From: dchhabra@stpl.ists.ca (Deepak CHHABRA)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.hockey
Subject: Re: Dear Sherri
Date: 8 Apr 92 21:40:22 GMT
Reply-To: dchhabra@stpl.UUCP (Deepak CHHABRA)
Organization: Institute for Space and Terrestrial Science

In article <1992Apr7.180851.19130@adobe.com> snichols@adobe.com (Sherri Nichols) writes:
>In article <1992Apr7.141330.3602@ists.ists.ca> dchhabra@stpl.UUCP (Deepak CHHABRA) writes:
>>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)?.
>
>How do you define "compete"?

You gotta be kidding.  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.
(Hopefully this dispells any confusion out there :->). Now, given these 
parameters, let's go back to the question.  How can a team with a small 
revenue base _compete_ with a team with a huge revenue base without a draft
in a situation with total free agency.   
>
>>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.
>
>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.  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.   
>
>>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.  
>
>If the teams with more money have more and better scouting, and more and
>better player development, then how is the draft helping parity?

Notice that I said of my own volition that the system is flawed.  The draft
helps parity because before the draft, nobody owns the rights to any prospect.
Simply because one team has more scouts than another doesn't mean the second
team is *completely and utterly* clueless about potential talent.  In any 
situation there will be differences between different parties.  If a team has
extensive scouting, they're smart.  But 20 qualified scouts watching a guy for
one team is no better than one qualified scout watching for another.  

>>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??  Your question implies by tense the
player joining the team in the future, getting paid in the future, and being 
benched in the present.  *NOT* feasible.  Very rarely are highly-paid players
benched.  The reason they're highly-paid in the first place is because they
perform.  But since you seem to enjoy answering questions with questions, how
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)?

>Sherri Nichols
>snichols@adobe.com
>
>

HABS RULE!!!!