AHL Affiliate?

[PCSPounder]

First off... Utah. Did someone say the arena was incompatible? Do you understand that Boise and Salt Lake are relatively close to each other, hence if one jumps leagues, the other would be wise to follow (understanding one city is an airline hub and the other, well)? And have you heard of the Maverik Center?

Now... fair amount of buzz for Vegas in Boise, too. Who knows how that could play out down the line? (Not that it's the way to bet... I do get the sense Vegas will stick with the Wolves for the near future. Also, I would put Boise as a better cultural fit than SLC for a Vegas affiliate... but by less than you might think.

I understand that people will want to say "my owner's richer than yours and can build two arenas at a time." I think OVG has the dosh. What I see, however, indicates that this isn't a truly free-spending bunch (they can, but that doesn't mean they will). I expect them to want Palm Springs to be a "partner" here (after all, in many ways, the city of Seattle is contributing the land, the building, and clearing for a parking structure). The scenario under which that will happen might involve- trying to remember what Lady Stanley said- perhaps an existing facility? Convention Center? Which... I take that to be an iffy proposition since Palm Springs is a rather popular place to visit. Thinking back to when Reno had a WCHL team playing out of their convention center and didn't get a lot of Saturday nights. However, stranger things have happened... and Rapid City could even be considered a model here. Go figure.

 

[Dexter Sinister]

Hoping it's Boise, but I honestly think it makes more sense logistically for them to be in Palm Springs.

 

[405Exit]

Seattle Sockeyes sound to me like a minor league hockey team name how about Seattle Guardians or Evergreens.

Seattle Eagles. Washington has so many damn bald eagles up there.

 

[CHRDANHUTCH]

Seattle Eagles. Washington has so many damn bald eagles up there.

I Can see that, but Colorado has that also.....

 

[Jesterrace]

Hoping it's Boise, but I honestly think it makes more sense logistically for them to be in Palm Springs.

Logistically it makes more sense for the AHL California teams to have it in Palm Springs, BUT from Seattle's perspective it makes more sense to have it in Boise as the Flight is roughly an hour shorter each way and is a bit cheaper to get flights (even on a 1 day notice) and that does add up.

Palm Springs offers the following:

More convenient travel for the other California AHL teams
Potential untapped California market and resources

Idaho offers:

Proven ECHL franchise that has been around for 22 years IN IT'S ORIGINAL MARKET and that's saying something given how many ECHL AND AHL teams have folded and/or moved in that time period. Added to this, that Idaho actually started in the former WCHL in 1997 before moving to the ECHL in 2003. Idaho is the ONLY former WHCL team that still exists. The point is that the Steelheads are a proven team in a proven market.

According to hockey.db the Steelheads' lowest attendance average since 2003 was 3905 and most seasons it is above 4K. This season it is currently sitting at between 4400-4500 which puts it's average ahead of 9 AHL teams (including Stockton and San Jose) and within a few hundred of Bakersfield of the AHL. The point is that California thus far has been a mixed bag for attendance with two stellar performers (San Diego and Ontario), a decent performer (Bakersfield) and Stockton and San Jose (under 4K for the last two seasons).

Idaho already has a facility that could be modified slightly and be AHL ready instead of having to raise funding for a facility that could support a new franchise

As mentioned above Boise keeps their AHL affiliate in the Pacific Northwest Region, and just far enough away from the WHL not to cause issues with that league.

Obviously Seattle will decide what it decides but Boise sure checks a lot of boxes for them IMHO and it's not really that big of a stretch for the California teams to play in Idaho or vice versa.

 

[Barclay Donaldson]

Logistically it makes more sense for the AHL California teams to have it in Palm Springs, BUT from Seattle's perspective it makes more sense to have it in Boise as the Flight is roughly an hour shorter each way and is a bit cheaper to get flights (even on a 1 day notice) and that does add up.

Palm Springs offers the following:

More convenient travel for the other California AHL teams
Potential untapped California market and resources

Idaho offers:

Proven ECHL franchise that has been around for 22 years IN IT'S ORIGINAL MARKET and that's saying something given how many ECHL AND AHL teams have folded and/or moved in that time period. Added to this, that Idaho actually started in the former WCHL in 1997 before moving to the ECHL in 2003. Idaho is the ONLY former WHCL team that still exists. The point is that the Steelheads are a proven team in a proven market.

