Rob, I think we disagree on one key point. I believe a change to the system does not have to be geared to improving poor teams to be a fair suggestion or one good for the health of the game. That's because I disagree that its the league's obligation to help turn a team around - this is a competition, and if I choose to take over a bad team, or through my own decisions made my team bad, then I have to accept the challenge to turn it around. My suggestion with Foster Owners is based on the idea that some owners enjoy that challenge and would like to have a team they can try to rebuild. I think the rookie draft, the PB cap, and the freedom to trade are enough tools to do so, that the FA draft doesn't need to be another.

I'll be blunt - the idea that a team is so bad it can't be improved in a couple of seasons is not an argument I buy, and I find the idea that owners of bad teams deserve more breaks than they have now absurd. I don't believe there is anything in the system that makes things unbalanced in leagues other than the ability of the owners to make good decisions. As this is a competition, that some teams are very good and others are very bad is not a fault of the system, but the reality that some will play this game better than others.

I'd much rather know that if the a division winner is picking first in the FA draft its because they won with less talent than others, than to know it was random chance. I'd like to know enough about the relative position of FA picks I might trade that I can trade with the finesse I can now trade Rookie picks.

I agree PB value is not a perfect measure, but for the most part teams with higher PB values, (and teams with their PB values evenly dispersed among positions) do better than teams with low PB values. Of course you could ahow me two teams with equal PB values and I will prefer one to the other, but that doesn't mean they both have the same general raw material to work from.