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 23:14:40 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:
>  I thought maybe you were using
>a different definition of "compete"

I apologize then, I thought you were just wasting time.
>
>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.  
>
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?
>
>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.
>
I have already argued that teams with small revenues are at a severe 
disadvantage w.r.t. teams that have money.  You have yet to refute this.
How is a losing team supposed to get 'already developed talent'? This only
works if they have money.  What if they don't?  Generally speaking, losing
teams don't generate much interest, and thus don't sell games.  So revenue
drops (ok, Quebec aside).  Without money, how will your scheme help?
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).
Boston:  Oates for Janney, Janney '86 #1 pick
Buffalo:  Lafontaine for Turgeon, Turgeon '87 #1 pick
Calgary:  MacInnis '81 #1 pick
Chicago: Roenick '88 #1 pick
Detroit: Stevie Y. '83 #1 pick
Hartford:  Sylvain Turgeon '83 #1 pick (I got my flame-proof shirt on here)
Edmonton: Messier '79 #2 pick, Lowe #1. Fuhr '81 #1.  Coffey '80 #1. They
already had Gretzky.  All but Fuhr left because Edmonton couldn't afford
them.  So much for free agency.
LA Kings:  McNall came to town and bought Edmonton.  So much for free agency.
Minnesota:  Bellows, Modano, Bobby Smith in '82, 88, 78.
Montreal:  No proof necessary.  Even when they screwed up in '80 with 
           Wickenheiser they were winning.
New Jersey:  Kirk Muller for Richer, Muller '84 #1 pick.
NY Isles:  Turgeon for Lafontaine, Lafontaine '83 #1 pick.
NY Rangers:  Richter '85 #2 pick, and they could afford Messier.
Philadelphia:  Bill Barber '72 #1 pick, Tocchet and Zezel in '83, 5th and 1st
Pittsburgh:  Mario '84 #1 pick, and we know what happened afterwards.
Quebec:  Sundin '89, Nolan '90, Crybaby '91, Sakic '87.  And they still suck.
         This one beats me too.
St. Louis: Hull stolen from Calgary, Brind'Amour '88 #1 now with Philly
Toronto:  from '82:  Gary Nylund, Russ Courtnall, Iafrate, Wendel, 
         Damphousse, Luke Richardson, Scott Pearson, Scott Thornton.  
         But we also had Ballard to f**k things up.  In all seriousness, with
         competent mgmt. we coulda had a Cup by now.
Vancouver:  Linden '88, Neely '83.  What the hell were they thinking?
Washington:  Scott Stevens '82 #1, Mike Gartner '79 #1, Olaf Kolzig '89 #1.
Winnipeg:  Hawerchuk '81.  Admittedly this team's not a good example.
San Jose:  Pat Falloon.

So it appears that the draft isn't *quite* so bad.  Edmonton-LA serves to
illustrate the problems of unrestricted free agency quite well, don't you 
think?
>>  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.  
>
No.  In MLB a few teams who can afford the elite get them.  Baseball will
collapse under its own financial strain soon.  It's already common practice
to let guys go that you can't afford.  This is why Benito Santiago is up
for grabs.  Eventually things will likely straighten themselves out, and
perhaps your prediction of free agency driving salaries down will come 
true.  But before that, what we see today in baseball takes place, and 
it's changed because its forced to.
Sherri, every guy who enters the NHL has to play somewhere. At least with
the draft the team's bank balance doesn't exclude or include them.  The 
draft is not perfect, but then again nothing is.  And your proposed plan
would leave some teams stuck at the bottom unable to afford to improve.
Now, if you want to talk free agency with a salary cap or some other type
of NBA-like mechanism, I'll probably agree.  But what you've said so far
I disagree with completely.  

>Sherri Nichols
>snichols@adobe.com
>
>


Newsgroups: rec.sport.hockey