According to hockey.db the Steelheads' lowest attendance average since 2003 was 3905 and most seasons it is above 4K. This season it is currently sitting at between 4400-4500 which puts it's average ahead of 9 AHL teams (including Stockton and San Jose) and within a few hundred of Bakersfield of the AHL. The point is that California thus far has been a mixed bag for attendance with two stellar performers (San Diego and Ontario), a decent performer (Bakersfield) and Stockton and San Jose (under 4K for the last two seasons).

Idaho already has a facility that could be modified slightly and be AHL ready instead of having to raise funding for a facility that could support a new franchise

As mentioned above Boise keeps their AHL affiliate in the Pacific Northwest Region, and just far enough away from the WHL not to cause issues with that league.

Obviously Seattle will decide what it decides but Boise sure checks a lot of boxes for them IMHO and it's not really that big of a stretch for the California teams to play in Idaho or vice versa.

There’s some issues with Boise. Seattle has come out and said that they will own their AHL franchise, like most of the league does now. I don’t know the Steelheads owner personally, but he appears to be the prototypical independent EC owner who has an affiliation and no other attachments. That would make things difficult if they try to budge in. It wouldn’t be an Avalanche type situation since the Eagles are still independently owned and operated.

Two other things. AHL is purely about prospect development and nothing else now. Their attendance doesn’t matter, and while teams certainly would like their affiliates to be in the black, money isn’t the endgame. So while market stability and attendance numbers are all well and good, it’s not nearly as important for the AHL as it is for the EC. As for ease of callups, Vancouver, Tampa, and Florida have their AHL teams close to the rest of the eastern conference in the northeast rather than close to home. Vancouver’s stated reason for keeping their team in Utica for 12 more years this December, rather than move it to Abbotsford) was convenient travel and the improved development that comes from more time practicing and working out instead of being in an airport or on the bus. There were some secondary concerns like how well they’re treated in Utica and fear of how they’d fare in the face of the harsh Nucks media. Florida (Springfield) and Tampa (Syracuse) I guarantee you feel the same way.

If Seattle feels the same way as Vancouver, Tampa, Florida, in addition to others like Nashville with Milwaukee, Edmonton with Bakersfield and Calgary with Stockton, then California is the best option.

 

[Jesterrace]

I'm going to have to disagree that attendance doesn't matter. If that were true then no AHL team would fold as long as the NHL team existed. I agree it's not AS important. I do agree that there will be some things to figure out with Boise, but I still feel they bring the most to the table for seattle and would be the least finacial burden for them in many ways (ie travel costs to and from seattle, travel time, existing facilities and fanbase).

 

[Barclay Donaldson]

I'm going to have to disagree that attendance doesn't matter. If that were true then no AHL team would fold as long as the NHL team existed. I agree it's not AS important. I do agree that there will be some things to figure out with Boise, but I still feel they bring the most to the table for seattle and would be the least finacial burden for them in many ways (ie travel costs to and from seattle, travel time, existing facilities and fanbase).

To many of the NHL owners, attendance is a minor concern in comparison to prospect development. San Jose and Winnipeg both have their AHL teams in the same building as their NHL affiliates, both AHL teams are bottom 1/3 in attendance. Baby Sens attendance in Belleville is nearly 1000 less than their lowest ever attendance in Binghamton. Stockton is getting roughly half of the Calgary Hitmen's attendance, Bakersfield is getting marginally more than half of the Edmonton Oil Kings attendance. Both NHL organizations could easily have quick callups by putting their teams in Alberta, but they both have chosen to go with putting their teams within an easy bus trip of their divisional partners. While I admit if the AHL team is financially insolvent then that isn't good, but great attendance is lower on any NHL team's check list for AHL affiliates than prospect development.

