Come on, man. You jumped on the Yahoo defense bandwagon and I called you on it. Now you're just being ridiculous. You honestly think that Yahoo shouldn't increase their player pool to include the top 100-200
prospects (which, incidentally, would include the #101 guy)?
I really can't see an owner out there complaining that low level prospects like Chris Nelson or Matt Dominguez aren't available in their Yahoo league.
You say that Yahoo has been the whipping boy of the cafe for years (although you've only been around here for 1. Of course, I'm sure you've been reading the cafe since 1995, you just didn't decide to post until 12 years passed
)...all I said was that I've never seen them ripped for lacking informative articles. If anything, they inundate
their managers with informative articles. They have 4-5 guys writing pieces for them on a semi daily basis. That's the best thing Yahoo has going for it (to the chagrin of many experienced players, it seems): it gives its managers too much information in relation to the pool of players it has available.
I agree that the writers get unfairly plastered for just doing their jobs, which is why I'm not upset with the fact that Kershaw and Scherzer and Cueto were trumpeted on the homepage. I also understand the process behind adding new players (kind of...
), which is why you won't see me whining about that, either. My point was, I hope they improve what seems to be their one weakness when compared to other providers: a small pool to choose from. If not, I can see them losing leagues to CBS and ESPN, despite the fact that everything else is top notch.
So if you honestly think Yahoo's small player pool is OK as is, and expanding it won't make the typical Yahoo manager more satisfied, then I can't really say anything else to change your mind. Apparently you don't know a whole lot about customer service. It's usually good business to give the customer what they want, especially if it's a widespread issue.