It is like saying that adding a very thin and almost none viewable line to a picture is like paiting the picture from scatch.
What..? No, I think my statements are still correct.
Limiting the training speed of players drafted in the higher leagues does not appear a meaningful solution here. It would unnecessarily complicate the game.
It already the case today - veteran playersare trained much slower than rookies.
It just adding a parameter for the desicion and the training formula.
It is not just about adding a parameter to training. It is really making the system more complicated. If you make the training in higher leagues slower across the board, you shift the sweet spot of where the successful training of certain player types makes most sense. Overall it would suck for the higher leagues (limiting their choice and probably making things tougher), but I am personally undecided whether some added "suckiness" would be good or bad. And, on the other hand, if you give better draftees to higher league teams, they will be able to get a lot more money out of the draft than lower league teams. They can still sell those players (to lower league teams) after all.
Or if the idea is that the slower training is an attribute tied to the draftees themselves, you will make transfer market more complicated by making all future players have a variable, league-level-of-draft-time dependent, training speed in addition to their potential. This would probably mean that the high-league draftees will be mostly trained in higher leagues (in lower leagues they would have less value), after which they turn into non-trained players at pretty much all levels. The low-league draftees, on the other hand, would be (mostly) trained in lower leagues, and they would remain interesting for all teams for future training.
Or would the slower training attribute wear off the players at some age, or skill level, or gap to potential cap, or some other parameter? Or something else? I think there are some major implications here that really need to be thought out thoroughly. It serves no good to insist the suggestion is great, if you are not willing to critically think about it.
In case it will allow higher league's teams to actually train players, it will improve the game.
Teams in higher leagues do train players. They just seldom train their own draftees. Yes, I agree it would be nice to change that. But I don't see a problem-free solution on the table.
In case it will not affect the game (as you said, it will still be not affordable to train those players) - there is no reason to oppose this suggestion.
This change would definitely affect the game. I don't understand what you are exactly referring to as my words and what that reference is supposed to imply, but that is perhaps beside the point anyway. It is clear that changing the level of draftees and training speed of either individual players or individual teams would considerably affect the game. Whether the overall effect would be for good or bad, I haven't yet figured out entirely. But it would need to be significantly for the better to complicate the game in a way you suggest.
This is not as simple a change as you wish to make it appear.