Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Re: [hockeydisk] did anyone notice him last year

Expand Messages
  • Herb Garbutt
    I m not the definitive word on scouting but having done the scouting report I learn a lot about a lot of players. Here s my two cents. Scott Hannan Hannan
    Message 1 of 11 , Aug 31, 2003
      I'm not the definitive word on scouting but having done the scouting report I learn a lot about a lot of players.
      Here's my two cents.

      Scott Hannan
      Hannan definitely improved this season, both offensively and defensively. A couple things I look for in a 4 defenceman
      (there are others, though these are important).
      -Does he play against the opposition's best lines:
      Hannan is still not the Sharks' go-to guy to shut down the opposition (Rathje fills that role and Hannan wasn't teamed
      with him last season despite the departure of Marcus Ragnarsson). So even though Hannan was even and Rathje was -19,
      I'd be more inclined to give Rathje a 4 because he was playing against other team's top. (Although even in that role
      -19 is pretty ugly and I might hesitate to give Rathje a 4 as well).
      -Is he teamed with an offensive defenceman.
      Teams rarely put two offensive Dmen together, instead they pair their good defensive Dmen with their offensive guys to
      serve as a defensive conscience. Hannan did this last year. He played with a wide variety of partners but most were
      more offensive guys (Fibiger, McGillis, Stuart).
      He is a stay-at-home guy, which helps although not a very well known or appreciated one. The even on a bad Sharks team
      might help Hannan. I'd have likely given him a 3.5 but a lot of raters put a lot of stock in plus/minus. I'd give
      Hannan a 50% of getting a 4 but it is by no means a guarantee yet.

      Dan Boyle
      Boyle did improve defensively last season but the fact of the matter was that prior to last season he was brutal in
      his own end. He was an offensive specialist. The improvement probably only brought him up to a 2 but given that he was
      a 2 last year, he could easily become a 3. Reality is he improved his passing which cut down on his turnovers but he's
      still small and easy to outmuscle in his own end. But judging by last year when Dmen like Phil Housley and Patrice
      Brisebois (who both are simply awful in their own end) got 3s based on improved offensive numbers, I'd give Boyle an
      85% chance of getting a 3.

      Adrian Aucoin
      Aucoin is a tough one. He's still primarily an offensive guy, though his numbers never seem to match his skills.
      He certainly qualifies on the criteria I mentioned for Hannan. You simply don't get 29 minutes of ice no matter how
      good you are offensively. My only hesitation is, is Aucoin in this role because he deserves it or simply because the
      Isles don't have anyone else? I lean toward the latter. The Isles simply don't have anyone you would call a defensive
      defenceman, at least none who could log top-4 minutes. Fairly or not (in this case not) his -5 might hurt him.
      I'd give Aucoin a 65% chance of moving up to a 4.

      Filip Kuba
      A solid arguement could be made for Kuba being a four. He fits the two criteria I mentioned but he may suffer from
      lack of exposure. It could take him another year to earn his four. My only knock (and it's not a big knock, more of a
      backhanded compliment) is that yes Kuba gets the job done but does he really excel at it. The same could be said of
      Aucoin. To get a four, I feel you not have to only do the job but do it really well. Granted I didn't see a lot of
      Minnesota until the playoffs so Kuba may already fit this bill.
      From past experience, some guys it takes the ratings a year to catch up to them and I'm afraid this will be the case
      with Kuba--although I was wrong once back in 1987 :)
      I'd give Kuba a 25% chance of moving up to a 4.

      David Scatchard, Martin Havlat, Wade Redden, Marco Sturm and Mike Knuble.
      Are you asking about these guys becoming/keeping 4s?
      Sturm already is one, and should defnitely keep it, although not 5 (Selke) material just yet.
      Havlat's still a 3. His +20 is a benefit of playing with two better defensive linemates, he's still primarily an
      offensive guy although improving in his own end.
      Wade Redden. Was a 4 last year, had a better year but is not 5 material (unless you're giving him an overall offensive
      and defensive ratings--which we're not).
      David Scatchard. Should be a 4. Was dropped to a 3 last year, victimized unfairly by a bad offensive year.
      Mike Knuble. Doesn't hurt his team defensively but is not what you would call above average defensively. He's a 3.

