Actually, they loaned him out because they are in a salary cap crunch. They played CCL last season, and had the extra cap room and roster space. Which they lost at the end of the season. Thus, they are screwed by the cap. Let me express here that I am really pleased about this! F@#$ shittle! So, which of our starters should we have axed in the off-season? Whom would you have shown the door? We ditched Jean-Marc, Khari, Gjoey, Ward, Dawkins (not by choice), Moreno, Ampai, McLoughlin, and Suggs. That's a lot of guys from a 30 man roster. Yeah, some of those were in season, but the point is, our FO are not "standing pat." This team continues to tweak and improve. GO QUAKES!! - Mark
You really like to change your argument, don't you? You asked what top players those teams lost, and I gave you the list. Yet now you make excuses about how they have replaced those guys or how they chose to get rid of them. And to say that because a team traded guys means they really didn't want them is ridiculous - it has been well publicized that the reason Seattle let Montero go and RSL traded all of their guys was because of salary cap space. And KC certainly did not choose to lose Kamara and Espinoza. These 3 teams were not executing a "planned" retooling so much as having to deal with changes beyond their control (salary cap, losing players to the EPL). I stand by my point - I think the Quakes have had as good or a better offseason as far as retaining players and signing new ones as any of the other top teams in MLS. They knew they needed some experienced depth, particularly on defense, to help out with Open Cup and CCL matches, as well as to spell guys like Beitashour and Morrow more often. They have quite a few players in camp fighting for the final roster spots, and seem close to working out another loan deal from Tottenham. Again, in a salary cap league, to be able to keep all but one of the core players of the defending Supporters Shield winners is pretty remarkable. Typically after a team has such a breakout year/turnaround in MLS they lose several of their top players for various reasons. And it sounds like the team is looking to lock up Wondo with a DP contract, which is a pretty big deal.
No, no, no, no. Everyone's "existing guys" have the capability of getting better. Maybe the younger teams have more of an upside, but the Quakes do not have a monopoly on guys improving. Again, I don't really see this as moving the needle. Every team has guys who were hurt for part of the season, or were playing their first as a starter, and they have an upside, etc. The Quakes have added some "depth" but in general these guys are MLS journeymen types. The Quakes have made zero marquee signings this year, and have lost their most creative attacking player. The teams that will leap frog the Quakes will probably be the ones who have made a couple of significant signings, and those signings turn good. Last year it was the Quakes, particularly with the Bernardez and Chavez signings. I'm not all that hopeful. The guy hasn't really produced, even in the English 3rd division. Tiny sample size and too early to know if it really means anything, but he played and didn't score or product an assist in a game against the "Ventura County Fusion", and Garza went in for him and scored 2 goals.
Nope, not changing my fundamental argument at all, which is that if you "stand pat" you are going to fall behind. I'm not sure how asking to see a list of players constitutes an "argument". In the context of my fundamental argument, if there is significant roster turnover, the teams are not standing pat, either by choice or by necessity, and some of them will come out better for it and some will come out worse. Based on your list, some of those teams have had relatively significant turnover. Seattle, not so much. But fundamentally, losing guys who played a lot of minutes for you doesn't mean you are going to get worse. It just means that your team is in more of a state of change. I claim that some of that change will turn out to be very positive, as it was with the Quakes last year, and those teams that get mostly positive change will bypass the ones that tended to "stand pat". I don't really get this. Their current rosters fit under cap. Unless players' contracts are running out, and they are demanding more money and threatening to play overseas or something, why do they need to unload players to clear "salary cap space". It's all about how you want to spend your money. If you're good with your team as it is, you just re-sign your current roster like the Quakes are doing. I know it's not that simple necessarily because there are guys that are "due" raises, etc.. But in Montero's case, for example, if he's really considered that valuable to the team, why do you loan him out? I think that fundamentally they realized that while he's a good player, he just wasn't getting them over the hump, and they are looking to get better, realizing that "standing pat" is not good enough if you want to be the best. Fair point - in a few cases you have to retool by necessity a little bit as players you like leave on their own accord. But I think this is the exception more than the rule. Well, we'll have to agree to disagree. If the Quakes win Supporter's Shield again, I will gladly concede the point . The Quakes have added some MLS journeymen types for "depth" but they have made zero marquee signings and they have lost their most creative attacking player. This, in contrast to last year, when they signed Bernardez and Chavez, etc.
