Amerks to go independent?

Interesting article today about the Amerks and there affiliation search.

http://www.democratandchronicle.com/article/20101128/SPORTS02/11280332/Amerks-exploring-affiliation-options&referrer=NEWSFRONTCAROUSEL

it would be interesting to see how that works out. My main question is, how many players are you going to get to sign a deal where they know they have zero chance to go up to the NHL? All while keeping it under the "vet" limit?

Boy after reading that we might have took Cbus a liitle for granted.
Dale Tallon sounds like a dictator instead of an NHL GM.
I'd say your best shot would be Phoenix.
I don't recall attendance figures but do people watch hockey in San Antonio?
What the hell would it matter if they are having a winning season this year?
The only thing they have going is the proximity to Phoenix and who knows how long there will be a team there.

13th in attendance 4700 per game
about average during a winning season

MrBigMike wrote:

it would be interesting to see how that works out. My main question is, how many players are you going to get to sign a deal where they know they have zero chance to go up to the NHL? All while keeping it under the "vet" limit?

I think they could do very well. They could go out and sign guys like Linger to AHL deals and then bring in non vet fringe NHL players like Trevor smith that can be signed by anyone during the season.

sec13crunch wrote:

MrBigMike wrote:

it would be interesting to see how that works out. My main question is, how many players are you going to get to sign a deal where they know they have zero chance to go up to the NHL? All while keeping it under the "vet" limit?

I think they could do very well. They could go out and sign guys like Linger to AHL deals and then bring in non vet fringe NHL players like Trevor smith that can be signed by anyone during the season.

So what you're saying is that (for the sake of argument) Rochester's fringe non-vet guys would be free to sign elsewhere mid season? Where does that leave the Amerks?

I don't see a set up like that working. Back to my original question, what kind of non-vets are going to want to sign with a team that has no NHL club?

MrBigMike wrote:

sec13crunch wrote:

MrBigMike wrote:

it would be interesting to see how that works out. My main question is, how many players are you going to get to sign a deal where they know they have zero chance to go up to the NHL? All while keeping it under the "vet" limit?

I think they could do very well. They could go out and sign guys like Linger to AHL deals and then bring in non vet fringe NHL players like Trevor smith that can be signed by anyone during the season.

So what you're saying is that (for the sake of argument) Rochester's fringe non-vet guys would be free to sign elsewhere mid season? Where does that leave the Amerks?

I don't see a set up like that working. Back to my original question, what kind of non-vets are going to want to sign with a team that has no NHL club?

Where would they sign elsewhere during the season? The NHL? So players that couldn't get an NHL deal all summer would suddenly have NHL teams banging down the door? To Europe? If they wanted to go to Europe, they would have just opted to go there anyway.

As far as the "non vets" there's guys all over the AHL like Jacob Micflikier, Kyle Rank, Mike Kostka etc. that are quality players that are on AHL deals and would be nice complimentary players.

Not sure if you were directing your question at me. I was stating a scenario as I understood it the way sec13 explained it.

Nothing personal, I just don't see it happening. To get quality AHL guys, owners are going to have to shell out 6 figure salaries. And again, good luck finding a full roster of has been vets and never will be top dollar AHL snipers.

You're confusing an AHL deal (with an affiliate) which still leaves the possibility of getting a shot up top, to an AHL deal with no chance at all (with out an affiliate).

I just don't see it. Drop the vet rule and maybe it's possible.

Not for nothing but I don't see Amerks brass shelling out a million+ on a roster when attendance is in the dumps. You have seen both sides of the coin when it comes to how good a roster looks in the off-season too. Big names won't draw flies and big names don't always pan out. Hell we've seen the same.

Outside of a big name NHL club, or a very rich owner with the ability to sign his own players, it is what it is.

MrBigMike wrote:

Not sure if you were directing your question at me. I was stating a scenario as I understood it the way sec13 explained it.

Nothing personal, I just don't see it happening. To get quality AHL guys, owners are going to have to shell out 6 figure salaries. And again, good luck finding a full roster of has been vets and never will be top dollar AHL snipers.

You're confusing an AHL deal (with an affiliate) which still leaves the possibility of getting a shot up top, to an AHL deal with no chance at all (with out an affiliate).

I just don't see it. Drop the vet rule and maybe it's possible.

Not for nothing but I don't see Amerks brass shelling out a million+ on a roster when attendance is in the dumps. You have seen both sides of the coin when it comes to how good a roster looks in the off-season too. Big names won't draw flies and big names don't always pan out. Hell we've seen the same.

Outside of a big name NHL club, or a very rich owner with the ability to sign his own players, it is what it is.

What's the difference between an AHL deal when a team has an affiliation or not? On an independent team, you could essentially be showcasing yourself to the entire NHL. As far as guys on AHL deals, just in the last 2 years the Amerks have had Chris Taylor, Mike York and Mike Kostka on AHL deals. Lawrence Nycholat in Hershey is on an AHL deal. Haydar is. Contrary to popular belief, not every single player in the hockey world has to have the NHL allure. Some guys just realize their time has passed and still want to make a good buck playing hockey in North America.

