From Marin:
“1. The FA reduction is intentional.” Yes, I think we all realize that now.
“2. The effect of the FA rule changes is not as drastic as it seems.” I agree … and hope to God we are both right, since I see the direction of the change as negative.
“3. Inflation of player prices directly motivates training, which is a good thing in my book.” Yes, I think we all see that, too. Of course, making training less expensive and more logical would also have motivated training without staining the rest of the game so badly. Making training less expensive and more logical would be a rising tide that lifts all ships. You don’t get a chance to fundamentally improve the game like that very often, so I hope this one has not passed us by.
“4. … Nothing too drastic in the grand scheme of things.” I agree. It is the direction the game is taking that worries me.
From Lemonshine:
“1. The actual reduction of trainable players hurts training.” I agree. The draft cannot come close to providing enough trainable players, not even close. And new teams are not gifted with hardly any.
“2. When prices increase, the teams who suffer the most are the ones with a limited economy, so mainly those in lower leagues and/or with small arenas and/or fewer salary efficient players.” Yes, those of us in the lower- and mid-level leagues already know that the change damaged us the most. Why they would want to disadvantage the levels where there are the most managers, and where many of the managers are not yet hooked on BB, escapes me.
“3. It doesn't hurt everybody at all levels.” Right. As you point out, hoarders at the upper levels will do just fine, though why they would want to reward those people escapes me.
“4. If they wanted to reward training, it would seem completely logical to change and improve training.” Yes, I said much the same thing in discussing Marin’s point number three.
So, strangely enough I agree with all 4 of Marin’s points and all 4 of Lemonshine’s points.