Ah ha! Here it is! The Quakes have lost their most creative attacking player. No, we haven't. Dawkins had only one assist last season! One!! Compare that to Chavez's thirteen (13) assists!! Shea, playing only about a half a season had 1 goal and 7 assists! Dawkins had eight goals and one assist in 1847 minutes. Sure, he's a creative guy, but ... Lenhart 10g, 2a, 1623 min Gordon 13g, 7a, 1297 min Yeah, I see you now. "Oh no! We lost Simon Dawkins! All is lost!" Have a beer dude. He wasn't that critical to our team. Important yes, but he's replaceable, and I think that some combination of Shea, Garza, Hustedt, and or Bostock will fill Simon's spot adequately and more. The sky is not falling. We will kick ass this year. Drink! It's good for you. GO QUAKES!! - Mark
dawkins was pretty much the only midfield player who could score a goal. baca's not, cronins not, chavez won't Salinas won't. thats what the big deal about dawkins is about.
NO, they don't. Seattle played CCL last season, thus they got some extra cap space and roster spots. Then, they made the playoffs, which means that their players all get an across the board salary bump. But they missed making CCL, and thus lost the CCL cap bonus. So NOW, their roster does not in fact fit under the cap. Thus, they must shed some players. RSL felt that they were not doing as well as they want, so they ditched a bunch of guys in an effort to rebuild. It might work out well, or it might not. Same for Colorado, but they weren't top of the table last season. Only the shitte sucking filth seem to be immune to the salary cap. Every other team has to deal with it. Personally, I expect all of shittle, the SaltLickers, and the scum-sucking, satan-worshipping filth to slip at least a little from last years' performance. I could be wrong, but they all lost significant playerS. That's more than one significant player. Is traitorous pig Narcissus going to play for the filth this season? If so, is he in their camp? Or ... never mind. (Misbehaving.) What short of shape will he be in when he does show up? I'm thinking mentally here. It is not a done deal that our enemies have improved. In fact, it is likely that they have not. GO QUAKES!!! - Mark
Huh? We care about assists but not goals? If you use the old "2 points for a goal, one for an assist" measure, Dawkins, Chavez and Salinas were about equally productive per minute. But "creativity" is not all about the numbers. The Quakes just don't have another player with Dawkins's skill set, which is the ability to take the ball on the ground through the teeth of the defense. It's the central attack on the ground component. No one else on the team can do that, which means the Quakes will be more one-dimensional / attack down the wings. But my argument is not really about Dawkins. That's a side issue. It's actually not that hard: it's about "standing pat" vs. taking some chances and making some changes to try to improve.
Actually the situation is even worse for RSL, who did not advance in the CCL group stage to this year and also did not qualify for the CCL this summer. At least Seattle advanced last year, so they are in the final round of the 2012/2013 CCL and get some allocation dollars. RSL will get no allocation dollars at all for CCL as they are out of both the 2012/2013 round and the 2013/2014 round. Also, many players have escalations in their contracts for raises that go up more than the salary cap goes up each year. Add in the fact that some players either have their contracts come up for renewal and expect significant raises in the offseason, or that they may have already signed new contracts during the season that gave them significant raises, and the end result is that most teams cannot afford to keep exactly the same team from year to year.
Fair enough. So there are some edge cases where the cap figure effectively changes. But otherwise all the teams are playing under the same rules / limitations. And MLS is not really a "hard" salary cap anyway. The DP rule allows for some flexibility to go way over the cap. In the end it's a mixed bag of necessitated roster change and desired roster change to try to "upgrade" certain positions, etc. You have to make some tough choices about who to keep, possibly take some chances on some new players, etc. Most teams will be looking more at upgrading than at scrambling to re-sign the same team as last year. My point stands that there are going to be some teams that undergo more change, hit mostly the right buttons, and leap frog other teams. Again, at the end of the year, we'll see who's right on this one. Are the Quakes the Supporter's Shield winner or not?
And MY point is that when a team had the best overall record in the previous year, scored almost 50% more goals than any team had the year before that, almost broke the alltime record for goals scored in a season, and did so with a lot of young guys who are still clearly learning to play and only one player who would be considered "past his prime" (Corrales) -- then the goal should NOT be to make changes, it should be to do the best to keep the team intact. Yes, many (perhaps most) teams should look to make big changes and try to get better, because they weren't good enough the previous year. But it would be insane to do so coming off a year like the Quakes had (unless forced to do so with players choosing to leave MLS or salary cap issues). You keep stating that the Quakes "stood pat", but it's likely the Quakes will turn over 8 roster spots from the end of last year (Dawkins, Opara, Zayner, Alexandre, Stephenson, Guvenisik, Gjertsen, and Ward) - that's quite a bit of change. Just because they didn't make any "Big signings" doesn't mean they stood pat. I think the team got rid of exactly the right guys (except Dawkins), based on what they contributed and what their salary was going to be this year. That money is much better spent on the guys they are adding to the roster now, and perhaps a summer signing if that works out.
