NHL to Seattle Volume XVI - It's Official. Seattle to join the league for 21-22 season.

[gstommylee]

There's as many spots as there needs to be in the Pacific.

The mistake is thinking Boise is a better location than somewhere like Chicago just because it's "closer." Unless you're sending private jets for callups (which is not normal) you want your affiliate in a place with as many nonstop flights to as many NHL cities as possible. Boise can get you nonstop as far east as Minneapolis-St. Paul and DFW, but your prospect is on a connecting flight if they're trying to make it in time for an Eastern Conference game.

Most of the AHL Pacific teams themselves aren't in great locations with regards to airports and transcon call ups. However, the proximity to 50% (or so) of their NHL affiliate's games seems to make it worth it versus playing in the northeast like many used to.

If the AHL wants a team in the pacific northwest Boise would be the place to go with out kicking current teams out.

 

[BattleBorn]

If the AHL wants a team in the pacific northwest Boise would be the place to go with out kicking current teams out.

I mean, the Winterhawks only kind play half the season at Moda. I'm not sure the logistics or politics behind that, but if it's feasible and the Seattle team really wants the affiliate fairly close for some reason, that's probably the place to go. Either Moda or Veterans Memorial would work if there's no real hurdles, whichever one the Winterhawks don't mind having painted with AHL logos on the ice can be home.

Still don't think Pacific Division AHL is smart, and that it mostly exists as a response to years of having AHL affiliates stuck on the east side of the continent after the IHL went down more than making the most logistical sense for callups and NHL/AHL operations. Even getting scouts to games can be a PITA in a place like Boise.

 

[gstommylee]

I mean, the Winterhawks only kind play half the season at Moda. I'm not sure the logistics or politics behind that, but if it's feasible and the Seattle team really wants the affiliate fairly close for some reason, that's probably the place to go. Either Moda or Veterans Memorial would work if there's no real hurdles, whichever one the Winterhawks don't mind having painted with AHL logos on the ice can be home.

Still don't think Pacific Division AHL is smart, and that it mostly exists as a response to years of having AHL affiliates stuck on the east side of the continent after the IHL went down more than making the most logistical sense for callups and NHL/AHL operations. Even getting scouts to games can be a PITA in a place like Boise.

Its the direction the AHL has gone recently more west coast teams.

 

[BattleBorn]

Its the direction the AHL has gone recently more west coast teams.

The AHL didn't decide to do that, the NHL teams did. It's not a coincidence that the western AHL teams are all owned by their NHL teams.

It makes sense for San Jose, Anaheim, and LA since they located their affiliates right next to their NHL teams and near major airports (and the same city for San Jose) I'm not sure it makes as much sense for teams like Edmonton, Calgary, and (to a lesser extent) Colorado and Arizona other than to get their teams off the east coast since the AHL never came in to replace the IHL markets abandoned after the IHL went down.

Either way, assuming an AHL affiliate available to Seattle isn't in the Northeast corner of the continent, it may make just as much sense to locate it in the midwest as it does to locate it in the AHL Pacific Division. That's my only point.

 

[gstommylee]

The AHL didn't decide to do that, the NHL teams did. It's not a coincidence that the western AHL teams are all owned by their NHL teams.

It makes sense for San Jose, Anaheim, and LA since they located their affiliates right next to their NHL teams and near major airports (and the same city for San Jose) I'm not sure it makes as much sense for teams like Edmonton, Calgary, and (to a lesser extent) Colorado and Arizona other than to get their teams off the east coast since the AHL never came in to replace the IHL markets abandoned after the IHL went down.

Either way, assuming an AHL affiliate available to Seattle isn't in the Northeast corner of the continent, it may make just as much sense to locate it in the midwest as it does to locate it in the AHL Pacific Division. That's my only point.

And the AHL would have to relign the league to fit another AHL team anywhere else than pacific division.

 

[BattleBorn]

And the AHL would have to relign the league to fit another AHL team anywhere else than pacific division.

