New ECHL Franchises: Mariners (Rangers) vs. Growlers (Leafs) Differing Approaches

[Growler]

It is interesting to see how the Rangers and Leafs have taken different approaches in relation to the ECHL (and even AHL) franchises. Neither the Mariners nor the Growlers have any pre-existing rights to any ECHL player contracts from the previous season. The Mariners have 9 ECHL contracts already, while the Growlers have only just signed their first.

The Growlers' hesitation is understandable given that the Growlers are going to be stocked with at least 12 players on AHL Marlie contracts, maybe even 1-3 Leaf ELCs. The Marlies signed a pile of AHL contracts (17) for a Marlie team already stacked with NHL contracts with maybe only 2-3 spots available. They even traded for the Islanders' 5th string goalie on an ELC, who invariably will also end up on the Rock. The Wolfpack to date meanwhile have signed only 3 AHL contracts in total.

Both the Leafs and Rangers have deep pockets for development investments, yet we're not seeing the Rangers "throw-down" in the minors the past 3-4 years. Meanwhile, the Leafs are throwing-down tons of cash. Over the past 3 years the Rangers have averaged 7 AHL contracts signed (tied with 6 teams at #20 most in NHL). Meanwhile, the Leafs have averaged 16 (easily #1 in NHL). This year, the Marlie contract number is already at 17, with a likely chance to go above 20 by year's end. Most of these players will play the majority of their hockey in Newfoundland.

Also worthy to note is that among the 17 Marlie contracts, only 1 of them is above 25 years old, Colin Greening, so arguably all of these players are prospects of some sort. It will likely make the Growlers the youngest team in the ECHL for better or worse. Even their 1 ECHL signee is only 24.

Are the Leafs trailblazing a path for more franchises to leverage the ECHL affiliate more heavily? Or are they wasting their money? Judging by the Rangers' ability to afford this strategy and the opportunity to apply it with a clean slate with a new ECHL affiliate, one would think they believe the Leafs are wasting their money.

What do you think about this kind of use of the affiliate?

Click to read more...

 

[CHRDANHUTCH]

It is interesting to see how the Rangers and Leafs have taken different approaches in relation to the ECHL (and even AHL) franchises. Neither the Mariners nor the Growlers have any pre-existing rights to any ECHL player contracts from the previous season. The Mariners have 9 ECHL contracts already, while the Growlers have only just signed their first.

The Growlers' hesitation is understandable given that the Growlers are going to be stocked with at least 12 players on AHL Marlie contracts, maybe even 1-3 Leaf ELCs. The Marlies signed a pile of AHL contracts (17) for a Marlie team already stacked with NHL contracts with maybe only 2-3 spots available. They even traded for the Islanders' 5th string goalie on an ELC, who invariably will also end up on the Rock. The Wolfpack to date meanwhile have signed only 3 AHL contracts in total.

Both the Leafs and Rangers have deep pockets for development investments, yet we're not seeing the Rangers "throw-down" in the minors the past 3-4 years. Meanwhile, the Leafs are throwing-down tons of cash. Over the past 3 years the Rangers have averaged 7 AHL contracts signed (tied with 6 teams at #20 most in NHL). Meanwhile, the Leafs have averaged 16 (easily #1 in NHL). This year, the Marlie contract number is already at 17, with a likely chance to go above 20 by year's end. Most of these players will play the majority of their hockey in Newfoundland.

Also worthy to note is that among the 17 Marlie contracts, only 1 of them is above 25 years old, Colin Greening, so arguably all of these players are prospects of some sort. It will likely make the Growlers the youngest team in the ECHL for better or worse. Even their 1 ECHL signee is only 24.

Are the Leafs trailblazing a path for more franchises to leverage the ECHL affiliate more heavily? Or are they wasting their money? Judging by the Rangers' ability to afford this strategy and the opportunity to apply it with a clean slate with a new ECHL affiliate, one would think they believe the Leafs are wasting their money.

