TheGuardian_

What Are Your Thoughts of What A Rebuild Is?

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

7 hours ago, Dr. Crossbar said:

Well, AV's firing. Red flag #1. The massive drop from SCF to 1st round exit. Red Flag #2. 

 

But like I said, I said I get both sides. Trust me, I get what your saying. Why would you do anything other than hand out those contracts? Look at the numbers. 

 

For me, it's insight into where management's head was at the time. They were only going by the conventional line of thinking. And for business reasons, too. Conventional is safe for revenue. 

 

But they failed to see, as you point out ... 

 

2011 - won Presidents Trophy, lost in SCF

2012 - won Presidents Trophy, lost in 1st round of playoffs

 

That's a massive decline.

 

At that point, you have a couple options: believe we're a President's Trophy team that can get back to the Cup and ignore the massive drop from Cup final to 1st round exit ... Or ... Recognize you're the top regular season team in the league but those days are obviously numbered with an aging core and the gap proves you're window is over.

 

Not just that but also what you actually see on the ice. It's not a stretch to say we haven't been able to score since 2012. We all saw the problems.

 

I would like to think there was one person in the organization who played Devil's Advocate and said ... "Wait a second, let's just say those President's days are over. We're about to hand our four to six year contracts. Where will we be and what are the consequences. Can we really achieve our goals or are we overlooking something?"

 

 

Looking back, 2012 summer where we just won President Trophy and lost in 1st round of the playoffs to the eventual champion. One year after was not a massive decline and we just think that if we had beaten LA, we might get some run of our own and might won the cup had we overcame Quick's goaltending.   I doubt that we would have foreseen the massive decline that we just saw 5 years later at end of 2012 season.  Lockout season did not help things as well because we had a mediocre 48 game schedule, not full 82 games schedule and did not fully evaluate our roster until the Torts year.    It ruined our opportunity to make a full evaluation and make some change due to shorten season that time and did not know what type of team we had if lockout didn't happen.  I truly believe that if we went through that full season, we might have been able to make that change way earlier.  The result out of this: just a coaching change and retain a full roster from 2011 which was a mistake.  The team was fully exposed the season after.   If 2012-13 season were an 82-game schedule, we might be exposed as well and Gillis would not retain the full roster in summer of 2013 and come out with different roster with a new coach.  

 

Again, looking back to summer of 2012 or 2013, the Canucks were at the cap team and could not sign any type of players we wanted and had to make a choice whether to resign Sedin, Edler, Burrows, Kesler, Hansen, Schnider (coming out of ELC if I remember correctly), and had to hand out NMC/NTC for those guys like Garrison and above that I mentioned except for Schnider.  All while at the same time, the Canucks have been searching for a  PP QB replacement since Salo retired by signing Garrison hoping that he would bring some success from his Florida years.    It just didn't happen for us.

 

We could not even foreseen the supporting players like Bieksa, Raymond, Ballard, Booth, Garrison, Hodgson flopped so bad when they had some success with other teams or played with us for a brief time with a massive decline all at the same time at the same year which made things harder for all of the roster and it affected top guys on our team, struggling at times and truly exposed the team on the road during final season with AV/Torts year.   Rental players supposedly had a good season with their old club flopped so badly once they became a Canuck after the trade deadline did not help as well. 

 

I think that we are the only team that had a massive decline all at the same time from the top to bottom at the same year in history of the NHL compared to other teams.   The 2013 lockout has to do something with it just like 1994 and 2004 lockout seasons.  Just when the Canucks became good or a championship caliber team, lockout came just at a wrong time, imo.   It is similar with 2013 without an opportunity to fully evaluate what type of team we had after a lockout.   We finished 3rd that season but without the benefit of playing against Eastern Conference teams, we don't know what type of team we had until 2013/14 season.  

