Sure man, that could happen too. Absolutely. Can't plan for it though. None of us can control the outcome. That's being results-oriented.

ALWAYS = "under default circumstances". It goes without saying that whenever I say "This is always* true" that I don't also have to include a footnote that says "....*presuming you don't die tomorrow". Everybody knows that, man

I agree with Mike. I do think more often than not (much more often than not) it's the right thing to leave them down for 20 games, but there indeed are situations where leaving them down because you always have to do it is idiotic. For example, if your window of being competitive is closing, those 20 games are way, way, way more important than the extra year when you're rebuilding.

Posted by pjfoster13 on 6/9/2017 12:15:00 PM (view original):
B) It's situational as I laid out. Sometimes it's right, sometimes it's dumb. Anyone saying "Always" in HBD is giving bad advice(except for 20m in training).

And yes this is an ALWAYS concept. It ALWAYS saves you money so it's ALWAYS good. It's trading 2 wins now for 10 wins later. 10 is always better than 2. Always.

if those 2 extra "now" wins get you into the playoffs but the 10 extra "later" wins get you from 4th place to 3rd place are the 10 "later" wins really better?

Posted by wylie715 on 6/9/2017 6:32:00 PM (view original):

Posted by pjfoster13 on 6/9/2017 12:15:00 PM (view original):
B) It's situational as I laid out. Sometimes it's right, sometimes it's dumb. Anyone saying "Always" in HBD is giving bad advice(except for 20m in training).

And yes this is an ALWAYS concept. It ALWAYS saves you money so it's ALWAYS good. It's trading 2 wins now for 10 wins later. 10 is always better than 2. Always.

if those 2 extra "now" wins get you into the playoffs but the 10 extra "later" wins get you from 4th place to 3rd place are the 10 "later" wins really better?

That's not how it works. They don't get you "from 4th to 3rd", they get you "from 1st to bye in the first round". Creating a hypothetical and trying to use that to prove an invalid point is the most common logical fallacy.

Like I don't even understand what circumstances are getting you from 1st instantly back down to 4th in the first place. Am I losing 10 free agents in the same offseason, where now all of a sudden I'm horrible?? Hell, if that's the case then I'm saving extra money for a 4th season of tanking-for-IFA instead of 3. Maybe that's what slash meant by "window is about to lose / team is decline." Still trading 2 wins now for 10 wins later though, so, yeah. Still correct

I'm not wrong, but you're too ego-maniacal to ever admit it. Odds are if you're rebuilding at that point (which you would be in my example), that guy is gone before he's through Arb anyway and you just helped someone else out.

I'm out of your insanity too...go ahead and tell me I'm wrong again. I won't be checking in to see. Good day.

Posted by slashtc on 6/9/2017 6:43:00 PM (view original):
I'm not wrong, but you're too ego-maniacal to ever admit it. Odds are if you're rebuilding at that point (which you would be in my example), that guy is gone before he's through Arb anyway and you just helped someone else out.

whoa whoa whoa. Ok, let's just hang on a second ok? So you used the specific wording "if your window of being competitive is closing". When you say this I assume you mean at the END of a season as opposed to at the beginning, it sounds like you're saying your team is in imminent decline. Honestly that's the spirit of the OP, he's asking if he should call a guy up for 13 games at the END of the season. "Odds are you're rebuilding at that point" aka immediately after rollover, if you're in imminent decline where this is even a talking point???

You do realize that you can call a guy up for 13 cycles at the end of the season, and then put him back in the minors to begin next season if he has 1 minor league option, right? Player Profile: Paco Trevino. Spent 10 cycles in the majors in his age 19 season, spent half a season in minors in his age 20 season. Service time is an aggregate value, not a consecutive value. Next season you just wait 38 cycles instead of 25. Mike himself said this with the 2nd/3rd post of this thread. If season 1 is "playoff run" and season 2 is "rebuilding", sure borrow the service time from season 2 and apply it to season 1. You're still saving the arb season. It's the same ALWAYS concept just a modified version. ALWAYS DELAY ARBITRATION BECAUSE IT SAVES YOU MONEY.

Additionally, if you trade for a guy that the previous owner started in majors in game 1, if the player has 1 minor league option you can choose assign him to the minors in the MIDDLE of the season for 25 cycles and it still delays arbitration-- Player Profile: Nick Holmes.

If you think I'm saying "ALWAYS WAIT 25 GAMES AT THE BEGINNING" then you are completely misunderstanding the concept and you are completely misunderstanding what I'm saying. I am instructing you to ALWAYS DELAY ARBITRATION BECAUSE IT ALWAYS SAVES YOU MONEY. However the hell you need to do that is your choice, figure it out for yourself. Beginning, end, middle, whatever. Most often it's at the beginning. If it's at the end, plan on investing extra time at the beginning next season (contending or rebuilding).

for you tl;dr folks-- Regardless of WHEN the 25 cycles occur, it's always correct to delay arbitration

Honestly it sounds like most people don't even realize that the 25 major league cycles can occur whenever you want (beginning/middle/end). Beginning is most common because it typically makes the most sense. You're allowed to borrow but it still needs to add up

Posted by pjfoster13 on 6/9/2017 6:44:00 PM (view original):

Posted by wylie715 on 6/9/2017 6:32:00 PM (view original):

Posted by pjfoster13 on 6/9/2017 12:15:00 PM (view original):
B) It's situational as I laid out. Sometimes it's right, sometimes it's dumb. Anyone saying "Always" in HBD is giving bad advice(except for 20m in training).