While Boise does bring an existing facility and all of the organizational components that come with it, it's still less ideal than the California option. After the AHL westward movement, some teams like LA, Columbus, Anaheim, Ottawa, Montreal, and Colorado located their AHL teams in markets that get good divisional travel arrangements and easy callups. But I can't think of any who have prioritized ease of callups over prospect development, and the travel that comes with it. If the travel time to and from Seattle was that big of a deal to the future Seattle NHL team, then they would've butted into one of the existing WHL markets in the pacific northwest. In addition, you need to redo your math if you think that the financial burden of a handful of players a handful of times throughout the season is greater than the travel expenses of an entire team through an entire season.

 

[gstommylee]

To many of the NHL owners, attendance is a minor concern in comparison to prospect development. San Jose and Winnipeg both have their AHL teams in the same building as their NHL affiliates, both AHL teams are bottom 1/3 in attendance. Baby Sens attendance in Belleville is nearly 1000 less than their lowest ever attendance in Binghamton. Stockton is getting roughly half of the Calgary Hitmen's attendance, Bakersfield is getting marginally more than half of the Edmonton Oil Kings attendance. Both NHL organizations could easily have quick callups by putting their teams in Alberta, but they both have chosen to go with putting their teams within an easy bus trip of their divisional partners. While I admit if the AHL team is financially insolvent then that isn't good, but great attendance is lower on any NHL team's check list for AHL affiliates than prospect development.

While Boise does bring an existing facility and all of the organizational components that come with it, it's still less ideal than the California option. After the AHL westward movement, some teams like LA, Columbus, Anaheim, Ottawa, Montreal, and Colorado located their AHL teams in markets that get good divisional travel arrangements and easy callups. But I can't think of any who have prioritized ease of callups over prospect development, and the travel that comes with it. If the travel time to and from Seattle was that big of a deal to the future Seattle NHL team, then they would've butted into one of the existing WHL markets in the pacific northwest.

They aren't going to put their AHL team into one of the existing WHL markets and thus kicking the team out at all. The announcement of where the AHL for Seattle's team will be at should be coming in soon in the next month.

 

[Barclay Donaldson]

They aren't going to put their AHL team into one of the existing WHL markets and thus kicking the team out at all. The announcement of where the AHL for Seattle's team will be at should be coming in soon in the next month.

I'm aware of their announcement stating the intention of leaving the markets of the WHL American Division alone, it was part of the point that quick and easy callups isn't the biggest thing on their agenda.

 

[Jesterrace]

To many of the NHL owners, attendance is a minor concern in comparison to prospect development. San Jose and Winnipeg both have their AHL teams in the same building as their NHL affiliates, both AHL teams are bottom 1/3 in attendance. Baby Sens attendance in Belleville is nearly 1000 less than their lowest ever attendance in Binghamton. Stockton is getting roughly half of the Calgary Hitmen's attendance, Bakersfield is getting marginally more than half of the Edmonton Oil Kings attendance. Both NHL organizations could easily have quick callups by putting their teams in Alberta, but they both have chosen to go with putting their teams within an easy bus trip of their divisional partners. While I admit if the AHL team is financially insolvent then that isn't good, but great attendance is lower on any NHL team's check list for AHL affiliates than prospect development.

While Boise does bring an existing facility and all of the organizational components that come with it, it's still less ideal than the California option. After the AHL westward movement, some teams like LA, Columbus, Anaheim, Ottawa, Montreal, and Colorado located their AHL teams in markets that get good divisional travel arrangements and easy callups. But I can't think of any who have prioritized ease of callups over prospect development, and the travel that comes with it. If the travel time to and from Seattle was that big of a deal to the future Seattle NHL team, then they would've butted into one of the existing WHL markets in the pacific northwest. In addition, you need to redo your math if you think that the financial burden of a handful of players a handful of times throughout the season is greater than the travel expenses of an entire team through an entire season.

I guess I just don't see how being a bit closer to the California AHL teams somehow beats out everything else. Obviously there are Pros and Cons to every scenario, I just think a very stable and proven team that is within the region of the NHL franchise makes better sense. All of the California teams are recent transplants and could be moved again depending on the shape of the NHL over the next few years. Keep in mind some NHL teams are operating at a loss.

 

[Barclay Donaldson]

I guess I just don't see how being a bit closer to the California AHL teams somehow beats out everything else. Obviously there are Pros and Cons to every scenario, I just think a very stable and proven team that is within the region of the NHL franchise makes better sense. All of the California teams are recent transplants and could be moved again depending on the shape of the NHL over the next few years. Keep in mind some NHL teams are operating at a loss.