 

Sedin, Edler, Burrows, Kesler, Hansen, and Schnider at that time deserved a new contract that summer after the run to the Cup and back to back President Trophy seasons.   There were nothing we could do but to resign them to a NMC/NTC contract otherwise fans would still complaining that we didn't sign them and our 2011 team would be gone too quickly and why we would have to go through rebuilding too early.  This was all before their decline that happened shortly afterward.  No way to avoid this but to actually go through those years of decline before fans start to accept for a change.   Now, it's 2017 season, 4-5 years after the glory years, we are looking ahead to better days and who knows that we might be rewarded sooner rather than later.  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Dr. Crossbar said:

Rebuilding the core has always been hampered by the NTC/NMCs handed out in the previous era. 

 

You can't simply ignore this as if all of those contracts can be broken, and that anyone asked to waive will waive. You have to first treat those as immovable parts until or unless there's room to move. 

 

At one point not long ago, we had upwards of 10 NTC/NMCs in some form.

 

That was the biggest obstacle standing in the way of changing the core. We had to wait years to peel away the immovable parts. 

 

Looking back ...

 

We went to the Cup in 2011. We didn't get back in 2012. The following year in 2013 should have been the start of our rebuilding period. We were at a crossroads.

 

Instead, what happened that year? We signed the then 33 year old Sedins to four year contracts, Edler to a six year contract, and Hansen to a four year deal. And we also hired Torts that year who knew this core had to change.

 

And since Burrows, Bieksa, Hamhuis, and Kesler were signed until 2016, and we had previously given Garrison a longer term deal, we instead doubled down in 2013 with the same core when it was increasingly clear our window had already closed. 

 

We put ourselves on a path where if we couldn't rebuild the core, the only thing we could change was the coach. To some degree, both Torts and Willie were casualties of those NTC/NMCs.

 

Those contracts also meant a slower burn into mediocrity and slower rate of drafting high for an impact player. 

 

Major change didn't really happen until the season after getting bounced by Calgary. That was two full seasons after we were at a major crossroads.

 

But I get both sides of this. We had little to no depth or youth in 2013, we just came out of a win now mentality, and we mortgaged our future to climb the mountain. In the end, to large degree, we hampered our ability to rebuild our core and rebuild in the near future out of necessity in the now. 

 

I think the takeaways are in recognizing when your window is closed, recognizing when you're at a major crossroads, having the courage to pull back and assess instead of doubling down, knowing the right time to make difficult decisions for the future, adapt early or get left behind, and enduring short term pain for long term gain. 

 

The biggest obstacle in changing the core wasn't the ntc's it having no prospects to replace them with. You need prospects with the ability to become core players to build a new core. Gillis left us Horvat. Compare that to TO, last year they had 14 players they drafted on their team. But only three were drafted by Shanny. They had a solid starting point. A luxury Benning didn't have.

 

People are way too quick to declare players "core". There's two on the team I'm pretty certain will be core. Horvat and Boeser. The rest will be determined over time.

 

Everybody keeps going on about replacing the core. Most of the old core is gone. Just how many core players are on a team? I figure 5 forwards and 3 D, plus a goalie of course. So 9 core players. Where were all these new core players going to come from in just 3 years with what Benning had to start with?

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Baggins said:

The biggest obstacle in changing the core wasn't the ntc's it having no prospects to replace them with. You need prospects with the ability to become core players to build a new core. Gillis left us Horvat. Compare that to TO, last year they had 14 players they drafted on their team. But only three were drafted by Shanny. They had a solid starting point. A luxury Benning didn't have.

 

People are way too quick to declare players "core". There's two on the team I'm pretty certain will be core. Horvat and Boeser. The rest will be determined over time.

 

Everybody keeps going on about replacing the core. Most of the old core is gone. Just how many core players are on a team? I figure 5 forwards and 3 D, plus a goalie of course. So 9 core players. Where were all these new core players going to come from in just 3 years with what Benning had to start with?

Do you purposefully avoid mentioning that unlike the Canucks, the Leafs kids made the jump right away? 

 

Most of the old core is gone, yes, 4 years later, MOST of the core is gone. I'd go as far as to say that half of it is still intact. 

 

Why can't you just step over and admit that the Leafs acquired picks by jettisoning their old core and it bought them a new core, easily definable, unlike your claim above. It worked. Most of their high picks made the jump. The Canucks could have done this as well. 

