Thanks for the in-depth reply :-)
I found, when playing my chessmaster a decade or so ago (where I ~legitimately ran my rating up to 1600 *against the computer), that if I play 10 min games, or sometimes even *5* minute games, my attention span slips during the inevitable 'cooldown' two-minutes-without-activity-followed-by-a-blitz-of-inhumanly-fast-moves, and my performance took a nosedive. So I settled on 2:3 Fisher time, with 1:4 Fisher time sometimes being as desirable for my brain's engagement/focus.
Playing 3 minute blitz is, indeed, outside of my comfort zone--which is why I keep playing them ;-) I'm getting better at it, and that makes my endgame scrambles a whale of a lot more effective than they ever were playing against the computer. I suspect something like 3:2 is where I'll end up after I master 3 minute and 1 minute games (my 1 minute rating is 900something, I think...).
And again, I *do* think that playing the clock is valid. It's irksome for the loser in such a game, obviously, but that's the nature of competition. Sometimes you eat the bear...
So if you think that holdouts are valid on the players' end, do you also think that holdouts on the owners' end are valid? Could we be moving toward an era where 50% of the impact free agents year-in, year-out sign contracts (pillow or otherwise) during ST (or beyond??? How big of a mid-season add would a guy like JD Martinez or Yu Darvish be? How much is THAT worth???)? Personally, I think it's a FANTASTIC way to counter the unchecked greed running rampant in pro sports: stop creating bidding wars early on in the FA and wait things out until everyone's equally desperate.