      Well, that's my take given my opinion and past experience with ratings. Good luck and may all your ratings dreams come
      true.

      Herb







      killerisback93 wrote:

      > hello everyone
      >
      > I was just wondering if anyone has any indication if Scott Hannan #'s
      > are goin to go up, He has played three solid years defensively and
      > now has emerged as San Jose's most reliable defender.
      >
      > just wondering if he will get his due
      >
      >
      >
      >
      > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
    • Sean Berends
      I wasn t going to jump into the fray because it seems pointless since my opinion doesn t count in the end, but I ll bite and put my 2 cents in. I ve commented
      Message 2 of 11 , Sep 1, 2003
        I wasn't going to jump into the fray because it seems
        pointless since my
        opinion doesn't count in the end, but I'll bite and
        put my 2 cents in. I've
        commented on Herb statements below. And thanks to
        Herb on his wonderful job
        on the scouting reports, once again!!



        --- Herb Garbutt <herbgarbutt@...> wrote:
        > I'm not the definitive word on scouting but having
        > done the scouting report I learn a lot about a lot
        > of players.
        > Here's my two cents.
        >
        > Scott Hannan
        > Hannan definitely improved this season, both
        > offensively and defensively. A couple things I look
        > for in a 4 defenceman
        > (there are others, though these are important).
        > -Does he play against the opposition's best lines:
        > Hannan is still not the Sharks' go-to guy to shut
        > down the opposition (Rathje fills that role and
        > Hannan wasn't teamed
        > with him last season despite the departure of Marcus
        > Ragnarsson). So even though Hannan was even and
        > Rathje was -19,
        > I'd be more inclined to give Rathje a 4 because he
        > was playing against other team's top. (Although even
        > in that role
        > -19 is pretty ugly and I might hesitate to give
        > Rathje a 4 as well).
        > -Is he teamed with an offensive defenceman.
        > Teams rarely put two offensive Dmen together,
        > instead they pair their good defensive Dmen with
        > their offensive guys to
        > serve as a defensive conscience. Hannan did this
        > last year. He played with a wide variety of partners
        > but most were
        > more offensive guys (Fibiger, McGillis, Stuart).
        > He is a stay-at-home guy, which helps although not a
        > very well known or appreciated one. The even on a
        > bad Sharks team
        > might help Hannan. I'd have likely given him a 3.5
        > but a lot of raters put a lot of stock in
        > plus/minus. I'd give
        > Hannan a 50% of getting a 4 but it is by no means a
        > guarantee yet.

        Hannan led his team in ice time per game @ 24:15.
        Slightly better than
        Rathje. I'd think that it would be difficult to log
        that much ice time and
        not face the other teams top lines at some point
        during the game. Rathje
        had more PK ice time 3:46 to 3:25, but I've found that
        PK duty leans more to
        defensemen that clear the crease than pure defensive
        ability, but it is an
        indicator. Rathje had more PP time at 3:16 to 2:19,
        leaving Hannan with an
        edge in even strength ice time 18:31 to 17:04. This
        leads me to believe
        that the coaches had a little more faith in Hannan
        overall defensively. I'm
        not saying this is true. That's why I didn't grade
        the Sharks because I
        didn't see too many games played by them. The Sharks
        allowed a little more
        than average shots per game so I'd think that they'd
        only get one or two 4
        d-rate on defense at most if any at all. Just because
        you play against an
        opponents top line doesn't mean you are any good at it
        and you should
        automatically should get a good rating. Rathje may
        still get a 4. His
        plus/minus looks bad, but the Sharks' goaltending was
        below average too.
        I'd definitely give Hannan a 4. Even if he was lining
        up against 2nd
        liners, some 2nd lines are still very good and he did
        his job.

        > Dan Boyle
        > Boyle did improve defensively last season but the
        > fact of the matter was that prior to last season he
        > was brutal in
        > his own end. He was an offensive specialist. The
        > improvement probably only brought him up to a 2 but
        > given that he was
        > a 2 last year, he could easily become a 3. Reality
        > is he improved his passing which cut down on his
        > turnovers but he's
        > still small and easy to outmuscle in his own end.
        > But judging by last year when Dmen like Phil Housley
        > and Patrice
        > Brisebois (who both are simply awful in their own
        > end) got 3s based on improved offensive numbers, I'd
        > give Boyle an
        > 85% chance of getting a 3.