The AHL relocates teams and realigns divisions as often as some people shower.

 

[gstommylee]

The AHL relocates teams and realigns divisions as often as some people shower.

I think they specifically went with 7 teams in pacific for a reason or they would have done it differently if they wanted let say in the midwest for example.

 

[BattleBorn]

I think they specifically went with 7 teams in pacific for a reason or they would have done it differently if they wanted let say in the midwest for example.

Or they had Colorado join and would have to split up Texas to do it any other way.

Unbalanced divisions are a fairly common occurrence in the AHL, I wouldn't look too deeply into it. There's a decent chance it's completely different by the time Seattle needs an AHL affiliation, keeping the divisions the same for the next three years would be a pretty unprecedented feat in recent AHL history. Once the expansion/entry drafts happen, there's a chance Seattle won't need their own team and won't want to pay AHLers to put a squad and the ice and will place Seattle prospects with other AHL team(s) due to a lack of prospects eligible to play in the AHL (remember the Canadian players under 20YO go to juniors if they've been drafted by a junior team.)

There's a decent chance Seattle's AHL team winds up in the Pacific through owning a team in the Seattle/elsewhere in the Pacific Northwest/California/Utah/Whatever, but I wouldn't take anything happening in the AHL now as a clue into that eventuality.

Vancouver could decide they want a closer team in the coming years and pick up a franchise, Vegas could do the same. Hell, the Avs could decide they don't like flying their AHL team around everywhere they go and advocate for a move so they can do some fly in-bus around-fly out trips through the upper midwest while playing their prospects against guys they'll see in-division in the NHL. A million things could happen.

That's kind of the norm in the ECHL and AHL.

 

[Centrum Hockey]

Chicago is a pretty unique situation, and I've got a feeling people see what's happened in the past and assume that's what the future will look like.

Prior to the VGK affiliation, the Chicago Wolves saw themselves as a team to compete in the Chicago market with the Blackhawks. Getting people buying tickets and winning games has been the MO of the Chicago Wolves for that reason. This has had a tendency to put player development toward the lower end of the priority list for the franchise, which, of course, is the ultimate goal of any NHL/AHL affiliation.

Apparently, that has changed now and the parent affiliate has far more control over the Wolves operations than it has in the past. All that being said, I don't expect the affiliation to change soon.

Chicago isn't supposed to be the "transition affiliate," they just kept running teams off and were the last seat available when the music stopped in the affiliation game. That has supposedly changed now.

Unless Chicago can get another affiliation if Vegas wanted to move their affiliation to the west coast they could give the wolves an option sell the team to Foley's Group or fold and the AHL will give the knights an expansion team the same situation happened to the Norfolk Admirals(AHL) and the Maine Mariners(AHL)
Owner: Sale of Norfolk Admirals nearly a done deal

 

[BattleBorn]

if Vegas wanted to move their affiliation to the west coast they could give the wolves an option sell the team to Foley Group or fold and the AHL will give them an expansion team the same situation happened the Norfolk Admirals(AHL) and the Maine Mariners(AHL)

I don't foresee Chicago losing the Wolves. If there's another independent team that was for sale, I imagine that's the one that would move west regardless of who wanted to move the team west (Vegas, Vancouver, Seattle.) Then whoever lost their team would wind up in Chicago or with whoever the new affiliate from Chicago leaves.

To be honest, I'm not even sure which AHL teams are independently owned anymore. I assume it's still pretty close to half of them with the AHL Pacific teams all obviously owned by the parent clubs.

 

[Crescent Street]

What happens to the 4 WHL teams in Washington if expansion to Seattle happens?

 

[Centrum Hockey]

I don't foresee Chicago losing the Wolves. If there's another independent team that was for sale, I imagine that's the one that would move west regardless of who wanted to move the team west (Vegas, Vancouver, Seattle.) Then whoever lost their team would wind up in Chicago or with whoever the new affiliate from Chicago leaves.

