I really don't see Chicago taking Oliver or any other keeper, as they seem to be very high on Vancil. Unless Vancil's form nosedives, or they get an offer for her that's too good to pass up, she's their keeper of the future.
Depending on how much expansion there is, Chicago could lose Vancil in the expansion draft. If Chicago can only protect 5 or 6 non-allocated players, then I would imagine they would protect Bywaters, Masar, Osborne, Chalupny, Quon, and Hemmings, over Vancil. Of course, Vancil may not be selected in the expansion draft. Goalkeepers like Betos, Val Henderson, Ashley Phillips, Henninger, etc. may be taken over her.
Me neither but if Oliver fell to them in the right spot and there is a relationship....I could see them taking her as the replacement to McLeod down the road.
Without question Dunn merits serious consideration by any team, but it seems that she will be absent for huge portions of the 2015 and 2016 seasons while playing with the NT in the WWC & Olympics and perhaps a significant portion of next season also. A team with a great deal of depth can absorb these kinds of hits, but I wonder about ones such as Washington that would presumably be rebuilding around her. There is also the cloudy future of College draft picks with NT positions, but perhaps this will be clarified somewhat by how Mewis and FCKC fare next winter. Nonetheless, in year such as 2014 with excellent draft depth, does it make sense to pick a bit lower with the expectation that the player will be around for the entire season in 2014-2016? Will the net contribution of this player be higher over three years?
As I see it Washington has two things to consider. First they need to remember what they did last year. They took two of what they considered the best forwards in the draft only to have Jordan complain the team lost because their scorers were two young. While they could certainly get a better potential scorer in this draft, none of them r cant miss. The other thing is they really need to take the best athlete available. They got way too caught up in local talent last time. Dunn is the best player available. What's more, she brings a little local vibe as Maryland/Virginia r ACC country. Mostly Dunn brings a young versatile player who could play for them anywhere in the midfield. As to NT duty, I dont think they can draft worrying that the player they get is going to be too good.
Going to add to this even though its fairly late of me. Understandably your list is based on players being drafted without taking into account of potential allocation, but there are 3 players on your list that I think will be allocated or have a very good chance to be allocated. Reason, I have a feeling that Megan Rapinoe and Tobin Heath will lose their allocated status next year. For the US women's national program, they want to develop players and have them play at home. For them its wiser to spend the money on players here rather then players that plan on playing abroad. So for Rapinoe and Heath who I believe will have heading back to Lyon and PSG next year, there is a good chance they will lost their status. This then opens 2 slots and who knows some of the players like Lori Lindsey who is having a fairly quiet year might lost their status so more slots may open up. What does this mean? It means that players like Crystal Dunn and Julie Johnston have a very good chance of being allocated because of their national team status. The other person is Jonelle Filigno who will be an automatic allocated player for Canada. Now if this is a mock draft simply based on players skill and where they will go, then ok. But you could take these 3 players off your list and then your mock draft really changes and things get interesting.
Why I do not think Dunn and Johnston get allocated even tho they prolly should. 1. It takes the splash out of the college draft. 2. While they have to pay them sooner or later, they might want it to be later. In the discount league, college players dont command top dollar (such as it is) coming out of school. If they allocate then they get top dollar from the get go. 3. They r still taking crap about the last allocation. As they r evil and can not help themselves, do u really want them allocating Dunn to Portland to replace Heath? The draft at least helps the worst teams. 4. I still think the allocation numbers will drop from all three feds. Mexico and Canada have voiced concerns about paying players who dont play. The US doesnt share that problem, but if the league goes to ten teams, dropping the allocation to 20 seams like the way to go. It solves the problem of them having to shift allocated players from one team to another. I would expect Mexico and Canada to drop to one player per team plus legacy players. For Canada that would be about 13. The other possibility for Canada and Mexico is switch their financing to players coming out of college and keep the same numbers. I dont think either team is going to continue paying players who arent consistant players this season just to meet a number goal. 5. I think they need the college feeder system and dont want to mess with it. They didnt allocate Mewis this year despite leaving WNY a player short. I think part of the reason is protecting their feeder system. That's how they want players to enter the league and establish themselves. Allocating seniors is a short step from allocating girls who leave school or skip school to play pro, then use their pro status to get into the league.
