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: Thu, 9 Apr 92 22:28:39 GMT

In article <1992Apr8.222022.9749@adobe.com> snichols@adobe.com (Sherri Nichols) writes:
>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
>
>