To be honest, I'm not even sure which AHL teams are independently owned anymore. I assume it's still pretty close to half of them with the AHL Pacific teams all obviously owned by the parent clubs.

Chicago, Springfield ,Hershey ,Charlotte ,Providence ,Rockford ,Cleveland, Lehigh Valley, Milwaukee ,Rockford ,San Antonio,Grand Rapids,Colorado are all not owned by NHL Teams but half of them the NHL owners would never let move plus there is one expansion spot

 

[gstommylee]

What happens to the 4 WHL teams in Washington if expansion to Seattle happens?

Nothing. All 4 WHL teams set to benefit from the increase interest in hockey.

 

[KevFu]

To be honest, I'm not even sure which AHL teams are independently owned anymore. I assume it's still pretty close to half of them with the AHL Pacific teams all obviously owned by the parent clubs.

Own their AHL team (18): NYI, NYR, NJD, PIT, OTT, MON, BUF, TOR, MIN, WIN, DAL, ARZ, VAN, EDM, LA, ANA, SJ, CAL

Not owned (11): Charlotte, Hershey, Providence, Springfield, Cleveland, Syracuse, Chicago, Grand Rapids, Milwaukee, Rockford, San Antonio

Can’t tell (2): Lehigh Valley, Colorado

It's highly likely that if the Seattle owners put in a bid for the AHL expansion, they'll be the winner of the AHL expansion process.

 

[Centrum Hockey]

Own their AHL team (18): NYI, NYR, NJD, PIT, OTT, MON, BUF, TOR, MIN, WIN, DAL, ARZ, VAN, EDM, LA, ANA, SJ, CAL

Not owned (11): Charlotte, Hershey, Providence, Springfield, Cleveland, Syracuse, Chicago, Grand Rapids, Milwaukee, Rockford, San Antonio

Can’t tell (2): Lehigh Valley, Colorado

It's highly likely that if the Seattle owners put in a bid for the AHL expansion, they'll be the winner of the AHL expansion process.

Comcast sold Lehigh Valley to a local group

 

[PCSPounder]

Nothing. All 4 WHL teams set to benefit from the increase interest in hockey.

The sports landscape over the last 10-20 years has not been the "rising tide lifts all boats" scenario. It's been easier to bet the opposite. The Sounders haven't exactly triggered PDL teams to stick around, for instance. (BTW, RIP Kitsap Pumas)

Plus this doesn't matter a lick for Tri-City, who have their own problems.

 

[PCSPounder]

Own their AHL team (18): NYI, NYR, NJD, PIT, OTT, MON, BUF, TOR, MIN, WIN, DAL, ARZ, VAN, EDM, LA, ANA, SJ, CAL

Not owned (11): Charlotte, Hershey, Providence, Springfield, Cleveland, Syracuse, Chicago, Grand Rapids, Milwaukee, Rockford, San Antonio

Can’t tell (2): Lehigh Valley, Colorado

It's highly likely that if the Seattle owners put in a bid for the AHL expansion, they'll be the winner of the AHL expansion process.

We're at the point where the NHL can "persuade" the AHL to do just about anything.

Levin is probably the exception. Thing is, Chicago/Vegas is really quite the match when you think about the Wolves' centrality and all planes eventually leading to Vegas. That seems like a long-term pairing if you ask me.

(I felt like editing this. Vegas really is a different animal. It's one of a few cities on any continent that's as much ethos and pathos as concrete and steel. A regional affiliation would mean a lot more for Seattle or San Jose... but that would downgrade Vegas. Vegas can get away with doing something else for multiple reasons.)

I'm basically saying there's too much money floating around Seattle for the Metrokraken (somehow I'm resisting Metrokrakitans) not to take advantage of more of it.

 

[KevFu]

That’s another reason I’d have VGK in the Central instead of Arizona (if there are negative financial effects).

I’d bet if you did a VGK fan poll of “who’s your second favorite NHL team?” or “Who did you abandon for the Knights?” I’d bet Chicago is winning by a lot. The Blackhawks won Nevada in the Facebook map of “Who’s your favorite NHL playoff team” before the Knights started.

