No, this isn’t a nod to the iconic 1970’s sitcom The Jeffersons theme — it’s about the movement between Providence and Boston, or more accurately, the lack of it.
Over the past week, I’ve published two pieces here — one examining the Bruins’ development of prospects, and another breaking down which restricted free agents Boston should and shouldn’t bring back next season.
Both pieces sparked discussion on multiple podcasts and kicked off a fresh wave of debate across social media. That’s a good thing — hearing differing viewpoints without immediately dismissing them benefits everyone. And to be fair, the level of personal attacks was surprisingly low – almost non-existent – this time around, which isn’t always the norm. Some even had me rethink my own position.
It also raised plenty of questions about what the Bruins should do next. I don’t have all — or maybe any — of the answers. If I did, I’d be working in an NHL front office. But I do want to dig a little deeper in hopes of addressing some of those questions so that you can form your own opinions.
The AHL repeatedly bills itself as “the premier developmental league for the NHL, with nearly 90 percent of current NHL players having AHL experience.” The league even points to its veteran‑player rule as proof of its commitment to fostering development above all else.
Two problems with that claim: the “90 percent” figure is wildly skewed. Take the Bruins alone — Charlie McAvoy logged four games in Providence before signing and heading straight to Boston for good. James Hagens played six. Jeremy Swayman had nine, not counting the brief stint tied to the Tuukka Rask comeback attempt. Technically, sure, they’re AHL alumni. But can anyone seriously argue they were developed in the AHL?
The second issue is the notion that the veteran rule somehow proves the league’s commitment to development. Without diving into every technical detail, the rule essentially limits teams to dressing a maximum of five skaters with more than 320 professional games, plus one “veteran‑exempt” player who falls between 260 and 320 games.
Using Providence as the example — because we’re talking Bruins here — the gap becomes obvious. Christian Wolanin (324 games), Michael Callahan (207), and Billy Sweezey (278) all logged significant minutes. Meanwhile, Loke Johansson — a player the Bruins spoke highly of at development camp and signed to an entry‑level deal — managed just 13 AHL games and 36 in the ECHL – less than half the season. Is that really development time?
I can take it a step further. Matthew Poitras was sent to Providence with a clear list of areas to refine, put his head down, and went to work — and his all‑around game improved because of it. Yet AHL veterans like Patrick Brown and Riley Tufte continued to log the heavier minutes. So, it’s worth asking, seriously: would Poitras (and Boston) have been better served if those top minutes had gone to him instead?
A majority of AHL teams are owned by their NHL parent clubs, and those organizations operate their affiliates as loss leaders. Profit takes a back seat to development. I’ll get into the Boston–Providence dynamic shortly. Last season, the Abbotsford Canucks — owned by Vancouver — captured the Calder Cup. Before that, you’d have to go all the way back to 2018, when the Toronto Marlies — owned by the Maple Leafs — won it. For most NHL‑owned affiliates, winning simply hasn’t been the primary objective. That’s not a good ratio of winning considering that the majority of teams are owned by their NHL affiliate.
Every affiliation agreement looks a little different, but the framework is generally the same. As 100 Degree Hockey notes, some AHL clubs pay an affiliation fee to their NHL partner (I do not know the Bruins agreement). In return, the NHL organization supplies the bulk of the roster — often around 75 percent — and covers major expenses such as travel and equipment. The AHL side commits to developing those younger players, but at the end of the day, it’s still a business. And in business, profitability sits at the top of the priority list. Profitability comes from winning.
Another point that surfaced after my original piece was the idea that prospects are better served logging top‑line minutes in Providence rather than playing 10 sheltered minutes a night in a fourth‑line NHL role. I’ll admit, I used to feel the same way. And I’m wasn’t alone. A poll conducted by C.J. Turtoro, who covers the New Jersey Devils, found that 72.2 percent of fans believe a player benefits more from playing every night on an AHL top line. Only 27.8 percent felt a player is better off getting 60 games as a bottom‑six NHLer.
My perspective shifted about five years ago when I came across data compiled by Patrick Bacon. His model showed that players who developed primarily in the NHL were more likely to find long‑term success at that level than those who spent more than a season developing in the AHL. Looking at data dating back to 2006, Bacon found that NHL probability increased by 6.30 percent for players who logged their development time in the NHL, while those who spent multiple seasons in the AHL saw their probability drop by 0.87 percent. The margins aren’t massive, but the trend is hard to ignore.
In his data, Bacon looked at 95 different leagues and found the AHL to rank dead last when it comes to median change in probability of becoming an “NHL Star” and “NHL probability”.
I’m well aware that plenty of fans aren’t drawn to the analytics side of the sport, but the numbers still tell a story — and they don’t lie.
I don’t have — and have never claimed to have — all the answers. If anything, I’m left with more questions than conclusions. I can’t say with absolute certainty that the Bruins would be better off owning the Providence Bruins. I can’t say for sure that Poitras or the organization would have been better served by keeping him in the NHL instead of sending him down. And I can’t say definitively that Johansson’s development would have been better had he logged more minutes in Providence rather than bouncing to Maine and playing only half a season’s worth of games.
But I can question it.
–