Being closer to the other Pacific teams beats out everything else because of what comes with it. It's less money spent on travel, certainly a fraction of what a Boise team would face. But that's nothing compared to their prospects spending twice as much time on the ice or in the gym developing, in addition to sleeping in their own beds. Most away games are a few hours versus 10-20 hours roadies for every single away game like in Boise. It's the same reasons why Vancouver, who has an open market down the road in Abbotsford, signed the Comets lease in Utica for another 12 years. That's the AHL serving its new purpose, the one that their brand boasts on a near consistent basis.

As for Boise being a stable and proven team, I'm not exactly sure how you think that would translate to success for a Seattle AHL affiliate. The players, coaching staff, and front office would obviously all be different if Seattle were to go in there. Since Seattle has made it clear they will outright own and operate the franchise, the Boise ownership is gone and who knows what happens to the off-ice staff. There's also been a common theme of hardcore EC fans not liking the AHL play and the supposed "results don't really matter" mentality many of the teams supposedly take. So their attendance, which isn't that impressive and is only in the middle of EC attendance, might take a hit after the EC to AHL upgrade like Stockton and Bakersfield have both experienced.

And some NHL teams are operating at a loss, but their minimum value also recently jumped up to the region of $650 million. Them losing millions of dollars won't be changed by them changing the location of their AHL affiliate. Even Eugene Melnyk, the biggest penny pinching owner in the NHL, bought and moved his AHL affiliate. It's a necessary cost that provides constant dividends because it gets prospects developed.

 

[drivier]

Not saying it is the right location at all... but if Seattle really wants to troll with Vancouver, they should at minimum suggest they are looking into Abbotsford, BC.

(Back story, the Calgary Flames had their AHL team there from 2009-2014. Attendance was an issue because Vancouver area fans couldn't get behind supporting Calgary prospects. And Vancouver has continued to maintain Utica rather than move the team to Abbotsford.)

 

[CHRDANHUTCH]

Not saying it is the right location at all... but if Seattle really wants to troll with Vancouver, they should at minimum suggest they are looking into Abbotsford, BC.

(Back story, the Calgary Flames had their AHL team there from 2009-2014. Attendance was an issue because Vancouver area fans couldn't get behind supporting Calgary prospects. And Vancouver has continued to maintain Utica rather than move the team to Abbotsford.)

Abbotsford wants nothing to do with pro or junior hockey it seems because they've had opportunities to go that way, yes, the Abbotsford Centre still exists, but I don't think Orca Bay is interested because they seemed to have a great balance with Esche and has been impressed with Utica and it's closer to other cities in their division....

 

[BattleBorn]

Abbotsford wants nothing to do with pro or junior hockey it seems because they've had opportunities to go that way, yes, the Abbotsford Centre still exists, but I don't think Orca Bay is interested because they seemed to have a great balance with Esche and has been impressed with Utica and it's closer to other cities in their division....

Esche is a whole barrel of monkeys based on his time in Las Vegas, but I won't get into that.

Even if the Canucks organization decides to move their AHL squad out west, it's likely not going to be in BC, for the same reason it makes no sense for Seattle to locate their AHL franchise (that they, for some reason, want to own) to locate their team in close proximity to Seattle.

These are development squads that are independent for the most part. To the NHL team they provide a place for prospects to season. However, they can't be a complete drain on the overall organization monetarily. They don't have to be profitable through ticket sales, but they better carry a little weight when it comes to that. Not having to charter flights to every single away game (and for other teams to not have to charter flights to their away games/Seattle AHL's home games) is a major consideration.

Personally, I'm surprised Seattle came out of the box saying they wanted to own their AHL affiliate given everything involved. However, putting the team somewhere in California or the northeast makes a lot of sense if they do.

 

[gstommylee]

Esche is a whole barrel of monkeys based on his time in Las Vegas, but I won't get into that.

Even if the Canucks organization decides to move their AHL squad out west, it's likely not going to be in BC, for the same reason it makes no sense for Seattle to locate their AHL franchise (that they, for some reason, want to own) to locate their team in close proximity to Seattle.

