How did the AHL get ruined

[Jackets Woodchuck]

wildcat48, I think you said it perfectly. I think that within 5 years, the AHL will either implode back to more regional divisions, or every team will be within an hour's drive of their NHL team. I don't even think Hershey will be safe. I think the league will even be re-branded as NHL-2 once the teams are all in their parent markets.

As you can see, the Northeast void is already being filled by the ECHL, but the ECHL is still tainted by the NHL (to a lesser degree). They are limiting themselves to 30 teams, and they have imposed the same "development" rules as the AHL (really a rule to keep salaries down, but the PHPA has become comfortable enough with it).

I think there is an opportunity for a different style of league to take root, either by the ECHL becoming more independent from the NHL, or by a whole new league sprouting up should the ECHL hold firm to its 30-team plan and its pretending to be a "development" league for the NHL. A league that isn't AAAA like the IHL, but is truly AAA hockey as opposed to AAA-development hockey.

As a fan, the familiarity of players is a big thing to me. I'm not one of those guys who hangs around trying to meet them - I simply mean understanding who they are on the ice, knowing what they are capable of doing when I see them. That is why this past year in Springfield was lousy - I had no idea who these players were since Arizona was a new affiliate. That's why I'm trying to objectively describe the situation that I perceive - that the AHL today is churning players through faster these days.

I have started going deeper, and I am a little amazed at the wide differences between teams in the league. For example, in 2015-16, the Lake Erie Monsters had the most NHL experience on their roster, with 2,880 games played by their players prior to the 2015-16 season. The Texas Stars had the least, with 183 games. That's not a typo.

Grand Rapids really focused on player retention - they had 72 man-seasons of players who had been with the team in prior years, including Jakub Kindl [7 seasons], Brian Lashoff [6 seasons] and Tom McCollum [6 seasons]. Ignoring the teams involved in the affiliation swaps (Lake Erie, San Antonio, Portland, and Springfield), the Chicago Wolves had just 22 man-seasons of players who had been with the team in prior seasons - seven players who had been there 2 seasons each and eight players who had been there only the prior season.

Regarding pro games played, Utica led the league with 10,013. On the other end, Texas had 5,142. That's a huge difference.

Regarding lower-level games played, Chicago led there with 2,010 games - meaning players who primarily developed in the ECHL. Lake Erie was at the bottom with just 379.

I still have to go deeper, perhaps game-weighting some of these numbers so they work better on an aggregate level (if Vancouver sent down Daniel Sedin for one game, it would show up as an additional 1,143 NHL games with their totals). I will continue to refine this.

Do you have a problem with pro-level development (i.e. favoring an NFL-style "one shot at glory coming out of the amateur ranks and get a real job if you blow it" model) or just the baseball model of having non-major league markets' teams serve as the development teams (i.e. favoring the European soccer model of pure "reserve/"B" teams)?

 

[Ralph Slate]

Do you have a problem with pro-level development (i.e. favoring an NFL-style "one shot at glory coming out of the amateur ranks and get a real job if you blow it" model) or just the baseball model of having non-major league markets' teams serve as the development teams (i.e. favoring the European soccer model of pure "reserve/"B" teams)?

Yes, I have a problem with the "one shot at glory coming out of the amateur ranks" model of development. I think there is room in this country for professional non-NHL hockey that isn't focused primarily on 22 to 25 year old players. I think that it is recognized that NHL players reach their peak around age 28-29, so when you have rules that push the AHL's average age to 24 years old, there is a lot of hockey being left on the table, so to speak.

 

[crimsonace]

Yes, I have a problem with the "one shot at glory coming out of the amateur ranks" model of development. I think there is room in this country for professional non-NHL hockey that isn't focused primarily on 22 to 25 year old players. I think that it is recognized that NHL players reach their peak around age 28-29, so when you have rules that push the AHL's average age to 24 years old, there is a lot of hockey being left on the table, so to speak.

We had that about 15 years ago. The mid-1990s IHL was probably the closest to what you envision, but most teams were losing money hand over fist and the league eventually folded and was absorbed into the AHL. But there was a number of independent, unaffiliated minor leagues - the WCHL, WPHL, UHL & CHL (as well as a few upstart southern leagues that didn't last very long). Every single one of those leagues has been absorbed into what is now the ECHL (the WCHL directly, the WPHL/CHL merging, and then the CHL taking over what was left of the UHL, which Fort Wayne's owners rebranded into IHL2 after taking over the league).

I believe the UHL had a pretty liberal veteran rule, but the rest had similar vet rules to the ECHL - four vets (with different thresholds - the ECHL's is 260 games at the start of the year, the CHL's, I believe, was 310) and about a $12K/week salary cap.

The SPHL is trying to take on that mantel, but with half the salary cap.

