The Iconoclast said:
So you're saying that by having a $60 million gap between the top and bottom spending teams is good for the game and breeds competition? You're also saying that when teams are forced to deal away players that they invested a lot of time and energy into developing and turning into the player they were expected to be that it is good for the game, especially when the teams spending $20-30 million over average are the teams gainingthe advantage?
Never said any of that. Don't know where you got any of it from. My position is that high salaries and winning are not directly related. High salary teams can fail, low salary teams can succeed. I agree with you that more emphasis should be placed on player retention and player development. Unfortunately, instead of working on a CBA that encourages teams to develop and keep their players, Mr. Bettman's only cares about getting a CBA with a linked salary cap.
The Iconoclast said:
And those draft picks have been awarded because of their lack of competitiveness in the league. Those draft picks were earned by getting their butts kicked on a regular basis and being set up in a system where they could not afford the players they themselves developed.
Please note that all phrases in bold are in the past tense. So you concede that the teams with poor records over the last three years have already been compensated by receiving high draft picks over the last three years?
The Iconoclast said:
One thing you fail to acknowledge is that the team still have to develop a player once he is drafted.
Sorry, but how does player development figure into the order in which teams make their picks in the upcoming draft?
The Iconoclast said:
So I guess fairness to you is being a top team in the league and still getting a chance to draft the very best players available?
Who are the top teams, Icon? How do you determine it? The teams that achieved winning records and made the playoffs over the last three years don't exist anymore. The bottom feeder teams that got high draft picks have an advantage in that they have high picks in their system playing in the minor leagues.
The Iconoclast said:
Fair is being able to draft poorly, not develop players, and only be able to open the wallet to buy what you need? Fairness is just waiting for the time to come when you know the star in development is ready to price himself out of the market where he plays and then you can swoop in and snap him up for moderate draft picks and prospects?
Isn't your new CBA with a salary cap going to fix all of that? I'm talking about the reality of the situation going forward. You're still whining about the past.
The Iconoclast said:
Who cares how things look right this minute or in the future.
Ummm, well, considering that we're talking about a draft that is in the future, well, I guess everyone reading this thread does..
The Iconoclast said:
The draft is based on past performance.
What past performance, Icon? There isn't an 04-05 season to base the 05 draft on. You're the one talking about the 'tradition' of the draft. The tradition is that the order is based on the PRIOR season's results, not an average over a period of four years..
The Iconoclast said:
So what you're saying is that because a team spent itself into this position and did nothing to prepare for the landscape that the BOG knew was coming that the NHL should take pity on their stupidity and reward them now with a shot at the top player to come along in 15 years, because they might be bad in the next four or five years? Hey, here's a real novel idea. Play the string out, take your lumps, earn your top draft picks like the teams prior to you, draft the best player available and then take the next five years developing that talent and hoping they turn into the player. That's fair.
Again, I've said nothing at all like that. You are the one claiming that you want to be fair to the weaker teams. I'm fine with that, but you still won't take a position on which of my two hypothetical teams is weaker.
The Iconoclast said:
No, I'm loking forward to the level of the playign field. For too many years it was tilted in the favor of the big spenders. blah, blah, blah..
Again, more whining about the past. They had a bunch of money to spend, we'll show them, let's get them back!!!
Which of my two hypothetical teams is weaker, Icon? Why won't you answer that?
Why won't you address the fact that teams who have performed poorly over the last four years have already been compensated for their performance with high picks over the last four years?