Vegas in the Central would be just fine. If you're going to have one "out of time zone" team in your division that's a chore to get to... make it freaking Vegas for the Central teams. The effect on the Knights kind of off-sets the "Vegas Flu" advantage they get at home having worse division travel than anyone else.

And let's be honest, everyone makes a big deal about TV start times for local ratings... are people going to tune in more for Arizona at 9 pm or Vegas at 10 p.m.? One's a game against a very good opponent with a great atmosphere and great game presentation; and the other is a team that's been pretty terrible for a long time with a bad atmosphere.

 

[BattleBorn]

That’s another reason I’d have VGK in the Central instead of Arizona (if there are negative financial effects).

I’d bet if you did a VGK fan poll of “who’s your second favorite NHL team?” or “Who did you abandon for the Knights?” I’d bet Chicago is winning by a lot. The Blackhawks won Nevada in the Facebook map of “Who’s your favorite NHL playoff team” before the Knights started.

Vegas in the Central would be just fine. If you're going to have one "out of time zone" team in your division that's a chore to get to... make it freaking Vegas for the Central teams. The effect on the Knights kind of off-sets the "Vegas Flu" advantage they get at home having worse division travel than anyone else.

And let's be honest, everyone makes a big deal about TV start times for local ratings... are people going to tune in more for Arizona at 9 pm or Vegas at 10 p.m.? One's a game against a very good opponent with a great atmosphere and great game presentation; and the other is a team that's been pretty terrible for a long time with a bad atmosphere.

A two time zone difference for division games is pretty rough regardless of who makes that move, if anyone.

7:00 puck drop in every Central Division city except Denver is 5:00 in Las Vegas. With half of the division games taking place in a time zone two hours ahead, out of conference games happening three hours ahead (and excepting one-hour difference, central division Denver) the Golden Knights would play 36 of 82 (around 44%) of all games with pucks dropping at 5:00 or earlier, which is right around when normal people get off work and start the drive home. It's not just TV ratings, which would suffer, it's actual interest. That's just asking for trouble for any team regardless of fans and part of the reason the league has avoided it forever. If 5:00 worked for anyone, teams wouldn't start home games at 7:00.

ETA: I'm checking my math, give me a second.

 

[tank44]

Look at the alignment picture. There is one spot open in the pacific. Seattle AHL needs to be close to them. No way Seattle is going to have Chicago as theirs it's too far away.

Colorado AHL was a new team this year so i don't see why you think we get no say in who our AHL should be when colorado did.

We could have Idaho Steelheads as our AHL for example after promoting them. I doubt the AHL wants to realign the divisions again after #32 joins so #32 will be somewhere in the pacific region and it'll be for Seattle not Vegas.

As has been mentioned, AHL realigns annually (Charlotte, Texas teams and others change divisions frequently recently). The Pacific division NHL teams that own their AHL teams made the western migration/Pacific division. the 7 team AHL pacific division is not a 1-1 relationship with the NHL's current 8 team Pacific division. Vancouver & Vegas do not have their AHL teams in the Pacific and I would assume both have priority over Seattle to own/have a AHL team there. Just like when Vegas came on board they were not granted priority for the 31st AHL team, Colorado asked and was granted over StLouis and others.

In the end, I think one of 3 things will happen (and it might not be immediate): A> Seattle & Vancouver both get AHL teams into PacNW (either Abbotsford & Everett/Tacoma) or B> 2 AHL teams move into Boise & Salt Lake and Seattle gets affiliated with one of them or B> St Louis gets AHL #32 in Kansas City, Vegas moves their AHL to SanAntonio & Seattle gets Chicago AHL team.

 

[gstommylee]

That’s another reason I’d have VGK in the Central instead of Arizona (if there are negative financial effects).

