People (Einpeitscher) are argueing that it is more costly on the TL to buy shorter players, but that isn't at all what the question is asking. So he is saying taller SGs are better because they cost less...? doesn't make any sense to me.
Yes, the question isn't asking it. But this is a strategic game and it is all about being successful in the long run. It may make sense to put the question into a wider context. SUccess is always related to the financial performance , most of which is driven by our combined performance in training players and exchanging these players on the transfer market.
I think the confusion is driven by different perspectives we take eg
Yes, less body height does not hinder the development of an SG
but also, less body height does add less to the development of an SG than a PG
Thought experiment: If I have a fixed budget to buy two guards that will share the same training regimen for the next 3 seasons or so, will I buy (if I could) 2 players of the exact same size? Or would I prefer to buy a smaller and a taller player?
As both get the same guard training regimen and if besides size, they look exactly the same in skills, relative to the taller player, the shorter player will develop a more pronounced PG profile over the next seasons. If I was looking for the top PG in my country, I must buy two players of different height.
So basically what I am saying is: developing a small player as SG does not hinder the development of the player but the positive evolution of your bank account. More resorce however would allow you to buy a better talent: even smaller, better skills, etc.
Look at your bank account and tell me if you can ignore this?