I was just mentioning that I already have another trainable good prospect which you could have noticed by looking at my team's roster and it does not make me change my mind about the overall situation.
Ah, ok, I understand. My comment was posted @everybody, which to me meant to no one in particular. The player you posted is a good prospect, but is a little raw to be expected to fill in for a starter in a pinch. This player
(36746240), as you noted, is a far worse prospect, but last game he was able to step in after my best defender fouled out and did an admirable job defensively against a $120K/wk 16.0 rating player, m2m, in a patient offensive set. So, imo, your player is unquestionably a better prospect. My trainee currently provides more depth, though. Is there an equilbrium point between our two approaches that would leave you better prepared to deal with an injury? The same 400k, spent on a 20-21 yo instead of an 18yo, etc? Or not spent at all like a "rainy day fund"? Sitting on an 18yo old MVP doesn't seem like it would have a positive impact on his value anyway. What's the difference between a prospect being injured for a week or a prospect that is intentionally not trained for a week as far as TPE is concerned?
If you give me the money to replace him with another who is similar, I have no problem to bin him forever.
I really think this would need to be part of the model, just to avoid exploits and "insurance fraud", otherwise someone could roll with a minimal doctor, trash his team, buy a new team at half price (minus insurance premium costs), and sell his originals for a tidy profit.
He does not cost 200k/week, but to me it does have a significant impact on my economy and competitiveness that I can't just overlook because I have another trainable player.
Injuries suck. A lot of this involves risk. If you are one injury away from being totally screwed you have already overlooked something, or you have assumed a risk in seeking a greater reward. Is that unfair, to say that?