I originally voted no, but I actually like Chicken's idea of reducing the protected players (non rookie) from 5 to 4, and then forcing at least 1 rookie protected. The fewer the non-rookie protected, the more competitive the league is. It places a higher emphasis on the draft as well. And by protecting 1 rookie, it forces owners to use a little intuition and strategy. Teams will be required to either take a chance on a future superstar (e.g. Calvin Johnson) or take a less risky approach by protecting a player with less upside but decent stats in rookie year (e.g. someone like James Jones).
Thus, I don't think the commish should drop this agenda yet. I would break it down into 3 seperate changes as follows. 1) Whether we should continue with 5 protected vs 4 non-rookie and 1 rookie protected; 2) whether their should be 1 draft vs 2 drafts with 1 for rookie in May and the other for non-rookie in August; and 3) if we protect 1 (or 2) rookie(s), how do we assign GUR to those players.
At this point, I would recommend proceeding with more discussion and input on how this could work. We can try to reach some consensus than take a final vote on the matter later.
I think the vote was taken prematurely because their was no discussion on the matter and their was not enough interpretation on how it would be implemented.
I also agree with Chicken that any changes not be implemented until the 2009 offseason.