No. Not really. At least not if you accept the concept Bill James expressed many years ago, of each team having a reservoir of talent that rises and falls through the years. The amount of talent that can be used in a given year depends on where each player is on his career path. I think of it like a bell-shaped curve or an inverted parabola, though more flattened I suppose. Given the CBA, you get only a certain number of years at reasonable cost, and you have some control over which years those are. If you choose to start at age 18, you get a portion of the curve where the early years aren't worth very much at the major league level. If somehow you instead delay the start until age 35, you'd get the portion where the last years aren't worth very much. If you had perfect forecasting of a player's career, you could pick the window that maximized his value delivered. If you did this for every player in the system, you could pick those windows that maximize team performance over a period of years (with options to go for steady excellence over the years or try to pack the most value into certain years). For players with low ceilings, these decisions aren't make or break. For high-ceiling players, it matters. I'm not saying anything you don't understand and already believe, I'm sure. But it's an answer to why people aren't just being stubborn mules who would never bring a good player up if they were GM.