It's a 10 team 20 man keeper that used to be a dynasty, due to a transition in management and very one sided teams they decided to keep 20 instead of 40, I would have preferred 10 but whatever. I have third pick and was wondering in a league with such depth of players missing already don't you think he would be a great candidate for my top pick?
I already have Pence, Stanton, Stubbs, McCutcheon in the OF.
With 200 players off the board, I would most likely take Trout if you want a blue chip prospect. However, you stated some teams were overly talented compared to others. So if for some reason a proven talent is available, I'd rather take the proven guy over Trout. But with 200 keepers, I'm guessing no great established player will be available. Unless one team was more than stacked.
Mjbren1 wrote:You are looking at players along the lines of Soriano, Darvish, Kendrys, the 2b from Nationals that hit 20 homers. Helpful but not overly impactful.
Well, with such a stacked young OF on your team I might be inclined to take a gamble on Darvish. Espinosa and Morales could be good picks too if you need help at 1B or 2B.
Well if you can get Espinosa or Morales with the pick hmm and already a crowded OF (can you start all those OF and maybe a UTL as well?) If you can start all those I would do it.
The best there is, the best there was, and the best there ever will be!
Not sure I would take Morales here. He hasn't played baseball in two years so you have no clue as to how he will come back. Add in the position problems the Angels are going to have, I would let someone else take that risk. Or at least wait until later in the draft to take that kind of risk.
If Trout last, take him. If not then Darvish. Espinosa would be an alright pick. Not Soriano though. Anyone else worth grabbing?
"In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and has been widely regarded as a bad move."- Douglas Adams
Cafe Home
Fantasy Football
Fantasy Basketball
Fantasy Hockey
by Mjbren1 » Mon Feb 13, 2012 11:53 am 