 

[Ralph Slate]

The mid-90s IHL - at least the independent teams - was more of a NHL cast-off league. I like the developmental angle of the current-day AHL, but I think that it is a bit _too_ geared toward younger players, and that players cycle out a bit _too_ quickly, or move up to the NHL a bit too quickly too. A couple more veteran spots on AHL rosters could help, though that could wind up favoring teams that can afford to sign independent veteran players (like Hershey).

I think that NHL waiver rules have something to do with this too. From what I understand, an average player must clear waivers in about his third pro season, or, if he is an ex-college or European player who did not sign with the NHL team until he was 23 or older, after 60 NHL games. That is resulting in a lot of good players sitting in the stands on an NHL roster. Frankie Corrado played just 39 NHL games and 7 AHL games despite being healthy the entire year - he was up with Toronto and a healthy scratch. He couldn't be sent down to the AHL because he would have to clear waivers (those 7 games were a conditioning stint). This was Corrado's 3rd pro season.

 

[210]

This was Corrado's 3rd pro season.

His fourth pro season. Vancouver burned an ELC year in 2012-13 by playing him for more than six games in that lock-out shortened season.

 

[Ralph Slate]

His fourth pro season. Vancouver burned an ELC year in 2012-13 by playing him for more than six games in that lock-out shortened season.

I'm talking in terms of professional play, not in terms of when he first signed an NHL contract (though I know the waiver rules consider both factors)

He played a handful of pro games - probably an ATO - with the Chicago wolves in 2011-12. He signed an NHL contract but was back in juniors in 2012-13 since he was 19, and then played 3 regular season games with the Canucks after his junior season ended, plus 4 regular season games with Chicago of the AHL.

His first true pro season was 2013-14, where he played 59 AHL games with Utica and 15 with Vancouver. His second was 2014-15, where he played 35 games with Utica and 10 with Vancouver.

That makes 2015-16 his third pro season - yet he had to clear waivers if he was going to be sent down.

I understand the idea behind waivers - the NHLPA wants it because it doesn't want one team to stuff a bunch of NHL-caliber players in the minors without giving other teams a chance to say "hey, I'd play that guy in the NHL". Two years for AHL "development" seems awfully short to me though, especially when the end result is a guy who sits out most games because he can't be sent down, but isn't quite good enough to crack the roster. I'd suggest five years, but would settle for four.

 

[Tommy Hawk]

I'm talking in terms of professional play, not in terms of when he first signed an NHL contract (though I know the waiver rules consider both factors)

He played a handful of pro games - probably an ATO - with the Chicago wolves in 2011-12. He signed an NHL contract but was back in juniors in 2012-13 since he was 19, and then played 3 regular season games with the Canucks after his junior season ended, plus 4 regular season games with Chicago of the AHL.

His first true pro season was 2013-14, where he played 59 AHL games with Utica and 15 with Vancouver. His second was 2014-15, where he played 35 games with Utica and 10 with Vancouver.

That makes 2015-16 his third pro season - yet he had to clear waivers if he was going to be sent down.

I understand the idea behind waivers - the NHLPA wants it because it doesn't want one team to stuff a bunch of NHL-caliber players in the minors without giving other teams a chance to say "hey, I'd play that guy in the NHL". Two years for AHL "development" seems awfully short to me though, especially when the end result is a guy who sits out most games because he can't be sent down, but isn't quite good enough to crack the roster. I'd suggest five years, but would settle for four.

The ones who really get hosed are those that play junior hockey. How many guys have reached their physical maturity at age 25?

Someone from major juniors is done at that level at what, 21? Then 3 years in the AHL full time before they become a vet at what, 23/24?

You play a level down in juniors until you are 20 then go to the NCAA, you can come out at any time. Say you spend 3 years in college, you come out at 23 bigger and stronger than if you were in major juniors. You then are not a vet until you are 26/27?

By that time the odds of you knowing if you have a legit shot increase for most players. There is always the Steve Poapst situation.

I think they should raise the limit for the games and increase the number. Not to like 12 or 15 but maybe raise the games to 400 (5 years) and raise the limit to 6 skaters and 1 goalie. Also maybe place a cap of what they can spend on veterans not signed to an NHL deal. So if I have 500k for each team to use on veterans not on an NHL deal, do I sign a player like Aucoin to 250 of that or do I get some others at a lower price.

 

[210]

I'm talking in terms of professional play, not in terms of when he first signed an NHL contract (though I know the waiver rules consider both factors)

He played a handful of pro games - probably an ATO - with the Chicago wolves in 2011-12. He signed an NHL contract but was back in juniors in 2012-13 since he was 19, and then played 3 regular season games with the Canucks after his junior season ended, plus 4 regular season games with Chicago of the AHL.