I’d bet if you did a VGK fan poll of “who’s your second favorite NHL team?” or “Who did you abandon for the Knights?” I’d bet Chicago is winning by a lot. The Blackhawks won Nevada in the Facebook map of “Who’s your favorite NHL playoff team” before the Knights started.

Vegas in the Central would be just fine. If you're going to have one "out of time zone" team in your division that's a chore to get to... make it freaking Vegas for the Central teams. The effect on the Knights kind of off-sets the "Vegas Flu" advantage they get at home having worse division travel than anyone else.

And let's be honest, everyone makes a big deal about TV start times for local ratings... are people going to tune in more for Arizona at 9 pm or Vegas at 10 p.m.? One's a game against a very good opponent with a great atmosphere and great game presentation; and the other is a team that's been pretty terrible for a long time with a bad atmosphere.

That wouldn't be fair to central divison teams. Vegas is more west than arizona is thus an even longer travel time for vegas.

 

[MNNumbers]

A two time zone difference for division games is pretty rough regardless of who makes that move, if anyone.

7:00 puck drop in every Central Division city except Denver is 5:00 in Las Vegas. With half of the division games taking place in a time zone two hours ahead, out of conference games happening three hours ahead (and excepting one-hour difference, central division Denver) the Golden Knights would play 36 of 82 (around 44%) of all games with pucks dropping at 5:00 or earlier, which is right around when normal people get off work and start the drive home. It's not just TV ratings, which would suffer, it's actual interest. That's just asking for trouble for any team regardless of fans and part of the reason the league has avoided it forever. If 5:00 worked for anyone, teams wouldn't start home games at 7:00.

ETA: I'm checking my math, give me a second.

That wouldn't be fair to central divison teams. Vegas is more west than arizona is thus an even longer travel time for vegas.

Travel TIME has nothing to do with anything. If it did, the Florida teams would be with Washington and the NY teams, NOT with Montreal and Boston.

TIME ZONES, as BB says, are the important thing.

Here's a little math:
Move Vegas, and Vegas itself is obviously affected the most (everyone else has at most 2 extra games on the West Coast). For Vegas, what's the difference among 3 possibilities:
The non-conference schedule is the same, no matter how you slice it. Therefore, the question is the other 25 road games. They will have 15 of those the same, no matter what. Let's use what I consider the most likely sched: 5/4 - 2.
Vegas moves to Central: 2 or, one rare occasions, 3 of the remaining 10 would be in the MTZ. The other 7 or 8 would be CTZ.
Arizona moves to Central: For Vegas, 4, 5, or 6 (The Alberta games) would be in the MTZ. All the rest PTZ.
Cgy and Edm move to Central: For Vegas, now 2 - 5 (Colorado plus if AZ is on MTZ time) would be MTZ. The rest PTZ.

That's a fairly extreme difference. But, I want to remind you that it's similar for Arizona. Well, not quite, because it's only a 1/3 of the year they are on PTZ time. That means that, on average, Arizona would have 2 or 3 extra games starting 2 hours early. If I may digress slightly, I would say that such a schedule change doesn't make a huge difference for them. But moving them away from VGK, ANA and LAK might make a difference.

 

[gstommylee]

Travel TIME has nothing to do with anything. If it did, the Florida teams would be with Washington and the NY teams, NOT with Montreal and Boston.

TIME ZONES, as BB says, are the important thing.

Here's a little math:
Move Vegas, and Vegas itself is obviously affected the most (everyone else has at most 2 extra games on the West Coast). For Vegas, what's the difference among 3 possibilities:
The non-conference schedule is the same, no matter how you slice it. Therefore, the question is the other 25 road games. They will have 15 of those the same, no matter what. Let's use what I consider the most likely sched: 5/4 - 2.
Vegas moves to Central: 2 or, one rare occasions, 3 of the remaining 10 would be in the MTZ. The other 7 or 8 would be CTZ.
Arizona moves to Central: For Vegas, 4, 5, or 6 (The Alberta games) would be in the MTZ. All the rest PTZ.
Cgy and Edm move to Central: For Vegas, now 2 - 5 (Colorado plus if AZ is on MTZ time) would be MTZ. The rest PTZ.

