That sounds a healthy instinct. I agree with Jim O'Connor's subsequent remarks.
Agonising over "the transformation problem" accepts the perspective of what Marx would call the vulgar economists. It assumes there is a problem, and bogs undialectical marxists into mechanically trying to equate value with prices without accepting the equilibration of the overall dynamical process.
This is one reason why I boringly and repeatedly suggest it is better to avoid the term "labor theory of value" even as a convenient short hand term. The LTV was held by the classical economists before Marx and is not specifically marxist. Although certain texts spell out a LTV in idealised form that is abstract even though illustrated by concrete examples like so many shirts or bales of linen.
Marx and Engels did not use the term LTV. They do refer to "the law of value".
I suggest it is better to refer to the marxist theory of value. In the last ten years non-equilibrium modelling of economics have given renewed confidence to marxist economists who dismiss the plodding criticisms of Marx's overall theory. That is not to say we have to adopt a dogmatic view to marxism, or say that Marx could not make some mistakes in his calculations, which Engels did not pick up. But the overall dynamic is there.
The law of value and materialist dynamics remain crucial fundamental features of the marxist method, which have to be reapplied in current conditions. This is at a high level of generality and there are not simplistic solutions but IMHO they remain robust and relevant.
Chris Burford
London