AHL West in 2015-16?

[axecrew]

Thanks... I knocked over a can of soda and my keyboard lags now when I type. I believe Wendell's passion. I know him well from his time as owner of the Lewiston Maineiacs. Great guy. He has a lot of good ideas, but he's in a tough position because he wants to run the Wolves with a level of independence while the rest of the league is looking to hand it over to the NHL.

I have the same problem with my computer, but with mine I'm thinking what I want to say and then typing so I sometimes get ahead of myself and leave out a word. In my case it's usually an important word

One of the conditions with anyone affiliating with the Wolves has been that level of independence you talked about, they lost sight of that with vancouver and we know how that went. That is also why, even though there were a number of teams talking to them, they ended up with St. Louis. The Blues were willing to grant that level of independence, while others weren't.
My opinion is that the Wolves are somewhat hamstrung by their own success to some degree...as a season ticket holder for a long, long time we have gotten used to a level of success. When you win 4 league championships in 10 seasons and go to another 2 finals during that same time you kinda get spoiled.

My personal opinion is that I don't believe Wendell should've ever been given the GM job, and nothing he has done thus far has changed my opinion. I said the day he was hired that it wasn't a good hire and my opinion is still the same. He's a good guy and really works hard, but I just don't think he has the connections to do the job as well as others. Would love for him to prove me wrong tho.

 

[210]

The whole thing is going to boil down to money. If teams can move west with minimal to no added expenses and make it work they will, but if moving out west is going to cost 2 to 3 times what it costs to stay east they'll stay. The fact is it's the team executives who are pushing the move out west hard the owners I don't think really care as long as it doesn't cost them extra m

It has everything to do with the NHL salary cap. Many NHL teams feel the extra "real" costs of moving their AHL affiliates out west are worth it for the "paper" saving against the salary cap.

 

[210]

By the looks of things and team affiliations, the most northeastern teams are most likely to loose affiliates. St johns,Portland,Manchester and worcester. And those are the eastern teams that have the most travel in the conference. The NY,mass,conn,pa teams are tight...

No one in this region considers St John's local, so what happens to them is basically irrelevant to New England teams. Worcester and Manchester will in all probability lose their franchises, but the rest will still be operating just as they have been.

 

[Tommy Hawk]

Just one man's opinion . . . . . . .

Hartley doesn't worry about call ups because he doesn't want them. He would have a team full of players over 30 if he could and wouldn't even have prospects even in the AHL. And when has he done anything of success lately?

It has everything to do with the NHL salary cap. Many NHL teams feel the extra "real" costs of moving their AHL affiliates out west are worth it for the "paper" saving against the salary cap.

That is not only a "paper" savings against the cap but real savings as the player will not get the extra day or two of NHL pay.

 

[RFA]

At one point the NHL guys got however many games they were up for divided by 82 times their salary for the time they were on the NHL roster. That was probably 2 CBAs ago, could have changed. That's the way it was explained to me by a player, at a bar, well after a game, 2 CBAs ago so I could have mixed up some of the details.

 

[MM658]

Not surprising to hear that franchise values are higher than anticipated. There are only 30 available. By publicly trumpeting that they're looking to move their affiliates out west, the western-based NHL teams have, as a result, created a situation where there are now approximately 35 cities that are candidates to host an AHL team. Simple supply and demand dictates that the value of those 30 franchises goes up because of that.

Lots of folks here pegging Worcester and Manchester, and maybe Portland, as cities that will be left out of the league when the music stops. I don't buy that. Just because they might (again: might) lose their teams in the first stages of this rumored transition, doesn't mean that they'll be empty-handed when the dust settles. Any city that loses a team can offer a deal attractive enough to lure an affiliate to leave any other city. For example, Manchester could lose the Monarchs to the western division, but offer a better deal to the Devils or Blue Jackets, resulting in Albany or Springfield being the city on the outside looking in. In short: the western movement (if it happens) will only be the beginning of the franchise shifts. A second (and perhaps third) round of relocations will likely follow the initial moves.

