HTR New Design – Options that you would like to see

Just as the title states. Please do not vent your issues here just let me know what things you would like to see happen.


* I have now changed the comments so that the new ones are at the bottom of the page.

53 Responses to HTR New Design – Options that you would like to see

  1. Trade Man says:

    This is a test

    • Trade Man says:

      is this nested

      • Trade Man says:

        this seems to be ok

        • Trade Man says:

          how big can this grow

          • Trade Man says:

            it seems ok but yes it is a bit odd

            • Steven_Leafs0 says:

              fix this, there is a lot of blue on the outer edges not being used for anything. I see no reason why this comment section can’t sill the entire screen.

              • Steven_Leafs0 says:

                meant to say “…comment section can’t FILL the entire screen.”

                • Steven_Leafs0 says:

                  and I will copy / paste my most recent post to show how bad this will get. lol.

                  2nd overall is definitely not a nicer place for them since Yakupov would have replaced Nash nicely and kicked off product sales and interest in the team similar to the way Ovechkin did to Washington.

                  But I do agree that Columbus will not be trading to 1st overall, and if they wanted to they sure as hell would have to offer more than the 31st overall pick. Last thing Columbus wants to do is give up a major asset like Johansen just because they lost the lottery IMO.

                  And your right, that deal from the Leafs is missing a key piece, despite the fact that the 5th and 2nd overall picks could really help Columbus, the Leafs need to offer more.

                  That being said if I am Columbus I would try hard to get the 5th overall pick from Toronto, if most of the talk is correct and the Islanders are 100% drafting a defenseman then Columbus can draft Murray with the 2nd overall, Montreal likely picks Galchenyuk, the Islanders then pick one of Reinhart, Reilly, or Dumba, and Columbus gets Forsberg with the 5th overall (the player I believe they would draft 2nd overall if they don’t trade for the 5th pick).

                  So lets say the deal end up being Nash for Kulemin, Schenn, 5th overall, Armstrong (like raser posted), then add: Colborne and Rynass, and with the 2nd and 5th picks Columbus picks Murray & Forsberg respectively that means Columbus ends up with:

                  Kulemin (decent PWF, no where near Nash but they cannot get a Nash like player back anyway)
                  Schenn (solid 3/4 defensive D-man, if he returns to the potential we saw in season 1 then a possible 2/3 D-man)
                  Forsberg/Murray (depending how you look at it, getting the 5th pick allows Columbus to pick Murray earlier and still end up with Forsberg the guy they were picking anyway)
                  Colborne (excellent big no.1 center prospect, Columbus needs one and this is a good way to potentially get one)
                  Rynass (cannot have too many goalie prospects, especially if you are Columbus)

                  If for some reason the Islanders pick Forsberg because he is the best player available, then Columbus can think about trading down the 5th overall pick for the 7th-10th pick and a nice asset.

              • JoelLeafs says:

                Also the spacing on –>this side –> of the comments should go right to the end.

            • Trade Man says:

              @Trade Man, where does this post

      • Trade Man says:

        can i reply to this as well

  2. JoelLeafs says:

    Older comments at the bottom please (I vote, anyways).

    Get rid of fruit, we’re already logged in.

    If possible, make the comment boxes expand with browser so that we don’t have the super thin comment problem with long strings of replying.

    Optional thumbnail profile photos would be nice (if space allows).

    The ability to post images, such as this one would be nice.

    A preview button is always good with HTML (as I’m sure there is a 50% chance the link I tried to post won’t be correct.)

    Maybe some general discussion megathreads, like Leafstalk, CBA chat, rule change one, etc, that we can always access (by that I mean they don’t get pushed away by newer articles.)

    That’s all I can think of right now.


  3. Steven_Leafs0 says:

    hmm, I went to copy / paste one of my longer posts after the one I made a few minutes ago to show how bad the thin posts would look and it didn’t post it. Not sure if it just failed or if it is delayed, either way it is something to look into.

    Oh and I did click the right image in case your wondering.

    • Steven_Leafs0 says:

      this posted no problem, it might be a length issue with those replies (if it gets too long then it just doesn’t post it maybe?).

      Definitely another reason to make the post area larger.

  4. Steven_Leafs0 says:

    sorry for all the posts, maybe you can move that Search Bar to the top of the page instead of the bottom? It isn’t a big deal if you know where it is but it is far more convenient if you put it on top.

    • JoelLeafs says:

      Good idea about the search. Also, I’ve had a few instances of posts simply not going up. I’ve gone as far as to try and submit them several times to no avail. I’m sure, however, that it’s a simple technical problem and will be resolved eventually.


      • Steven_Leafs0 says:

        yeah every time it happened to me it got posted a bit later. Each time it happened to me the posts were long. Maybe that is the reason I cant be sure. See my big, cramped post above? It says the post happened at 12:59pm but it didn’t show up until much after the others.

