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: Mon, 13 Apr 92 23:13:54 GMT

In article <1992Apr10.000702.21499@adobe.com> snichols@adobe.com (Sherri Nichols) writes:
>In article <1992Apr9.231440.3706@ists.ists.ca> dchhabra@stpl.UUCP (Deepak CHHABRA) writes:
>>Ok, but you still didn't answer the question.  How can teams with small
>>revenues *compete* with teams with large revenues in an environment of
>>unrestricted free agency?
>
>A number of ways.  By aggresively scouting and developing young players,
>who are cheaper, for example.  The difference between this and the current
>draft situation is that you can do it more quickly without a draft.  By
>treating the players well when you do have them, engendering loyalty
>(which does happen in baseball, media screaming to the contrary).  By doing
>better marketing even in small markets and increasing revenues.


You began by arguing that weak teams could go out and get 'already 
developed talent', and with the aid of a <delete> key on previous 
text, end with this.  So what are you saying here?  Is it just me,
or does 'scouting and developing' imply that the players are not yet
established talent?

>  Teams with poor management, of course, can't do it, but teams with poor
>management lose *no matter what the situation on free agency and the draft
>is*.

No kidding.  But teams that don't *do* with the draft what they could
do not invalidate the draft itself.

>
>>Your main argument is that the draft is equally bad or worse.  So let's
>>examine the draft and who got who (the #1 is the team's 1st pick).
>
>Of course there are good players in the draft.  That's the only way players
>can enter the league currently.  What's your point?  How many Cups has
>Steve Yzerman won in Detroit?  Lafontaine?

My point was to illustrate that the draft *does* help teams.  You come
across (whether intentionally or not) as arguing that its worthless. 
A more important question, though, is what you consider success.  If you
really believe that the Cup and the Cup only dictates whether a team is
doing well or not, then 21 teams this year will really suck.  Of course
Yzerman hasn't 'won any Cups' (hell, even he needs a team to help), but
tell me how competitive the Wings were before he arrived.  Ok, I'll tell
*you*.  Yzerman was drafted in '83, 4th overall.  '84-84 was his first
season, and strangely enough, that was the first season in 6 consecutive
that Detroit made the playoffs.  After that, '85-86 was the only year
they failed to qualify.  Detroit got him in the draft, and at the time,
boy did they suck.  
>
>>LA Kings:  McNall came to town and bought Edmonton.  So much for free
>>agency.
>
>How many Cups has McNall bought?  How many has Edmonton won *since* selling
>Gretzky and Coffey?

Same argument as above.  What was LA's record before Gretzky arrived, 
and what was it after?  Granted, no Cup, but what's *your* point?

>>>As a precedent for what?  Increased parity?  That's exactly what exists in
>>>baseball right now.  
>>>
>>No.  In MLB a few teams who can afford the elite get them.
>
>Do you watch baseball?  Seriously.  Baseball just went through a decade of
>unprecedented parity.

Yes I watch baseball. Seriously.  But do you deny that some teams simply
can't afford some players and as such don't have a hope of signing them?

>>Now, if you want to talk free agency with a salary cap or some other type
>>of NBA-like mechanism, I'll probably agree.            ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> ^^          ^^^^^^^^^
>No, I don't support a salary cap.  *IF* there is a problem with parity
>among the teams because of revenue imbalances, I believe it is best
>addressed by correcting the revenue imbalance, i.e. revenue sharing.  
>
Wow!!!!  You mean we could agree here?

>Sherri Nichols
>snichols@adobe.com

And a side note (just my $0.02).  I supported the players during the 
strike, and I'd still support them if they were striking now.  For
everyone that argues that they make enough and blah, blah, blah, the
average person's salary has *nothing* to do with what anybody else
makes, and that includes athletes.  Really, though, I think the average
salary and all the rest of it was not *the* issue -- **the** issue was
that for too long the players have been getting screwed by the owners
and Eagleson.  So this action was long overdue and it was as much about
respect as anything.  (Yes Don Cherry said the same thing on Sunday night
but I figured it out all by myself.)  At any rate, I'm as glad as the 
greatest fan that the strike is over, 'cause I've loved the game for
as long as I can remember.  Besides, I was really looking forward to 
a Semi-Final with Montreal and NYR.  What hockey that would be; and of
course when the Habs pummel the Rangers, I'd get to watch the NY fans
get *real* upset -- ah, well, what's another 40-something years?:->:->.

HABS RULE!!!!!!!