Andy, thank you on the parks issue. I agree that it's too much to get into right now and I think it's fine for it to be on the back burner for awhile.
For possible consideration at some point, here is how it looks to me.
1. It's your call, yes or no, to say whether we want, to the extent possible, to have historically contemporaneous parks, or whether an owner can just keep a park and use it throughout history even after play stopped in that place. Or if you allow a vote on it (also your call), then it's everyone's call.
2. After that, if it's been decided to use realistic parks, the next decision is if a team needs to stay in the same city. If yes, then an owner must automatically have some right to the "next" stadium in that city. Since several cities for this first season have more than one stadium, I don't see how that can work; it looks like we have to be allowed to change cities.
3. Then, everything hinges on when in history a certain park was replaced. It may well be that it was the only park to go out of use in a certain year, in which case its owner gets a new park by right. Under the assumed scheme, it would have to be the "oldest" unused new park. If someone has to drop Baker Bowl in 1938, he would have automatic rights to KC Municipal or Memorial in Baltimore, or something like that, but not to Three Rivers, etc. Only in the case of several stadiums disappearing at once might there need to be a draft.
4. Stadiums with a long history could be used throughout their history.
5. I, for one, have no objection to stadiums---Shibe being the prime example---that were really used by more than one team for many years, being used by more than one team.