As far as shelling out money, Curt Styres spent 2 million dollars last season on players/fees so I don't think it's a big deal to him. Styres IS a very rich owner.

Amerks6 wrote:

MrBigMike wrote:

Not sure if you were directing your question at me. I was stating a scenario as I understood it the way sec13 explained it.

Nothing personal, I just don't see it happening. To get quality AHL guys, owners are going to have to shell out 6 figure salaries. And again, good luck finding a full roster of has been vets and never will be top dollar AHL snipers.

You're confusing an AHL deal (with an affiliate) which still leaves the possibility of getting a shot up top, to an AHL deal with no chance at all (with out an affiliate).

I just don't see it. Drop the vet rule and maybe it's possible.

Not for nothing but I don't see Amerks brass shelling out a million+ on a roster when attendance is in the dumps. You have seen both sides of the coin when it comes to how good a roster looks in the off-season too. Big names won't draw flies and big names don't always pan out. Hell we've seen the same.

Outside of a big name NHL club, or a very rich owner with the ability to sign his own players, it is what it is.

What's the difference between an AHL deal when a team has an affiliation or not? On an independent team, you could essentially be showcasing yourself to the entire NHL. As far as guys on AHL deals, just in the last 2 years the Amerks have had Chris Taylor, Mike York and Mike Kostka on AHL deals. Lawrence Nycholat in Hershey is on an AHL deal. Haydar is. Contrary to popular belief, not every single player in the hockey world has to have the NHL allure. Some guys just realize their time has passed and still want to make a good buck playing hockey in North America.

As far as shelling out money, Curt Styres spent 2 million dollars last season on players/fees so I don't think it's a big deal to him. Styres IS a very rich owner.

I'll try this one more time. My point is:

In keeping within the vet limit, a team would be hard pressed to find non-vet players willing to sign off on a shot at the NHL. The guys that realize they are "past their time" will most likely fall into vet status.

Younger guys, who are not vets, likely still have a shot at the show. Not all, but some.

The difference, as defined by me:

An AHL deal on an affiliated team, means without violating your contract the NHL club can bring you up if needed or desired.

An AHL deal on a team with no NHL affiliate means the "younger non-vet" players who are still in their prime and have a shot, will not get a call up. Unless they have an "out clause", they're riding out the season in the AHL.

I'm sure some guys accept that they have peaked in the AHL, I'm also sure that some may want to wind down their career in the AHL. All I am saying is that IN MY OPINION it would be hard to fill an entire roster full of these players.

Now add another million or more on top of the 2+ million Kurt dished out last year and you're talking about a big risk on a product he probably is already losing money on, in a failing economy, on a slumping team with a diminishing fan base.


Maybe I'm wrong, maybe I'm not. Maybe you agree, maybe you don't. It's my take on a topic that was presented for discussion.

MrBigMike wrote:

In keeping within the vet limit, a team would be hard pressed to find non-vet players willing to sign off on a shot at the NHL. The guys that realize they are "past their time" will most likely fall into vet status.

I've already given examples of non vet players under AHL contracts.

MrBigMike wrote:

I'm sure some guys accept that they have peaked in the AHL, I'm also sure that some may want to wind down their career in the AHL. All I am saying is that IN MY OPINION it would be hard to fill an entire roster full of these players.

You don't need an entire roster of these players.

MrBigMike wrote:

Now add another million or more on top of the 2+ million Kurt dished out last year and you're talking about a big risk on a product he probably is already losing money on, in a failing economy, on a slumping team with a diminishing fan base.

At 2 million, that's almost over 90,000 per player. Considering many of the low end players on the roster would cost you 40 or 50 grand, 2 million seems a fair estimation on a player budget. And economy and all this other crap really means nothing. Dropping 3 million on a team could be like us throwing 300 bucks down on something. It's not how we interpret the money, it's how he does.

MrBigMike wrote:

sec13crunch wrote:

MrBigMike wrote:

it would be interesting to see how that works out. My main question is, how many players are you going to get to sign a deal where they know they have zero chance to go up to the NHL? All while keeping it under the "vet" limit?

I think they could do very well. They could go out and sign guys like Linger to AHL deals and then bring in non vet fringe NHL players like Trevor smith that can be signed by anyone during the season.

So what you're saying is that (for the sake of argument) Rochester's fringe non-vet guys would be free to sign elsewhere mid season? Where does that leave the Amerks?

I don't see a set up like that working. Back to my original question, what kind of non-vets are going to want to sign with a team that has no NHL club?

What im saying is i can see this working very well. They can sign guys like Tim Stapleton, if he does well with the Amerks a team can come in and sign him to an NHL deal and then the amerks could go out and get another quality player. I think fringe guys will look at that situation as a good one to audition for all 30 teams.

Amerks6:


All i can say is 3 million, is 3 million. I highly doubt that the amerks owner is soooooo rich 3 million a season with little to no return is not an issue.

