Bear of Bad News
Your Third or Fourth Favorite HFBoards Admin
- Sep 27, 2005
- 13,580
- 27,271
the NHL should focus on its issues, we'll focus on ours.
Who's the "we" in this sentence?
the NHL should focus on its issues, we'll focus on ours.
Rockford IceHogs (CHI)
Peoria Rivermen (STL)
Milwaukee Admirals (NASH)
Chicago Wolves (VAN)
Salt Lake Grizzlies (ANA)
Abbotsford Heat (CAL)
Portland Oregonians (WIN)
Stockton Sharks (SJ)
Las Vegas Monarchs (LA)
Tucson Pirates (PHX)
Why not Chicago in Chicago, Vancouver in Portland and Winnipeg staying in St. John's? Somehow I don't see Winnipeg wanting to pull out of St. John's after they chose to go there this off-season. Even if Winnipeg did want to move it's AHL affiliate, why put it 5 hours south of Vancouver?
But lets say Victoria somehow has a lead in the future on getting the Canucks affiliation over to Victoria. Would ownership be able to kick their WHL team out for the AHL? Would they want to is a different question however.Some agreement they have apparently. Territorial rights or something. The WHL went completely ******* when the AHL granted Abbotsford a franchise. They definitely can't share buildings, otherwise Victoria would still like be a target for the AHL.
Portland's Rose Garden and Memorial Coliseum are right across from one another, and the Winterhawks use both buildings. Eugene could be a second choice, but I'm not sure the arena on UofO campus even has an ice plant.
As for Seattle, the Key Arena is in between both the Everett Silvertips and Seattle Thunderbirds (in Kent, WA). Everett might not have as much of a complain as the Thunderbirds would, but I'm sure the WHL would have a say regardless.
Can't see how realistic Tacoma would be, with the Dome and all.
OTTOMH... Yes the Sharks signed a "ten year" lease with the DCU Center in Worcester. But it's a five+two+<don't recall if it's 1-1-1 or 2-1 or 1-2 or 3> options. So, there may be a chance for the Sharks to move before the 10 years total.
They just activated the first option segment (which IIRC was 2 years).
I've heard rumors for the better part of a decade that the Sharks would like to have their affiliate closer, but without at least the other two Pacific Division teams and/or other WC teams coordinating a "migration" of the AHL west, it makes little financial sense to do.
Albuquerque- Phoenix Coyotes
Salt Lake City- Colorado Avalanche
Las Vegas- LA Kings
San Diego- Anaheim Ducks
San Fransisco/Oakland- San Jose
Unlikely as there are already ECHL teams in those markets. (So unless the owners in those markets are interested in upgrading, I don't think that will happen)
AHL teams cannot go into Major Junior cities, so keep that mind. Seattle and Portland are out.
These are former IHL territories and they were affiliates for NHL clubs that were close. The Kings used to have the Phoenix Roadrunners and later the Long Beach Ice Dogs as affiliates. The San Fransisco Spiders was a good team for the Sharks, they had a lot of former players on that team. Why is that relevant? Because these NHL clubs want their affiliates to be closer to them on the west. It's been talked about since the IHL folded and now it seems like the talks are serious.
It'll be an interesting time ahead to see what happens. The WHL absolutely HATES the AHL with everything, and man, look into what they did to force a team into Victoria to block the Moose from potentially loving there.
Kootenay Ice (Cranbrook, BC) practically was ready to move to Victoria sometime last season, and they bailed last night, and the league basically forced the Chilliwack Bruins to move and sell to Victoria. Majority ownership wanted to sell anyways, minority ownership wanted to buy them outright, and the WHL forced them only to sell to Victoria. Chilliwack did lose some fans to the Abbotsford Heat (about 20-25 km apart), but Chilliwack was still drawing about 15th out of a 22 team league in the WHL last year.
I could see the AHL moving into some major Northwest markets like Portland, Seattle, or Everett, and forcing the WHL teams there out somewhere else.
The WHL has about 3 potential Canadian sites left for expansion/relocation that would be suitable:
a) Nanaiamo (no rink built yet, but WHL strongly wants another island team)
b) Chilliwack (just lost the Bruins completely unfairly, great WHL rink that seats 5000+, and has arguably the best travel for the entire WHL)
c) Winnipeg (True North might want to look into a WHL to take away some of the demand from the Jets. Lot of hockey fever there, and they could translate ticket sales from the Jets into a WHL team)
Either way, I think Abbotsford is here for the next several years. They have a locked-in 10 year deal with the City in which is an awesome deal. Whether more AHL teams choose to relocate - we will see.
But lets say Victoria somehow has a lead in the future on getting the Canucks affiliation over to Victoria. Would ownership be able to kick their WHL team out for the AHL? Would they want to is a different question however.
I just think we're going to see quite a few future WHL/AHL conflicts in the next few years. The AHL could work out in Regina or Saskatoon for an Oilers/Flames/Jets AHL agreement. It'll be interesting, and Victoria/Abbotsford/Chilliwack changes the past few years is just the beginning in my opinion.