  5. Gambo says:

    I’d like to see it like before when the newer comments were at the bottom, it was easier to follow and that way comments were rarely missed.
    And of course the replies are messed up right now, if those could be easier to read it would be awesome.

    Just throwing this out there, I think it would be cool if there was an option to ‘like’ a post or reply by someone, that would just be an easier way for someone to agree with someone rather than having to reply, “I agree”.
    Previews would also be nice.

  6. Trade Man says:

    I will see what I can do with all of the suggestions. I can not promise that there is a quick fix for anyof them though.

  7. 93killer93 says:

    I can’t see who the person that posted the comment is. Is it the same for everyone?


  8. LN91 says:

    Anyone watching Euro 2012?

    I’m Italian so I had a decent start to the tournament today.

  9. Trade Man says:

    ok, I have made many changes are they better now? Let me know

  10. Trade Man says:

    Fruit gone … for now.

    • reinjosh says:


      Is it possible to increase this white part and decrease the blue? So the comments can spread a lot farther? Rather than being bunched up into tiny columns.

      • Trade Man says:

        at this point no but I will re look at this in a few weeks. I want to see ow the site looks in different screen resulations.

        • JoelLeafs says:

          I think the changes thus far have been great. I agree that more white would be better, but I suppose some people are still running small screen resolutions. maybe throw the ads on the left side and let the comment frames expand to the right with the browser. Should be easy enough if you limit a minimum size but let it expand as much as we want it to.

          • JoelLeafs says:

            Although, what’s the deal with comments requiring moderation? What’s the risk here? If a comment is so awful that it must be removed, why not do it after the fact? Slowing down how fast posts go up slows down conversation and will divert eyeballs away from the site.

            Censorship is fucked bad.

            • reinjosh says:

              Hehe I liked the last line.

              And I agree. If it’s bad, moderate it after, not before. It just slows stuff down. Moderate articles, fine. But not comments, until afterwards.

              • Trade Man says:

                well i see what you are saying … but … if a word matches the censorship list then it goes directly to me. I ten i have to approve it or delete it.

  11. LN91 says:

    Am I the only one who is content(and probably support) with posibly trading the 5th overall selection and 1 of Schenn, Colborne, or Kadri to Columbus to get then second overall pick?

    Let’s be realistic. Burke probably likes Galchenyuk, and the guy is a blue chip talent, why not deal a secondary talent for a guy that you really think will help your team in the future?

    Schenn, Kadri, Colborne, Blacker, Faksa, Grigorenko, and whomever have a lot more question marks and less rewards than a guy like Galchenyuk can bring the Leafs.

    Granted they’re prospects, but at this point, Galchenyuk is probably the most promising of all the guys listed above…And someone the Leafs have really needed since Sundin left.

    • Steven_Leafs0 says:

      I’m not for trading a top asset just to have the 2nd overall pick. At best I’d be willing to move Frattin and the 35th overall. That might be too much for me to move. I think we would be much better off trading a large package including one of Schenn/Kadri/Colborne to straight up grab the 2nd overall pick.

      • reinjosh says:

        That’s a friggin lot to trade up just 3 spots. Is the player were getting (let’s assume Galchenyuk) worth Frattin and the 35th overall (well if New JErsey drops their pick, 34th but I digress)?

      • reinjosh says:

        Is grabbing galchenyuk (or even just ensuring we get him) worth giving up the 35th overall and a Matt Frattin? Is that really worth moving up 3 spots? I can’t say it is.

      • LN91 says:

        Why do you always say a top asset? None of those guys mentioned are top assets? Top assets are very good blue chip prospects that could be first-liners or top-pairing defencemen?

        None of those guys will probably be at that level…And drafting Faksa at the fifth position, will most likely add to a prospect full of talented secondary talent.

        Why not use one of them…And your fifth overall pick…To acaquire a player that has been compared to Marian Hossa or Ron Francis?

        It makes perfect sense for me. Hell, LA traded more than Schenn and Simmonds for Mike Richards…But LA acquired a need and look at them now.

    • Gambo says:

      I say yes to Kadri and Colborne, no to Schenn. And that is of course that there is no way Galchenyuk will be available at 5.
      Curious, if the leafs offered their 1st and their 2nd, how many spots could they jump up?
      The Islanders would do that for sure, I doubt Montreal would unless they truly don’t care if they get Grigorenko or Galchenyuk.

      • LN91 says:

        I say yes to Kadri and Colborne…And if Torotno can sign Justin Schultz, I would deal Schenn.

        • Gambo says:

          Shultzy is more offensive though, without Schenn they really have no defense first guys. Sure Gunnarsson is steady defensively but he isn’t that strong. Phaneuf is incompetent in his own end half the time and Komisarek is.. you know Komisarek.

