So Alex Dixon another Dynamo homegrown gets released. Darrel Lovell writes MLS.com stories on the Dynamo and he tweeted this today. "Dixon release news finally getting out. Happened after NY game but roster guidelines has held up official announcement." He had a super injury time game winner against RSL and was getting regular minutes a few years ago but has had some injuries and has been nailed to the bench since then. 19 minutes of MLS action this year. So Josue Soto and Alex Dixon were let go this year, and 18 yr old Bryan Salazar was added. And Tyler Deric is still no.2 goal keeper. So the Dynamo home grown's are still not lighting up the league. I'm holding out hope that Sebestian Ibeagha will be the turning point for the program.
Now that the 2013 regular season is over, let's take another look at how the current crop of homegrown players fared. First, some introductory notes: 1. There were either 69 or 71 HGPs under contract with the league in 2013. The ambiguity involves Jonathan Osorio and Carlos Salcedo, neither of whom technically signed through the HG rule, but both of whom spent brief stints in the academies of Toronto and Salt Lake City respectively. I’ll call them HGPs in this analysis because I feel that they largely fit the spirit of the law. Players like DeAndre Yedlin and Jose Villarreal spent similarly little time with the academies of their respective clubs as well. 2. We’ve heard through the grapevine that some HGPs signed during the season were not eligible to play in 2013 (Danny Garcia and Jesse Gonzalez, for example). This is a bit strange, because late-season HGP signing Sam Adekugbe played for Vancouver last night. I don’t know for sure who wasn’t eligible and who just didn’t play this season. Ah, MLS. Anyway, let’s look at how the numbers have progressed over the years. Tristan Bowen, the first HGP, signed in November 2008; thus, the story begins in the 2009 season. HGP players under contract: 2009: 4 2010: 16 2011: 39 2012: 48 2013: 71 Total HGP minutes played: 2009: 1 2010: 4353 2011: 11957 2012: 14630 2013: 39635 (6.2% of total league minutes, slightly higher if I were to bother to account for time lost due to red cards) Mean HGP min/player: 2009: 0 2010: 272 2011: 307 2012: 305 2013: 558 Median HGP min/player: 2009: 0 2010: 9 2011: 0 2012: 12.5 2013: 27 Players with >0 minutes vs. players with 0 minutes 2009: 1 / 3 2010: 11 / 5 2011: 19 / 20 2012: 29 / 19 2013: 40 / 31 Clearly, there was a very significant increase in the number of overall HGP minutes played in 2013, although excitement about these gains should be slightly tempered by the knowledge that the overall number of HGPs increased as well. Nonetheless, minutes played increased by 171% while total HGPs increased by only 48%. Consequently, minutes per player increased by 83%. We’ll look more closely at the team level and individual level in the next post.
The gains in HGP playing time can be seen below. In 2012, six players played 1000 minutes or more. In 2013, that number ballooned to 21, despite the fact that two of the six players from 2012 didn’t even come close to equaling their total in 2013 (Najar and Lade). 2012: 2528 – Ashtone Morgan 2392 – Bill Hamid 2088 – Connor Lade 2045 – Andy Najar 1570 – Juan Agudelo 1139 – Doneil Henry 770 – Diego Fagundez 433 – Bryan Leyva 248 – Tristan Bowen 208 – Ruben Luna 201 – Brent Richards 140 – Matt Lampson 122 – Jose Villarreal 117 – Russell Teibert 114 – Alex Dixon 101 – Jonathan Top 90 – Tyler Deric 89 – Matt Stinson 66 – Karl Ouimette 64 – Ben Speas 26 – Cristhian Hernandez 17 – Marco Delgado 17 – Jimmy McLaughlin 15 – Caleb Clarke 10 – Keith Makubuya 8 – Jack McBean 4 – Davy Armstrong 4 – Shane O’Neill 4 – Zach Pfeffer 2013: 2710 – DeAndre Yedlin 2427 – Diego Fagundez 2250 – Bill Hamid 2196 – Shane O’Neill 2174 – Scott Caldwell 2170 – Gyasi Zardes 1805 – Ashtone Morgan 1777 – Russell Teibert 1697 – Jonathan Osorio 1651 – Doneil Henry 1612 – Chad Barson 1402 – Juan Agudelo 1389 – Wil Trapp 1247 – Marco Delgado 1173 – Tristan Bowen 1170 – Matt Lampson 1158 – Josue Soto 1109 – Jose Villarreal 1099 – Ethan White 1070 – Carlos Salcedo 1004 – Kellyn Acosta 935 – Ben Speas 884 – Bryan de la Fuente 554 – Jack McBean 547 – Karl Ouimette 397 – Wandrille Lefevre 363 – London Woodberry 359 – Collin Martin 355 – Conor Shanosky 303 – Maxim Tissot 166 – Connor Lade 114 – Michael Seaton 113 – Kevin Ellis 90 – Matt Kassel 90 – Sam Adekugbe 27 – Bradlee Baladez 19 – Alex Dixon 14 – Matt Miazga 13 – Dillon Serna 2 – Amando Moreno By Current Team, 2013: 5622 – New England 5153 – Toronto 5106 – Columbus 4843 – Chivas USA 4177 – D.C. 3833 – Los Angeles 2710 – Seattle 2209 – Colorado 1867 – Vancouver 1394 – Dallas 1247 – Montreal 1070 – Salt Lake City 182 – New York 113 – Kansas City 90 – Philadelphia 19 – Houston 0 – Chicago, Portland By Original Team, 2013: 5153 – Toronto 5106 – Columbus 5006 – Los Angeles 4601 – New England 4177 – D.C. 2710 – Seattle 2209 – Colorado 2131 – Chivas USA 1867 – Vancouver 1674 – New York 1394 – Dallas 1247 – Montreal 1177 – Houston 1070 – Salt Lake City 113 – Kansas City 0 – Chicago, Philadelphia, Portland This changes slightly, as LA gets credit for Bowen, NY gets credit for Agudelo and Kassel, and Houston gets credit for Soto.