And yes this is an ALWAYS concept. It ALWAYS saves you money so it's ALWAYS good. It's trading 2 wins now for 10 wins later. 10 is always better than 2. Always.

if those 2 extra "now" wins get you into the playoffs but the 10 extra "later" wins get you from 4th place to 3rd place are the 10 "later" wins really better?

That's not how it works. They don't get you "from 4th to 3rd", they get you "from 1st to bye in the first round". Creating a hypothetical and trying to use that to prove an invalid point is the most common logical fallacy.

Like I don't even understand what circumstances are getting you from 1st instantly back down to 4th in the first place. Am I losing 10 free agents in the same offseason, where now all of a sudden I'm horrible?? Hell, if that's the case then I'm saving extra money for a 4th season of tanking-for-IFA instead of 3. Maybe that's what slash meant by "window is about to lose / team is decline." Still trading 2 wins now for 10 wins later though, so, yeah. Still correct

you don't understand? Look at the Giants. Last season at the all star break, they had the best record in baseball. Since then they have played like crap. What happen? Injuries happen, getting old all of the sudden happens. There's no guarantee that the team that is playing well now, will still be playing well later.

Posted by MikeT23 on 5/11/2017 1:17:00 PM (view original):
13 games won't matter.

I realize I'm not answering your question because I despise the "hold them back" strategy and that's wrong. If you're doing the "hold them back 20 games" strategy, which I hate, just hold him back 33 games next year and you'll get the same result.

The only reason we're still arguing about this is because of THIS post, where we have the statement of "hold them back 20 games" strategy, which I hate instead of saying "hold them back 20 games at the beginning" strategy, which I hate. ?It's important to say things correctly, Mike

The first statement is completely wrong 100% of the time, so I objected. That statement is misleading people. The second statement is fine, I myself have provided examples where I held guys back in the middle. Hell, it doesn't even have to be in the player's rookie season if you don't want! You can start a guy in the majors for a full season, and then throw him in the minors for 25 cycles in season 2 if he has an option year.

Service time is aggregate, not consecutive

What does Tl;dr mean?

Posted by pjfoster13 on 6/9/2017 6:44:00 PM (view original):

Posted by wylie715 on 6/9/2017 6:32:00 PM (view original):

Posted by pjfoster13 on 6/9/2017 12:15:00 PM (view original):
B) It's situational as I laid out. Sometimes it's right, sometimes it's dumb. Anyone saying "Always" in HBD is giving bad advice(except for 20m in training).

And yes this is an ALWAYS concept. It ALWAYS saves you money so it's ALWAYS good. It's trading 2 wins now for 10 wins later. 10 is always better than 2. Always.

if those 2 extra "now" wins get you into the playoffs but the 10 extra "later" wins get you from 4th place to 3rd place are the 10 "later" wins really better?

That's not how it works. They don't get you "from 4th to 3rd", they get you "from 1st to bye in the first round". Creating a hypothetical and trying to use that to prove an invalid point is the most common logical fallacy.

Like I don't even understand what circumstances are getting you from 1st instantly back down to 4th in the first place. Am I losing 10 free agents in the same offseason, where now all of a sudden I'm horrible?? Hell, if that's the case then I'm saving extra money for a 4th season of tanking-for-IFA instead of 3. Maybe that's what slash meant by "window is about to lose / team is decline." Still trading 2 wins now for 10 wins later though, so, yeah. Still correct

Maybe circumstances such as the other teams in the division improving and possibly overtaking your hypothetical 1st place standing. It seems to me that your theory is based on you always winning your division. What happens when you don"t win all those FA bids and your team can't compete the way you expected? You saved money earlier but now you're stuck with it. It could happen. What happens when arb years are depleted and you sign the player long term and he goes down for the season? Then a couple more guys go down? Do you tank it and keep ML ready players down to save arb years or do you try to win with players that are ready? Everybody has a different plan and different available players. Some people want to win and need to use whatever resources available, which may include arb eligible players, and lose that extra year of arbitration in the process. To me that makes sense and it means you don't always hold a player back at any point in his career or in a season. It's situational and not always the the thing to do. Apparently it works great for you and that's awesome. Not everyone's on board though and that's ok too.

Posted by strikeout26 on 6/9/2017 8:36:00 PM (view original):
What does Tl;dr mean?

The ironically abbreviated "Too long; didn't read"

Thanks.