as i noted in my support of representative cardarelli's amendment, i agree with him in theory and probably less so in practice. i acknowledge the critiques and only disagree in that i don't think it is a requirement to have parity and don't feel the need to protect the chastity of this perfect enterprise by regulating the mutual decision making amongst its members.
instead of viewing it as a single variable problem (i.e. i have a worthless keeper slot and want papelbon) the person who has the worthless keeper has to judge the cost-benefit to himself and to his fellow member (in as much as the other owners are important for future drafts and possible/probable trades). If i think my trade of a keeper slot will help me a little but help mike alot, i'd probably not do it, but that should be my choice (because i have to fight against mike the same as everyone else).
i support the keeper cap proposal - with 8 currently, setting a cap at 10 seems reasonable. i realize this whole thing will likely not pass in the general assembly, i just wanted to get it on the ledger.