This is all very plausible, especially if they don't want to immediately want to allocate a player directly from college without them actually proving themselves. The problem with this supposition, if Dunn and Johnston are going to be mainstays for the future of the USWNT, then why not allocate them now? Unless the cap goes up, these two players are not going to make a lot of money, they should be protected and developed, not have to worry how they support themselves when they are not playing soccer. Their focus should be exclusively on building themselves to be the best player they can become without any distractions. The US Olympic program spends millions on athletes developing them and keeping them fulltime into the sport. Why shouldn't they help Dunn and Johnston out if they will be key cogs for the USWNT for the future?
If they continue to get called for USWNT duty they will make their money there. Dunn prolly doesnt eat much but Johnston looks like she could put down a meal and we dont want them starving . According to the contract (old contract circa 2006) they could only call players on a per dium bases ( dont no what that number is, sorry) for 6 weeks before they r required to give them a full contract. The contract had three tiers $30k, $50k & $70k so expect the new contract gave them a raise. the contract also includes player bonuses. For example every match they win each player gets a $1000 bonus (unless ur still in the NCAA, sorry ladies). There r also nice little bonuses for winning tournaments. The 18 members of the gold medal winning Olympic roster split $1.5 million for their efforts...wonder if the alternates got any cheese? Plus, the 10 game tour was also contractual if they won a medal. As they were 8-0-2 on the tour they each got another $8k in pocket money. So the upshot is, if the USSF sees an advantage in not allocating, they can only hold off giving them full contracts for so long. At that point, their league pay will also be part of that contract. (i think)
Well I hope your right then. Cause I do want to see these young players protected and developed correctly.
How right I am is , unfortunately, is directly proportional to how little is leaked about the contract. The USSF is generally pretty good to the players. For example, the tier system provides for the newer player to receive less than the older players. Despite that, the USSF kicked all 18 Olympic roster members up to the top tier even tho some had very little service time. With the fed I worry less about money and more about them making decisions solely based on their needs as opposed to the needs of the league.
The USSF has done that previously, so it seems the policy is that everyone who make a WWC or Olympics team gets raised to the top if not already there and is also given a contract for the following year.
However the draft works out, teams need to consider a strategy that trades player availability for player ability at the margin. In my mind, NT players just out of college are not yet established/experienced enough to make their partial availability in the build-up year to the WWC a good tradeoff. The equation was different in 2013 when two years were available to develop players such as Mewis. Therefore, a valid strategy for teams such as Washington is to skip the player who is the best the draft has to offer but will only be present for 40 of 66 games over three years and instead take the next best player who will be present for all 66 games (and practices). I'll leave it to others to determine who this player might be, but the draft is is certainly deep enough to cover just about any position with a top-flight player who might offer more over 66 games than Dunn/Johnston might over 66. This makes even more sense for Washington who also knows that it will need to be refurbished with NT players. It is more than likely that these players will come from the NT rookie pool. So, why waste a draft selection on what is likely to come their way anyhow? (Or, alternatively, risk having such a selection taken away.) [OT: At some point, a player's ability does trump the disruption of partial availability, but even then a great player who has no chance to develop chemistry may not make this a worthwhile gambit. (Pohlers for Washington is one example--although other factors, including conditioning, may equally responsible for her failing to deliver a single goal.) Therefore, I would not chase european players for mid-season signings for similar reasons.] As for all the local biasses: Everyone has favorite players and would like to see them play in a favorite city, but it is much more important for teams to develop into competitive winning organizations--that is what attracts fans--not what college or grandparent happens to be nearby. In a league such as NWSL with salary restrictions, developing into a winning organization is even more important. This reputation is part of a team's currency. Players want to play with winning organizations, and younger ones want to play for teams with proven development ability. Put yourself in the shoes of a top free agent next season who will command the max salary and be a member of the starting 11 on any team: Do you want to play for Washington or FCKC? Do you actually care what city is closer to your college? No. Similarly, top college draftees might/will have a european option, and I expect that they will take it if the their selecting team does not appear to be able to take them to the next level. These are professional players, not the kids next door. They will (and should) play for the teams that make the most sense for their careers.
Well it's a time honored draft strategy to try and turn a top pick into more useful players. For example, Boston might give u a player and the #4 pick for #1. Then maybe Portland gives a player and their first round pick to get up to #4. Washington gets two players that way along with the lower first round pick and helps them fill a lot of holes. The problem is if that #1 ends up being a superstar, the team who traded the pick never here's the end of it. If I were a Washington fan Id be more upset about them turning the #9 pick into Lindsey Taylor. They prolly would have landed a starter at #9 as well. I also dont lose sleep over games missed by NTers. I think they more than make up for it with the added boost the USWNT gives at the gate.
