|
|
Post by pohlfann33 on Aug 25, 2009 8:55:24 GMT -5
Columbus to be Gwinnett's affiliate this year.  |
|
|
|
Post by joshsec14 on Aug 25, 2009 12:06:12 GMT -5
wow this sucks. Who the hell are we going to be affiliated with now?
|
|
|
|
Post by smalltown on Aug 25, 2009 12:58:19 GMT -5
I hope I am wrong but this is starting to look like this is going to be a tough year, if they play at all. The no coach thing has probably cost some recruits and 2 working agreements. This franchise continues to be in a state of turmoil.
|
|
|
|
Post by smalltown on Aug 25, 2009 13:03:02 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by joshsec14 on Aug 25, 2009 13:34:01 GMT -5
I think things will balance out and we will get a coach and a new affiliate.
|
|
|
|
Post by pohlfann33 on Aug 25, 2009 16:29:44 GMT -5
Thing could be worse, we couldn't have a team at all. Buffalo/Portland is our better option in terms of location and travel. I e-mailed Ray, he told me an announcement on a new coach should be made soon.
|
|
|
|
Post by smalltown on Aug 25, 2009 21:53:02 GMT -5
Will get a new coach but this team is really behind the 8 ball with recruiting. Realistically Buffalo is the only option.
|
|
|
|
Post by joshsec14 on Aug 25, 2009 22:34:12 GMT -5
Buffalo or Calgary could work. Calgary has Abbotsford in the AHL but no ECHL team. It will most likely be Buffalo though.
|
|
|
|
Post by tigersucs on Aug 26, 2009 11:07:50 GMT -5
Not Calgary again PLEASE!!!! Another thing there would be travel and visa issues especially with Abbotsford being in BC.
Buffalo or Minnesota are the best options out there. As for Tampa they may not be so bad now that Tortorella and others are out of the organization. Brain Lawton and Rick Tocchet aren't going to play the ice extravaganza hockey we saw here under Tortorella, Feaster and Anazalone. Also this is Columbus' third affiliate in 3 years so there must be something there with the organization as a whole.
|
|
|
|
Post by jabberoski on Aug 26, 2009 11:27:19 GMT -5
I'll be shocked if its Buffalo. They haven't had an ECHL affiliate in at least 7 or 8 years, so I don't realistically see it being them. Calgary also would be a bit of a surpirse. Vegas dropped them after being their affiliate for six years because of the increased cost of travel with their AHL affiliate being moved to Abbotsford. If the Chiefs are to have an affiliate for this season, it would almost have to be Minnesota.
|
|
|
|
Post by smalltown on Aug 26, 2009 14:30:08 GMT -5
Calgary was very good to the Chiefs when they were here as was Tampa with players being sent here, but the travel costs to British Columbia would be too costly for the Chiefs. Without an affiliate this season will be a disaster.
|
|
|
|
Post by Brian Varmecky on Aug 26, 2009 16:48:44 GMT -5
Some on the ITB board have proposed that playing without an affiliate can help a team, because then you can have players called up to any team. If that can be worked out, then you might have a chance to getting quality players by giving them the possibility of, essentially, playing for scouts from all the teams rather than just the affiliate.
Furthermore, we've had disastrous seasons even with affiliates . . .
Brian_V
|
|
|
|
Post by tigersucs on Aug 27, 2009 8:52:05 GMT -5
The biggest thing with an affiliation is that they can help pay some of the players they send here to a certain amount. That helps with the cap somewhat. And even with the affiliations we have had players all over the AHL at different points in a season. Mayotte, Garlock and Knight come to mind. We still hold the ECHL rights when that happens unless a trade is worked out. Essentially there are several players each year who are just on the ECHL contract who can go anywhere on a PTO. This isn't like baseball where a team such as the SWB Yankees can request a player from Altoona or Reading for a weekend then send him back.
|
|
|
|
Post by Brian Varmecky on Aug 27, 2009 11:00:45 GMT -5
Don't they need a certain contract (two-way contract?) for the AHL club to be paying the bills? How many of our guys were actually in that situation? Furthermore, according to this article: ttp://www.tribune-democrat.com/sports/local_story_238234907.html The GM didn’t elaborate, but speculation surrounding the Chiefs’ apparent financial difficulties indicated that the monetary obligations the ECHL team had to its now former NHL affiliates was yet another hurdle. NHL parent clubs usually receive financial compensation as part of the affiliation agreement. Does that mean that WE had to pay THEM? Seriously? If so, maybe we just saved some money? Also, no affiliate = fewer call-ups. Fans wanted that anyway, yes? Brian_V |
|
|
|
Post by tigersucs on Aug 27, 2009 13:12:26 GMT -5
Too bad we can't get the other board back or find info from it. Toby had that great explanation on the contracts and how they worked. I do believe it is a 2 or even 3 way(NHL) that will help pay the players up to a certain dollar amount.
Not sure about paying an affiliate and also not 100% sure on baseball either so I can't comment on that one. That figure could be used for anything from salaries to scouting help.
As for no affiliate equaling fewer call-ups are Bredin and whoever is named coach going to hold a player back. Some of the worst call-ups over the last 2 seasons were not even those involving Colorado/Lake Erie or Columbus/Syracuse. As pointed out the Mayotte deal in Hershey didn't help here.
|
|
