I favour the proposed change, mainly because the draft is primarily a waiver draft. That is, players nobody wanted before.

But I have a question: If a player starts the MLB season as a rookie, can he later become eligible for this draft if he gets enough playing time? This could affect my "vote".

It seems that the naysayers have a problem with the fact that they have built a good team, and their good records now have to assist the poorer teams. (Incidentally, I'm a Canadian, and am used to this idea in our tax system!) I agree with this complaint, but only because the waiver draft has too many good players. What if we expand the rosters to, say, 40? That would give teams the ability to carry uncarded prospects, and therefore not care so much about the waiver draft, if they like. And the leftovers in this draft would truly be "waiver picks". I dunno, but I hope this inspires some ideas.

My other "better" idea, is that we simply use total PB value, not won-loss record to determine the order. That way, tanking could be minimized (although not eliminated), and could help teams who have been hit hard with injuries.

Whew. Anyway, I'm OK with Mike's idea. I think it's better than what we've got. To me, the pros outweigh the potential cons.

Great debate, though, eh?