        Boyle got almost no PK ice time. But like I said
        before, PK time is more of
        an indicator of crease clearing and Boyle's not strong
        enough to do this
        effectively. Boyle is far from being a PP specialist
        logging 18:19 of ES
        ice time. Combined with TB's slightly less than
        average shots allowed per
        game tell me that Boyle probably was not hurting his
        team defensively. He
        also posted a +9 on a team full of minuses so I would
        give him a 3, which is
        average.


        > Adrian Aucoin
        > Aucoin is a tough one. He's still primarily an
        > offensive guy, though his numbers never seem to
        > match his skills.
        > He certainly qualifies on the criteria I mentioned
        > for Hannan. You simply don't get 29 minutes of ice
        > no matter how
        > good you are offensively. My only hesitation is, is
        > Aucoin in this role because he deserves it or simply
        > because the
        > Isles don't have anyone else? I lean toward the
        > latter. The Isles simply don't have anyone you would
        > call a defensive
        > defenceman, at least none who could log top-4
        > minutes. Fairly or not (in this case not) his -5
        > might hurt him.
        > I'd give Aucoin a 65% chance of moving up to a 4.

        The question is Aucoin actually deserving of all that
        ice time (IT).
        Initially, I look at who else is on the team...
        Hamrlik, Niinimaa, Jonsson..
        Some good players and Jonsson has received good
        ratings in the past. To me
        Niinimaa is always underrated defensively so this
        tells me that yes, Aucoin
        must be doing something good to deserve the IT. The
        Isles were smack dab
        right at average for shots allowed per game. I look
        at the players and
        stats and nothing really sticks out except for
        Hamrlik's +21 and Martinek's
        +15. If we give Aucoin a 4 d-rate with all those
        minutes played, then we
        have to assign a 1 or 2 to one or more other players
        to balance out an
        average defense. Given this, my first inclination is
        to give all the Isle
        d-men a 3 d-rate, except Cairns. But, let's dive into
        the numbers a little
        more.

        PLAYER IT ESIT PPIT PKIT PTS
        +/- PPPTS SHPTS
        Hamrlik 26:34 17:44 4:58 3:51 41
        +21 21 3
        Aucoin 28:53 17:29 5:27 6:03 35 -
        5 20 1
        Niinimaa 26:08 18:02 4:58 3:08 34 -
        9 17 1
        Jonsson 23:11 15:41 3:14 4:16 26 -
        8 10 2
        Timander 17:29 14:37 0:59 1:53 16 -
        2 4 1
        Martinek 17:14 15:19 0:52 1:04 13
        +15 1 0
        Cairns 11:50 11:31 0:02 0:16 5 -
        7 0 1

        First I should note that Niinimaa played most of the
        season for Edmonton.
        It's also noteworthy that the Islanders' goaltending
        was below average so
        the minus ratings actually aren't that bad at all
        given the ice time of the
        players. The thing that really stands out is Aucoin's
        PKIT. Now is that
        because he's that great defensively or is it because
        he's more physical than
        the others? Hamrlik actually posted the highest ESIT
        and combined with his
        +21 you would award HIM a 4 d-rate if anyone was to
        get it. It's
        interesting to note the difference in +/- between
        Hamrlik and Aucoin since
        you would think that they both would have to play in
        same pairing with all
        those minutes. It actually reflects that each played
        half the game opposite
        of each other. Aside from Cairns, I don't see another
        defenseman who's
        d-rating I'd lower to 2 and Cairns didn't rack up
        enough minutes to allow
        one of those high minute guys to be a 4. My final
        anaysis is that Hamrlik
        had a ton of luck last season and I would award Aucoin
        and everyone else a 3
        d-rate, just like I originally had thought.

