Posted by pjfoster13 on 1/4/2017 6:01:00 PM (view original):
The goal of delaying service time is not to save money on one top player, it's to save money on ALL players that you call up.

Let's use the Chicago Cubs for example, because Cubs management had a dustup with Boras about Kris Bryant. The short-sighted idea is not to simply save a few mil on Bryant in 5 years and keep him for 11 instead of 10. The broader idea is to delay the $20 mil on Bryant, it's to ALSO delay the $15 mil on Rizzo, and $10 mil on Baez, and $10 mil on Schwarber, and $10 mil on Russell, and $10 mil on Edwards, etc etc. Those savings add up tremendously over the long haul, that's how you can afford the luxury of the extra year on Lester or Davis or Lackey or Chapman. That's the purpose. You're paying Bryant's money to somebody else even though you're still getting Bryant's production for free basically

Obv HBD economics are on a smaller-scale than MLB economics, but because everybody is on a level playing field for budgets it's arguably more important to do this in HBD. You are simply losing too much long-term value. If you're losing a wild card because you held back a guy for 20 games at the beginning then your team was simply not good enough. Plug a guy in from Rule 5, make a trade, manage your rotation differently by shortening it to 4-man for the first 20 games. Do literally anything besides call your prospect up for game 1. All that means is that you've wasted 135 free games from the previous season, you should have called him up already

Also, there's a weird quirk about the service time thing in general...There are 162 games and something like 20-25 off-days, but players only accumulate 172 days of service time per season. The service time rules for arbitration are that a player gets to file for free agency after 6.000 years, so teams purposely calculate exactly when a player is going to reach 5.171. You could actually leave a guy in the minors for only 10 days at the beginning of three separate seasons (and you would have the option years available to do this), rather than leaving him in the minors for 30 days at the beginning of one season. But because theoretically he will be better in seasons 2 and 3, everyone rightfully chooses to lump the delay all together at the beginning of year 1 when he's younger and theoretically not as good yet

"You could actually leave a guy in the minors for only 10 days at the beginning of three separate seasons (and you would have the option years available to do this), rather than leaving him in the minors for 30 days at the beginning of one season."

This is incorrect. Minor league assignments of less than 20 days are considered ML service time.

Posted by pjfoster13 on 1/4/2017 6:06:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 1/4/2017 6:01:00 PM (view original):
Let's not use the Cubs. RL and HBD don't always work the same. I stopped reading there because I assume the rest is rubbish.

Wanna talk HBD? Please do. Don't compare HBD and RL.

It's the exact same concept with different numbers. Literally the exact same concept. More important in HBD. It is objectively wrong to call up prospects for game 1 and you're easily worse off for doing it. I'm a man of the people, I want people (even you) to know the correct thing. You can be a know-it-all if you want

No, it's real-life players and real-life money. Owners pay millions, if not billions, of dollars to own teams. They're in investment and, if they don't sell for profit, they'll pass said team down to their children.

We pay $10-25 for a team. If we get bored, we move on. So many people who worry about season 11 do not, and will not, see season 11. If you have a chance to make the playoffs, screwing around now for what might happen in real-life 2020 in an internet game is plain *** stupid.

But this is another example of someone saying "Always" when there is no "always" in HBD.

Would the situation be any different if you were guaranteed a playoff berth? I have had a week division for years now and have won the division by 10+ games every year. If this is the case, waiting 20 days for a call-up makes a little sense doesn't it?

The correct answer is "it depends". As in, it depends on your particular situation, personnel, expectations for the season, etc.

As Mike has said, touting "always" or "never" as a hard and fast rule is seldom the best advice.

Posted by kartchy on 1/4/2017 7:03:00 PM (view original):
Would the situation be any different if you were guaranteed a playoff berth? I have had a week division for years now and have won the division by 10+ games every year. If this is the case, waiting 20 days for a call-up makes a little sense doesn't it?

I'm not sure anyone is ever "guaranteed a playoff berth" but, if they are, I would hold players back. Hell, I might keep them in AAA all season and hold 'em back next year and, if still guaranteed a playoff berth, every season until I'm out of options. They're my "playoff team guys" until I don't need them to be.

Posted by tecwrg on 1/4/2017 6:43:00 PM (view original):

Posted by pjfoster13 on 1/4/2017 6:01:00 PM (view original):
The goal of delaying service time is not to save money on one top player, it's to save money on ALL players that you call up.