What do you think about this kind of use of the affiliate?

how much of that is the Rangers and how much of that is the philosophy of Spectra, who owns the ECHL franchise in Portland, Growler..... among other businesses they have a share in to manage as they do in Hartford

there are also reports out there surrounding the annual battle over XL Center between the CDRA AND will XL eventually meet the same fate that the New Haven Coliseum ultimately paid....

that story is at the Hartford Courant Hartford Courant: Connecticut breaking news, UConn sports, business, entertainment, weather and traffic

 

[Growler]

how much of that is the Rangers and how much of that is the philosophy of Spectra, who owns the ECHL franchise in Portland, Growler..... among other businesses they have a share in to manage as they do in Hartford

there are also reports out there surrounding the annual battle over XL Center between the CDRA AND will XL eventually meet the same fate that the New Haven Coliseum ultimately paid....

that story is at the Hartford Courant Hartford Courant: Connecticut breaking news, UConn sports, business, entertainment, weather and traffic

I don't know what the ownership would have to do with these signings. Maine just signed a few more guys today who were playing previously in the SPHL, the Australian Hockey league, the ACHW etc. Not exactly highly valued prospects. One guy Mathias Cleland was signed to an AHL deal with the Marlies last year, but was so low on the depth chart that he couldn't even get on the ice with the Solar Bears so he got loaned to another ECHL team.

To me, this is all about the Rangers vs. Leafs approaches.

 

[CHRDANHUTCH]

I don't know what the ownership would have to do with these signings. Maine just signed a few more guys today who were playing previously in the SPHL, the Australian Hockey league, the ACHW etc. Not exactly highly valued prospects. One guy Mathias Cleland was signed to an AHL deal with the Marlies last year, but was so low on the depth chart that he couldn't even get on the ice with the Solar Bears so he got loaned to another ECHL team.

To me, this is all about the Rangers vs. Leafs approaches.

no it's actually not...

all ECHL Teams have their individual philosophy, just as Toronto and Winnipeg and Montreal did when supplying St. John's in the past in the AHL... DOESN'T Portland have direct connections between the Flyers/Reading as well as the Rangers/Hartford, past, present or future

 

[Growler]

no it's actually not...

all ECHL Teams have their individual philosophy, just as Toronto and Winnipeg and Montreal did when supplying St. John's in the past in the AHL... DOESN'T Portland have direct connections between the Flyers/Reading as well as the Rangers/Hartford, past, present or future

I don't quite understand what you are trying to say

 

[210]

I don't quite understand what you are trying to say

Don't worry, you'll get used to it...

 

[CHRDANHUTCH]

I don't quite understand what you are trying to say

MOST OF US DON'T GET THE POINT OF THIS THREAD, and there are 25 other franchises.... why are you singling out the 2 expansion teams?

 

[CHRDANHUTCH]

Don't worry, you'll get used to it...

I DON'T GET THE POINT OF THIS THREAD AT ALL, and he's ignoring Worcester in all of this....

 

[Growler]

MOST OF US DON'T GET THE POINT OF THIS THREAD, and there are 25 other franchises.... why are you singling out the 2 expansion teams?

Because they are the 2 new franchises to which I am using as an illustration.

What is there not to get? I write very clearly - unlike yourself. It is about how the ECHL is used by the Big Club. And whether there is change afoot about using the ECHL even more -- but is it a waste of money, or are the Leafs finding a new inefficiency to exploit?

 

[Growler]

I DON'T GET THE POINT OF THIS THREAD AT ALL, and he's ignoring Worcester in all of this....

WTF does Worcester have to do with this?

But if you want to compare, the Islanders used the ECHL quite heavily. They assigned 8 AHL contracted players onto the Railers last year. Second only to the Orlando/Marlie/Leaf franchise with 12. Additionally, over the past 3 years the Islanders and the Leafs leveraged the AHL contract heavier than any other franchises. And this trend is continuing this year too.

 

[CHRDANHUTCH]

WTF does Worcester have to do with this?

But if you want to compare, the Islanders used the ECHL quite heavily. They assigned 8 AHL contracted players onto the Railers. Second only to the Orlando/Marlie/Leaf franchise with 12.

so I ANSWERED YOU IN THE 1ST RESPONSE

 

[CHRDANHUTCH]

YOU DO REALIZE Newfoundland is a complete unknown, Growler..... Portland's a transferred franchise from Anchorage, AK, does Newfoundland follow Worcester's blueprint?

 

[Growler]

so I ANSWERED YOU IN THE 1ST RESPONSE

So you seriously think that the Maine ownership is the overruling factor in how many Wolfpack AHL contracted players (Ranger payroll) arrive on their roster?

 

[Growler]

YOU DO REALIZE Newfoundland is a complete unknown, Growler..... Portland's a transferred franchise from Anchorage, AK, does Newfoundland follow Worcester's blueprint?

What are you talking about? Anchorage did not have a roster last year. It was purchased from that ownership group and completely management restaffed with Briere etc. And again, what does Worcester have to do with this?