Giving up the #9 overall pick in most drafts for Lindsay Taylor would have been "ok" (but certainly not a steal). Giving up the #9 overall pick in the epic "2014 NWSL Draft" for Lindsay Taylor, is probably the worst move anyone has made yet. It made absolutely no sense whatsoever. Next year's draft goes at least 15-20 players deep, who are capable of coming in and being starters right away in this league (if drafted by the right teams, in terms of team needs, etc). This was a desperation trade made by DC. They should have been able to convince Seattle to take the #17 overall pick this year for Taylor. That's how good this draft is.
And the mock order of the mock draft has changed again. Washington Chicago (via Seattle) Boston Chicago WNY KC Portland Sky Blue If Boston remains there breaking up the two Chicago picks it makes the DiBernardo situation even harder for the Red Stars to manage.
We could always look at need for teams and judge who they might draft as well. Chicago looks to be a team that needs a playmaking midfielder and DiBernado will be the best in this draft. I think their backline will hold up and they might need a forward, but they really need a general for their midfield.
If Chicago does make the playoffs as a #4 seed, and as a result they have the #5 pick in the first round (to go with the #2 pick they have from the Winters trade), then they have to take DiBernardo at #5. There's no need to trade down. The #4 pick, however, is harder to manager. But at this point, they should just take their girl. They'll regret it if they trade down, and someone else takes DiBernardo before them. Let's not forget, that DiBernardo will bleed Red-Star blue. She will work her arse off there, and will want to be in Chicago more than anyone else who gets drafted in the 1st or 2nd round. Having a player that loves their franchise as much as she will, is a valuable intangible for the Red Stars. Imagine if they take a Casey Short type (defender) over DiBernardo, and then DiBernardo goes to someone else. And then that Casey Short type of player gets hurt for the year. They will be wishing like crazy that they could turn back the hands of time.
If Washington can work out trades that bring in two quality players in return for #1 (Dunn), then that might be a smart move. But the Lindsay trade made no sense (to an outsider at least) and given their other moves this season, I am skeptical about their ability to identify the needed players and then execute the needed trades. But one can always hope... The point is that regardless of the draft, Washington will get their NT allocation and whatever benefits that might accrue at the gate (certainly no worse than Dunn), so they don't need to use up their draft selection to help that process along.
I think they would have taken DiBernardo if they had ended up with the first two picks. It isnt like she's a crazy pick. She is definitely a first rounder. It's more a case of who they leave on the board to take her off. Considering how tough the Boston schedule is, the Breakers may end up picking 2nd which makes the DiBernardo pick easier to make at #4. I dont see them trading down from there especially if Portland slides to 4th place. With the Thorn midfield u could easily see them taking DiBernardo. It's hard to figure what Boston does with the #2 pick if they slide that far. What they need most is stud defender but there arent any in this draft worth taking on the first round. U may see them go for Anasi with the 10th pick tho. The smart move is draft for the future and take one of the scoring personalities even tho that's already the strength of their team. They could take Ohai and use her to replace O'Reilly who will be there one more season at most. They could take a big forward like Marlborough to pair with Leroux . They may go for a two way player like Johnston who likely starts her career in the midfield and eventually goes back to CB.
To be honest with you, DiBernardo is the "closest" thing in this draft to Erika Tymrak. And that's on the real. Not to mention, with her bloodlines, she should be taken in the Top 5 or 6 overall. She's got a lot of "upside" to her game in the midfield. Virtually as much as Morgan Brian even. You can build a franchise around her with two other high-caliber "ceiling" players.
I totally agree they need a couple good players more than one great one. Hopefully they talk to other teams and at least see what's out there. KC is a good place to start. Most of their second line players start for Washington and a lot of other places. If u could get say Mathias and Jones the the #1, both r good young players who would start for u.
DiBernardo is a bit of a tweener. She isnt a pure play maker and she isnt an out and out attacker. She's good in possession and has a hammer for a leg and will be a solid player in the league.
I prefer to use the word versatility in her case. She can do many different things for a team. She's great on the ball, and she has terrific vision. She can also attack the goal, with a pass or a shot. She does have a cannon for a leg. In a way, she's a Carli Lloyd type (Lloyd was once seen as a tweener/versatile type), but DiBernardo has much better skill on the ball than Lloyd. Her shot is just a couple notches less in power, but more accurate. Nevertheless, she still has a cannon, and a Top 10 powerful shot on goal in the league immediately.
Since I started to watch her play, I've always compared DiBernardo to Lloyd but just maybe not as aggressive.