Let's use the Chicago Cubs for example, because Cubs management had a dustup with Boras about Kris Bryant. The short-sighted idea is not to simply save a few mil on Bryant in 5 years and keep him for 11 instead of 10. The broader idea is to delay the $20 mil on Bryant, it's to ALSO delay the $15 mil on Rizzo, and $10 mil on Baez, and $10 mil on Schwarber, and $10 mil on Russell, and $10 mil on Edwards, etc etc. Those savings add up tremendously over the long haul, that's how you can afford the luxury of the extra year on Lester or Davis or Lackey or Chapman. That's the purpose. You're paying Bryant's money to somebody else even though you're still getting Bryant's production for free basically

Obv HBD economics are on a smaller-scale than MLB economics, but because everybody is on a level playing field for budgets it's arguably more important to do this in HBD. You are simply losing too much long-term value. If you're losing a wild card because you held back a guy for 20 games at the beginning then your team was simply not good enough. Plug a guy in from Rule 5, make a trade, manage your rotation differently by shortening it to 4-man for the first 20 games. Do literally anything besides call your prospect up for game 1. All that means is that you've wasted 135 free games from the previous season, you should have called him up already

Also, there's a weird quirk about the service time thing in general...There are 162 games and something like 20-25 off-days, but players only accumulate 172 days of service time per season. The service time rules for arbitration are that a player gets to file for free agency after 6.000 years, so teams purposely calculate exactly when a player is going to reach 5.171. You could actually leave a guy in the minors for only 10 days at the beginning of three separate seasons (and you would have the option years available to do this), rather than leaving him in the minors for 30 days at the beginning of one season. But because theoretically he will be better in seasons 2 and 3, everyone rightfully chooses to lump the delay all together at the beginning of year 1 when he's younger and theoretically not as good yet

"You could actually leave a guy in the minors for only 10 days at the beginning of three separate seasons (and you would have the option years available to do this), rather than leaving him in the minors for 30 days at the beginning of one season."

This is incorrect. Minor league assignments of less than 20 days are considered ML service time.

It wouldn't count as a minor league assignment in the same sense that you're thinking

Take Player Profile: Orlando Mercado for example, his ML service time prior to the beginning of this season is 0.013 because I used him for a failed stretch run at the end of the previous season, I "borrowed" 13 of his days from this season, and my plan is to call him up 13 cycles later than the 30 or whatever that I normally would. But let's say I call him up 10 cycles into this season, he's not just going to get those 10 cycles piled onto his total, those 10 cycles don't count. He would still be 0.013 instead of 0.023

Posted by MikeT23 on 12/17/2016 6:30:00 PM (view original):
Well, you're mistaken. After you arb them the 2nd time, they ALWAYS accept a long-term deal.

And, if you're afraid you won't be able to afford them, they're not good enough to hold back. You make a point to afford franchise players.

Personally, I have learned some good information from this exchange.

A few questions for clarification:
1) So after a player second year of arbitration, he will always sign a long-term contract? Does it have to be 5 years or will that vary?

2) Are we talking about 20 games, or 20 HBD days?

3) Roster Expansion: I don't understand this fully in HBD. If you add a player to the 40 man roster for the playoffs/Roster Expansion when the season is over, if you wanted to send him back to the minors will you also have to pass him through waivers to remove him from the 40 man roster?

Thanks.

Posted by pjfoster13 on 1/6/2017 6:21:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 1/4/2017 6:43:00 PM (view original):

Posted by pjfoster13 on 1/4/2017 6:01:00 PM (view original):
The goal of delaying service time is not to save money on one top player, it's to save money on ALL players that you call up.

Let's use the Chicago Cubs for example, because Cubs management had a dustup with Boras about Kris Bryant. The short-sighted idea is not to simply save a few mil on Bryant in 5 years and keep him for 11 instead of 10. The broader idea is to delay the $20 mil on Bryant, it's to ALSO delay the $15 mil on Rizzo, and $10 mil on Baez, and $10 mil on Schwarber, and $10 mil on Russell, and $10 mil on Edwards, etc etc. Those savings add up tremendously over the long haul, that's how you can afford the luxury of the extra year on Lester or Davis or Lackey or Chapman. That's the purpose. You're paying Bryant's money to somebody else even though you're still getting Bryant's production for free basically

Obv HBD economics are on a smaller-scale than MLB economics, but because everybody is on a level playing field for budgets it's arguably more important to do this in HBD. You are simply losing too much long-term value. If you're losing a wild card because you held back a guy for 20 games at the beginning then your team was simply not good enough. Plug a guy in from Rule 5, make a trade, manage your rotation differently by shortening it to 4-man for the first 20 games. Do literally anything besides call your prospect up for game 1. All that means is that you've wasted 135 free games from the previous season, you should have called him up already

Also, there's a weird quirk about the service time thing in general...There are 162 games and something like 20-25 off-days, but players only accumulate 172 days of service time per season. The service time rules for arbitration are that a player gets to file for free agency after 6.000 years, so teams purposely calculate exactly when a player is going to reach 5.171. You could actually leave a guy in the minors for only 10 days at the beginning of three separate seasons (and you would have the option years available to do this), rather than leaving him in the minors for 30 days at the beginning of one season. But because theoretically he will be better in seasons 2 and 3, everyone rightfully chooses to lump the delay all together at the beginning of year 1 when he's younger and theoretically not as good yet

"You could actually leave a guy in the minors for only 10 days at the beginning of three separate seasons (and you would have the option years available to do this), rather than leaving him in the minors for 30 days at the beginning of one season."