These are development squads that are independent for the most part. To the NHL team they provide a place for prospects to season. However, they can't be a complete drain on the overall organization monetarily. They don't have to be profitable through ticket sales, but they better carry a little weight when it comes to that. Not having to charter flights to every single away game (and for other teams to not have to charter flights to their away games/Seattle AHL's home games) is a major consideration.

Personally, I'm surprised Seattle came out of the box saying they wanted to own their AHL affiliate given everything involved. However, putting the team somewhere in California or the northeast makes a lot of sense if they do.

AHL already said it will be a team in the pacific division. Northeast is not going to happen at all.

 

[BuiumSaveUs]

The Minnesota Wild were the AHL affiliate for the Golden Knights

 

[PCSPounder]

An arena of the size wished for here takes 18 months to build. Usually, it takes at least another 18 months to conceive, plan, get building permits, and sometimes get public funding lined up... something which is a lot harder in California.

Unless Seattle is going to delay winding up their AHL team by a year, as I look at absolutely no references to this in Palm Springs media, I'm starting to think that idea is vaporware. Evidence to the contrary, anyone?

 

[Barclay Donaldson]

An arena of the size wished for here takes 18 months to build. Usually, it takes at least another 18 months to conceive, plan, get building permits, and sometimes get public funding lined up... something which is a lot harder in California.

Unless Seattle is going to delay winding up their AHL team by a year, as I look at absolutely no references to this in Palm Springs media, I'm starting to think that idea is vaporware. Evidence to the contrary, anyone?

Difficult to say, it’s very early on. Seattle doesn’t even have a GM or front office yet, and they will certainly have a big say on the proceedings. While arenas take a while, they do have options.

Like Vegas, Seattle won’t have enough prospects and will share an AHL team in their first season. In addition, everyone thought that VGK’s AHL team would settle in Boise, Salt Lake, or Reno. But the Wolves arena is 10 minutes away from O’Hare, which has 3 hr. non-stop flights to Vegas every day. That and other conditions makes it far more favorable than other, geographically closer locations. A very possible scenario is St. Louis gets an affiliate close to home (they’ve publicly kicked the tires in Indianapolis and KC), Seattle uses San Antonio as a placeholder until they get another stadium deal done.

There’s a number of things that could happen. Just because there hasn’t been news in Cali doesn’t mean that they’ve moved onto other options. They’ve got plenty of time and even more options.

 

[gstommylee]

Difficult to say, it’s very early on. Seattle doesn’t even have a GM or front office yet, and they will certainly have a big say on the proceedings. While arenas take a while, they do have options.

Like Vegas, Seattle won’t have enough prospects and will share an AHL team in their first season. In addition, everyone thought that VGK’s AHL team would settle in Boise, Salt Lake, or Reno. But the Wolves arena is 10 minutes away from O’Hare, which has 3 hr. non-stop flights to Vegas every day. That and other conditions makes it far more favorable than other, geographically closer locations. A very possible scenario is St. Louis gets an affiliate close to home (they’ve publicly kicked the tires in Indianapolis and KC), Seattle uses San Antonio as a placeholder until they get another stadium deal done.

There’s a number of things that could happen. Just because there hasn’t been news in Cali doesn’t mean that they’ve moved onto other options. They’ve got plenty of time and even more options.

Seattle isn't going to share a AHL with another team. They'll own their own AHL.

 

[Barclay Donaldson]

Seattle isn't going to share a AHL with another team. They'll own their own AHL.

For their first season it's a necessity. They won't have anywhere near enough players under contract to field a roster. VGK took 12 players in their first NHL Draft in 2017 after GM George McPhee did unprecedented wheeling and dealing during the Expansion Draft. It's been nearly two years since they've been picked, and of those 12, 7 haven't played a single game for the Chicago Wolves. Of the 5 that have, 3 have collectively played less than 10 games (as of me writing this) and there's been only two regulars in the team. None played with the Wolves during their first season when they shared with the Blues.

They're not going to have enough players to make a full roster if they decide to fully own their affiliate in the first season of it's existence. AHL roster sizes are usually 24 to 25 players, you're telling me they will sign that many free agents in their first season for their AHL team? That's a pretty unreasonable suggestion.They will eventually own their team in a location that suits them. But it won't happen in season one.