 

[CHRDANHUTCH]

So you seriously think that the Maine ownership is the overruling factor in how many Wolfpack AHL contracted players (Ranger payroll) arrive on their roster?

nobody knows that.... that's up to Drury and Briere, SIMPLY PUT, it's a work in progress, and there's no guarantee as in Worcester and around the ECHL whether you will keep the same affiliation year in and year out, as they actually were blind going into how this league operated, now whether Bridgeport and the Islanders are a good fit in an ongoing circumstance. you changed the goal posts since both expansion teams have their own threads

Briere and the Rangers along with the coaching staff here (Riley Armstrong) already are experienced in how the league runs..... what exactly has Ryane Clowe accomplished in the ECHL SINCE HIS HIRING.... see the difference right there.... Portland probably has more experience off the ice simply because of the actions since 2015/16, in getting a franchise

 

[CHRDANHUTCH]

What are you talking about? Anchorage did not have a roster last year. It was purchased from that ownership group and completely management restaffed with Briere etc. And again, what does Worcester have to do with this?

no it wasn't Growler, then you don't know Portland's history.... Newfoundland is more aligned with the Railers than Portland, based off how both arrived in the league, a straight expansion, hence the blueprint in my original comment/post

 

[Growler]

nobody knows that.... that's up to Drury and Briere, SIMPLY PUT, it's a work in progress, and there's no guarantee as in Worcester and around the ECHL whether you will keep the same affiliation year in and year out, as they actually were blind going into how this league operated, now whether Bridgeport and the Islanders are a good fit in an ongoing circumstance. you changed the goal posts since both expansion teams have their own threads

Briere and the Rangers along with the coaching staff here (Riley Armstrong) already are experienced in how the league runs..... what exactly has Ryane Clowe accomplished in the ECHL SINCE HIS HIRING.... see the difference right there.... Portland probably has more experience off the ice simply because of the actions since 2015/16, in getting a franchise

Again, I have no idea why you brought Worcester into this, but whatever, I will play along. It is the Islanders who have been using their ECHL affiliate heavily the past several years - Worcester last year and the Kansas City Mavericks prior. So it clearly is an NHL development philosophy. ergo - the entire point of this thread.

Just like it seems to be a Ranger philosophy NOT TO USE their ECHL affiliate heavily at all, whether it is Greenville, or now the Maine Mariners.

Regarding your second paragraph, I have no clue as to what your point is. I have no retort.

 

[Growler]

no it wasn't Growler, then you don't know Portland's history.... Newfoundland is more aligned with the Railers than Portland, based off how both arrived in the league, a straight expansion, hence the blueprint in my original comment/post

The Newfoundland Growlers has no connection or model or blueprint related to Worcester. Again, no clue what you are talking about.

The Growlers' roster is heavily influenced by the Leafs. So if you look at a template it is following, it would be the Orlando Solar Bears, because it too was heavily influenced by the Leafs.

 

[CHRDANHUTCH]

Again, I have no idea why you brought Worcester into this, but whatever, I will play along. It is the Islanders who have been using their ECHL affiliate heavily the past several years - Worcester last year and the Kansas City Mavericks prior. So it clearly is an NHL development philosophy.

Just like it seems to be a Ranger philosophy NOT TO USE their ECHL affiliate heavily at all, whether it is Greenville, or now the Maine Mariners.

Regarding your second paragraph, I have no clue as to what your point is. I have no retort.

because Worcester was in the same position last year Newfoundland is now.... I fail to see why you feel the need to compare the two expansion teams, when there are 25 others out there.... bottom line.... nothing has essentially changed since St. John's and Portland were in the AHL.... YOU SEEM to feel that there is a need to compare when each organization on the NHL level has their own philosophy development-wise.... wasn't Winnipeg different from the Leafs in how the Ice Caps were run as compared to when the now-Marlies were in Mile One.... all affiliate teams are required to adapt independent of whom the parent club is, outside of what the ECHL requires to be a member in good standing, as was Montreal before they left for Laval...

Portland did adapt, going back to the Flyers, then Devils, then Bruins.... when Washington arrived here in 1992, FOR 1993, they had their philosophy, same when Anaheim came here in 2005, Buffalo, when they took that respite from Rochester, Arizona, DESPITE THAT TURMOIL, to this day, in Glendale, AND Florida for that final AHL Season, ALTHOUGH, that was unfinished, we'll never really know what would've happened

 

[CHRDANHUTCH]

The Newfoundland Growlers has no connection or model or blueprint related to Worcester. Again, no clue what you are talking about.

