Jump to content
Jays Centre
  • Create Account

A Very Darrelly Dynasty League

Laika

By Laika
in Fantasy Sports

 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 51k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Dr. Dinger

    7796

  • BTS

    5839

  • Laika

    5647

  • The Cats Ass

    4147

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

z3r0s
z3r0s

State of the Franchise; Saskatchewan 54’s Owner: L54 2024 Season; The Saskatchewan 54’s put together an utterly dominant season in 2024. Although it ultimately culminated in a gut wrenc

Dr. Dinger
Dr. Dinger

Here is the BA Top 150 Dynasty version: TEAM POINTS DD 1240 ZRO 1142 FTD

z3r0s
z3r0s

State of the Franchise; Burrito Boyz Owner: Havok24   2024 Season; Havok’s Burrito Boyz struggled to a 14th overall finish for the 2024 season, slightly underperforming their combi

Laika Cooperstown

Laika

Community Moderator
Posted
  • Author
Posted

Yeah Wilson looks pretty much done as a back end bullpen option.

 

So are Brandon League and Chris Perez though, in all likelihood.

 

Dodgers will probably be leaning heavily on Jansen and Paco. And maybe Withrow.

 

#HowNotToBuildABullpen

KingKat All-Star

KingKat

Old-Timey Member
Posted
Posted
Yahoo! is pissing me off. I have 3 empty roster spots that I can't fill because of the 5 add limit. Because it counted the Australia games as part of week 1, my adds didn't refresh today like they should have and I'm frozen until next week. I don't even have a starting SS because I can't activate Chris Owings and Drew is still M.I.A.
z3r0s FCL Blue Jays

z3r0s

Old-Timey Member
Posted
Posted
Is there a need to have a transaction limit in this league? Its not like we have a problem with guys streaming pitchers (as all the waiver options blow). I guess someone could conceivably do it.
NorthOf49 FCL Blue Jays

NorthOf49

Old-Timey Member
Posted
Posted
Is there a need to have a transaction limit in this league? Its not like we have a problem with guys streaming pitchers (as all the waiver options blow). I guess someone could conceivably do it.

I second this. No limits to transactions would be a very welcome change.

KingKat All-Star

KingKat

Old-Timey Member
Posted
Posted
If you want to activate Owings, I can promote him for you via the commish tools.

 

That would be nice but I feel like it would be cheating. Other owners have activated players and have had it count against this ridiculously long 5 add window. I'd rather the limit be scrapped although I kind of doubt the comish tools would let you at this point.

TRM Buffalo Bisons

TRM

Verified Member
Posted
Posted
That would be nice but I feel like it would be cheating. Other owners have activated players and have had it count against this ridiculously long 5 add window. I'd rather the limit be scrapped although I kind of doubt the comish tools would let you at this point.

 

It's a little different. You're not really getting an advantage because you're adding someone no one else has an opportunity to add anyways. He's already your "property".

 

I for one would have no issue with it.

NorthOf49 FCL Blue Jays

NorthOf49

Old-Timey Member
Posted
Posted
It's a little different. You're not really getting an advantage because you're adding someone no one else has an opportunity to add anyways. He's already your "property".

 

I for one would have no issue with it.

Yeah I've always seen prospect promotions as being outside of the Yahoo rules framework. KK doesn't really want to 'add' Owings, he wants to 'assign' him to his MLB team. I'm cool with it.

Laika Cooperstown

Laika

Community Moderator
Posted
  • Author
Posted

Yea I don't think it's really important if the weekly limit applies to prospect promotions. They are pretty rare for each time and they have little to do with weekly matchups.

 

I'd like to keep the weekly limit as is though. It provides a cushion to managers who can't check Yahoo forty times a week. What would we all do if there was no limit and North got to stream 80 mediocre holds guys every week? We'd be absolutely f***ed!

Fearthedoc First Round Pick

Fearthedoc

Verified Member
Posted
Posted

IMO we should keep add limits. 5 is enough to give you freedom to sign players you're interested in. It will help reduce streaming.

 

I say this because I have a guilty addiction to streaming. I don't like doing it, but if I see I'm losing, I will stream like a motherf***er to win W and K. North will probably end up in the same boat with his reliever stream plan.

KingKat All-Star

KingKat

Old-Timey Member
Posted
Posted
If Spanky reaches his limit, he should be allowed a comish added move if he needs it.

 

Cool?

 

Oh wait... I misunderstood this. I was thinking it would be unfair to someone else who made a promotion and is at their limit now and I just assumed since he was mentioned that Spanky must have done a promotion. That's why I said he should be allowed an extra add. That should apply to somene else in my position not necessarily Spanky.

 

I realize now that he was mentionned because he's my opponent. I suppose he could be upset by this but really as long as every owner is allowed to ask the comish to activate their players for them if they are concerned about add limits, it should be fair to everyone. As NJH mentions, it's not like players get activated all the time.

Fearthedoc First Round Pick

Fearthedoc

Verified Member
Posted
Posted
Oh wait... I misunderstood this. I was thinking it would be unfair to someone else who made a promotion and is at their limit now and I just assumed since he was mentioned that Spanky must have done a promotion. That's why I said he should be allowed an extra add. That should apply to somene else in my position not necessarily Spanky.

 

I realize now that he was mentionned because he's my opponent. I suppose he could be upset by this but really as long as every owner is allowed to ask the comish to activate their players for them if they are concerned about add limits, it should be fair to everyone. As NJH mentions, it's not like players get activated all the time.

 

It's really not a big deal at all. I doubt anyone has a problem with this.

jays_fever FCL Blue Jays

jays_fever

Old-Timey Member
Posted
Posted
Yea I second the motion to just let it go through. It isn't a big deal and every owner going forward should be given an exception in the event of the same circumstances
Fearthedoc First Round Pick

Fearthedoc

Verified Member
Posted
Posted
Yea I second the motion to just let it go through. It isn't a big deal and every owner going forward should be given an exception in the event of the same circumstances

 

It looks like you ditched Strasburg just in time. This guy has obviously has nothing left in the tank if he's getting lit up by the lowly Mets.

jays_fever FCL Blue Jays

jays_fever

Old-Timey Member
Posted
Posted
It looks like you ditched Strasburg just in time. This guy has obviously has nothing left in the tank if he's getting lit up by the lowly Mets.

 

Joking aside, didnt a bunch of aces last year get hammered as well?

The Cats Ass Buffalo Bisons

The Cats Ass

Old-Timey Member
Posted
Posted
It looks like you ditched Strasburg just in time. This guy has obviously has nothing left in the tank if he's getting lit up by the lowly Mets.

 

I fully expected this. TJ Surgery after the game.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share
Go to topic listing
The Jays Centre Caretaker Fund
The Jays Centre Caretaker Fund

You all care about this site. The next step is caring for it. We’re asking you to caretake this site so it can remain the premier Blue Jays community on the internet.

Become a Caretaker

  • Member Statistics

    20,997
    Total Members
    48,845
    Most Online
    Sarahh
    Newest Member
    Sarahh
    Joined
×
×
  • Create New...