Here is a list of Mike's issues and my thoughts
1."Make the PB cap a function of average PB value in each particular organization." That is agreed.

2. "The cap after the cut to 27 should be somewhere between 120-125% of average PB value." 120 % seems more likely for parity which would keep more players longer.

3. "Changing the number of players that can be protected after the rookie draft (currently 27)." If a lower number were, say 25, it would force some managers into a little self examination; “Am I competing or rebuilding?” Some discussion board comments indicate that this is painful, and should be avoided at all costs. Realistic self examination will be avoided by many managers anyway. Bring on the pain.

4. "allowing INN players with less than 50 PA or 20 IP to appear in playoff games (this would also apply to RT leagues)." INNocuous players should be truly innocuous. This could again require managerial choice; how to rest a 450 AB player in the playoffs. But it could be a huge gamble also.

5. "not allowing players with less than a certain number of PA/IP to appear in regular season games (perhaps excluding INN)." I fail to see that prohibiting any playing by players who are limited service-wise by the game to play corrects any abuse.

6. "adding LH/RH criteria to INN status." I have Adam Eaton, a 2002 INN pitcher who has a .524 ROPS and a 1.135 LOPS. Clearly he is a good situational reliever based upon the stats; but would he actually perform that way? Could I use him enough for it to be an abusive practice vs. righties? Perhaps a greater abuse is one that I fostered with one of my RT teams. Mike Lamb, a 1B, 3B, LF type who is a fair hitter (very good for a catcher) appeared in a few games for the Rangers as a catcher in 2002. These appearances were disastrous. Yet in RT5, he played in 256 innings at catcher, had a perfect fielding percentage, threw out 7 out of 17 base stealers and had zero passed balls. Charles Johnson threw out 3 of 26 base stealers, so my pitchers weren’t holding base runners very close. Lamb hit over .355 for me. He should be positionally platooned at catcher like certain batters are platooned in the game where his effectiveness blows up after 110% of his innings at that position.
What abuses should we police, and which ones should we take advantage of? Lamb, rather than Eaton makes more of a mockery of the game in my opinion.

7. "eliminating the 5.00 ERA standard for INN pitchers (I believe this has already been done but it is not in the manual. The very high offensive years of late have made the 5.00 limit irrelevant as an INN criterion)." Sure, I have some teams that desperately need 5.00 pitchers.

8. "possibly changing some aspects of rookie and FA draft to encourage more parity." A tradeoff here might be considered, that is making the rookie draft serpentine, based on PB values (based on top 20 players), lowest to highest in odd numbered rounds, highest to lowest in even numbered rounds. As part of the tradeoff, make the FA draft order non-serpentine based on PB values for all players, (recalculated after the rookie draft), from lowest to highest. The advantages for parity are clear. Better yet, prohibit any first year player (new to the game, not the league, a vanishing species) from trading any of his top 2 rookie and FA picks. This would ward off the sharks, and clear the waters.

9. "Creating a waiver system similar in TRAD leagues but not including players/pitchers with value in following season. This would diminish and make more equitable the present system of awarding INN players on demand." It should be done in such a way to minimize commissioner time and involvement so that his valuable time could be freed for other matters. Strict roster limitations should be imposed where, at some poi