What time does Yahoo! add their new players

[Inukchuk]

Okay, so you move it to 200 and people whine about prospect 201 not being there.

OK, that's just ignorant. Now you're arguing just for the sake of trying not to look stupid. Like I mentioned previously, I would guarantee that if the top 200 prospects were made available, there would be no complaining that Scott Cousins wasn't available. If you think otherwise, I have nothing else to say and you can argue all you want otherwise.

You say I've been here for a year, I say I've been here longer than you. Are we limited to one ID over our lifetime?

Haha! Nice. Of course there's no way to tell, so you're bulletproof on that one.

A site that provides free fantasy services and information (or optional pay services) isn't exactly holding users over a barrel. You don't like them, play somewhere else.

This is the point I've been trying to make! If this continues to be a problem, people will go play elsewhere. That's not a good thing for Yahoo! The game has evolved so that minor leaguers are a big part of it (to an extent that Yahoo's own writers are addressing it). In order to stay with the changing landscape, providers would be wise to go with the flow, not resist it. All this complaining is useful because Yahoo should use it to better itself as a provider.

I like Yahoo!'s service. I think they do a good job. I also realize the technical issues that are present in running their service and think they have done a wonderful job overall in presenting a fair and enjoyable product to the public for free (or if they wish to pay for some frills - then they can go that route).

Again, we agree. I wouldn't have payed for a PLUS league otherwise. I said numerous times that I have no complaints about their articles nor the way they add players. Let's try this a third time. Maybe it'll sink in. I SIMPLY HOPE THEY WORK ON EXPANDING THE PLAYER POOL IN THE FUTURE, OTHERWISE I MAY BE FORCED (ALONG WITH MANY OTHERS, IT SEEMS) TO MOVE MY LEAGUE TO ANOTHER PROVIDER.

Hey, if you don't want it expanded, I don't care. That's your opinion and you're entitled to it. But if you think that expanding it (or offering an option, as Genie hinted at. Great idea, by the way...) isn't a good idea, then I'll reiterate that it's not good customer service. Obviously, if people don't like it they can "...STFU and go somewhere else" as you so eloquently put it. Obviously, it won't affect you and your Yahoo public buddies, but do you think that's what Yahoo wants?

[AllDay]

OK, that's just ignorant. Now you're arguing just for the sake of trying not to look stupid. Like I mentioned previously, I would guarantee that if the top 200 prospects were made available, there would be no complaining that Scott Cousins wasn't available. If you think otherwise, I have nothing else to say and you can argue all you want otherwise.

Well it would depend on who ranks the players, and that is entirely subjective. Do you rank all prospects regardless of level and their projected MLB arrival dates, only AA and AAA players? It isn't as simple as 'just add the top 200 prospects'.

You are saying that no player is going to outplay his 'prospect rank' and get called up to the big club. I think that is a ridiculous notion. Maybe the club has injury issues and they need top call up a prospect not in the top 200.

Or, are you saying that you personally guarantee that the rest of the world will not complain if a non-top 200 prospect is called up and they aren't in the database yet? Sorry, but you can't guarntee squat for anyone but yourself - and even that is questionable.

In addition you would have any number of people complaining about why prospect X is not ranked above prospect Y and therefore not in the data base. I'm sure your default answer will be 'no we won't' but of course we saw this exact scenario play out with Gio Gonzalez added and not Kershaw or Cueto.

Haha! Nice. Of course there's no way to tell, so you're bulletproof on that one.

Why would I lie about something so trivial?

This is the point I've been trying to make! If this continues to be a problem, people will go play elsewhere. That's not a good thing for Yahoo! The game has evolved so that minor leaguers are a big part of it (to an extent that Yahoo's own writers are addressing it). In order to stay with the changing landscape, providers would be wise to go with the flow, not resist it. All this complaining is useful because Yahoo should use it to better itself as a provider.

I don't think it is a 'problem'. It is simply how things are. I hope they do go elsewhere so we don't have to listen to the constant complaints.

Again, we agree. I wouldn't have payed for a PLUS league otherwise. I said numerous times that I have no complaints about their articles nor the way they add players. Let's try this a third time. Maybe it'll sink in. I SIMPLY HOPE THEY WORK ON EXPANDING THE PLAYER POOL IN THE FUTURE, OTHERWISE I MAY BE FORCED (ALONG WITH MANY OTHERS, IT SEEMS) TO MOVE MY LEAGUE TO ANOTHER PROVIDER.

Don't let the door hit ya where the good Lord split ya. Of course there is no way to prove that, so your bulletproof on that one.

Hey, if you don't want it expanded, I don't care. That's your opinion and you're entitled to it.

Yes it is, and yes I am. So why are you arguing about it?

But if you think that expanding it (or offering an option, as Genie hinted at. Great idea, by the way...) isn't a good idea, then I'll reiterate that it's not good customer service. Obviously, if people don't like it they can "...STFU and go somewhere else" as you so eloquently put it. Obviously, it won't affect you and your Yahoo public buddies, but do you think that's what Yahoo wants?

Well they can do whatever they choose. As long as they provide an entertaining and enjoyable service I will stick with them.

[Inukchuk]

I'm going to leave it at this. It's clear you don't care if Yahoo loses customers. Why would you? But try to think outside grandma's basement for a second and put yourself in Yahoo's shoes. Wouldn't it be a bad thing for Yahoo if they lose business? I know, I know, you'll still sign up for your 4 public leagues whether they add prospects or not. You might even make a second screen name and sign up for 4 more. That should keep them afloat while the thousands of "prospect addition whiners" that you seem so intent on bashing take their PLUS league money to CBS.

As far as your little diatribe on the top 200 prospects goes, I don't think I even need to say anything about that.

Finally, why would you lie about something so trivial? I'm pretty sure people have some ideas...