 

Nearly all their kids instantly made the team, never bothering with the whole prospect phase at all. Their prospect pile is almost as good as the Canucks' too, again, over the same period of time.

 

Matthews or not, the Leafs rebuilding process could be used to crystal ball a what-could-have-been scenario where we guess what the Canucks'captain, sniper, etc. being auctioned off for draft picks might be worth. Instead, a rebuilding Canucks team has traded for Sutter and Guddy and kept Edler, Tanev and the twins intact. Rather than gut the team and build around a few solid pieces like the Leafs have, the Canucks did it one first rounder at a time; slowly. I'd call that a miss.

 

The Canucks could have purged everything they had to sell a few years back and acquired the picks needed to build through the draft at a faster pace, but they didn't. The Canucks could have backfilled the vacuum left by trading those quality pieces by adding players from Europe, KHL, college, and all sorts of PTO's and UFA signings, never mind the unknown Goldy-types which might have been available to them via those crystal ball trades. This season we see several placeholder UFAs being used the same way the team may have supported an expansion team- looking roster while the draft picks came along. In Toronto's case, most of the picks not only made the team, but became impact, core players. 

 

To say that because TO had a few Kardis is the reason they could do such a rebuild doesn't fully hold up because Benning could have possibly gone the UFA route to create the foundation to insert a plethora of rookies from consecutive drafts into, of the Kadri value range. 

 

The difference between the two clubs is the one has impact players and the other has prospects and a few bright spots of hope. These executions of two rebuild strategies, defined as rebuilding the core, were vastly different, but both were hindered by contact restraints.

 

We can't make many more excuses for the management of this team for its past. I am giving the SlimJim management until the TDL before I unleash my inner Guardian on them. Having dumped all roster players except the old core set this thing into a supernova. In time, this might be a bigger story than it is right now. 

 

Shoulda-woulda-coulda, this is how many fans will remember this sluggish and stubborn rebuild, as defined by redeveloping a core, through the draft. 

 

 

Edited by 189lb enforcers?
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, 189lb enforcers? said:

Do you purposefully avoid mentioning that unlike the Canucks, the Leafs kids made the jump right away? 

 

Most of the old core is gone, yes, 4 years later, MOST of the core is gone. I'd go as far as to say that half of it is still intact. 

 

Why can't you just step over and admit that the Leafs acquired picks by jettisoning their old core and it bought them a new core, easily definable, unlike your claim above. 

 

Nearly all their kids instantly made the team, never bothering with the whole prospect phase at all. Their prospect pile is almost as good as the Canucks' too, again, over the same period of time.

 

Matthews or not, the Leafs rebuilding process could be used to crystal ball a what-could-have-been scenario where we guess what the Canucks'captain, sniper, etc. being auctioned off for draft picks might be worth. Instead, a rebuilding Canucks team has traded for Sutter and Guddy and kept Edler, Tanev and the twins intact. Rather than gut the team and build around a few solid pieces like the Leafs have, the Canucks did it one first rounder at a time; slowly. I'd call that a miss.

 

The Canucks could have purged everything they had to sell a few years back and acquired the picks needed to build through the draft at a faster pace, but they didn't. The Canucks could have backfilled the vacuum left by trading those quality pieces by adding players from Europe, KHL, college, and all sorts of PTO's and UFA signings, never mind the unknown Goldy-types which might have been available to them via those crystal ball trades. This season we see several placeholder UFAs being used the same way the team may have supported an expansion team- looking roster while the draft picks came along. In Toronto's case, most of the picks not only made the team, but became impact, core players. 

 

To say that because TO had a few Kardis is the reason they could do such a rebuild doesn't fully hold up because Benning could have possibly gone the UFA route to create the foundation to insert a plethora of rookies from consecutive drafts into, of the Kadri value range. 

 

The difference between the two clubs is the one has impact players and the other has prospects and a few bright spots of hope. The execution of two rebuilt strategies, defined as rebuilding the core, were vastly different, but both were hindered by contact restraints.