        > Filip Kuba
        > A solid arguement could be made for Kuba being a
        > four. He fits the two criteria I mentioned but he
        > may suffer from
        > lack of exposure. It could take him another year to
        > earn his four. My only knock (and it's not a big
        > knock, more of a
        > backhanded compliment) is that yes Kuba gets the job
        > done but does he really excel at it. The same could
        > be said of
        > Aucoin. To get a four, I feel you not have to only
        > do the job but do it really well. Granted I didn't
        > see a lot of
        > Minnesota until the playoffs so Kuba may already fit
        > this bill.
        > From past experience, some guys it takes the ratings
        > a year to catch up to them and I'm afraid this will
        > be the case
        > with Kuba--although I was wrong once back in 1987 :)
        > I'd give Kuba a 25% chance of moving up to a 4.

        Kuba is in a similar situation as Aucoin. He played
        the most minutes on a
        team with a 23:55 average. However, despite their
        defensive reputation, the
        Wild allowed an average number of shots per game.
        Their low GAA can be
        attributed mostly to their stellar goaltending
        performances. Unlike Aucoin,
        the Wild do have some candidates to have their d-rates
        lowered to a 2
        leaving room to give out some 4's.

        PLAYER IT ESIT PPIT PKIT PTS
        +/- PPPTS PKPTS
        Kuba 23:55 18:17 2:52 2:46 29
        E 12 2
        Zyuzin 21:36 16:09 3:14 2:13 17 -
        8 8 3
        Bombardir 22:01 17:50 1:05 3:05 15
        +15 1 0
        Mitchell 21:28 18:16 0:14 2:58 14
        +13 0 1
        Sekeras 18:52 14:56 2:25 1:29 11
        -12 5 0
        Schultz 18:28 15:29 1:14 1:43 10
        +11 0 0

        Given the performances of Zyuzin and Sekeras along
        with Brad Brown and other
        d-men not listed, you could lower them to a 2 d-rate,
        leaving room to raise
        2 or 3 players to a 4. Zyuzin actually didn't have a
        bad year at all so
        giving him a 3 d-rate is not out of the question
        leaving less room to raise
        others. Now the question is who? Initial analysis
        would be Mitchell,
        Bombardir and Kuba in that order. This is where
        Herb's scouting reports
        come in handy. Unfortunately, not a whole lot of
        information for the past
        season. Kuba is mentioned to have a slow start, which
        is bared out in the
        stats as he lags behind in +/-. Also, the report
        infers that Kuba replaced
        Bombardir suggesting that he was behind Bombardir in
        the scheme of things.
        Since the ratings are based on the whole season of
        play and not just the
        best parts, Kuba will have to take the hit for this.
        Based on the coach's
        decision to use Mitchell and Bombardir in defensive
        situations more, I'd
        give them a d-rate of 4 and Kuba a 3 rating.
        Bombardir only played 58 games
        so there's possibly room to adjust Zyuzin or Kuba.


        > David Scatchard, Martin Havlat, Wade Redden, Marco
        > Sturm and Mike Knuble.
        > Are you asking about these guys becoming/keeping 4s?
        > Sturm already is one, and should defnitely keep it,
        > although not 5 (Selke) material just yet.
        > Havlat's still a 3. His +20 is a benefit of playing
        > with two better defensive linemates, he's still
        > primarily an
        > offensive guy although improving in his own end.
        > Wade Redden. Was a 4 last year, had a better year
        > but is not 5 material (unless you're giving him an
        > overall offensive
        > and defensive ratings--which we're not).
        > David Scatchard. Should be a 4. Was dropped to a 3
        > last year, victimized unfairly by a bad offensive
        > year.
        > Mike Knuble. Doesn't hurt his team defensively but
        > is not what you would call above average
        > defensively. He's a 3.
        >
        > Well, that's my take given my opinion and past
        > experience with ratings. Good luck and may all your
        > ratings dreams come
        > true.

        I'm gonna stick with the defenseman since I don't have
        time to do every
        player. And like I said before, I didn't see most of
        these guys very much last
        year so I am going mostly on stats and not what I've
        seen. I agree with
        Herb's assessment of the forwards although I haven't
        looked at their stats.

        Sean


        __________________________________
        Do you Yahoo!?
        Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software
        http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com
      • corfieldb@aol.com
        Guys- This seems to be taking on a little life of its own... I d like some feedback and projected ratings on the following guys... A. Lilja-D (FLA) +13,
        Message 3 of 11 , Sep 1, 2003
          Guys-

                 This seems to be taking on a little life of its own...

