Put me down as a "B"

"B" is my first choice - provided what you mean by a "slight variant" is really the use of percentiles/position ranking. That is, the team losing the Type A catcher who is rated 80 OVR but it the top C in the league gets the higher pick than the 81 OVR SS who has a half-dozen guys better at his position.

"A" is a solid choice as well, in that we allow the open market to determine how good a player is. And it would add a fun element to watching Free Agency (though perhaps give those who see collusion around every corner something more to worry about).

"C" is stupid.

Doesn't look like a change will ever be coming according to the CS response from WIS:

Robert,

To base it on anything but the draft order is too subjective and I think you can see the argument where one owner feels that his player is worth more than another player.

In the interest of fairness we base it off the draft order for the current season. It does not mean that we condone tanking, we just want the process to be as fair as possible.

i don't think we should give up the issue. taking the least-fair approach given three choices doesn't make sense.

Quote: Originally posted by firemanrob on 2/12/2010
To base it on anything but the draft order is too subjective and I think you can see the argument where one owner feels that his player is worth more than another player.

If you based compensation on contract worth, there is indisputable evidence that another owner values your player more than another player. Crucial distinction, IMO.

B

Yeah WIS is obviously choosing most fair to mean most accomodating to the crappy teams. If two teams are receiving compensation, the team doing the signing dictates the value directly, with the market determining value indirectly. I see where WIS is coming from and just completely agree. They claim to favor promoting fairness over combating tanking, but the promotion of "fairness" is debatable and the combating of "tanking" is obviously ineffective.

Further proving that WIS' post on "tanking" was nothing more than hot air

http://whatifsports.com/forums/threads.asp?ForumID=58&TopicID=391216&SearchPagePosition=1&search=competitive&searchMode=&searchIn=Topic&forum=58&searchSort=dateDESC&ReturnPage=Search

A

A

Quote: Originally posted by firemanrob on 2/12/2010Doesn't look like a change will ever be coming according to the CS response from WIS:Robert,

To base it on anything but the draft order is too subjective and I think you can see the argument where one owner feels that his player is worth more than another player.

In the interest of fairness we base it off the draft order for the current season. It does not mean that we condone tanking, we just want the process to be as fair as possible.

the customer's always right and we currently have 20/23 experienced owners who disapprove of the current system. it's low level support's job to ward off people who ask for a change, but i'm going to take this as far as i can. no guarantees, but it's worth a shot.

go deano!

23 responses hardly makes it a hot topic.

Is it safe to assume that in year 1 of a world, the pick would go to the team with the higher draft rating?

Obviously if the system is going to change it should change to the most realistic option, which is B. If two type A's are signed by one team, the team who had the guy with the highest overall rating should get the higher compensation pick. Otherwise, leave it the way it is, I don't think it's a big problem.

C. No other votes -- there are far too many flaws in both of the other arguments...