 

[210]

At one point the NHL guys got however many games they were up for divided by 82 times their salary for the time they were on the NHL roster. That was probably 2 CBAs ago, could have changed. That's the way it was explained to me by a player, at a bar, well after a game, 2 CBAs ago so I could have mixed up some of the details.

It's yearly salary divided by days in the season now.

 

[210]

Not surprising to hear that franchise values are higher than anticipated. There are only 30 available. By publicly trumpeting that they're looking to move their affiliates out west, the western-based NHL teams have, as a result, created a situation where there are now approximately 35 cities that are candidates to host an AHL team. Simple supply and demand dictates that the value of those 30 franchises goes up because of that.

Lots of folks here pegging Worcester and Manchester, and maybe Portland, as cities that will be left out of the league when the music stops. I don't buy that. Just because they might (again: might) lose their teams in the first stages of this rumored transition, doesn't mean that they'll be empty-handed when the dust settles. Any city that loses a team can offer a deal attractive enough to lure an affiliate to leave any other city. For example, Manchester could lose the Monarchs to the western division, but offer a better deal to the Devils or Blue Jackets, resulting in Albany or Springfield being the citiy on the outside looking in. In short: the western movement (if it happens) will only be the beginning of the franchise shifts.

Portland is independently owned and recently purchased by a local. They're pretty safe.

 

[Tommy Hawk]

Portland is independently owned and recently purchased by a local. They're pretty safe.

I do not think any team is pretty safe with the exception of a very few. I would put Hershey, Milwaukee, GR, and Chicago as very safe. I would place the AHL teams owned by an eastern based NHL team as fairly safe.

All others I would put as 50-50.

 

[axecrew]

Portland is independently owned and recently purchased by a local. They're pretty safe.

210....going back to my example from before......If the parent club tells you they are leaving and no other team wants to affiliate with you, then it really doesn't matter who owns the team does it? This goes for any and all AHL franchises not owned by NHL teams, not just Portland.

 

[210]

210....going back to my example from before......If the parent club tells you they are leaving and no other team wants to affiliate with you, then it really doesn't matter who owns the team does it? This goes for any and all AHL franchises not owned by NHL teams, not just Portland.

I stand by my comments.

 

[sabrefan27]

I do not think any team is pretty safe with the exception of a very few. I would put Hershey, Milwaukee, GR, and Chicago as very safe. I would place the AHL teams owned by an eastern based NHL team as fairly safe.

All others I would put as 50-50.

Rochester is certainly "very safe".

 

[AdmiralsFan24]

Rochester is certainly "very safe".

Yes and they would fall under the team owned by an Eastern based NHL team, which he clearly pointed out.

 

[sabrefan27]

Yes and they would fall under the team owned by an Eastern based NHL team, which he clearly pointed out.

He said the non-named AHL teams owned by an eastern NHL team were "fairly safe" on his own scale. Rochester is not "fairly safe". They are most certainly as safe as any other team in the AHL, with Hershey as probably the only exception.

Before pointing out things to me, you may want to read it a little better yourself.

 

[Tommy Hawk]

He said the non-named AHL teams owned by an eastern NHL team were "fairly safe" on his own scale. Rochester is not "fairly safe". They are most certainly as safe as any other team in the AHL, with Hershey as probably the only exception.

Before pointing out things to me, you may want to read it a little better yourself.

I do not put them in very safe because we have seen the Blues and the Flyers both sell their AHL teams in recent years. Their fans thought they were "very safe" and they weren't. So I stand by my comments. Fairly safe.

 

[Jackets Woodchuck]

Is there something about Lake Erie (solid attendance and ownership situation) that makes them 50/50 or worse to play after this season?

 

[sabrefan27]

I do not put them in very safe because we have seen the Blues and the Flyers both sell their AHL teams in recent years. Their fans thought they were "very safe" and they weren't. So I stand by my comments. Fairly safe.

That's fine, and I stand by mine. After Hershey, Rochester is the safest team in the league.

 

[Tommy Hawk]

Is there something about Lake Erie (solid attendance and ownership situation) that makes them 50/50 or worse to play after this season?

