gstommylee
Registered User
- Jan 31, 2012
- 14,496
- 2,787
St. Louis?That leaves Winnipeg, LA, San Jose, and Vancouver without any ECHL affiliates.
I'll be surprised if the Blues/T-birds end up with an ECHL partner. St. Louis probably didn't want an AHL affiliate, either.Yes. Them, too.
I'll be surprised if the Blues/T-birds end up with an ECHL partner. St. Louis probably didn't want an AHL affiliate, either.
Blues don't own own or operate the affiliates, JM.... that ended when Vancouver bought the AHL affiliate rights and before this season placed it in Utica..I'll be surprised if the Blues/T-birds end up with an ECHL partner. St. Louis probably didn't want an AHL affiliate, either.
I was well aware. My point wasn't ownership, it was a desire (or lack of one) to establish a business partnership with lower level hockey. If the Blues didn't need a spot to park a few prospects, they'd be unlikely to give the AHL or ECHL the time of day. It's how the current NHL team ownership rolls.Blues don't own own or operate the affiliates, JM.... that ended when Vancouver bought the AHL affiliate rights and before this season placed it in Utica..
That leaves Winnipeg, LA, San Jose, and Vancouver without any ECHL affiliates.
There are 5 NHL teams that don't have one not 4. Also there's isn't enough ECHL teams for all 32 teams to have an affiliate.
All 27 ECHL teams are affiliated with an NHL team. So the 5 teams will have to send their players to different ECHL teams.
I already bitch-slapped @Adam Michaels for that initial oversight. Make your own fun.There are 5 NHL teams that don't have one not 4. Also there's isn't enough ECHL teams for all 32 teams to have an affiliate.