His first true pro season was 2013-14, where he played 59 AHL games with Utica and 15 with Vancouver. His second was 2014-15, where he played 35 games with Utica and 10 with Vancouver.

That makes 2015-16 his third pro season - yet he had to clear waivers if he was going to be sent down.

I understand the idea behind waivers - the NHLPA wants it because it doesn't want one team to stuff a bunch of NHL-caliber players in the minors without giving other teams a chance to say "hey, I'd play that guy in the NHL". Two years for AHL "development" seems awfully short to me though, especially when the end result is a guy who sits out most games because he can't be sent down, but isn't quite good enough to crack the roster. I'd suggest five years, but would settle for four.

It's the three regular season games plus the four playoff games in 12-13 that was his first pro year. It has nothing to do with when he signed his contract. No matter how you look at, 15-16 was his fourth pro season. Simply saying 12-13 wasn't a full season is immaterial. That's how the system works.

 

[crimsonace]

The ones who really get hosed are those that play junior hockey. How many guys have reached their physical maturity at age 25?

Someone from major juniors is done at that level at what, 21? Then 3 years in the AHL full time before they become a vet at what, 23/24?

You play a level down in juniors until you are 20 then go to the NCAA, you can come out at any time. Say you spend 3 years in college, you come out at 23 bigger and stronger than if you were in major juniors. You then are not a vet until you are 26/27?

I discovered the ECHL tends to be very tilted toward NCAA players over Major Junior ones for this reason - guys are rookies at 24, and don't hit the vet limit until age 28. Major Junior players are rookies at 20 and hit the vet limit at the same time they're competing for jobs with "rookies" their own age. Given one is roster-limited and the other isn't, makes sense to go after the more mature player who you can keep until age 28.

 

[GindyDraws]

I don't agree with the OP statements because he's clearly based his assumptions on the reality that the AHL is going to leave most of the Northeast markets and follow where the NHL teams tell them to go, and instead is adamant that the AHL has to be in these cities and won't accept any alternative outlets.

I do, however, feel the AHL is "ruined", and the reason is simple: the Pacific Division.

To me, the creation of the Pacific Division ruined the AHL's aspect as a quasi-professional hockey league and instead turned it into a joke because while those five (now six, but given Arizona's health, not for long possibly) teams have close access to some of the largest airports in North America, they instead play each other in a vacuum, and while money is the obvious issue, why is it so that they play fewer games than the rest of the league, while fans of those teams still pay the same, if not more, in tickets.

It would just be easier if the AHL splintered into two seperate leagues; the traditional AHL where the boundary line is the Rocky Mountains, and then there's the Pacific Hockey League, which covers the needs of the West Coast teams. If there is a situation where teams need to be moved around, then they could swap leagues if both leagues are operated under the same group. It's a stupid idea, yes, but it's better than the system they got now.

 

[Goldenshark]

It would just be easier if the AHL splintered into two seperate leagues; the traditional AHL where the boundary line is the Rocky Mountains, and then there's the Pacific Hockey League, which covers the needs of the West Coast teams. If there is a situation where teams need to be moved around, then they could swap leagues if both leagues are operated under the same group. It's a stupid idea, yes, but it's better than the system they got now.

The AHL already contemplated that and doesn't want to split the league up. What they want is to create a uniform schedule of games at 70 or 72 for every team sometime in the future:

http://www.democratandchronicle.com...nt-homogenizing-schedule-cali-teams/79638100/

This may happen when the affiliates of Las Vegas and another NHL Western Conference expansion team join the league and/or if Vancouver's affiliate moves west.

 

[Fenian24]

There are a number of issues that ruined the league but over expansion, losing traditional markets for the west and south and now this idiotic fighting rule are the ones that have gotten me to stop going to games.

 

[Hoodaha]

There are a number of issues that ruined the league but over expansion, losing traditional markets for the west and south and now this idiotic fighting rule are the ones that have gotten me to stop going to games.

The West is outperforming those traditional markets.

 

[go comets]

The West is outperforming those traditional markets.

Untill the fans get sick of watching the same 5 opponents 6 or 8 x a year

 

[Avsrule2022]

Untill the fans get sick of watching the same 5 opponents 6 or 8 x a year

That has been going on in the West for years. Hasn't hurt attendance yet.

 

[go comets]

That has been going on in the West for years. Hasn't hurt attendance yet.

How can it be going on for years?? They have only played one season....

 

[Coach Nate]

How can it be going on for years?? They have only played one season....

Their schedule in the ECHL was limited as well and Ontario was at the top or very close to the top for years. Bakersfield and Stockton also did quite well in their last few years in the E.