Any of the teams currently affiliated with an NHL team that is located west of Kansas I would call 50-50. It has nothing to do with attendance or ownership. It has to do with the affiliation being pulled in order to gain leverage to get an AHL team to move west. If there truly is a western movement in 2015-16 then I would put them into a 50-50. This is also not to say they will not be able to get another NHL team to affiliate with them but they would be competing with several others.

That's fine, and I stand by mine. After Hershey, Rochester is the safest team in the league.

I wouldn't say Rochester is the safest in the league behind Hershey. I think Chicago and Hershey are the two safest. I know that even without an affiliation Levin would field a team.

 

[sabrefan27]

There are very, very few circumstances where I could ever see Rochester moving. Chances are, they will continue to be owned by Buffalo for quite a long time and there is no reason to ever move the team anywhere else. Proximity to Buffalo and multiple other AHL cities, good facilities (that will get upgraded soon), history in the league and good community/fan support.

 

[UticaHockey]

I wouldn't say Rochester is the safest in the league behind Hershey. I think Chicago and Hershey are the two safest. I know that even without an affiliation Levin would field a team.

Rochester has been a member of the AHL since 1956. They are very safe and do you really think the AHL would sanction an independent team in Chicago which you alluded to above?

 

[sabrefan27]

Rochester has been a member of the AHL since 1956. They are very safe and do you really think the AHL would sanction an independent team in Chicago which you alluded to above?

When the Amerks were owned by Curt Styres back around 2010 or so they looked into the idea of going independent. The affiliation with Florida wasn't working and there were few other options, and Styres just wanted to win and didn't care about the cost. But it was determined there was no way it would work competitively. I think the AHL would allow it, but it was just a terrible idea from a competitive standpoint.

 

[CJNewman]

Far as I know independents aren't allowed anymore and haven't been since the merger or shortly after.

 

[Tommy Hawk]

Rochester has been a member of the AHL since 1956. They are very safe and do you really think the AHL would sanction an independent team in Chicago which you alluded to above?

It has nothing to do with "sanction" as there is no "sanctioning". The wolves own the license and an affiliation is not required. There is an entire thread here http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showthread.php?t=642247

When the Amerks were owned by Curt Styres back around 2010 or so they looked into the idea of going independent. The affiliation with Florida wasn't working and there were few other options, and Styres just wanted to win and didn't care about the cost. But it was determined there was no way it would work competitively. I think the AHL would allow it, but it was just a terrible idea from a competitive standpoint.

Not sure how it would be an issue from a competitive standpoint bu that is a different thread.

Far as I know independents aren't allowed anymore and haven't been since the merger or shortly after.

See the thread http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showthread.php?t=642247

As far as Rochester being safe, see all the other teams that thought they were "safe" over the year. Binghamton Rangers, Albany River Rats, Philly Phantoms, Providence Reds, etc. Not a single franchise except Hershey and Chicago are very safe.

 

[Rumblick]

Binghamton Rangers, Albany River Rats, Philly Phantoms, Providence Reds, etc. Not a single franchise except Hershey and Chicago are very safe.

Albany's had a team continuously since 1993. Phantoms would still be in Philly if they hadn't torn down the building.

Rochester's 100% safe. You don't have to believe it, Tommy, but they've been around since 1956, they have the perfect affiliate pairing back together after the Florida debacle, and the Sabres / Amerks pairing isn't going anywhere.

 

[axecrew]

Rochester has been a member of the AHL since 1956. They are very safe and do you really think the AHL would sanction an independent team in Chicago which you alluded to above?

They'd have no freaking choice!!!!!!!!!!!!!! As long as Chicago dressed the appropriate number of vets as defined by the league there wouldn't be thing 1 the league could do about it.
Go to the sticky above and read it closely....the AHL has stated that you must have an affiliation to join the AHL. You DO NOT have to maintain that affiliation or any other to play in the league....in spite of what hutch is about to come on here and tell you while spouting bs about bylaws and things he has no proof of nor does he know.