So a bunch of HGPs are playing a lot and that’s good. But there are still quite a few players without an appearance to their name and it’s crucial to examine what’s happening to them as well. Here’s a list of players who didn’t play in MLS in 2013: Alderson, Bryce Aparicio, Manny Armstrong, Davy Calvert, Caleb Castano, Santiago Clarke, Caleb Crepeau, Maxime Deric, Tyler Evans, Steven Fernandez, Lalo Garcia, Danny Gonzalez, Jesse Gulley, Kellen Hernandez, Cristhian Hernandez, Moises Horton, Aaron Hyland, Kyle Kempin, Jon Lopez, Benji McLaughlin, Jimmy Messoudi, Zakaria Palmer-Brown, Erik Pfeffer, Zach Pineda, Victor Richards, Brent Roberts, Quillan Salazar, Bryan Sanchez, Richard Sorto, Oscar Top, Jonathan Ulloa, Victor Some of these guys are wasting away on the bench, but “zero minutes played” can mean a lot of things. Are they on loan, are they playing both reserve and U-18 matches, etc? On loan, abroad: Clarke, Hernandez M, Pfeffer On loan, domestic: Alderson, Fernandez, Gulley, Hernandez C, Horton, Kempin, McLaughlin, Sanchez U-18 USSDA: Calvert, Castano, Gonzalez, Lopez, Palmer-Brown, Salazar Reserve league only: Aparicio, Armstrong, Crepeau, Deric, Evans, Garcia, Hyland, Messoudi, Pineda, Richards, Roberts, Sorto, Top, Ulloa Not all loans are great and playing in the DA U-18 league doesn’t always provide enough of a challenge. That being said, over half of the “zeroes” had opportunities to play outside of just the inadequate reserve league. Similarly, a majority of players who played between 0 and 300 MLS minutes largely fell into the same category of loans and U-18. Expansion of the MLS-USL partnership sh0uld, in theory, further reduce the "reserve league only" category.
Hold on a second. This season, only 5% of MLS regulars (10 players out of 197) were HGPs. ("Regulars" = players who played at least 50% of their team's minutes.) This may be more than in past years, but it's still a negligibly small number compared with the league as a whole. And even though the continued maturation of the HGP program is likely to result in an increase in HGPs in the years ahead, we seem to be extremely far from any sort of cost-effectiveness. This season, Portland and New York have proven that a great way to build a winner is to make a lot of reasonably intelligent foreign signings. When you can grab Kah for $70K, Valencia for $65K, and Powell for $35K, what need is there for the massive outlay of an academy system? This philosophy may be downright hostile to American-produced players, but why argue with success?
Tristan Bowen, the first ever homegrown signing, is still just 22 years old. There are first round draft picks from this year that are older than that. So duh, of course homegrown players are going to be a small percentage of regulars, because the homegrown initiative is still in its nascence. Most current MLS worthy American players didn't grow up playing in an MLS development academy. The development academy is just now expanding to U14. The curriculum has been refined. The training hour requirements have been increased. Teams are affiliating with other academies to broaden their geographic reach. But it's an ongoing process. Many of these steps are still being made, and some won't bear fruit for years. In your judgment. Which seems unnecessarily bitter. Since you harp about this. On lots of threads. MLS gives it clubs flexibility to build teams the way they want, and numerous methods have proved successful. The Colorado Rapids won the 2010 MLS Cup largely with American players who had played in college. And this year, they've been successful, with key rookie contributions from an American college draftee (Dillon Powers) and an American homegrown player (Shane O'Neill). The LA Galaxy have won MLS Cup the last two years with 3 high profile DPs, but also a roster with lots of American players - Donovan, Gonzalez, Magee, Dunivant, Franklin, DeLaGarza, Stephens, Jiminez, etc. Also, I'll note that before the Galaxy won in 2011, no team with a DP had won MLS Cup. Some people were saying the DP rule was a failure, and that it didn't help teams win. Now, every team has at least one DP. The point is, the success of NYRB and Portland this year bears no relevance to the long term success of the homegrown player rule. As we can see from initiatives like the DP rule, sometimes it just takes a while.
