This is probably an old debate, but how many days should a player stay in the minors so that you can get almost an extra season before he can go free agent? I have been using 25 days. Any other thoughts? Please explain how a different answer works. 

There's no debate about how long to wait. 20 HBD days starting with the first minor-league game. If you call him up after a full week of real life has passed, you're safe. The debate is whether it's s smart thing to do. Assuming he's better than someone playing on your ML team and you expect to compete for a playoff spot, you're weakening your team for 20 games, half of which are against division opponents. Is increasing the chance of falling a game short of playoffs worth pushing a small amount of salary off by one season and controlling the player for 11 seasons instead of 10?

If it's your Cincy team in Bench, you've been finishing a few games out of first for the last three seasons.   If you've been doing the "hold the player back for 25 games" thing, you've probably been hurting yourself.    Congrats.

I prefer getting an extra full season from a player than an extra 20 games from a rookie. Common sense all good owners use

If you say so.

It makes sense if all of the following happen to be true — non-competitive team, young enough player that he won't be in decline 11 seasons from now, owner who is sure he'll be around 11 seasons from now, in a world that he's sure will still exist 11 seasons from now. For the other 98% of the time, common sense tells good owners that improving your chances to win a World Series is better than locking up a guy's age 34 season in 2020. Plus, a majority of players who are with you for 10 seasons will stick around anyway, so you are probably not gaining an extra season by weakening your team now; all you're doing is saving about 1% of your payroll for a few seasons. Depending on the player's growth, delaying arb/FA by a season can cost you more in the long term if his demands are higher when he does hit Arb/FA with another season of development.

What possible difference does it make that he's a rookie if he's beter than what's in your lineup? Your realize that binary simulations of baseball players do not have jitters, right? Common sense says a stronger team is preferable to a weaker team.

What percentage of the time is this "tactic" being used on a player who's going to be a real difference-maker eight, nine, ten seasons down the line?  I'd bet that most of the time it's being used on players who won't even be on the team when it's time for it to "pay off."  But how many owners track that stat?

For me it depends too whether it is an SP or a position player that is being promoted. AN SP is only missing 4 starts. I'm more willing to roll the dice on that small of a sample size and hope that my #5 SP will at least represent me half decently. An SP will also likely be a better player in 11 seasons than he is now. A position player is obvious: if he's good enough to start then bring him up. If he's only going to pinch hit or sit on the bench then keep him in AAA. If thats the case we're probably not having the discussion anyway. A hot shot 22 y/o is also probably going to be just as good if not better at 22 then he will be at 33 anyway.

I promoted  Hardball Dynasty – Fantasy Baseball Sim Games - Player Profile: Yonder Gil in his 1st season of pro ball to the ML w/o hesitation. He has played every day. Kept me somewhat in the PO hunt. And has at least kept me from wondering if I will meet MWR. 

Posted by jetsons on 10/3/2015 4:03:00 PM (view original):
I prefer getting an extra full season from a player than an extra 20 games from a rookie. Common sense all good owners use

LOL

Good owners like to win games and make the playoffs.   They spend less time worrying about which 33 y/o player will be on their team in 2018.

Most of the "good" owners who use this strategy haven't been in a world 15 seasons.

Posted by jetsons on 10/3/2015 4:03:00 PM (view original):
I prefer getting an extra full season from a player than an extra 20 games from a rookie. Common sense all good owners use

The correct answer, of course, is "it depends".

It depends on your expectations for your team this season (playoff contender, or rebuilding), and how much better the rookie is over the player whose spot he'll be taking on the roster.

If you hold him back now just to get that extra season of control 11 seasons from now, and you miss a playoff spot by a game, then how did that "common sense" work out for you?

That's right.

To do it every time is dumb.   To never do it is equally dumb.    If I have a playoff contender in a tough division, I'm not waiting 20 games.   If I have a playoff contender in a weak division, I'll wait.    If I'm a non-contender, the player matters more than anything.   If he's 25 y/o, there's no point holding him back because I probably don't want him at 35.

I have a SP I'm holding back.  Won 60-something games last year (first year with the team), but expect to do much better after getting rid of essentially every pitcher from last season.  Probably not a contender.  Fringe WC team at best if everything goes right (highly unlikely).  If I thought I was ready to compete this year, I'd call him up in a heartbeat.  I could probably make a case for keeping him down all season and 20 games next season if I was taking the strategy to a ridiculous extreme. 

I think the situation dictates the right move to make.  I called up a 24 year old position player with 2 minor league seasons last season on the same team because he was ready and I didn't want to risk any issues with the MWR.  That same SP was probably ready too, but a 21 year old with 3 years in the minors.  I might have won 5 more games with him.  Right call?  I don't know, I suppose it depends on who you ask, but I am comfortable with the decision.

Why does it matter so much if he wants to hold a guy back for 20 games to save a year of service?  Is there only one successful strategy in this game?   

Wait, there must be, some people know it all and have all the answers and couldn't possibly be wrong about anything.  Nothing proves that more than this: 

Montgomery Red Bricks

joshkvt

26-60

.302

Pretty sure only one person claimed it was the right/wrong thing to do everytime.   The OP. 

Just didn't like the tone of the first response.  And have seen it in other threads.  He just asked a question.  He didn't need a brow beating about how it was the wrong thing to do, as if it had never worked out successfully in ways other than the exceptions noted by the responding poster in later responses.