 

We can't make many more excuses for the management of this team for its past. I am giving the SlimJim management until the TDL before I unleash my inner Guardian on them. Having dumped all roster players except the old core set this thing into a supernova. In time, this might be a bigger story than it is right now. 

 

Shoulda-woulda-coulda, this is how many fans will remember this sluggish and stubborn rebuild, as defined by redeveloping a core, through the draft. 

 

 

Good post.  If I may add, this “sluggish” method of rebuild ends up with a weaker team with disjointed age groups too.  To use the Leafs as an example, they were terribly rebuilt during the Burke-Nonis era using similar method as JB.  Only when the Shanahan “purge” came, and he pronounced there “will be pain”, did they finally take the necessary steps backwards (out of the middle of the pack) to the bottom.  

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Alflives said:

Good post.  If I may add, this “sluggish” method of rebuild ends up with a weaker team with disjointed age groups too.  To use the Leafs as an example, they were terribly rebuilt during the Burke-Nonis era using similar method as JB.  Only when the Shanahan “purge” came, and he pronounced there “will be pain”, did they finally take the necessary steps backwards (out of the middle of the pack) to the bottom.  

Agree.

Horvat is somewhat wasted here because of this pace and it's not a stretch to imagine him leaving as a UFA or even being traded to get the "prospect" core over the hump in a few years. 

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"There will be pain."

 

 

Just not here.

Insert Guddy and Sutter, as examples of claws out-stretched to cling to the side of the tank. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, 189lb enforcers? said:

Do you purposefully avoid mentioning that unlike the Canucks, the Leafs kids made the jump right away?

Only one did - Matthews. The other two waited 1 and 2 years respectively. All three had their rookie year together.  They also drafted higher than us each of those three years. Still no other Shanny picks on this years Leafs roster either. So had Shanny started with an old team and no prospects like us would their team be just as good with just those 3 players and nobody else?

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Baggins said:

Only one did - Matthews. The other two waited 1 and 2 years respectively. All three had their rookie year together.  They also drafted higher than us each of those three years.

2014

Jake Virtanen 6th overall - Canucks

William Nylander 8th overall - Leafs

 

4 minutes ago, Baggins said:

Still no other Shanny picks on this years Leafs roster either. So had Shanny started with an old team and no prospects like us would their team be just as good with just those 3 players and nobody else?

He did can you name 3 prospects that Shanahan inherited?  Go look at leafs drafting between 2003-2013, it's quite pathetic, almost as bad as what we saw from Gillis

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, 189lb enforcers? said:

Why can't you just step over and admit that the Leafs acquired picks by jettisoning their old core and it bought them a new core, easily definable, unlike your claim above. It worked. Most of their high picks made the jump. The Canucks could have done this as well.

What you don't seem to get is not a single one of those acquired picks has made the Leafs team. Not one. So those extra picks have contributed nothing to a new core. Only three Shanny picks have made the roster: The 1st overall, 4th overall and 8th overall picks. Something you can't seem to wrap your mind around or simply choose to ignore.

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, 189lb enforcers? said:

Serious, on here?

We don't have time for that, I'd hope. 

 

I'm thrilled they are turning the corner with this seemingly rudderless enterprise.

I am not complaining about the good the Canucks have coming. I'm putting my cheer outfit back on because I have nothing to bitch about... unless the TDL passes with this roster intact.

 

This is the happiest I've been with the team in years. I'm not going to dwell on the past anymore and am pulling myself out of this tendency to look at the past and not the future of this team. Wish me luck. 

 

 

Clover boy ::D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Baggins said:

Only one did - Matthews. The other two waited 1 and 2 years respectively. All three had their rookie year together.  They also drafted higher than us each of those three years. Still no other Shanny picks on this years Leafs roster either. So had Shanny started with an old team and no prospects like us would their team be just as good with just those 3 players and nobody else?

You love this spin stuff.

When you say, "start with nothing", do you mean post-draft in year one? Two? 

 

He he could have traded for picks AND prospects like JB did at the last TDL. I will stop there as it answers your rhetorical question. 

 

He didn't do much to start on the core, which can take a bit. So why wait? I realize not all high draft picks turn into Marner or Laine... or a Tkachuck. 

