What time does Yahoo! add their new players

[dragoon]

I like the in season additions, as do many others. I think it would be pretty stupid to have every minor league player in the data base.

Yahoo! used to get blistered for their lack of informative articles - now they get ripped for having informative articles.

People are going to whine whatever Yahoo! does. They could pay you to play fantyasy games there and you people would still whine.

No, I am not whining about informative articles-- they SHOULD have informative articles. But I see no reason as to not have all of the meaningful minor leaguers in the database. I'm not really sure what's to like about the current system, if I want to draft Kershaw in the 23rd round, why can't I? I'm sure some deep NL-only leagues were dying for guys like Cueto, Scherzer and Kershaw in their draft.

[Inukchuk]

I think it would be pretty stupid to have every minor league player in the data base.

Really? Care to explain why? What would be so bad about having the top 100-200 prospects in the database? CBS does it and no one's complaining about that. In fact, CBS owners have the exact opposite response when Yahoo players are whining.

Yahoo! used to get blistered for their lack of informative articles

I've never seen this happen...

People are going to whine whatever Yahoo! does.

No, people are going to whine when they can't get their hands on a highly touted prospects after hearing about them by Yahoo's own writers.

I understand there's always been a certain way Yahoo has added new players, and I also understand they can't do anything to change it this season so there is no use complaining about it. I'm just hoping that they work to improve what seems to be their only glaring weakness as a fantasy provider.

Since the fantasy baseball industry has exploded over the past few years, more and more people have looked for an edge by scouring the minor leagues. Yahoo's writers have kept up, but their technical aspect is still a bit behind in catering to the more hardcore player (who is becoming increasingly common). There's a reason Yahoo is the most popular fantasy provider, and after seeing the improvements that have already been made over the past few years, I am very hopeful they increase their preseason player database to the degree that CBS or ESPN (which are otherwise vastly inferior, in my opinion) has. Otherwise, I could see increasing numbers of owners moving to greener pastures.

[AllDay]

I think it would be pretty stupid to have every minor league player in the data base.

Really? Care to explain why? What would be so bad about having the top 100-200 prospects in the database? CBS does it and no one's complaining about that. In fact, CBS owners have the exact opposite response when Yahoo players are whining.

...and then you will have people whining about 'why isn't prospect #101 listed?'

Yahoo! used to get blistered for their lack of informative articles

I've never seen this happen...

Oh, please. Yahoo! has been the whipping boy of the cafe for years. Their experts get called stupid and their articles get blasted for being worthless or flat out bad advice. Leagues are created in response to Yahoo!'s supposedly bad advice

When they write an article about a young prospect they get ripped for being too informative and Joe Cafe member now isn't guaranteed to get the latest prospect because the league of idiots he plays with now knows about the player too.

People are going to whine whatever Yahoo! does.

No,

Yes.

[AussieDodger]

I've never seen this happen...

Oh, please. Yahoo! has been the whipping boy of the cafe for years. Their experts get called stupid and their articles get blasted for being worthless or flat out bad advice. Leagues are created in response to Yahoo!'s supposedly bad advice

When they write an article about a young prospect they get ripped for being too informative and Joe Cafe member now isn't guaranteed to get the latest prospect because the league of idiots he plays with now knows about the player too.

Yeah I hate when people whinge about Yahoo. Behrens and friends are doing a good job.
They mostly tout decent players for sensible reasons.
It's extremely comical when people post on here that they're mad because Cueto/Scherzer/Kershaw/Price/Bob Gibson aren't in yahoo yet.
Listen whingers, you knew what the rules were before the season, live with it.
And the have the gall to write articles about the next big thing? What an outrage! They should write about Neifi Perez's suspension instead.

[Inukchuk]

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.

[AllDay]

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

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?

I will say this is the first year I've seen complaints about Yahoo being TOO informative. A refreshing whine, perhaps - but it really only highlights the fact that no matter what Yahoo! does someone is gonna whine about it in here.

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.

I think they do a hell of a job. I do not wish to see their player pool expanded. I like the in-season additions. If anything I would argue against them adding any player until they are part of a MLB roster. The addition of call-ups to me is an interesting part of the strategy.

By now we should all know what Yahoo! is. Constant complaining about player X being added is just stupid. People were ready to throw their seasons away because they didn't get Johnny Cueto soon enough. Ridiculous. Oh no, you missed out on Kershaw's 7 K no decision. Oh, the injustice of it all!

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).

It should be painfully obvious by now when players get added to their database - but still for nearly every call up we get the 'When will Joe Baseball get added to Yahoo!' questions and responses whining about how Yahoo! sucks because that player isn't already in the database.

Their product is what it is. If you don't like it go some where else and STFU already. I am thankful for the product they do have - and I really appreciate the fact they haven't pulled a Sandbox and forced everyone to pay for their service.

[trey3kt]

listen theres no reason to argue. When CBS and ESPN keep gaining players and Yahoo keeps losing them, then maybe yahoo will wonder why. Which by the way I have yet to hear anyone complain about CBS having too many players in the database. Has anyone else?

[dragoon]

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

This is a terrible argument... Nobody would care about the 200th best prospect not being in the database, that's just ridiculous. That player would never be hyped up and even if you DID want him for some reason you could just wait until he clears, because nobody else would want him. That argument=

[Fantasy Sports Genie]

listen theres no reason to argue. When CBS and ESPN keep gaining players and Yahoo keeps losing them, then maybe yahoo will wonder why. Which by the way I have yet to hear anyone complain about CBS having too many players in the database. Has anyone else?

Likely not, because the reality is that people who like that style of play probably just play with us. The reality is that most people *do* play with us.

I/we have never said that a deeper player pool is a bad idea. But the "big player pool" people seem to believe there is noone on earth that wouldn't want a big player pool, and we know for a fact that isn't true. What we'd like to do is be more flexible about that particular decision in the future.

[Yanks_Baby]

listen theres no reason to argue. When CBS and ESPN keep gaining players and Yahoo keeps losing them, then maybe yahoo will wonder why. Which by the way I have yet to hear anyone complain about CBS having too many players in the database. Has anyone else?

Likely not, because the reality is that people who like that style of play probably just play with us. The reality is that most people *do* play with us.

I/we have never said that a deeper player pool is a bad idea. But the "big player pool" people seem to believe there is noone on earth that wouldn't want a big player pool, and we know for a fact that isn't true. What we'd like to do is be more flexible about that particular decision in the future.

Coulf you maybe make an option?

Like when creating the league, give the commish the option to make a league with or without Minor elaguers. Then al lyou would have to do woud set it up that players that are NA don't appear, or those that want it, have a huge database of NA players.