Well, we'll see, won't we :--). I think that some teams, LA in particular, had caught up to the Quakes by the end of the year. If you toss out their two wins against Chivas, the Quakes were 4-2-5 their last 13 games. Not bad, but not stellar either. LOL, it's not exactly a concept I invented. Look at the title of the thread. No one, outside of the sportsfan-quakes reality distortion field :--), has really challenged the notion that the Quakes have, relatively speaking "stood pat" this offseason.
Can you give me your definition of "standing pat" then because I don't understand it. I agree that the Quakes have retained all (but one) of their core players from last year, while many MLS teams have not. But "standing pat" to me means making very few changes at all, keeping pretty much the same roster intact. But in terms of total number of players who were on team rosters at the end of 2012 who are not now on their rosters, the Quakes (8 players) are in the same range (7-9 players) as 10 other MLS teams. Only 8 teams have released/traded/loaned out 10 or more players, and 5 of those 8 teams were teams that did not make the playoffs. So there are only 3 playoff teams that have made significantly more roster change in terms of numbers than the Quakes (Columbus, LA and New York). Oh, and by my count, in the 2011 offseason where you say the Quakes made "big changes", they only turned over 10 roster spots. So making 10 changes is "big change" but making 8 changes is "standing pat"? Note - this data is taken from the "Player Movement Scorecard" thread in the MLS N&A forum, which tracks all roster movement for all MLS teams during the offseason.
Problem is with all the injuries we are carrying a lot of guys are going to regress compared to last year. Then you tack on the subtraction of dawkins from the equation, and that we only added some mediocre role players, it's not looking very promising. Beita just had another surgery this week according to twitter so we are pretty screwed there. Other guys I look to regress this year Chavez, Gordon - injuries Wondo - gold cup callups, impossible heights reached last season Salinas - regress compared to his pre-marquez form at least 2012 Newcastle had an amazing season and finished a surprising 5th in only their 2nd season after promotion. Then they fail to strengthen and let important role players like best and guthrie go in 2012 summer and they have a disaster of a 2013 season with injuries and drops in form and absences to african cup of nations. Fortunately for them their owner spent big in the winter window but they are still barely above the drop zone right now.
Oh, and before you say that the changes the Quakes made between 2011 and 2012 were much "bigger" because they brought in so many top players who were expected to start or play a lot of minutes, let me refute that right away. Only 3 of the 15 players on the 2012 Quakes who played 1000 or more minutes were NOT on the Quakes roster in 2011 (Chavez, Bernardez, Salinas). So these "big changes" between 2011 and 2012 may not have been quite as "big" as you like to make out. Yes, Bernardez and Chavez were key additions, but still 9 of the regular starting 11 at the end of 2012 were players who were with the Quakes in 2011. And 66 out of the 72 goals that the Quakes scored in 2012 were scored by players who were on the 2011 roster.
Beitashour played only at an average MLS level (if that) for the entire second half of last season, so losing him for a month or two is not really as big a hit as you make out. Beita was still pretty good defensively, but offensively was a shadow of his former self. In his first 9 games in 2012 he had 5 assists and was terrorizing defenses up the wing. But over the rest of the year, in 24 games, he only had one assist and rarely took guys on down the line. Gargan is a very good, experienced defender and should be able to fill in for Beita pretty well. If the team can get back the "first half of 2012" Beitashour by April or May, then I'd argue it could actually be a net positive overall for the year. On Chavez and Gordon regressing because of injuries, both of them missed a lot of time last year due to injuries (and Gordon missed the first part of the season last year, just like this year) so I'm not sure I buy that argument. On Salinas, he was not the same player after the collarbone injury, which happened less than 2 months into the season. I could see him making a much bigger impact this year because he has had full time to heal and will have the full preseason to get back on his form of early last year. The only one that I might agree with in terms of raw stats that is likely to "regress" is Wondo, as it's just not realistic to expect 27 goals again. But that doesn't mean his impact will be less, as he will continue to draw attention away from the other forwards and allow them to score more. Other players who could reasonably be expected to step up and contribute much more this year are Garza and Fucito, and if either or both Ballouchy and Tracy get healthy enough to play, that's a net positive over 2012. Yes, it's possible (and even likely) that the Quakes won't have as good a record this year as last. It's just hard to expect the kind of season they had last year to be repeated. But it's as reasonable to think they could be as good or better than last year in terms of overall play, than it is to think they will be worse. Injuries and other bad luck happen, as do unexpected breakout years and good luck, so who's to really say.