 

[gstommylee]

For their first season it's a necessity. They won't have anywhere near enough players under contract to field a roster. VGK took 12 players in their first NHL Draft in 2017 after GM George McPhee did unprecedented wheeling and dealing during the Expansion Draft. It's been nearly two years since they've been picked, and of those 12, 7 haven't played a single game for the Chicago Wolves. Of the 5 that have, 3 have collectively played less than 10 games (as of me writing this) and there's been only two regulars in the team. None played with the Wolves during their first season when they shared with the Blues.

They're not going to have enough players to make a full roster if they decide to fully own their affiliate in the first season of it's existence. AHL roster sizes are usually 24 to 25 players, you're telling me they will sign that many free agents in their first season for their AHL team? That's a pretty unreasonable suggestion.They will eventually own their team in a location that suits them. But it won't happen in season one.

And they'll have a AHL team for their first season. Remember Vegas started a year after they were announced and there were only 30 AHL teams so there was no time. Vegas doesn't share anymore cause Colorado added a expansion team to the AHL to get it to 31. Seattle is still over 2 years away from begin playing.

No one said Seattle will be sharing a AHL team their first season. No one. Not Seattle not the AHL not the NHL.

 

[Barclay Donaldson]

And they'll have a AHL team for their first season. Remember Vegas started a year after they were announced and there were only 30 AHL teams so there was no time. Vegas doesn't share anymore cause Colorado added a expansion team to the AHL to get it to 31. Seattle is still over 2 years away from begin playing.

No one said Seattle will be sharing a AHL team their first season. No one. Not Seattle not the AHL not the NHL.

They didn't say they wouldn't be sharing in the first season, either. All they said is that they will own an AHL franchise, but never said when. CEO Dave Andrews' exact quote was "The preference would be to not share an affiliate, as Vegas did with the Chicago Wolves in its first season. "I don't think that's what they would like to do -- it's not the ideal way to go about it," Andrews says. "Vegas did it because we were kind of backed up a year." ('Secret Sauce': How Seattle plans to create perfect NHL franchise) VGK only managed to sign 12 free agents for the organization by the season opener, of which you could only say 7 maybe 8 were earmarked for the AHL team, despite McPhee being in charge for a year by that point. They're short around 15 players still, with the GM being around for a year, which makes how long they were backed up irrelevant.

Should they choose to own it in the first season and not share an affiliation, they'll have to make 23-25 free agent signings just to meet roster requirements for puck drop. That's around or more than every other organization makes over an entire season for all (AHL-ECHL) affiliates and the NHL club included. Not to mention call-ups, injuries, and everything else means AHL teams will typically have more than 35 players rostered at some point throughout the season. That's not logistically feasible. It's their preference to not share, doesn't mean they won't.

 

[tank44]

Also - who says the Seattle group will own AHL franchise #32. Lots of other NHL teams do not own their AHL team and may have priority (i.e. St Louis/Vegas) in a similar means that Colorado got one over Vegas. Yes, it says they will own one but agree it may be an immediate stretch for 20-21 like others are saying.

IMO, likely scenario: AHL32 to KC or Indy as StL affiliate, SEA gets SanAntonio for 1 year or so. (team) moves to Houston & takes SA as affiliate; then Seattle gets (team)'s AHL team and relocates to NW with Vancouver in 2-3 years

 

[gstommylee]

Also - who says the Seattle group will own AHL franchise #32. Lots of other NHL teams do not own their AHL team and may have priority (i.e. St Louis/Vegas) in a similar means that Colorado got one over Vegas. Yes, it says they will own one but agree it may be an immediate stretch for 20-21 like others are saying.

IMO, likely scenario: AHL32 to KC or Indy as StL affiliate, SEA gets SanAntonio for 1 year or so. (team) moves to Houston & takes SA as affiliate; then Seattle gets (team)'s AHL team and relocates to NW with Vancouver in 2-3 years

Its already been said Seattle will OWN IT. Its not going to be an independent club. AHL already said Seattle AHL team will be in the pacific. And i believe the start time is 21-22 as well.

No one said it'll be 20-21 start.