I'm sorry, but I feel the team that has the same PB value than you and is winning more should get a reward for that, even if its only a few spots in the FA list. Why its happening is not important - you both have in theory the same overall talent - if he has used that better than you good for him. Having a counter-balance, even a slight one, to the reward of a good rookie pick for losing, or to not playing your best, seems reasonable.

Sure, PB value can be misleading to an extent - but that's part of the goal of this - a team that focuses its talent on the players that play the most will win more, relative to PB, than teams that have talent but it isn't distributed well, like being tied up in 1500 PAs at SS. It isn't realistic that a team can keep 3 starting 1Bs on their roster year after year, and use two of them for pinch hitters. Most teams would improve if they traded away their excess players for help in other areas - and the leagues would be more interesting and more balanced if owners did this. If you have a PB value of 100 and can't play at .500 ball, you are either tanking somewhat or need to move some of the talent you have for talent you need.

The teams in your league that have PB values in the high 80's and low 90's that will finish under .500 - they have talent they could trade away to make themselves more balanced, and maybe knowing that holding onto players they aren't using will cost them in the FA draft will make them be more aggressive in trading. Maybe you'd be able to get players during the season to help you, if there was some penalty for teams not using their talent.

As Mike suggested, he'd probably block the teams into three or four groups anyway, so the FA draft order wouldn't be set in stone, there would still be some randomization.