I'm not really in favor of changing any of the trade rules. While the goal is ease in keeping track of transactions, I think that a spreadsheet tracking pick movement can keep track of everything.
My concern is that it punishes active / creative GMs. A team might never be able to acquire a top-3 pick by trading one of its own players. However, it might be able to work up the first round "ladder" by executing a number of potential pick swaps. Why punish those teams / GMs? It doesn't make a lot of sense to me.
In terms of protections of second rounders, I would agree that some of the more whacky restrictions can get confusing (i.e., "you get this pick unless it's #40", or something like that). However, I do think there's value in protecting some of the higher #2s, that can have some real value.
As for protected #1s, I don't think we should allow trading of future #1s that fall more than 1 year in the future, even on a contingency basis. That's been a pretty bright line rule in the past, and I think we should hold to it. If a replacement GM has to take over for another team, it's going to suck finding out that his pick in the next draft has already been leveraged.
As for changes to league rules and vetos, I think they should both require a majority vote. If people wanted to do a majority vote of a certain quorom of GMs (say, 10 or 11), that would be fine with me.
I think with vetoes, we do need to be cognizant of last year's fiasco. Does *anybody* think that was an unfair trade in hindsight? KG + Odom + Artest + #4 for Curry + late-1st?
No, that trade shouldn't have been vetoed. However, because a minority of GMs were biased and/or poor at evaluating the deal, two willing GMs were denied a trade they each wanted to make, all kinds of drama ensued, and one GM left the league permanently.
I just don't think that 7 GMs should be in charge of that type of thing.