Athletes don't develop in a straight line in any sport. Its more like extremely rapid development for the first few years and then very very slow development or no development at all, followed by a period of slow decline and eventually a rapid drop off (almost as rapid as they started).
As reflected by the fact that optimum training age is 18 - 21.
Training and coaches (tactics) IMO should relate more to team chemistry and how well a certain group of players can execute a given offence/defence. IMO even coaching kids their individual development in skills is pretty slow relatively but their TEAM growth in learning plays/offences etc. and playing together through a season etc. is where they really grow and improve.
I agree this would add an interesting aspect to planning your team, who to sell, who to keep, etc. But teams that have been around longer w/ the same squad would have higher ratings in this area. Doesn't that go against what you want for new teams to get 'competitive' faster with older teams?
ONE good draft pick (the first) and 1 or 2 that might be trainable is not gonna make a team that starts 5 players automatically competitive... Also if everyone had players making approximately the same amounts then winning would come down to strategy, not who has the best players via having played the game the longest.
It IS down to strategy. Your strategy for building up your team. Balancing your economy and player development. Players who have been playing longer have had more time to establish, build income and train their players. Why should a new player be able to compete evenly straight away? Or given the fast forward button? How is that fair to the older players?
Since you like to make references to 'real' basketball, show me a NEW team that is competitive with an established team immediately without some sponsor pumping in billions of dollars into it. THAT is just not realistic.
I'm suggesting the draft is a place where the competition can be leveled, by making it fair and balanced and meaningful. As long as draftees are 100% not going to make an impact the draft is unmeaningful, and to boot it is not balanced or fair league to league. I hopecoming changes at the very least even it out.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but at the end of the day, your argument is that each league should be more consistent with the strength of the draft pool, a generally stronger draft pool to make things more competitive and help new teams get competitive faster.
Again I'll suggest to you that the draft pool is supposed to be random and based on luck. Some people get lucky and get nice drafts. Other people don't. Some leagues will luck out with great players in the pool and others won't have one that is great. To me this is realistic.
The assuming the older teams do better as they have had more time to established their '200k' players, they get later picks on their choice of players. This lends to helping the new teams have an advantage of building stronger team with the first choice of the better players.
How is it realistic that every draft pool player is decent, useful and can have an impact on the team? Why not jus eliminate the lower potentials and salary players all together then. To 'even' out the playing field faster?
To me it just sounds like you are frustrated with not so good luck with the last draft. Or want a fast-forward button to catch up with teams who have worked hard to build their rosters.