The Growlers' roster is heavily influenced by the Leafs. So if you look at a template it is following, it would be the Orlando Solar Bears, because it too was heavily influenced by the Leafs.

yea, you're still not getting it... since when is Orlando owned by Toronto.... it never was.... Portland indirectly is owned by the Flyers and that has been discussed already, Growler, in the Portland thread

 

[Clinton Comets EHL]

Wow, the escalated quickly into nothing.

 

[Growler]

OK, I am going to condense my response from your last 2 posts into this one.

There is no purpose to compare how Winnipeg or Montreal used the Icecaps because those were AHL franchises. It has no relevancy here to the ECHL Growlers. Besides, it was under different ownership groups anyway. Likewise, how the Leafs used their former AHL affiliate in St. Johns does not apply -- AHL and from a different era anyway.

Let's not then compare Maine and Newfoundland anymore either. I was only using those two as an illustration because both are net new franchises which have no pre-existing ECHL rights to players from last season. Because of that, I thought they should be a good backdrop to roster building philosophies because neither had legacy to contend with. But clearly, this ended up going down a rabbit hole of Worcester and 20 years of Maine hockey franchise history that I did not know about, and is not germane to this discussion.

THE DEBATE I was hoping for relates to how the NHL is using the "AA" ECHL model and whether teams that leverage AHL contracts heavily and add quite a few of these players to ECHL rosters with them at times (like the Leafs, Islanders, Pens, Blackhawks and Flyers for example) is the way of the future, or are they wasting their money on this mode of development. Because there are other teams (like the Rangers, Habs, Devils, Bolts, Sens and Predators for example) who do not.

 

[CHRDANHUTCH]

OK, I am going to condense my response from your last 2 posts into this one.

There is no purpose to compare how Winnipeg or Montreal used the Icecaps because those were AHL franchises. It has no relevancy here to the ECHL Growlers. Besides, it was under different ownership groups anyway. Likewise, how the Leafs used their former AHL affiliate in St. Johns does not apply -- AHL and from a different era anyway.

Let's not then compare Maine and Newfoundland anymore either. I was only using those two as an illustration because both are net new franchises which have no pre-existing ECHL rights to players from last season. Because of that, I thought they should be a good backdrop to roster building philosophies because neither had legacy to contend with. But clearly, this ended up going down a rabbit hole of Worcester and 20 years of Maine hockey franchise history that I did not know about, and is not germane to this discussion.

THE DEBATE I was hoping for relates to how the NHL is using the "AA" ECHL model and whether teams that leverage AHL contracts heavily and add quite a few of these players to ECHL rosters with them at times (like the Leafs, Islanders, Pens, Blackhawks and Flyers for example) is the way of the future, or are they wasting their money on this mode of development. Because there are other teams (like the Rangers, Habs, Devils, Bolts, Sens and Predators for example) who do not.

you're wrong, because that history cannot be ignored, it doesn't matter which franchise or any specific team , it exists whether you choose it or how its quantified..... I'M sure there's still vestiges of the Leafs/Ice Caps in Mile One, as it always has been in other markets here, Growler... those banners won by previous franchises remain affixed to the rafters of each arena unless that arena no longer operates.....it DOES matter, when you see the history of a market

[mod]

 

[Growler]

you're wrong, because that history cannot be ignored, it doesn't matter which franchise or any specific team , it exists whether you choose it or how its quantified..... I'M sure there's still vestiges of the Leafs/Ice Caps in Mile One, as it always has been in other markets here, Growler... those banners won by previous franchises remain affixed to the rafters of each arena unless that arena no longer operates.....it DOES matter, when you see the history of a market

[mod]

Holy crap man. Yes, I clearly went down a Rabbit Hole here. I am trying to talk about potentially evolving approaches in player development and you want want to talk about banners hanging from the ceiling from defunct franchises from other leagues.

I don't know what to say other than we are clearly on separate wave lengths.

 

[Avsrule2022]

THE DEBATE I was hoping for relates to how the NHL is using the "AA" ECHL model and whether teams that leverage AHL contracts heavily and add quite a few of these players to ECHL rosters with them at times (like the Leafs, Islanders, Pens, Blackhawks and Flyers for example) is the way of the future, or are they wasting their money on this mode of development. Because there are other teams (like the Rangers, Habs, Devils, Bolts, Sens and Predators for example) who do not.

As much as I would like to say that it was the wave of the future, I will still have to see it prolonged before believing it. But I have to say the last 4 ECHL champions were very well taken care of roster wise by their affiliates. Personally I think it makes sense to develop a few depth AHL guys in the ECHL. It certainly can't hurt. And if a rich team like Toronto wants to throw money at it, I say by all means. Use everything you can to make your org better.