing, though.
Now, if Kabby were to remain with us, well then. Wouldn't that be an interesting D corps...
The main concern with Leafs fans and enemies alike is the state of Toronto's offense without their smooth skating cross-ice passer. After all, who wants to watch the Maple Leafs re-enact the Ottawa Senators 08-09 season?
But quite honestly, we're talking about a 31 point player who played 57 games last year. Is Kabby really the lynchpin of our offense?
So I figured, why not just take a look at how we did without the guy?
With Kaberle in the Leafs roster:
Record: 22-26-9 (0.464 win %)
Average GF/game: 2.96
Without Kaberle in the Leafs roster:
Record: 12-9-4 (0.520 win %)
Average GF/game: 3.24
So um, yeah. Huh. Without Kabby in the roster the Leafs managed to put up a better winning percentage and more goals per game. Not even I was expecting that one.
It's also worth noting that Kaberle missed most of the month of March, which was also when the team was missing Dominic Moore and Nik Antropov due to trades. As such, this month may give us a look into how the team might play out next year:
March w/o Kabby:
Record: 6-6-0
Average GF/game: 3.08
PP%: 21.9
PK%: 77.5
Defensemen (games played):
Finger: 12
Frogren: 3
Harrison:1
Kubina: 12
Oreskovic: 9
Schenn: 12
Stralman: 9
Van Ryn: 2
White: 12
Note that our powerplay % in the March games Kabby missed was actually better than our average for the whole season, as was (sadly) our PK.
*****
So, some things worth taking a huge grain of salt for:
The Leafs definitely got an added boost from Gerber and the defensive play of guys like Devereaux and Ondrus. Also, we're talking about a tiny sample size here, about a third of a season when the Leafs happened to get pretty hot. And there's no real way to factor Kubina out of the time Kabby had off.
But Scott, what does it all mean?
Nothing definitive, that's for sure.
Even so, the numbers are implying what I was thinking all this time, that while Kaberle's a good player the Leafs never really seemed to miss him as much as some would like to think. The Leafs got hot around last third of the season, but it seems suspicious that they managed to do so without two of the most highly thought of players on their roster, Kaberle and Antropov.
Is Kaberle a quality player? Most assuredly yes. Can we live without him, assuming we can nab an acceptable return back? I'm willing to go out on a limb here and say yes. It would certainly help if either Van Ryn or Beauchemin can re-discover the ability to put up 30 or so points, or if Stralman comes back with a good showing, though.
Now, if Kabby were to remain with us, well then. Wouldn't that be an interesting D corps...
Thursday, July 16, 2009
Is Patrick Sharp the right guy for the Leafs?
he certainly wouldn't make a bad-looking LeafChicago's cap situation has got the vultures circling, and there's been a lot of press and talk about Patrick Sharp and his 3.9 million dollar contract being the magical salve that the franchise needs.
First off, it's been reported many times that including the bonus cushion it's entirely possible for Chicago to ice a competitive team and remain under the cap without trading anyone except Brent Sopel. If Chicago doesn't see a deal they like, they aren't actually under a whole lot of pressure to pull the trigger.
The excellent Leaf dudes at MLHS have been throwing around ideas for what exactly that might entail, knowing full well that whatever we give up must be low in salary in order to make the deal work. Picks, and prospects like Tlusty or Stefanovich, are being thrown around as ideas.
*****
But let's just get some things straight here. Sharp is not really a "young gun" unless you're also willing to call Ponikarovsky a young gun, as they're only a year apart and Sharp will be 28 this December. Sharpy's entering the prime of his career, and what we've seen is likely all we're going to get from the guy.
Sharp has never been a PPG player in the AHL. He'd never scored 20 goals until his 4th season in the NHL, his second with Chicago who got him for a song (Matt Ellison, currently of the KHL's Dynamo Riga, and a 3rd rounder). He'd also never scored more than 35 points until he was 26, when it just so happened that some true young phenoms in the form of Jonathan Toews and Patrick Kane showed up on his team.
In true keeping with the easy, unscientific research that I've been doing over the past little while, I looked back into Sharp's past game logs and counted the times he'd factored in on a scoring play (either with a goal or assist) alongside either of Patrick Kane or Jonathan Toews.
2007-2008
62 points
32 with Kane/Toews, 51.6% of total production
2008-2009
44 points
23 with Kane/Toews, 52.2% of total production
So what we have here is a slow-developing scoring winger who just happened to hit his prime at the same time that two young franchise players come into town, who have figured into half of his total production in the past two years.
(it's worth noting that Sharp missed a significant portion of the 2008/2009 season, extrapolated to 82 games he'd net around 55 points, lower than the previous year. It's also worth noting that Sharp's shooting percentage was .172 in his 36 goal campaign, higher than the league norm and his highest ever. As his percentage levelled off last year, so did his estimated production)
As I said in my last post, I don't think goal scoring will be as big a problem as some are implying next season, but the fact remains that we lack top 6 players. However, Sharp had never produced like one until his team suddenly had a dearth of offensive talent, and I'm not even counting Martin Havlat or Robert Lang yet.
*****
Don't get me wrong, Sharp's a talented individual and were he to be a Leaf I'm sure he'd put up some points. But I don't think the fears among the fan base that he's more of a complimentary player than a game-breaker are unfounded, and I'm not sure that we need a 50-60 point player as bad as some think. In my mind 50-60 points is about right for what a player getting good minutes and PP time should have, it's not an exceptional total.
I wouldn't mind having Sharp on this team, but it's hard for me to come up with any good ways to think about it. Just Exelby for Sharp? Nah. Give up Stajan or Koolie? Both of them are either par for or out-producing Sharp at their age.
And why would we ever considering trading Tlusty (who is a PPG player in the AHL) with his age and potential, or Stefonovich and his near limitless offensive possibility? Doesn't trading anybody younger than Sharp with a smaller cap hit seem counter-productive for a rebuilding team? And with a pick? Especially as Sharp doesn't solve our needs at centre (he took fewer faceoffs than Stajan, Grabs, Moore, and Mitchell last year).
No, the only way this trade makes sense for Toronto is if we can do it for defensemen only, and if we don't have to give up any young guys with potential. And I have an extremely hard time seeing Chicago bite on Ian White.
And let's be honest, late bloomer, shortly removed from a close to 40 goal season, 4 million dollar contract, complimentary scoring forward. You all know what I'm thinking.
get ready for the fist pump!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)