I would never redline you, mitch.

Sweet.

First choice is A, then far back is B (OVR, as someone pointed out, penalizes C and 1B), and way farther back is C (reward tankers)

Todd- "B" has been modified such that it could mean something like OVR rank within position group (which I think is the ideal answer). Simmy is already calculating OVR percentile by position to calculate types A and B. Just extend it to comp pick order.

yes, and i'm looking forward to my posts being restored.

I think if they ever made it by overall rating it would be adjusted by position, since like GJ said it's already used to draw the lines for type A and B

Sched- nothing personal, I just don't want the thread to go in the direction where there are like 2 votes in a 5 page span.

Yah, but my voting order doesn't change, but the gap between my first two choices might lessen.

MONEY is the unifying value since we all have the same budget, so it should be the measuring stick. If you sign two Type-A's and one makes $20M/yr, and one makes $8M/yr, whoever lost the $20M guy should get your earliest pick because he lost the most value.

B, then C.

A...Don't like it from a rewarding the bad contract perspective.

A, then B, then C.

But all three are bad systems because you can lose the best player in the world and it's a crapshoot whether you'll get the 17th pick, the 70th pick (or worse in the current system) or somewhere in between.

They should do this:

Any team signing a Type A loses its first pick that's not in the top 16.
Any team losing a Type A gets two compensation picks between the first and second round. Any team losing a Type B gets one compensation pick between the first and second round.

Order the compensation picks however you want, because there will only be a 10-15 pick spread within each group rather than the 150-pick difference you can get with the current system.

Quote: Originally Posted By benj13blue on 2/11/2010A, then B, then C.

But all three are bad systems because you can lose the best player in the world and it's a crapshoot whether you'll get the 17th pick, the 70th pick (or worse in the current system) or somewhere in between.

They should do this:

Any team signing a Type A loses its first pick that's not in the top 16.
Any team losing a Type A gets two compensation picks between the first and second round. Any team losing a Type B gets one compensation pick between the first and second round.

Order the compensation picks however you want, because there will only be a 10-15 pick spread within each group rather than the 150-pick difference you can get with the current system

Everyone else is talking about changing the way the sadwich picks are ordered, and who gets which pick if one team signs multiple Type As. You don't like the fact that the pick you get matches up with an actual pick the signing team gave up (which is why it can be between 17-70). Unfortunately, that's one of the most realistic pieces of the draft/FA Type process, that most of the rest of us are happy with. Sorry, but this one just doesn't work.

Nobody's talking about changing the way the sandwich picks are ordered, nobody cares about that.

Everybody's talking about which team gets which pick if a team signs two Type As. The problem is that no matter what system you choose, there's the potential for a team to get unfairly screwed because his Type A happened to lose whichever system check you enforce, so he gets a pick 50 spots lower than the other guy.

MLB's system is terrible (see the Yankees signing Sabathia, Teixeira and Burnett all at once), HBD's system is even worse.

Quote: Originally posted by toddcommish on 2/11/2010
MONEY is the unifying value since we all have the same budget, so it should be the measuring stick.  If you sign two Type-A's and one makes $20M/yr, and one makes $8M/yr, whoever lost the $20M guy should get your earliest pick because he lost the most value.

This is why I like basing the draft pick compensation on contract value. Talent is not distributed the same position by position in every world, and certainly not in each FA class.

The market reflects player value far more accurately than OVR weighted by position.

So not only are you redlining on topic posts in this thread, you're creating votes that don't exist in this thread? So much for science...

since it's clear that you don't care to make a positive contribution to this thread, please refrain from posting here.

Dude, it's completely on topic. You're making stuff up and claiming it as a study. Do you think WiredTiger saw the other thread and didn't see this one? Maybe he decided not to vote for a reason. If you're going to do a vote, don't make assumptions on what people are going to vote, then redline when you get called on it.

btw, I have a ticket in to deal with the inappropriate redlining going on today and suspect that problem will be solved shortly...