                 I'd like some feedback and projected ratings on the following guys...

          A. Lilja-D (FLA) +13, 4/11-15 pts, GF = 19:22...plays 2nd unit on PK...had best +/- on Panthers, who were horrible defensively...

                 Probably a 3 at first glance, but given his surroundings...a possible 4?

          N. Kapanen-F (DAL) +25, 5/29-34 pts, GF = 14:39...played 2nd unit Pk...rookie...

                 Is he a 4??? Potential to be a 5???

          Also, N. Schultz, T. White and Kaspar...

          Thanks!

          Bill Corfield
        • Herb Garbutt
          Hey Sean, Good analysis. I didn t look into ice time before doing mine (I started out just doing a quick analysis but got on a roll). A couple other things
          Message 4 of 11 , Sep 1, 2003
            Hey Sean,
            Good analysis. I didn't look into ice time before doing mine (I started out just doing a quick analysis but got on a roll). A couple other things about mine
            -My comment on Boyle being a PP specialist was prior to this season. He has improved defensively but I would have given him a 1 in past years. I still don't think he's average defensively. Just not scary anymore. Despite his improvements on defence I think his increase in ice time had more to with him doubling his previous best point total.
            -Completely agree with your comment that playing against the top lines is not enough on its own to be a 4. I actually said something to that effect in assessing Kuba.
            -I also took the tendency of raters into account. I have no doubt Boyle will get a three, I just don't agree with it. If he goes back to 25 points next year, watch his ice time plummet.

            As for the new players mentioned, I discussed these with Bill so I'll kickstart this one as well.

            Working against Lilya is that he is not used against the other team's top lines and not used in critical situations (I doubt he even plays PK). He gets most of his minutes
            against third and fourth liners which makes it easier to put up good plus/minus numbers.

            You'll notice on a lot of teams that the plus/minus leader isn't their best defensive player
            (Ziggy Palffy, Marty Reasoner, David Vyborny, Lubos Bartecko all led their teams in
            plus/minus but are at best average, and in most cases below average, defensively). That's because the best defensive guys draw all the tough assignments and therefore get scored on more and has a lower plus/minus.

            Lilya likely won't move up to a four until he starts getting those assignments. Getting those
            kind of assignments shows the coach thinks he one of the team's better defensive Dmen.
            And who knows the players better than the coach. Lilya hasn't reached this point yet.

            (Bill then pointed out Lilya gets between 2 and 4 min of PK time--depending on what team he was with)
            Four minutes of SH ice per game tells me he's on the second PK unit (either that or their team takes very very few penalties). And if a guy is going to be considered for a 4, he should be playing on the No. 1 unit. Unless of course he's playing on a team with two 4 D guys on the No. 1 unit. I don't think Fla has that. LA has Norstrom and Miller but Lilya's not in the same class. 

            White (Todd)--Good ol' former Kanata Valley Laser. Has shown more defensively than
            anyone expected but his lack of size will probably prevent him from ever being used in
            key defensive situations and therefore is probably a career 3.
            N.Kapanen--Probably deserves a 4 but rookies often get underrated. 60% chance of 4. Until he gets Selke consideration, he won't be a 5.
            Schultz--A solid 3 with a slim chance for 4 because his +11 might influence raters.
            Kasparitis--Could drop to a 3 because of all the bad press. 40% chance of keeping his
            4, which he probably deserves because of + rating on the Rangers and fact he is used in a
            shut-down role.

            Herb

            corfieldb@... wrote:

             Guys-

                   This seems to be taking on a little life of its own...

                   I'd like some feedback and projected ratings on the following guys...

            A. Lilja-D (FLA) +13, 4/11-15 pts, GF = 19:22...plays 2nd unit on PK...had best +/- on Panthers, who were horrible defensively...

                   Probably a 3 at first glance, but given his surroundings...a possible 4?

            N. Kapanen-F (DAL) +25, 5/29-34 pts, GF = 14:39...played 2nd unit Pk...rookie...

                   Is he a 4??? Potential to be a 5???

            Also, N. Schultz, T. White and Kaspar...

            Thanks!