 

If anything, AM totally derailed their rebuild as they're now forced to peak too early.  Not a bad misfortune. You make your own luck. SlimJim has made very little of that outside of last year's TDL. 

 

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Baggins said:

What you don't seem to get is not a single one of those acquired picks has made the Leafs team. Not one. So those extra picks have contributed nothing to a new core. Only three Shanny picks have made the roster: The 1st overall, 4th overall and 8th overall picks. Something you can't seem to wrap your mind around or simply choose to ignore.

 

Did the Tank year picks make the team?

 

edit

Those 3 picks, all high, impact player, picks, were planned to some extent. Tanking by gutting your roster is a plan. It worked. 

Edited by 189lb enforcers?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, TheGuardian_ said:

So in 4 more years they team gets another 4 guys? And the one's we have now are 26+ and still not stars in the NHL by comparison? So it looks like at least a 12 year re-whatever right? And then they are where they are now?

 

All the top teams that have elite level players will have to rebuild as getting those players mostly come from the draft in the very early rounds hence Tallon's quote of "you have to get bad, to be good" in other words, draft in the very early rounds or hit on a 1 in 500 chance of getting a star in the later rounds.

 

Every team that loses their elite players goes down in the standings, some team's plan for it.

 

You know maybe the Canucks are planning/executing the invisible tank, years of being bad enough to get top picks unfortunately they are not quite bad enough and their selection successes are not something to be desired. It could be just a league mandate that doesn't allow for the word tank or rebuild, the league does control a lot of media content. TO wouldn't care, they would just do it, they are one of two teams and the only one that have challenged the NHL and won, the Rangers were the other one.

How do you know that? have you got a crystal ball?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, spook007 said:

How do you know that? have you got a crystal ball?

To be fair, exact even, this management is rebuilding one first rounder at a time.

4 years = 4 picks 

4 players

odds are 3 pan out as impact players, max.

 

Thats a spread out core, age-wise. No crystal ball required if projecting the trend. 

Edited by 189lb enforcers?
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, ForsbergTheGreat said:

2014

Jake Virtanen 6th overall - Canucks

William Nylander 8th overall - Leafs

 

He did can you name 3 prospects that Shanahan inherited?  Go look at leafs drafting between 2003-2013, it's quite pathetic, almost as bad as what we saw from Gillis

 

Yup I forgot Virts was higher.

 

Kadri 24 when Shanny took over

Van Riemsdyk 25 when Shanny took over

Gardiner 24 when Shanny took over

Brown 20 when Shanny took over

Reilly 20 when Shanny took over

 

Name 5 young guys Benning inherited of that quality. Last year 13 leaf drafted players played for the leafs. Only 3 were drafted by Shanny. Does Benning have 10 Gillis drafted players to use?

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/22/2017 at 0:14 AM, Baggins said:

So they never said they didn't need to rebuild. Just made up bull on your part.

 

Just because they didn't intentionally tank the team doesn't mean they haven't been rebuilding since they took over. It's been perfectly obvious they've been rebuilding to many of us.

 

Obviously we’ve been forthright in saying we’ve been transitioning as a team to a younger group and that was becoming a bit of a sticking point with some people. So to get alignment with our fans and our media I used the rebuild word today, which everyone can get their head around.

 

“If that word makes everyone happier then I’m more than happy to use it.”

 

 

So according to Linden they've been rebuilding since the beginning. For those that couldn't figure it out themselves he finally used the word 'rebuild' to make it clear for them.

every team is always rebuilding.  sometimes with younger players, sometimes with veterans.

 

the idea of focusing on younger players in a rebuild was NOT part of the teams modus operandi when the new management took over.  Just look at the contracts for older players given out, especially at the beginning...   There are some great trades for younger players mixed in, I'm not questioning that.  But the Eriksson signing - how can you say that is part of a rebuild?  Just that signing alone is an indication of what the team was thinking.  And trading away tons of 2nd round picks (and other round picks) at the beginning is also a very good indication that the team was NOT focusing on a rebuild.  To think otherwise is silly.