This is incorrect. Minor league assignments of less than 20 days are considered ML service time.

It wouldn't count as a minor league assignment in the same sense that you're thinking

Take Player Profile: Orlando Mercado for example, his ML service time prior to the beginning of this season is 0.013 because I used him for a failed stretch run at the end of the previous season, I "borrowed" 13 of his days from this season, and my plan is to call him up 13 cycles later than the 30 or whatever that I normally would. But let's say I call him up 10 cycles into this season, he's not just going to get those 10 cycles piled onto his total, those 10 cycles don't count. He would still be 0.013 instead of 0.023

That is flat-out incorrect. Those 10 days would be treated as major league service (because 10 < 20), and would be added to his ML service time.

Posted by DWobble on 1/8/2017 1:10:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 12/17/2016 6:30:00 PM (view original):
Well, you're mistaken. After you arb them the 2nd time, they ALWAYS accept a long-term deal.

And, if you're afraid you won't be able to afford them, they're not good enough to hold back. You make a point to afford franchise players.

Personally, I have learned some good information from this exchange.

A few questions for clarification:
1) So after a player second year of arbitration, he will always sign a long-term contract? Does it have to be 5 years or will that vary?

2) Are we talking about 20 games, or 20 HBD days?

3) Roster Expansion: I don't understand this fully in HBD. If you add a player to the 40 man roster for the playoffs/Roster Expansion when the season is over, if you wanted to send him back to the minors will you also have to pass him through waivers to remove him from the 40 man roster?

Thanks.

1) Yes. It can vary.

2) It's 20 HBD days after the minor league schedule has started. My rule of thumb: if your minor league season starts with the AM cycle on a Monday, do your call ups after the AM cycle the following Monday. It may be an extra couple of days, but it takes the math out of the equation.

3) Yes. But if he's good enough to add to your 40 to add him to your playoff roster, why would you want to risk exposing him to waivers?

Posted by DWobble on 1/8/2017 1:10:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 12/17/2016 6:30:00 PM (view original):
Well, you're mistaken. After you arb them the 2nd time, they ALWAYS accept a long-term deal.

And, if you're afraid you won't be able to afford them, they're not good enough to hold back. You make a point to afford franchise players.

Personally, I have learned some good information from this exchange.

A few questions for clarification:
1) So after a player second year of arbitration, he will always sign a long-term contract? Does it have to be 5 years or will that vary?

2) Are we talking about 20 games, or 20 HBD days?

3) Roster Expansion: I don't understand this fully in HBD. If you add a player to the 40 man roster for the playoffs/Roster Expansion when the season is over, if you wanted to send him back to the minors will you also have to pass him through waivers to remove him from the 40 man roster?

Thanks.

1/ Yes, players will sign LT after second arb/before third. You have to meet his demands for length of contract, but they don't always demand 5 years - so if a player asks for, say two or three, you can opt to extend that to four or five if you wish. If you arb a player the third time then it's dependent on his patience rating whether he will insist on going FA after that. I've only had it work with players over 90 Patience.

2/ 20 HBD days. I like tecwrg's rule of thumb, give it one full week real time and you'll know you're good.

3/ Anytime you attempt to remove any player from the 40 he must have cleared waivers first. Designating the player removes him from the 40 immediately and you then have - I think - ten real life / 30 HBD days to waive, trade or release him. (Someone correct me if I'm wrong.)

Posted by pjfoster13 on 1/6/2017 6:21:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 1/4/2017 6:43:00 PM (view original):

Posted by pjfoster13 on 1/4/2017 6:01:00 PM (view original):
The goal of delaying service time is not to save money on one top player, it's to save money on ALL players that you call up.

Let's use the Chicago Cubs for example, because Cubs management had a dustup with Boras about Kris Bryant. The short-sighted idea is not to simply save a few mil on Bryant in 5 years and keep him for 11 instead of 10. The broader idea is to delay the $20 mil on Bryant, it's to ALSO delay the $15 mil on Rizzo, and $10 mil on Baez, and $10 mil on Schwarber, and $10 mil on Russell, and $10 mil on Edwards, etc etc. Those savings add up tremendously over the long haul, that's how you can afford the luxury of the extra year on Lester or Davis or Lackey or Chapman. That's the purpose. You're paying Bryant's money to somebody else even though you're still getting Bryant's production for free basically

