Perhaps if you can at least point out the source of this:
He came right out and said the reason for what he did to the economy was to make training more profitable to try to get more players trained.
There you are. No arguing.
(270968.3)(270734.28)(270734.98) *
(270734.99) *
(270150.24)(270150.28)The two with asterisks are the most revealing. He did in fact say they like high TL prices as they encourage training. Conflating that with an organized effort to make sure that training is more profitable is a stretch; it was merely to try to balance out the prior situation where training was... well, don't let me put words in mouths, let's look at the start of the second starred post above:
Where there used to be balance in building a roster through drafting/training AND the transfer list, now we're going to have to build our rosters mainly through drafting/training.
Again, an exaggeration. We are not affecting the prices in such an order that would completely annihilate trading. I do like the change of tone though, we are all on the same side here.
This is a direct statement that the BB team is not directly aiming to make significant and dramatic changes in the economy there; the decisions being made were in the context of the TL prices already rising and this was an action to not significantly intervene. The motivations of training being more rewarded (coming back into a balance with trading) is true, but I think "what he did to the economy" is a massive overstatement.
I have considered your whole post, and there are three points (above) that I would like to address. (1) I understand now that training is at the apex of this game. (2) Managers utilizing many different approaches, each with an equal chance of success if they do it equally skillfully, would seem ideal to me, rather than favoring one to the exclusion of others. (3) We'll see if the market is balanced. My perception as manager of a lower- and mid-level team was that the market already favored training over transfer by a wide margin, and the recent change has further imbalanced it. We'll see.
(1) True. (2) A balance between these types of managers is exactly what we're trying to achieve. Details of that balance have been explained above. (3) This is, of course, an opinion from your standpoint and as such it is valued. Global statistics are a whole different game. I agree that we need time to see where this leads us.
This, I think, is the context - when the balance is too strong toward either over-incentivizing the reliance upon free agents or over-rewarding training, changes need to happen to encourage behavior that moves to the center. The pace of training ensures that while supply and demand controls prices, the userbase is going to be unable to significantly increase supply to intelligently capitalize on this. I don't see any evidence of an intentional action to completely overhaul the economy by BB fiat to enforce a pro-training agenda, which is what I'd expect to see if, as you wrote: "He came right out and said the reason for what he did to the economy was to make training more profitable to try to get more players trained."
I don't disagree with the characterization that at the time he was not disturbed by increasing prices, and that he did not move significantly to reduce them, and that reducing free agency might even have encouraged prices to rise further. I think that a fair reading of the quotes shows that rather than being a scheme by BB-Marin to intentionally impose an economic condition promoting training, it was instead the economy itself was already headed in this direction and Marin considered that as a positive step at the time towards better balance between training and building primarily through FA (the quotes related to that was in one of the non-starred pos