From: snichols@adobe.com (Sherri Nichols)
Subject: Re: Dear Sherri
Organization: Adobe Systems Incorporated
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 1992 22:20:22 GMT

In article <1992Apr8.214022.3689@ists.ists.ca> dchhabra@stpl.UUCP (Deepak CHHABRA) writes:
>You gotta be kidding.

No, I'm not kidding at all.  Everybody's jumping on the 'teams can't be
competitive without a draft' bandwagon without bothering to address whether
teams have been competitive *with* a draft.  I thought maybe you were using
a different definition of "compete", if you thought teams had been
competitive with the draft.

>  Giving you the *ultimate* benefit of the doubt, I define
>compete to mean several parties vying for a prize\object\thing that only one
>can have.  In this case, the parties are hockey teams, and the prize(s)\
>object(s)\thing(s) are the best players.  These players come at a high
>price.

And, indeed you are using a different definition of compete.  I'd define
the prize/object/thing as the Stanley Cup, not the best players.  

>>I'm not arguing that at all.  What I am arguing is that scouting and
>>developing players is a very difficult task.  The younger you draft
>>players, the more difficult it is.
>
>This is so true it's borderline tautology.  However, the argument itself in
>no way strengthens your postion.  Am I to assume that because it is difficult
>to project the development of a young player, it is also impossible?  Of courseit's difficult to predict what someone's going to do in the future.  But the
>point is that weaker teams should have access to better talent than already 
>strong teams in order to maintain some type of balance.

How did the weaker teams get where they were?  Presumably, be being bad at
projecting at developing players.  Giving them first crack at picking and
developing 18 year old kids, when they're already demonstrably bad at it,
doesn't seem to be a big help.  However, if total free agency existed, then
those bad teams wouldn't have to rely on the draft for new talent; instead,
they could go out and get already-developed talent.  Much easier to project
what a 24 year old who's already played in the NHL is going to do than what
an 18 year old is going to do.

>  You argue that free 
>agency will work, and the counter-argument is that free agency leads to an 
>auction-type free-for-all.  Baseball already serves as a precedent.   

As a precedent for what?  Increased parity?  That's exactly what exists in
baseball right now.  

>>>WRONG.  True, a player wants to play.  But he also wants to go to a winner 
>>>that can pay him a lot of money. 
>>
>>True.  But one team can only find room for so many players.  Would a player
>>go to a winner who would pay him lots of money if he were scratched half
>>the time?
>
>This I don't understand.  Who in their right mind would pay a guy 'lots of 
>money' with the intent not to play him?? 

Nobody; so how can one team with lots of money monopolize the talent?

>about this: How many players would go from playing zero minutes per game on
>a team paying them $500 000(a) to playing 30 minutes per game on a team paying
>them $250 000(a)?

I would presume that the player would rather play.  His future earning
potential is greater if he goes somewhere where he can play every day, even
if it's a cost to his present earnings.

Sherri Nichols
snichols@adobe.com