Seattle and Portland might be out but there are tons of suburbs in the area that could support AHL hockey if it was promoted properly and teams were in it for the long haul.
Everett easily supported WHL hockey from scratch.
Some long term planning would be required to set up more western teams or a western league.
If travel is going to be a reality players are going to face in the NHL then what better place to learn how to deal with it than the AHL?
Why not Chicago in Chicago, Vancouver in Portland and Winnipeg staying in St. John's? Somehow I don't see Winnipeg wanting to pull out of St. John's after they chose to go there this off-season. Even if Winnipeg did want to move it's AHL affiliate, why put it 5 hours south of Vancouver?
ECHL has 3 teams in California (4 next season), Nevada, Idaho, Alaska, Utah.
ECHL may not be too happy with "cutting off" teams like Alaska, by replacing them with AHL teams.
Which might be something like the only WCHL before they merged with the ECHL in 2003.
Well, the thing is, as the Checkers' situation has shown in Charlotte, and the Salmon Kings/Royals situation has shown in Victoria, there's not really a lot that the ECHL can do to prevent an owner of an existing ECHL team from deciding to purchase another franchise (AHL in Charlotte, WHL in Victoria) and walking away from their ECHL franchise investment. As long as an owner has a lease that allows for league switches, or a friendly-enough relationship with the venue that they know they could re-negotiation a valid lease for the new franchise, then it's entirely an ownership decision, not a league decision.ECHL has 3 teams in California (4 next season), Nevada, Idaho, Alaska, Utah.
ECHL may not be too happy with "cutting off" teams like Alaska, by replacing them with AHL teams.
Which might be something like the only WCHL before they merged with the ECHL in 2003.
For those of you who aren't familiar with Hutch, save your breath - he argues for the sake of argument, and even thinks that the existence of an AHL team in a city locks that city out of the NHL for all time. He also refuses to understand that even though the NHL and AHL are separate leagues, that the fact that multiple AHL franchises are directly owned by NHL teams means that there is quite a bit of influence that the NHL can exert over team locations. Now, that isn't to say that the NHL can just create things by fiat - many teams are owned independently of their NHL affiliates... plus, there's little things like lease commitments, etc.
It's a complex puzzle with many moving pieces -- people who propose "simple" solutions in general haven't really been paying attention to the nuances and complexities of each of the 30 teams' situations.
That said, I've said for 10 years or more that realistically, the only way that high-minors hockey (the AHL or an equivalent league) makes it persistently west of Texas is if (as was mentioned in the link provided by the OP) there is some kind of concerted move of multiple franchises at the same time.
"What about Abbotsford?" I hear some of you say...
I consider that a special case -- I really thought 1) that Abbotsford should have gone for the ECHL to partner with Victoria in the first place (that was before the ECHL owner killed his own team in order to bring in the WHL), and 2) that Abbotsford would be another in a long line of "two-and-out" locations for the notoriously mis-managed Calgary-owned AHL franchise (Omaha, Quad Cities, etc.). That was before I learned that the City of Abbotsford is on the hook for balancing the AHL team's budget, covering any and all losses up to a $5.7 million (or so) budget per season -- and that contract goes for 10 years, with no out clauses that anyone I've talked to or read has been able to find. So, the City is on the hook to lose on average over a million dollars a year for the privilege of keeping that AHL team, without any way of removing that drag from their balance sheet -- and Calgary has less than zero incentive to move their team out of that sweetheart situation before the 10 years is up. So, Abbotsford is there for the next seven seasons, independent of whatever the other AHL teams (and NHL teams) decide to do.
That actually, in my mind, makes the "separate high-minors league" proposal really unlikely. The presence of an AHL team in Pacific Time already _could_ serve as a seed/anchor for a Western Division of some kind -- but again, that would take coordination and cooperation.
Let's take at look at the situations of the NHL teams mentioned:
Los Angeles (NHL) - Manchester (AHL)
AEG owns the Kings and the Monarchs, this is true. So, in theory, the Kings could move the Monarchs to any venue at which they could get a lease for the team. But the lease that EXISTS in Manchester is the sticking point that makes the AHL franchise effectively non-portable -- at least for now. As I understand it, the Monarchs' lease goes through 2015. Some people have indicated that there are "buyout" provisions in that lease that would allow the Kings to flee Manchester, but having to pay a rather sizable financial penalty to do so -- supposedly a lesser amount each season closer to 2015. So, the team is not COMPLETELY portable yet, but in the semi-near future, could be unfettered. In the pro-Manchester column has been the attendance, at least in the first several years of the franchise (when they were winning overall minor-pro attendance titles). However, the team has had massive attendance losses over the past several seasons -- they're still barely above the AHL league average (last season), and have lost 40% of their draw from their 2003-04 heights.
