I'm also going to throw this out there. I hate the 20 GP limit to gain position eligibility. It's too much and it should be 10. There, I said it. Flame away, fellas hahaha
I look at this and for some guys, I'd agree that the 20 is too restrictive. So a guy like Altherr, who's a corner OF who played 19 games in CF, I don't have a problem with him being rated in CF. Even a guy like Matt Olson only played 12 games in RF, but given that he only played 50 games last year, it feels like that should be "enough" to be listed as a RF this year.
But then you get other cases - Freeman played 16 games at 3B. Is that enough that someone should be able to set him as their starting 3B all year this year? Or Rizzo, who played 10 outs at 2B, it feels like a mockery of the system to be able to use him as your starting 2B. Even a guy like Chris Taylor only played 14 games at SS, is that enough that he should take up a starting SS position in the league?
While it's frustrating for building your team, and while it's especially annoying if you have a corner OF who's in the midst of moving from RF to LF or vice versa, it does make for a bit more strategic considerations. And you can still gain eligibility mid-season, so whenever Stanton gets his 10 games in LF he'll start getting carded as a LF for the rest of the season.
As for the other point, I certainly don't want to go down having a veto or voting on trades. The shorter pick trading window is probably a fairly easy thing to do - letting us trade up to 2020 right now is probably fine. For example, Mindz has been rebuilding for a few years now, yet has no changes to his picks in 2020 and beyond. So that would be 3 years, including the current year.