From: dchhabra@stpl.ists.ca (Deepak CHHABRA)
Subject: Re: Dear Sherri
Reply-To: dchhabra@stpl.UUCP (Deepak CHHABRA)
Organization: Institute for Space and Terrestrial Science
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 92 14:13:30 GMT

In article <1992Apr6.045909.12468@adobe.com> snichols@adobe.com (Sherri Nichols) writes:
>In article <28370019@hpspdla.spd.HP.COM> cadams@hpspdla.spd.HP.COM (Chris Adams) writes:
>>Dear Sherri
>>
>>You seem to be the most vocal believer that the NHL would have better
>>parity without the draft.  You have been very quick to rebut any claim
>>to the contrary.  I have not been able to find your explanation as to
>>how a team with the revenue base of the Winnipeg Jets could be
>>competitive with a team like the New York Rangers if there weren't a
>>draft.  
>
>How exactly has the draft helped the Winnipeg Jets be competitive with
>anybody, regardless of market size?
>
>Perhaps if we look at the draft a little differently, my point will be
>clearer.  Say, instead of a draft for entering players in which the worst
>teams got to pick first, we instead had a draft of all the players from the
>previous season in which the worst teams got to pick first.  Now, it seems
>pretty obvious in this draft, that the poor teams would definitely benefit;
>they don't have to do nearly as much projecting to see who the best players
>are, and they don't have to do nearly as much developing of the players.  
>
>Taking the other extreme, say the draft was of every 6 year old hockey
>player in the world.  Then, it's pretty obvious that the draft does nothing
>to help the weaker teams, because it's completely random; you can't tell
>which 6 year olds are going to be the best hockey players.  
>

First, I believe that the Jets were mentioned as an example of a team without
a significant revenue base, not as the most awesome display on skates.  Your
answer avoids the question, which is 'How can a team with a small revenue base
compete with a team with a *huge* revenue base without a draft (and with total
free agency, presumably)?

Second, let's consider your extreme draft scenarios.  What do you think scouts
do?  You seem to argue that teams go blindly into a draft and pick players for
the hell of it.  This simply isn't true.  The fact of the matter is that all
NHL teams have some type of farm system, in which they do develop talent.  
But even this is flawed; teams with more money can obviously support more
extensive player development programs. And larger population centres have more
talent to develop in the first place.  So some type of mechanism is necessary
for parity.  That mechanism is the draft.  

>As Gerald has pointed out, there are only 20 jobs on the Los Angeles Kings.
>The Kings can't go out and sign everybody in a free market; players want to
>go to teams where they will play.                           ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ 
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
WRONG.  True, a player wants to play.  But he also wants to go to a winner 
that can pay him a lot of money.  Take Lindros--he definitely would have 
played in Quebec, and they would definitely have payed him, but he refused 
to sign.  Maybe it was taxes (but then why would he play in Toronto?) or maybe
it was just his mom (well...), but maybe it was the fact that Quebec *sucks*.
Or take Adam Oates.  He was playing in St. Louis, no doubt, but he wanted more
money, right?  Whatever the reasons for players doing what they do, they most
certainly don't just go to teams 'where they will play'.

>Sherri Nichols
>snichols@adobe.com

HABS RULE!! 
Newsgroups: rec.sport.hockey