I'm working on my rankings by position, and it has me wondering something. Will a guy that has traditionally played OF like Pat Burrell or Vlad Guerrero retain eligibility even though they didn't play the required number of games at the position, or will they just be utility eligible? Really they should just be utility eligible, but I have a sinking suspicion that won't be the case.
ayebatter wrote:I believe it's been 10 games played at a position.
Its 5 games started or 10 games played total. So, Burrell and Vlad should both be only Util to start the season. I think the only acceptable cavet to that would be if one of both of them are on new teams next year and slated to play the field, like one or both go to the NL. In that case, I could see Yahoo giving them OF eligiblity if they are slated to start there.
ayebatter wrote:I believe it's been 10 games played at a position.
Its 5 games started or 10 games played total. So, Burrell and Vlad should both be only Util to start the season. I think the only acceptable cavet to that would be if one of both of them are on new teams next year and slated to play the field, like one or both go to the NL. In that case, I could see Yahoo giving them OF eligiblity if they are slated to start there.
I believe in that situation they would still start the year with only Util eligability, but would gain the position eligability of whatever position they were playing as soon as they start five games at the position.
"I do not think baseball of today is any better than it was 30 years ago... I still think Radbourne is the greatest of the pitchers." John Sullivan 1914-Old athletes never change.
ayebatter wrote:I believe it's been 10 games played at a position.
Its 5 games started or 10 games played total. So, Burrell and Vlad should both be only Util to start the season. I think the only acceptable cavet to that would be if one of both of them are on new teams next year and slated to play the field, like one or both go to the NL. In that case, I could see Yahoo giving them OF eligiblity if they are slated to start there.
I believe in that situation they would still start the year with only Util eligability, but would gain the position eligability of whatever position they were playing as soon as they start five games at the position.
That is how it worked in the past. No player is given eligibility even if the team announces they will be playing a different position. You just have to wait for them to get 5 starts.
I believe there have been a few variances. An example being when Gordon Beckham was called up he was listed as a SS but played every game at 3B. In 2010, he's slated to begin the season as the White Sox starting 2B and I wouldn't be surprised if he's listed with 3B and 2B to start the season.
I'm definitely hoping Yahoo! sticks to their guns and these guys only end up with utility eligibility, I suppose my concern stems from the craziness with gaining/losing eligibility in hoops for Yahoo!
obviously, it's a different case for prospects who are new to the major leagues. they seem to be all over the board with them when it comes to eligibility.
Havok1517 wrote:I believe there have been a few variances. An example being when Gordon Beckham was called up he was listed as a SS but played every game at 3B. In 2010, he's slated to begin the season as the White Sox starting 2B and I wouldn't be surprised if he's listed with 3B and 2B to start the season.
He will only be 3b. Beckham won't pick up the 2B until a couple of weeks into the season. The reason he had SS elig is because that's what he primarly played in the minors, or he was drafted as a SS.
Yahoo has no real guidelines when it comes to prospects. An example of this is Marcus Coltson over on the football side. In Colston's first season Yahoo had him slotted as a TE, and Colston made for one hell of a TE in their game too, even though he had never lined up as one.
Cafe Home
Fantasy Football
Fantasy Basketball
Fantasy Hockey
by 
]