Good luck with it, I hope it works out well for you. I have nothing more to say other than what i have said 3 times already.

MrBigMike wrote:

Amerks6:


All i can say is 3 million, is 3 million. I highly doubt that the amerks owner is soooooo rich 3 million a season with little to no return is not an issue.

Good luck with it, I hope it works out well for you. I have nothing more to say other than what i have said 3 times already.

Well considering this isn't a long term idea, I don't think money is the issue. Especially when he dropped 2 million on the Amerks last season.

Amerks6 wrote:

MrBigMike wrote:

Amerks6:


All i can say is 3 million, is 3 million. I highly doubt that the amerks owner is soooooo rich 3 million a season with little to no return is not an issue.

Good luck with it, I hope it works out well for you. I have nothing more to say other than what i have said 3 times already.

Well considering this isn't a long term idea, I don't think money is the issue. Especially when he dropped 2 million on the Amerks last season.

Ok, I present you this. The whole reason behind this is presumably that FL sucks. As a result, the Amerks are sub par. Continuing with the **** rolls downhill theory, attendance is down.

How much better can an Amerk team be that is thrown together in the off-season, with players that have likely yet to play together? Add a new coach, and it can get hairy. Just ask Crunch fans.

While the change may be exciting and spark a rejuvenated love for the team, that will wear off. Just ask Crunch fans.

So, from a business perspective, what sense does it make for your owner to dish out a MILLION + more (don't forget coaching staff) for essentially the same result?

Yeah maybe the team will be great, who knows? But it will take time for the (possibly) good team to draw fans, both old and new thus turning a profit. Then what? Next year if a new affiliate is signed, start from scratch again?

I understand that to you guys, something right now is better than nothing. To me it makes no financial sense. Then again, I am not a millionaire.

Take a player's stance. Insert the same variables as above, and I think your already small pool gets smaller. As mentioned, yeah it might be a good chance to advertise yourself to all 30 NHL teams but maybe not.

It would seem that the only reason Amerk brass would humor this idea for financial reasons. Put a winning team on the ice and everyone is happy.

Unless it would be a long term thing, to me it makes no sense. A one or two year deal is just a band-aid. Remember, a polished turd is still a turd.

To be honest, I'm over this thread. I have exhausted my self trying to explain, and re-explain my points/ opinions. You either don't get it or don't agree. Every retort you have posted, in my eyes, fails to answer my questions.

That's fine. Your team, your opinion. We can't all always agree.

If it happens, and you end up with a better team on the ice, come to the WM and beer is on me.

I just can't explain my points any differently. No hard feelings.

Amerks6 wrote:

MrBigMike wrote:

Amerks6:


All i can say is 3 million, is 3 million. I highly doubt that the amerks owner is soooooo rich 3 million a season with little to no return is not an issue.

Good luck with it, I hope it works out well for you. I have nothing more to say other than what i have said 3 times already.

Well considering this isn't a long term idea, I don't think money is the issue. Especially when he dropped 2 million on the Amerks last season.

I know he dropped 2 million last season but if this does happen he will have to spend the dough more wisely, he spent that on 5 players and the Panthers took care of the rest. I do however think if you guys are gonna do it you sure do have the right owner for it.

Amerks6, I know your trying to be positive about the affiliation situation.
You have to be because the next option is to most likely suspend the 11-12 season.
The thing I don't get is that if teams can put a winner on the ice and turn a profit why this hasn't been attempted
in the last 23 years.

I get the feeling that the D&C put this article out there so Amerk fans won't stress so much about the future.
The one thing I disagree with is that an independent AHL team can be successful on the ice, but bad hockey is better than no hockey at all.

lettucehead wrote:

Amerks6, I know your trying to be positive about the affiliation situation.
You have to be because the next option is to most likely suspend the 11-12 season.
The thing I don't get is that if teams can put a winner on the ice and turn a profit why this hasn't been attempted
in the last 23 years.

I get the feeling that the D&C put this article out there so Amerk fans won't stress so much about the future.
The one thing I disagree with is that an independent AHL team can be successful on the ice, but bad hockey is better than no hockey at all.

You likely can't be independent and turn a profit. I don't know how many more times I can say it, that's not the point. He's not trying to make money off of this move. He's trying to win.

Amerks6 wrote:

lettucehead wrote:

Amerks6, I know your trying to be positive about the affiliation situation.
You have to be because the next option is to most likely suspend the 11-12 season.
The thing I don't get is that if teams can put a winner on the ice and turn a profit why this hasn't been attempted
in the last 23 years.

I get the feeling that the D&C put this article out there so Amerk fans won't stress so much about the future.
The one thing I disagree with is that an independent AHL team can be successful on the ice, but bad hockey is better than no hockey at all.

You likely can't be independent and turn a profit. I don't know how many more times I can say it, that's not the point. He's not trying to make money off of this move. He's trying to win.

If Styres pays KHL type money to his team then yes they could have a winner, but I doubt that will happen.