Whoa, you are working way, way too hard here! It's really pretty simple. I would assume that when we talk about "standing pat" vs. not during the offseason, we are talking about the number of "significant signings" during the offseason. No one cares if we swapped out backup right backs. Between 2011 and 2012, the Quakes signed 4 guys who were projected starters (Bernardez, Chavez, Moreno, and Salinas).That's 40% of your field players. Three relatively marquee / international player signings and one sort of ' tweener (Salinas - not "marquee" but not insignificant either). Between 2012 and this year, the number is 0. I suppose the closest would be Fucito, a #5 cast-off striker from Seattle? What actually happens during the season is another topic. As it turned out, Moreno didn't pan out, but Bernardez and Chavez were really, really good, and Salinas was pretty good. That's a pretty good strike rate, and it's the teams that make this level of change and get a good strike rate out of it that have the potential to leap-frog teams that are more or less the same team as last year. Again, I didn't invent the "stand pat" thing. QuakeAttack started the thread, and I don't think anyone else has attempted to refute the idea that the Quakes are, relatively speaking, standing pat with their roster this offseason. Heck, even the media is clear on this. Last year there were articles about how the Quakes were going to really make an effort to make their team more competitive. This year the articles are essentially about the Quakes "standing pat", even down to the use of the term "standing pat". "The Earthquakes basically stood pat after their uplifting run to the MLS Supporters' Shield as the team with the best record." http://www.mercurynews.com/earthqua...e-earthquakes-open-camp-aiming-recapture-2012
So the stats aren't working for you? I think we need to start with how and why we got MUCH better between '11 and '12, with essentially the same team. You want to attribute that improvement mostly to roster enhancements. I'll grant you that's important, but I think that you are overlooking some other factors. 1. Fitness Improvement. We were not fit enough in '11, our guys were often gassed by the 70th minute and we gave up a lot of late leads or ties. In '12, we worked hard on fitness. I believe, and hope, that we are doing that again this season. 2. Attitude Adjustment. We had some guys who were rumored to be attitude problems in '11. We ditched those guys and brought in players with better attitudes. And Wondo, Busch, and Corrales made it their mission to improve everyone else's attitude and show some leadership. Attitude is part of our drafting strategy also. We aren't just looking for the best available player, we're looking for good players with good attitudes. 3. Better Use of Subs. Our substitution efforts in '11 were dismal, appalling, and downright baffling. In '12, we subbed much earlier, we used all of our subs in nearly every game, and were intelligent and effective. (We can argue about why this was so later, for now it's enough to acknowledge it.) 4. Better Strategy and Tactics. In '11 we played almost exclusively long-balls over the top. This was terrible because most of the season we didn't have a true target forward to play that style. (Limited games from Lionheart and Flash.) In 12 we mostly attacked up the wings, with occasional burst up the middle. 5. Health. In '11 we lost Lionheart and Flash after just a few games each. And we had other injuries, including Simon, and a dramatic lack of speed on the wings. (For which we can only blame Yallop and Doyle.) In '12 we had Steve and Alan most of the season, and we had much greater speed on the wings thanks to Shea, Chavez, Dawkins, Baca, and Garza. It's not just about the roster, though that is a huge component. Unless our coaching skills backslide this coming season, we should be in good shape on that front. We should have good fitness again. This is a lesson twice learned, so we shouldn't blow it again. Reports from camp indicate that the team is still hungry. They feel that they should have won MLS Cup and didn't, so they are annoyed. That's good! Now health is a concern, we have a lot of guys on the IR right now. But we've brought in adequate replacements, so we should be alright. Now, back to you. Love how you're completely discounting Bostock there. Fucito should be good, and he gives us a speed option up top that we've not had before. But I agree, he's more of a journey man or castoff type than a marquee signing. Abu Tommy might turn out to be the real deal, but again, not a highly touted player. Dan Delgado was allegedly one of the most creative players in the draft, and we got him. But yeah, other than Bostock, Attakora, and Fucito, not a lot of name signings. You expect our competition to mostly improve, whereas I expect the scum-sucking filth, the SaltLickers, and the F#$%ing Flounders all to take a step backward. I acknowledge that I could be wrong about that, but the filth will be missing SpiceUnderwearBoy all season and whinny traitor Narcissus for a few games anyway. Looking here: Transactions. We see that the filth have signed only some dudes off the re-entry draft, a couple of homegrown dudes, and a free transfer. Juninho is on their list too, but he's been with them for years. RSL ditched a ton of players, and do appear to have replaced them with any big names, same for the f#$%ing Flounders. Of course, we see that the San José list is incomplete also, so this transactions list is not the final word. Or even the latest, greatest, most uptodatest word. But it does not appear to me that the sky is falling. And last but not least, you're welcome to disagree with me. I do not feel a burning need to persuade you of my point of view. I enjoy the discussion, but I don't need for you to agree with me. Do have a beer though! GO QUAKES!!! - Mark
