Ah, okay... I hadn't realized you were in agreement with me on the value of increasing the importance of the waiver wire back to where it was. I thought that was a concession more than anything else... glad to see we agree there.
As for pick trading... it just sounded like you were questioning the system based on players trading away those high draft picks. I just wanted to be sure to point out that the high picks weren't being GIVEN away... but that the value gained by having them was still preserved.
'Imploding' and 'Unfair advantage' were somewhat hyperbolic terms, yes... but I stand by them in the case where baseballbond (to use 2010's specific example - nothing personal, Brandon) would gain Stephen Strasberg AND Jason Heyward for finishing last. I thought you agreed with me at one point on that... which is why giving top 'powerful' picks to the last place teams is overdoing it. It would encourage tanking, no doubt about it. And it would create too many barriers to teams that do well... good teams would always pick lower in the draft (even if you just had a good one-time year), AND would have no shot at top prospects to shore up areas of need. But it's not just the top teams... it's the guys 6-15 who also have to plan on no real shot in the arm from the waiver system on an annual basis. Even 'powerful' picks only allow 3-6 impact prospects per year to be distributed... the others have to settle for marginal pickups, so the dropoff from being a bottom-10 team to a bottom-5 team (in terms of 'balancing' reward) is substantial.
As far as how my proposal gives more power to lower-end teams...
* under the current system, anyone can pick up a player at any time? Yes, but the high teams start with higher priority... and if people want prospects who never go through waivers, they have to carry them months in advance.
* under the new system, anyone can still pick up a player at any time. Many are still available in advance, but several now come through that waiver system. And the top teams do NOT have automatic pickup even on the players who came through the system before that way (still 1-2 interesting prospects/year)... but it is effectively unpredictable who will have the top pick (as it's based on strategy and how long it's been since the last pick). Instead of being last in line for Jason Heyward... Brandon has a 1/20 chance of being first in line, just like anyone else. And if 3 top prospects and 4 more 'interesting' prospects come through the waiver system as a result... Brandon has a roughly 7/20 chance to be in position to get one of them... instead of zero, or being forced to carry one 'possible' interesting prospect months in advance.
So that's how I see a significant advantage going to lower teams over the current system.
In the end, you and I agree that SOME measure of 'rebalancing' should occur - as always, our point of contention is only the degree... how much is too much 'rebalancing'.