Minor EditsI recommend removing dated references in Items IV.B.2. and V.H.8.b. and c. Maintaining some sort of historical reference is a good idea, but I just suggest keeping the rules focused on the present.
I have a few suggested modifications to Rule Section V, dealing with roster management. Each will be submitted through an individual post for ease of review.Existing Rule LanguageV. Roster ManagementA. Overall Roster Each Team will be allowed a franchise roster not exceeding 50 Players (maximum roster size will increase to 52 immediately following the 2016 season and increase by an additional player for the 2017, 2018, and 2019 season). The franchise roster will consist of an Active Roster and a Reserve Roster.1. Roster limits are enforced all year, including during the offseason, and Teams may not exceed the maximum roster size.A couple suggestions here, with the first tempered by a little confusion as to what the existing language intended to say. That uncertainty is focused on the choice of the word "following" in concert with "for", which (to me) implies beforehand. As currently worded, the league increased roster size from 50 to 52 following the 2016 season and then (based on one interpretation) added one more player slot for each of the 2017, 2018, and 2019 seasons. As worded we boosted the rosters by two once 2016 ended and then added one more at some point prior to the 2017 season.My guess has been the language was actually intended to increase roster size by one after each of the listed seasons which would have allowed 52 for 2017, 53 for the most recent season, and 54 for 2018 with one more increase slated for 2019. The only reason I’m not sold on that interpretation is that one team is already at 54 players.That long preface aside, my initial suggestion is that V.A. be simplified. Secondly, sub-item A1 was added last year, and seems to somewhat contradict language in followiEach team will be allowed a franchise roster not exceeding (this number) players. Known future additions can still be referenced, but if the Executive Committee opts to not continue roster expansion I think things will be much clearer if a single number is provided as a reference point.ng items (which can be addressed in it seems to be put in the wrong place. I believe an edited version of this point better fits in V.B. or perhaps V.C, which also remedies the point that a V.A.2. would be needed to accompany V.A.1. should it remain in its current location.I suggest moving the purpose of that existing sub-item to V.C. and will offer a separate message further detailing that move.
The rule that allowed teams to go over the roster limit during the draft was an obvious miscalculation of the morality of a GM and needs to be changed back immediately. Most leagues have a provision that if a GM is not willing to obey roster regulations that the league will make the necessary adjustments for him.