Agesim

[JH-SanAntonio]

You can't make people who are happy with their players trade.

You can't make players you want to dump worth something if they aren't to anyone else.

Young players aren't worth more "because they improve more", they are worth more because they won't lose points immediately and are less likely to retire.

Penalizing GMs who spend the time to make a deep roster by stripping their players won't increase trades or improve teams.  45-man rosters (or whatever) will stifle trading and increase the gap between owners who plan and design their rosters to succeed and those who already apparently struggle with 53. The same GMs that succeed with 53-man rosters will either A) succeed with 45 and find a way to make sure their "pool" guys are useless or B) quit, just like they would in any leisure activity where success is penalized.

I'm not saying that communication or trading is bad, but you're pointing at the wrong things IMHO.

If you want perennially weak teams to do better, offer to help.  Talk to them.  Trade with them.  Don't demand that other people subsidize them.

If your team always seems to suck, and nothing you do works... ask for help, suggestions, whatever.

And last, for those people frustrated with other owners' obsession with youth.... trade them your young guys for their vets.  What's the problem?

[Mario ADK]

Young players aren't worth more "because they improve more",

Jason, you are here? (And you know why i am saying this.....) Anyway:

I am surprised by what you say because older players are closer to their 99max-ratings (Paul once told me that ALL ratings in the FWL have a 99max-potential) and therefore improve less than younger players.

And even if the actual rating and the given TC-percentage for the skill is the same, a younger player usually gets a better improvement than an aging one.

So i would say that young players improve more. It can be seen in any TC we have done yet.