          I think down the road, Schenn will be a guy that the leafs rely on similar to how the Rangers rely on Girardi. We need that type of player and no one else has the potential to be that type of player. I’d toss in Franson and a pick before I trade Schenn, if that’s an option.

        • reinjosh says:

          Really? I think that’s a lot to give up for a 3 spot jump. A hell of a lot.

  12. reinjosh says:

    I’d really rather not give up Colborne/Kadri/Frattin or our 35th (which will actually be the 34th) to move up a few spots. It just doesn’t seem worth it. I’m less nervous about giving up Schenn but at the same time I’d like to see what he can do under Carlyle. He’s still quite young and has lots of developing left to do.

    I’d be fine giving up Franson though. I just don’t see a spot for him on the team, even if I’m a huge fan. I’m also cool giving up D’Amigo (and maybe we’d be smart to use his recent playoff hot streak to our advantage. Although at the same time I see reasons to keep him).

    Are those two enough to move up to the 2nd or 3rd spot? I’m not sure to be honest but that would be about as much as I’d like to trade.

  13. nordiques100 says:

    Unless you can get the 1st overall pick, there isn’t much point moving up to either 2, 3 or 4th overall.

    The Leafs would end up with one of Grigorenko, Murray, Forsberg or Galenchuk.

    I dont see anything wrong with either one of them. But ideally, ending up with one of the Russians is preferable.

    The next group of guys are a bunch of defenceman and Faska.

    If Toronto does want to move the 5th overall. why not move down? If it came down to Forsberg or Murray to be at 5, why not move down?

    Perhaps using Franson, D’Amigo and the 5th overall to Minnesota for the 7th overall, and Cal Clutterbuck.

    If there’s a player or type of player Toronto needs, its Clutterbuck. He takes the body consistently and is a solid physical presence. He makes Toronto harder to play against.

    He can contribute in other areas as well like the PK, on a checking line and some offence.

    At 7th, if it plays out this way, Toronto will likely have to choose between Dumba, Reilly or Faska. At 7, I’d take Faska, if the Ducks don’t at 6.

    He is the big, power centre the team is coveting.

    I’d do this if Galenchuk or Grigorenko don’t fall to 5th. If one of those two do fall to 5th, I’d totally keep the pick and make one of those two Leafs.

    • reinjosh says:

      I’d rather have Reinhart than Murray at this point. Reinhart would be a perfect long term replacement for Phaneuf.

      Hell, if we could trade back and grab Reinhart than, and maybe trade into the lower top ten and grab Faksa as well (or maybe early teens), I’d consider Draft 2012 a success. Of course if Galchenyuk/Grigorenko fall.

      • nordiques100 says:

        for me, it has to be one of the 3 Russians (technically Galenchuk is American but lets count him as a Russian here) or else Forsberg.

        But to me, Forsberg is same as Faska and I rather have Faska just because he is a centre. and a big centre no less. And there isnt much point in picking him at 5 when he could possibly be had at 6-10.

        The only time Murray makes sense if there are deals made already by Toronto to fill holes up front moving the likes of Schenn and Franson.

        Murray would be an excellent replacement. He’s not a home run, but I could see him as a Seidenberg kind of player for the next 10 years. Or steady like Redden when he was a Sen. Thats not bad to have a consistent guy in your lineup.

        But, the option of moving down, should the Russians be gone, is sensible.

        Perhaps the 5th for the 10th and 19th picks of Tampa along with their 3rd rounder or a late 2nd could be a possibility.

        I dont know if Faska would fall there, but Reinhart could be there at 10.

        And Brendan Gaunce could be there at 19, Or they take a shot at Subban. Lots of options, hopefully BB explores them.

        • reinjosh says:

          I’d be cool with the 10th and 19th picks for the 5th, maybe with a 3rd or later 2nd also if we can swindle them. I think it’s plausible that Faksa could be there too. I am a little concerned about how his playoffs were though, but if the big 2 Russians and the American of Russian descent (he’s not Russian, sorry big pet peeve of mine with him. Not sure why, but it just annoys me).

          I’d personally shoot for a dman with the 2nd pick. I’d love to get one of Koekkoek or Ceci if they are available. Gaunce would be cool too though.

          I’m not a fan of taking a goalie. I just don’t see value in taking them in the first round. I’d rather draft one late like we did with Sparks last year.

          • nordiques100 says:

            Subban could slip to 35th overall.

            I really like him. And he would eventually add more spice to the Habs/Leafs clash.

            He’s a very talented goalie. He’s a real goalie. one who uses talent, plus technique. Not just a blocker. He definitely needs to sharpen up, but, I think it would be nice to have a ultra competitive, confident guy back there.

            Ya maybe too early for 19, but worthy of a high selection somewhere in the first two rounds.

            Tanner Pearson or Matteau could be there too at 35. Thomas Wilson is also someone who Toronto could take at 19.

Leave a Reply