 

[Theoriginalalex]

Their schedule in the ECHL was limited as well and Ontario was at the top or very close to the top for years. Bakersfield and Stockton also did quite well in their last few years in the E.

Good point. I actually checked Bakersfield's schedule for their final season in the ECHL and they only played 6 different teams. By contrast, they've faced 9 different teams during each of their first 2 AHL schedules. Seems bad to us East coasters, but that's probably a refreshing change of pace to them.

 

[zetajerk]

How can it be going on for years?? They have only played one season....

Bakersfield, Ontario, and Stockton have been outdrawing a lot of those glorious NE AHL cities for years in that lowly ECHL. San Diego had a successful stint in WC/ECHL as well.

 

[fiveighthree]

We have division 1 college... much better than echl which has already been ruled out here in Utica.a nd we have known we were on borrowed time when the canucks showed up. Remember, we were supposed to get the flames at first.

UC is Division III not Division I. I am also from the area and you are fooling yourself if you think that D-III hockey compares to AHL. I have season tickets to both Comets and the UC Pioneers and can first hand say the play cannot be compared between the two. Now when comparing D-III to ECHL I cannot comment. I would imagine though ECHL is still a better brand. Most D-III hockey players do not even make it to the ECHL level.

 

[GindyDraws]

Bakersfield, Ontario, and Stockton have been outdrawing a lot of those glorious NE AHL cities for years in that lowly ECHL. San Diego had a successful stint in WC/ECHL as well.

And that's why I think those teams should play more games. The support IS there, unlike some of the "traditional" AHL markets that some people on here want to see firmly entrenched forever and ever. Again, it makes no sense for fans to pay more to see a team less.

 

[go comets]

UC is Division III not Division I. I am also from the area and you are fooling yourself if you think that D-III hockey compares to AHL. I have season tickets to both Comets and the UC Pioneers and can first hand say the play cannot be compared between the two. Now when comparing D-III to ECHL I cannot comment. I would imagine though ECHL is still a better brand. Most D-III hockey players do not even make it to the ECHL level.

I am referring to Colgate university as a division 1 team.... is that division 1 enough for you?????

 

[Hoodaha]

And that's why I think those teams should play more games. The support IS there, unlike some of the "traditional" AHL markets that some people on here want to see firmly entrenched forever and ever. Again, it makes no sense for fans to pay more to see a team less.

I agree. As a west coast fan I hate the split schedule. I wish they had compromised at 72 games for everyone. I suspect that the west will be more open to it when Vegas' expansion AHL team comes west. I'm also not convinced that Colorado and Vancouver won't be further West in a few years (sorry Utica fans).

 

[adsfan]

To be fair, the Midwest teams don't mind seeing each other a lot. It's that it's always the same teams, over and over again every season with no variety. There wouldn't be any complaints if we had a schedule like this.

10 vs Chicago
10 vs Rockford
6 vs Iowa
6 vs Grand Rapids
6 vs Lake Erie
4 vs Charlotte
4 vs Texas
4 vs San Antonio
4 vs Manitoba
2 vs San Jose, Stockton, Ontario, Tucson, Bakersfield and San Diego
2 vs Toronto
2 vs Hershey
2 vs Providence
2 vs Rochester
2 vs Utica

Would that really be that difficult? It would be far better than the schedule we got last year.

12 vs Rockford
12 vs Chicago
8 vs Grand Rapids
8 vs Lake Erie
8 vs Iowa
8 vs Charlotte
8 vs Manitoba
4 vs Texas
4 vs San Antonio
2 vs Bakersfield
2 vs San Diego

Think about that. 85% of our home schedule came against 7 teams. That's not exciting for anybody, no matter how big of a rivalry you have with a couple of those teams. At some point you're just like "oh Rockford again? I just saw them two times last week."

The Admirals play 12 teams this year by my count, including Stockton and San Jose. About the same as usual. Twelve games against Chicago, Grand Rapids and Rockford. Eight against Iowa.

I made it for the games against San Diego and Bakersfield. It was great to see some "new" teams. I look forward to Stockton and San Jose.

 

[Tommy Hawk]

The Admirals play 12 teams this year by my count, including Stockton and San Jose. About the same as usual. Twelve games against Chicago, Grand Rapids and Rockford. Eight against Iowa.

I made it for the games against San Diego and Bakersfield. It was great to see some "new" teams. I look forward to Stockton and San Jose.

In Chicago we don't see any of those teams even though they fly int and stay in Chicago for the games in Milwaukee and Rockford. Also, check your team count again. 11 not 12.

And check the eastern conference schedule. Each team plays every other team in the conference with the exception of Bridgeport not playing someone.

Total BS. We in Chicago see 9 out of 29 possible opponents. After 20 years, I gave up my season tickets because of the way the AHL does the schedule and lacks veteran leadership in the teams.