I am voting no for proposal #2. While I cannot argue that a starting pitcher should be able to pitch more than 1 inning, and it is annoying and unrealistic to not do so, I believe the new rule will create a situation that is worse, and more unrealistic, than the problem it corrects.
If you take a SP and make him a reliever with a "3", that is potentially a RP with 150 or more innings. With a "1" rating , it would be very difficult to reach 150 innings. However, with a "3", it is much more likely. The problem I have with that is that now that RP with 150 innings is a lot more valuable than it should be. Those 150 relief innings on one pitcher potentially replaces 2, maybe 3, relief pitchers. If you have 7 full-time starters (which I have done on more than one occasion) , you take two, make them relievers, and cut down on your bullpen and use those excess spots to make your lineup more powerful/effective. It also can potentially save you money in saved salaries.
The biggest problem, though, is that no reliever actually pitches 150+ innings. With the "1", I think you are looking at 75-80 max, which is realistic. 150+ isn't. In addition, the extra starts/innings are potentially more valuable now as trade bait, rather than waste them as "1" releivers, which I think does make the league more competitive. Yes, there are SP who relieve a couple of times, get a relief rating, and that makes them very valuable, and very unrealistic, but I do not see that as a big enough problem to legislate against. However, the creating of 150 inning relievers as a somewhat common entity, to me, is skewering the game and making it unrealistic to a point that I find objectionable. However, PBG does have a bunch of young pitchers coming up and I certainly will have no problem taking advantage of the rule if it passes. I just think that it is best if this rule does not pass.
While I obviously respect Warren's position, as the person who generated the rule I thought I would respond briefly.
I don't think that the problem that Warren outlines is likely to be very common - in my experience, it's awfully hard to find 3 or 4 good starters, let alone 7 or 8. And if someone does happen to have a multitude of good starters (which, by the way, is most certainly not the case for SFE), I feel like they should be allowed to employ them however may best suit their team even if that means that one or two get a bunch of relief innings, as used to be common in the 70s and 80s and before in MLB.
Whichever side you come out on, please remember to vote - 2 of the 4 proposals are in a virtual tie currently, so every vote matters!