No, they work just fine. You just need to find the right stats: 4 significant roster additions vs. 0. All those things you list (fitness, "attitude", etc.) are things that any team can do. What this thread is about is, all else equal, what is the level of change in the roster made during the offseason, and is "standing pat" a good idea. Well, he hasn't been signed yet, for one. At best he will be a replacement for Dawkins, so you are just kind of treading water there. Between 2011 and 2012 I don't know that the Quakes really lost any player that they really were going to miss, unless you want to count Convey. Not saying that the sky is falling at all. We are just debating whether or not "standing pat" is the best thing that you could have done. I think that you need to keep trying to improve your roster, even if it means taking some chances, or someone else is going to pass you by. This is why teams almost never repeat, in any sport. They get comfortable, they stand pat, other teams are more motivated to improve, someone's going to hit the right buttons and pass you by. I think in order to counteract that tendency you kind of have to force yourself to go against the grain - doesn't have to be drastic change, but some push to improve your roster, even if it already looks good to you.
I had to check the news to be sure it was not really the "Kim Jong-Style" nuclear testing you were referring to.
Yeah, saw that this morning. Pretty wild. A lot of damage, and it didn't actually hit anything. Wow. I hope we don't have any actual impacts. GO QUAKES!! - Mark
The Quakes should recruit Robbie Rogers and keep him from retiring from soccer. Wouldn't he do well as a replacement for Corrales?
I'm the one working too hard? Seems like the pot calling the kettle black. As for not caring if we swapped out backup right backs, people really SHOULD care. In general, the biggest exposure the Quakes had last year was lack of quality depth at right back, central defender, and forward. You keep saying that the team needs to work to improve the roster, well the roster includes the backups, and some of the backups are likely to play key roles. I think signing Gargan was a great move, he's a much more accomplished defender in MLS than Ward or Zayner were, the backups the past couple of years. And signing a young right back who has a lot of upside like McGlynn could also be key, particularly if Beitashour doesn't re-sign after this year. And the team seems to be doing a good job of filling in the holes with central defender depth as well. And with Fucito and the likely signing of Bostock, that helps fill in the depth at forward and outside mid (both players can play midfield or forward). It's not as glamorous as signing "big name" new players, but it's much more likely to make a positive impact. What's the success rate for teams with "big name" signings? Just last year, we were all regaled with how great the signings of DPs Kris Boyd, Kenny Miller, Barry Robson, Hamdi Salihi, Christian Tiffert, Jerry Bengston, and Tim Cahill were going to be. Most of those guys are already out of the league already, and those still around have yet to prove their worth and really make an impact. The notion that the Quakes should have gone out to try to sign multiple new starters just doesn't make sense to me. Most really good teams would kill to be able to return with basically the same roster the next year in any sport - and if they do, they tend to have quite a bit of success. Look at the New England Patriots over their run, they succeeded by bringing in young guys or lesser known players who fit their team strategy, not looking to bring in "big names". Or if you want MLS examples, look at the Columbus Crew in 2008-2009 when they won back to back Supporter Shields. They have virtually the same team in 2009, with only one player who played significant minutes in 2009 who was not on the 2008 team (Brunner). Or look at the Houston Dynamo from 2006-2008, a team that had a lot of success and made very few big roster changes year over year during that time. Or look at SKC from 2011 to 2012 - the only significant roster change they made was losing Omar Bravo and signing Bobby Convey (who didn't do much for them in 2012). Your idea that a team must make roster changes or else not do as well just doesn't always hold up. You say: But I've given you several examples where that didn't happen. And I say with the 2013 Quakes, they are making a lot more changes and potential improvement than you give them credit for. I doubt you'll change your opinion, but it would be nice if you could acknowledge that there are legitimate points to be made that contradict your point of view.