            Bill Corfield

            Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

          • Sean Berends
            I ll take on Kapanen on this one, since I rated the Dallas Stars. I gave Kapanen a 4 DF. He definitely deserves that. He didn t have shutdown duties until
            Message 5 of 11 , Sep 1, 2003
              I'll take on Kapanen on this one, since I rated the
              Dallas Stars. I gave Kapanen a 4 DF. He definitely
              deserves that. He didn't have shutdown duties until
              the middle of the season, but he was great all season
              long. He's going be a 5 someday because of his
              intelligence, but it would be difficult for him right
              now because of his size/strength. To be a 5, that
              means your a stopper and you can defend against all
              and all types of players on all areas of the ice. The
              larger players still give him problems, but he will
              get stronger. Lehtinen will be a great role model for
              him to advance to that level.

              Also, I kinda did Schultz in an previous analysis. I
              gave him a 3. He had a breakthrough season, but
              wasn't a top d-man for the Wild, who as a team were
              average.

              Sean

              --- corfieldb@... wrote:
              > Guys-
              >
              > This seems to be taking on a little life of
              > its own...
              >
              > I'd like some feedback and projected ratings
              > on the following guys...
              >
              > A. Lilja-D (FLA) +13, 4/11-15 pts, GF =
              > 19:22...plays 2nd unit on PK...had
              > best +/- on Panthers, who were horrible
              > defensively...
              >
              > Probably a 3 at first glance, but given his
              > surroundings...a possible
              > 4?
              >
              > N. Kapanen-F (DAL) +25, 5/29-34 pts, GF =
              > 14:39...played 2nd unit
              > Pk...rookie...
              >
              > Is he a 4??? Potential to be a 5???
              >
              > Also, N. Schultz, T. White and Kaspar...
              >
              > Thanks!
              >
              > Bill Corfield
              >


              __________________________________
              Do you Yahoo!?
              Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software
              http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com
            • Sean Berends
              I guess I should state that I didn t rate the Wild so I m just stating what I think he deserves. Sean ... __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!?
              Message 6 of 11 , Sep 1, 2003
                I guess I should state that I didn't rate the Wild so
                I'm just stating what I think he deserves.

                Sean

                --- Sean Berends <dimo@...> wrote:
                > I'll take on Kapanen on this one, since I rated the
                > Dallas Stars. I gave Kapanen a 4 DF. He definitely
                > deserves that. He didn't have shutdown duties until
                > the middle of the season, but he was great all
                > season
                > long. He's going be a 5 someday because of his
                > intelligence, but it would be difficult for him
                > right
                > now because of his size/strength. To be a 5, that
                > means your a stopper and you can defend against all
                > and all types of players on all areas of the ice.
                > The
                > larger players still give him problems, but he will
                > get stronger. Lehtinen will be a great role model
                > for
                > him to advance to that level.
                >
                > Also, I kinda did Schultz in an previous analysis.
                > I
                > gave him a 3. He had a breakthrough season, but
                > wasn't a top d-man for the Wild, who as a team were
                > average.
                >
                > Sean
                >
                > --- corfieldb@... wrote:
                > > Guys-
                > >
                > > This seems to be taking on a little life of
                > > its own...
                > >
                > > I'd like some feedback and projected
                > ratings
                > > on the following guys...
                > >
                > > A. Lilja-D (FLA) +13, 4/11-15 pts, GF =
                > > 19:22...plays 2nd unit on PK...had
                > > best +/- on Panthers, who were horrible
                > > defensively...
                > >
                > > Probably a 3 at first glance, but given his
                > > surroundings...a possible
                > > 4?
                > >
                > > N. Kapanen-F (DAL) +25, 5/29-34 pts, GF =
                > > 14:39...played 2nd unit
                > > Pk...rookie...
                > >
                > > Is he a 4??? Potential to be a 5???
                > >
                > > Also, N. Schultz, T. White and Kaspar...
                > >
                > > Thanks!
                > >
                > > Bill Corfield
                > >
                >
                >
                > __________________________________
                > Do you Yahoo!?
                > Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site
                > design software
                > http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com
                >
                > ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
                >
                >
                >
                > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
                > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
                >
                >


                __________________________________
                Do you Yahoo!?
                Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software
                http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com
              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.