That's a fairly extreme difference. But, I want to remind you that it's similar for Arizona. Well, not quite, because it's only a 1/3 of the year they are on PTZ time. That means that, on average, Arizona would have 2 or 3 extra games starting 2 hours early. If I may digress slightly, I would say that such a schedule change doesn't make a huge difference for them. But moving them away from VGK, ANA and LAK might make a difference.

It matters for the NHL. Its not a good idea to have a pacific time zone team in a division with teams that are central time zone. And Vegas isn't moving. From what i read. Coyotes are going to central.

 

[KevFu]

A two time zone difference for division games is pretty rough regardless of who makes that move, if anyone.

7:00 puck drop in every Central Division city except Denver is 5:00 in Las Vegas. With half of the division games taking place in a time zone two hours ahead, out of conference games happening three hours ahead (and excepting one-hour difference, central division Denver) the Golden Knights would play 36 of 82 (around 44%) of all games with pucks dropping at 5:00 or earlier, which is right around when normal people get off work and start the drive home. It's not just TV ratings, which would suffer, it's actual interest. That's just asking for trouble for any team regardless of fans and part of the reason the league has avoided it forever. If 5:00 worked for anyone, teams wouldn't start home games at 7:00.

ETA: I'm checking my math, give me a second.

What schedule model are we going off of? There's at least 4 vs Division (28), exactly 2 vs other conference (32).
At least 2 vs other Division (16), leaving 6 for either "extra division" or "extra non-division."

Being in the Central Division would mean 14 road games vs the Central time zone teams.

It's easy to say that having VGK "play 36 of 82 (44%) with pucks dropping at 5 p.m. or earlier" is a bad idea. But...
- the first 16 are against ETZ games no matter which division they're in (And I'm frequently on record as being strongly opposed to the West playing 16 road games in the ETZ, period).
- The team in Pacific is going to have 16 ETZ games, 6 CTZ games.

We're really talking about eight games (9.7% of the schedule) being different for the team that's a fish out water.

And not every difference is automatically "abnormally bad." Saturday and Sunday games in the afternoon are not. Vegas scheduled a few home games on Saturday afternoons, as did a few of their road Pacific division opponents.


The question is: If these things are BAD FINANCIALLY for Vegas, they're also bad financially for Arizona. And Arizona has a lot less room for error if something is financially bad.

 

[BattleBorn]

What schedule model are we going off of? There's at least 4 vs Division (28), exactly 2 vs other conference (32).
At least 2 vs other Division (16), leaving 6 for either "extra division" or "extra non-division."

Being in the Central Division would mean 14 road games vs the Central time zone teams.

It's easy to say that having VGK "play 36 of 82 (44%) with pucks dropping at 5 p.m. or earlier" is a bad idea. But...
- the first 16 are against ETZ games no matter which division they're in (And I'm frequently on record as being strongly opposed to the West playing 16 road games in the ETZ, period).
- The team in Pacific is going to have 16 ETZ games, 6 CTZ games.

We're really talking about eight games (9.7% of the schedule) being different for the team that's a fish out water.

And not every difference is automatically "abnormally bad." Saturday and Sunday games in the afternoon are not. Vegas scheduled a few home games on Saturday afternoons, as did a few of their road Pacific division opponents.


The question is: If these things are BAD FINANCIALLY for Vegas, they're also bad financially for Arizona. And Arizona has a lot less room for error if something is financially bad.

Except that you can mid/back-load Arizona's divisional schedule and make it a 1 hour difference for a good portion of the season since they're always MST. 6:00 is better than 5:00, for sure.

I just always think it's funny that the league kind of moved heaven and earth for the Red Wings to not have to play in a division where they're an hour off, and that it's set in stone that it will never be different for them again, but when it comes to throwing a desert team into the central it's only a 9.7% difference.