Obv HBD economics are on a smaller-scale than MLB economics, but because everybody is on a level playing field for budgets it's arguably more important to do this in HBD. You are simply losing too much long-term value. If you're losing a wild card because you held back a guy for 20 games at the beginning then your team was simply not good enough. Plug a guy in from Rule 5, make a trade, manage your rotation differently by shortening it to 4-man for the first 20 games. Do literally anything besides call your prospect up for game 1. All that means is that you've wasted 135 free games from the previous season, you should have called him up already

Also, there's a weird quirk about the service time thing in general...There are 162 games and something like 20-25 off-days, but players only accumulate 172 days of service time per season. The service time rules for arbitration are that a player gets to file for free agency after 6.000 years, so teams purposely calculate exactly when a player is going to reach 5.171. You could actually leave a guy in the minors for only 10 days at the beginning of three separate seasons (and you would have the option years available to do this), rather than leaving him in the minors for 30 days at the beginning of one season. But because theoretically he will be better in seasons 2 and 3, everyone rightfully chooses to lump the delay all together at the beginning of year 1 when he's younger and theoretically not as good yet

"You could actually leave a guy in the minors for only 10 days at the beginning of three separate seasons (and you would have the option years available to do this), rather than leaving him in the minors for 30 days at the beginning of one season."

This is incorrect. Minor league assignments of less than 20 days are considered ML service time.

It wouldn't count as a minor league assignment in the same sense that you're thinking

Take Player Profile: Orlando Mercado for example, his ML service time prior to the beginning of this season is 0.013 because I used him for a failed stretch run at the end of the previous season, I "borrowed" 13 of his days from this season, and my plan is to call him up 13 cycles later than the 30 or whatever that I normally would. But let's say I call him up 10 cycles into this season, he's not just going to get those 10 cycles piled onto his total, those 10 cycles don't count. He would still be 0.013 instead of 0.023

10 days is less than 20 so he would accumulate MLB time

Players

How does a player gain big league years of experience? Is service time a part of it?

Yes. We track service time in days. It is viewable by hovering over the ML Years value on a player's profile. Each day a player is on the big league roster during the regular season (even if he's on the DL), he accrues a day of service. In addition, we track the # of days a player is on optional assignment on a minor league team. If a player is on optional assignment less than 20 days during the season, this total is added to his big league service time. At the end of the season, if a player has 172 days or more (including any optional service days < 20), he is given a year of big league experience. Excess days or days under the 172 day minimum roll over into the next season. These years are what dictate arbitration eligibility and free-agent eligibility. It is important to note that a player registers days on optional assignment only after the minor league schedule has begun. There is typically a 1 or 2 HBD day difference between when the big league schedule starts and when the minor league schedule starts.

Posted by tecwrg on 1/8/2017 3:24:00 PM (view original):

Posted by DWobble on 1/8/2017 1:10:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 12/17/2016 6:30:00 PM (view original):
Well, you're mistaken. After you arb them the 2nd time, they ALWAYS accept a long-term deal.

And, if you're afraid you won't be able to afford them, they're not good enough to hold back. You make a point to afford franchise players.

Personally, I have learned some good information from this exchange.

A few questions for clarification:
1) So after a player second year of arbitration, he will always sign a long-term contract? Does it have to be 5 years or will that vary?

2) Are we talking about 20 games, or 20 HBD days?

3) Roster Expansion: I don't understand this fully in HBD. If you add a player to the 40 man roster for the playoffs/Roster Expansion when the season is over, if you wanted to send him back to the minors will you also have to pass him through waivers to remove him from the 40 man roster?

Thanks.

1) Yes. It can vary.

2) It's 20 HBD days after the minor league schedule has started. My rule of thumb: if your minor league season starts with the AM cycle on a Monday, do your call ups after the AM cycle the following Monday. It may be an extra couple of days, but it takes the math out of the equation.

3) Yes. But if he's good enough to add to your 40 to add him to your playoff roster, why would you want to risk exposing him to waivers?

#3 He will have options. You only have to put them on waivers if they don't have options.

He was asking about demoting AND removing from the 40. You always have to go through waivers to remove from the 40.

OK. Not sure why anyone would remove a player from the 40.

It should also be noted that ONLY players on the 40 at roster expansion are playoff-eligible. You can't add a player to the 40 at game 156 for the playoffs.

Okay – it has been one season since I originated this thread, and there are still parts of this service time issue I still do not understand. Advise please:

I am not asking whether or not I should promote these players from AAA to ML, just trying to understand the service time/arb/FA impact. I have acquired a couple of players via trade and have them sitting in AAA. We are not a contender yet, so I can either go ahead and call them up for the beginning of this season, or leave them in AAA for a while. They are almost fully developed.

Anyway, the three players have the following service time:

1.010

1.097

0.101

So my question is with regard to service time only, is there any reason to keep them in AAA for awhile (and if so how long?), Or should I go ahead and call them up to the ML.

Thanks.