Something else to factor into the equation is the fact that AEG is _also_ in the arena-management business... however, they do NOT manage the arena in which the Monarchs play. For business synergy, I would imagine that they would PREFER to have their AHL team playing in a venue they control. I don't have a list of all the venues in the West that AEG manages, but I know they manage Kansas City (I know, they're holding out for the NHL or something) and San Diego's 45-year-old Sports Arena. Despite the resistance of the arena manager they have in place in San Diego to minor-league hockey (he killed the chance of an ECHL team playing there last season), AEG has the power to tell him "sign the lease with the Monarchs, or find another job". So, I wouldn't be at all surprised to see the Kings' AHL franchise move from Manchester to San Diego for the 2015-16 season... as long as there are other non-Abbotsford teams in the same time zone.
San Jose (NHL) - Worcester (AHL)
Like the Kings, the Sharks also own their AHL franchise. Unlike the Kings, the Sharks are not in the arena-management business outside their NHL arena (to the best of my knowledge), so that factor isn't really as much in play. Like the Monarchs, the W-Sharks are not completely portable at this time - I _believe_ they have a ten-year lease in Worcester, and their first season was 2006-07, meaning they aren't portable until the 2016-17 season. W-Sharks attendance has been in the lower half of AHL attendance, fluctuating around the 4k mark. There isn't as synergistic a location for San Jose as Los Angeles has in San Diego, but there are clear options -- depending on how the ECHL San Francisco Bulls draw in the Cow Palace next season, that might be a barometer for AHL team placement... but the Cow Palace is in even worse condition than the San Diego Sports Arena, as I understand it. Stockton has been blowing attendance marks away since their entrance into the ECHL -- they drew better than 23 of 30 AHL teams last season. Fresno has a couple of potential facilities - and I maintain would support AHL hockey, as long as it wasn't mismanaged as horribly as the ECHL team was by the owners of the baseball team (some have speculated that the "losses" shown by the hockey team were shifted over from the balance sheet of the baseball team, and that actually killed the team instead of lack of demand). I personally have been to Taylor Cup Finals games held in Selland Arena, and while the fans are nasty and rude, they were passionate about their hockey.
Anaheim (NHL) - Syracuse (AHL)
The Ducks do NOT own their AHL team. The Crunch are independently owned, and merely pay the Ducks somewhere on the order of a million dollars a season for the Ducks to provide them with players (and to pay those players' salaries). That affiliation was announced in the 2010 off-season as a "multi-year" deal. The Ducks and Crunch _could_ end their affiliation before the end of however long that multi-year time period is, but it's not just a simple handwave "make it so" -- I'm sure it would involve negotiations and/or payoffs. So, the team is not really portable (unless Crunch owner Dolgon wanted to sell), and the affiliation is what I'm going to call "quasi-portable". Anaheim's high-minors affiliation has been a bit of a wandering thing since their affiliated team in Cincinnati went dark, so it's clear that the Ducks don't have any particular investment in any specific Eastern geography for their players. It's unclear whether the Ducks have any desire or drive to purchase an AHL team in order to facilitate the placement of their AHL players in Pacific Time at this time, and whether or not they'd be willing to do so in order to help a coordinated move.
Anaheim did have a MID-minors affiliation with the ECHL team in Bakersfield, but that has jack and squat to do with their HIGH-minors affiliation's destiny. The ECHL team in Bakersfield has a pretty secure lease at Rabobank arena, as I understand it, so any AHL team (whoever it was owned by) would have to look at buying out the Condors. One exception to that would be, of course, if Fleisig (the ECHL Bakersfield owner) were to believe that he could make money by doing what the Charlotte owner did last season, and purchase an AHL franchise and sell or fold his ECHL franchise. I've seen zero indications that Fleisig has any thoughts in this direction, as he appears to be making money without spending a lot of money with the direction the Condors have taken for the past 10+ years in the WCHL and ECHL. It's not QUITE printing money like the Frankes in Fort Wayne, but I don't see Fleisig being an enthusiastic player in any kind of "Western AHL solution".
Hmm -- I'm going to have to continue this in a later post.
Maybe a move of 3 or 4 of the western NHL team's AHL affiliates to strong western ECHL markets wouldn't be a bad thing or even to WHL markets like Seattle and Portland, Oregon. Someone said that the ECHL couldn't block owners from "buying" teams in other leagues. So say with Stockton, Bakersfield and Ontario as viable minor hockey league markets with larger PNW cities hosting AHL teams, an AHL western move could be feasible in 2 to 4 years once these existing arena deals end.
Im just going to throw this out there. If the AHL moves west, Stockton, even with its serious economic issues would be a great place for it to happen. I dont know what that would mean for the Thunder but it really is a blast to watch Hockey in stockton. Lots of Sharks/Hockey fans but far enough away from San Jose and enough of a cost difference to support the team. I dont think the "Bulls" are going to do well. San Jose already used it and wants to use it for a little cap circumvention.