When a team signs multiple Type A picks, the team with the lower winning percentage gets the higher pick.  In real life, the player who is ranked higher according to Elias brings back the higher pick.  Would it make more sense to order picks based off Contract value?  A team that pays more for Player A than Player B must think the Player A is the more valuable player.

That would not make much sense.  You can have a situation where a couple of, uh, morons, drive the price up on a mediocre FA in a bidding war.

Cost does not equate to quality.

The same guy ends up with both though players though.  I'm not saying replace the current system of Type A/B, where a mediocre FA becomes a Type A/B because of his contract.  Just the order the one owner with multiple Type A's picks are distributed.

Worst team = higher pick is the best way.    You want owners to have hope.   Bad teams losing good players can lose hope much faster than good teams losing good players.

When multiple Type A's are signed, it usually happens after a guy has been sitting around forever and his value has dropped because people don't want to give up the picks.  A team will sign the guy because they have already given up the first rounder.  The team that is losing him doesn't lose a pick by signing him, so they don't want the player anyway and are gaming the system anyway for a guy who they did not want (which is why I'd also support offering arbitration to receive picks).  The better, more desirable player should justify more compensation, in my opinion.

Rich get richer if the 108 win team loses a Type A and gets the 23rd pick while the 65 win team loses a Type A and gets a 64th pick. 

Changing it to something else would benefit me.  I always get a 3rd/4th round pick.   But it wouldn't benefit the world.

And what if it is a 66 win team who loses a better player than a 65 win team?  The 66 win team loses 5 wins and is compensated less than the 65 win team who loses 3 wins.

Posted by jonas1102 on 3/6/2011 7:42:00 PM (view original):
The same guy ends up with both though players though.  I'm not saying replace the current system of Type A/B, where a mediocre FA becomes a Type A/B because of his contract.  Just the order the one owner with multiple Type A's picks are distributed.

I know exactly what you're saying.  I'm just saying that highest contract does not necessarily equal best player, which is what you seem to be implying.

Posted by tecwrg on 3/6/2011 8:14:00 PM (view original):

Posted by jonas1102 on 3/6/2011 7:42:00 PM (view original):
The same guy ends up with both though players though.  I'm not saying replace the current system of Type A/B, where a mediocre FA becomes a Type A/B because of his contract.  Just the order the one owner with multiple Type A's picks are distributed.

I know exactly what you're saying.  I'm just saying that highest contract does not necessarily equal best player, which is what you seem to be implying.

I think that it gives a better determination than overall rating, which would be the other way to reorder the compensation.

Different, but not better.  Neither contact value or OVR are good ways to do it.  I think the current way works best, considering that intent of the structure of the draft is to try to bring some parity to franchises in the long run.

The intent of compensation is to compensate those who lose value.  A team who wants to re-sign their 29 year old 90 overall player, but can't and gets priced out because teams are built on more than one player should be compensated more than a team who doesn't want their 35 year old who is barely clinging on to Type A status and doesn't get signed until the last day of the FA because his value is low and the first round pick is already gone.

The team who's lower in the standings would still get the higher supplemental round pick, they just shouldn't get an added benefit of a first round pick for a guy who they could have re-signed well below his original asking price.

Bad teams need to get better. 

The teams losing players could both be bad teams. One tanked at the end to get the better draft pick and the other played until the end because they didn't want to give an unfair advantage to the teams trying to make the playoffs.

Or they could be the two World Series teams.  One had their division wrapped up with 20 games to go, so they pulled off the throttle, and the other had to fight their way in because their division was tough.

Either of those situations could result in 5 win swings.  Should the teams who phoned in the last part of the season be rewarded three times (better draft pick, better supplemental round pick, and better compensation pick)?  Should they be rewarded when the player they are losing is a worse player?  Should they be rewarded because they don't want their player anymore?

If the compensation system was fixed to work as it does in real life, e.g. a team has to first offer arbitration to the departing player, this would be less of an issue.

Most of the departing Type A/B players are departing because the previous teams are deciding to let them go in order to get the picks, not necessarily because they can't afford them or are being outbid.  We, has a whole, tend to value the promise of potential draft compensation more than the value of the players we are letting walk.