>If the 1st rounder or 2nd rounder part was that crucial to
>the rule, it should have been written in. If there should be a
>5, 10 game freeze window in the beginning of the season where
>we are going to use different numbers, that needs to be
>written into the rule as well.

We didn't feel the need to micromanage it. We had a group of seasoned guys for the most part so we assumed certain things were 'understood'. MOST of those guys are still in the league. 12 of the 16 current members were in the league when the rule was put in place (including you) and 11 were in the league the year prior. Most of us know how it should operate. This is the FIRST year since the rule that someone tried to trade a first rounder for a non-first rounder.

The first time.

That says to me, everyone understood the rule and used it accordingly.

>
>My comment about half the league not knowing the spirit of the
>rules referred to the unwritten portions of it, not the
>written portion thats posted multiple times of a year. That
>1st rounder/2nd rounder bit is not written into the rules and
>I don't remember it ever coming up in any trade
>discussion/argument over my years here. And we've had multiple
>adjustments to whatever the original trade rule was. My
>assumption would be that the current rule is a version of the
>original rule altered to the best that it could be (which we
>all voted on) I don't think its reasonable to reflect on what
>the rule was initially, when there is a current one in place.

The rule needs to eliminate the grey areas is all. Which would have been a great OFFSEASON exercise. But challenging the rule on surface numbers some 10-11 odd games into the season with no room for discussion on an appropriate change prior...bad form.