Am I correct in my understanding that players do not accrue ML service time during the postseason? So I could put my top prospects on my playoff roster and still call them up next year after ~22 games to delay free agency by one season?

Yes but if they're good enough to be on your playoff roster, why the hell would you **** away 22 games next season?

162 games in their prime > 22 games as a rookie.

Do you think they're going to be in their prime in 11-12 seasons? Or have you not been in a world 11-12 seasons yet? You're "saving" a season that may never come.

The difference is their seventh season in the Majors, which is age ~29 (prime). I'm not sure where you're getting 11-12 seasons.

OK. This season(1). The next 4 seasons at minimum wage(5). 2 arb seasons(7). 5 long-term contract(12). If you're not planning that, I'm not sure why you're holding playoff roster-types back.

I'm only guaranteed control for seven years (six in your case). I'd obviously prefer to sign these guys long-term for seasons 8-12, but I can't control that if they're unwilling to re-sign/I can't afford to. Thus, the difference here is S7. I'd rather have them for a full season then than just ~22 games in their S1.

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.

Fair enough. Agree to disagree, I suppose.

I still prefer an entire year of cheap control over 22 games.

These posts are always entertaining and usually end the same way - the vet offers sage advice, the rookie stomps the foot

I have a 4.0 game lead in my division despite being 9.0 games under .500. I'm not too worried about the level of competition in this division.

Posted by NickKappel on 12/17/2016 9:13:00 PM (view original):
Fair enough. Agree to disagree, I suppose.

I still prefer an entire year of cheap control over 22 games.

We're not really disagreeing. It's your team.

But you showed that you don't have a full understanding of the game when you stated you only controlled them for 7 seasons. With that in mind, maybe, if only for a second, think about what you're doing.

One additional factor, there's an assumption that age 29 is a player's prime. Depending on the player it may already be past his prime. Power hitters, especially, I've seen their Power ratings begin to decline as early as age 28. As we all know, pitchers generally age far better.

If you're worried about whether a player will re-sign for a second LT, how many players are actually worth a second LT at what is generally past-prime age? Some owners might say almost none.

Posted by NickKappel on 12/18/2016 12:12:00 AM (view original):
I have a 4.0 game lead in my division despite being 9.0 games under .500. I'm not too worried about the level of competition in this division.

So the actual point of the original post was to seek validation of your brilliant moment of strategic clarity

Here's the thing(and the reason this annoys me):

There are many reasons to hold a player back.
1. With or without him, you can't compete.
2. Low durability. He's not going to play 150 so rest him in AAA then call him up.
3. He's only slightly better than who he's replacing.
4. Your early schedule is full of bad teams.
5. Your future payroll is a mess.

There are more but I'm not sure you're taking any of the above into consideration. You read somewhere that you SHOULD hold players back 20 games so you do. That's fine. But the fact that you didn't know you could keep players for 11 BL seasons SHOULD have given you pause to reflect on why you're doing it. Your response was "agree to disagree".

We've had several sitemail exchanges about gameplay so I have some level of understanding of your understanding of the game. I think you're missing the point here.