 

They have come around, slowly...  the point is they could have been focused on a rebuild much earlier, and we would be farther along than we are now (more picks - and have won about the same amount of games.

 

If you think the team was always rebuilding - explain the signing of older players and trading away picks.  It doesn't add up.  I'm not saying they didn't have a reason for it - that they believed in - or even that makes sense... I'm just saying that they weren't focused on a rebuild early in their tenure, and that is the cause of a lot of controversy for the fan base and media pundits alike.

 

 

 

 

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Baggins said:

Yup I forgot Virts was higher.

 

Kadri 24 when Shanny took over

Van Riemsdyk 25 when Shanny took over

Gardiner 24 when Shanny took over

Brown 20 when Shanny took over

Reilly 20 when Shanny took over

Name 5 young guys Benning inherited of that quality.

Players under 25 prior to 2014-15 season:

Leafs - Reilly, Kadri, JVR, Komarov, Gardiner, Brown, Leivo, Gauthier, Sparks

 

Canucks – Horvat, Tanev, Hutton, Markstrom, Kassian, Jensen, Corrado, Shinkaruk

 

 

Quote

Last year 13 leaf drafted players played for the leafs. Only 3 were drafted by Shanny. Does Benning have 10 Gillis drafted players to use?

Does shanny have 10 players drafted by the previous leafs management?  Nope. 

 

As of April 2014, Leafs have 7 players on their rosters today from remaining from when shanny took over: Reilly, JVR, Gardiner, Kadri, Bozak, Komarov.  Everyone else has been drafted, signed, or traded for since Shanahan has taken over.

 

As of May 2014 Canucks have 8 players on their rosters today from remaining from when JB took over: Horvat, Hutton, Tanev, Edler, Sedins, Markstrom, Gaunce

 

 

Now consider those teams rosters and what they had for tradable assets....Players over 25

Leafs – Kessel, Dion, Franson, Bolland, Clarkson, Bozak, Lupul, Kulemin, Raymond

Canucks – H.Sedin, D.Sedin, Edler Garrison, Kesler, Hansen, Burrows, Hamhuis, Higgins, Bieksa, Lack, Matthias, Richardson, Santorelli

 

Edited by ForsbergTheGreat
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, canucksnihilist said:

every team is always rebuilding.  sometimes with younger players, sometimes with veterans.

 

the idea of focusing on younger players in a rebuild was NOT part of the teams modus operandi when the new management took over.  Just look at the contracts for older players given out, especially at the beginning...   There are some great trades for younger players mixed in, I'm not questioning that.  But the Eriksson signing - how can you say that is part of a rebuild?  Just that signing alone is an indication of what the team was thinking.  And trading away tons of 2nd round picks (and other round picks) at the beginning is also a very good indication that the team was NOT focusing on a rebuild.  To think otherwise is silly.

 

They have come around, slowly...  the point is they could have been focused on a rebuild much earlier, and we would be farther along than we are now (more picks - and have won about the same amount of games.

 

If you think the team was always rebuilding - explain the signing of older players and trading away picks.  It doesn't add up.  I'm not saying they didn't have a reason for it - that they believed in - or even that makes sense... I'm just saying that they weren't focused on a rebuild early in their tenure, and that is the cause of a lot of controversy for the fan base and media pundits alike.

Who the hell were they suppose to play? There were no decent prospects other than Horvat. There's no magic wand to fill a propsect pool with NHL ready talent. Of course some ufa's were signed.

 

Trading for Vey, Etem, Baertschi, and Granlund were all rebuilding moves.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, 189lb enforcers? said:

To be fair, exact even, this management is rebuilding one first rounder at a time.

4 years = 4 picks 

4 players

odds are 3 pan out as impact players, max.

 

Thats a spread out core, age-wise. No crystal ball required if projecting the trend. 

I may be aiming high, but bear with me...

ATM we've go Horvat, Beartchi, JV, Brock, Gaunce and maybe Sutter... we've got  Petterson, Gaudette, Lind, and maybe a few more coming through. And then we draft for the next 4 years as well. 

I'd say we could have a decent team in 4 years time...

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.