The original statement was, "A bunch of HGPs are playing a lot." What you seem to be saying is, "We shouldn't expect a bunch of HGPs to be playing a lot." Spot the difference? I wouldn't have thought this was a judgment call. Garber claims (and I believe him) that the league is spending $10 million per year on youth development. Do you think its HGPs are currently adding close to $10M/year in return? Note that this means MLS getting $10 million of value on top of what those players would already have been worth. Elsewhere, you have argued that the cost-effectiveness of the homegrown program is in relation to the salary cap. I think you were right about that, but you need to be consistent. If there are alternative ways to work around the salary cap, then this limits the value of the homegrown program. In other words, you can't pretend that NYRB and Portland's methods for negotiating the salary cap are irrelevant. Why spend $10 million per year to develop something yourself if you can buy it cheaply elsewhere?
I'm happy to withdraw that statement if it means we can avoid a battle over semantics. To be clear, the purpose of my statement was little more than a segue between a section highlighting the year-over-year gains in HGP playing time and a section discussing all the players who aren't playing. I share many of your high-level concerns about the ROI of the HG program, but I'm not ready to sound the alarm after a season in which total HG minutes played almost tripled.
The question, then, is really whether we have any absolute benchmark for interpreting the minutes numbers. If you triple from an ounce of beer to three ounces, you haven't gotten very far, particularly when a lot of it is the soccer equivalent of backwash (2013 Chivas/Columbus/DC/TFC).
That is not what I am saying. What I am saying is a bunch of HGPs are playing, yet your expectations are too high. I don't dispute that the investments haven't paid off yet, but you say it's "extremely far" from being cost effective. That's the part where I say "in your judgement." I'm not sure what you mean by ways to 'work around the salary cap.' The $10 million figure is a bit sensationalist. Divide that by 19 teams, and that means clubs are spending on average about half a million each on player development. Since the Red Bulls are spending about $8 million on just Henry and Cahill, yes, I think it's worth it for them to invest in their homegrown program as well. Also, the cheap foreign players the US buys don't tend to have high resale value. Youth player development is always going to be hit or miss, but when you hit, you can sell someone like Andy Najar for millions. We don't need an "absolute benchmark for interpreting the minutes numbers." The homegrown player rule is not on trial. If we believed your debby downer trolling posts, teams would be smart to just cut their homegrown programs. Instead MLS is doubling down and investing more.
Ok, so no need for the hostility. Look at the examples I posted. If you can get the likes of Kah, etc., for well under $100K, then you've already trimmed all the cap space you need. I don't see it that way. If we're looking at the aggregate product, then we compare it with the aggregate cost of production. Just doing the back of the envelope. In terms of transfer fees, you need four Najar deals a year to cover your costs. But obviously, a Neymar type deal would change the economics significantly. (No sign of that on the horizon.) Not sure how long you've followed soccer in this country, but as always, things are much more in flux than that. MLS is floating a trial balloon, and as results come in, teams will respond. If academy alumni are flourishing, then teams will really double down, and we'll start to see residential programs with highly qualified coaches and all expenses covered. And if the academies aren't delivering, they will probably be marginalized and exist chiefly as pay-to-play marketing tools. The range of possibilities is very wide.
Considering the minimal investments that MLS teams are putting into youth development, they are getting a fairly decent ROI, IMHO.. That ROI is, in most cases, negative, but considering most MLS teams are half-assing it? I'm not sure you could expect a positive ROI as you'll see in some of the top development systems in other parts of the country. From what I've seen/heard of development in other countries the kids are basically living soccer from an early age, while MLS youth development doesn't start until kids hit their teens and even then, the amount and quality of training that they are getting is inferior to that in other countries. As an example, I recently saw a documentary on the Sounders and one of the people they interviewed was former DP Christian Tiffert. He grew up in Germany's development system and according to him, he started off the day with a few hours of school, then have a few hours of soccer practice, then back to school, and then end the day with soccer practice until 8-9 at night. You just don't get that with MLS clubs (Maybe RSL's and Vancouver's residency programs, but I'm not sure on those).
You're focused on the cost of developing homegrown players, but ignoring the costs of effective scouting. Also you are overstating your case about the cheapness of foreign players. Most of the Red Bulls foreign players cost over $100K. And while Portland may have gotten Kah for cheap, it's the $400K Valeri that has the bigger impact. You're emphasizing the total cost while using the pronoun "you." Who is "you"? MLS as a whole? For example your next line.. Not if you're DC United. They got to keep 75% of that transfer fee. The Najar deal by itself can fund their whole development program for years. We're already starting to see residential academies! We're already seeing expenses increasingly being covered! The Union have started their own high school. RSL and Vancouver have residential academies. But it's going to take time. The process is evolutionary. All of your complaints seem to be that it's not revolutionary. There's going to be a long lag time between steps being implemented and them having an impact for the senior team. Like the fact that the DA expanded down to U14. We won't see those players for years. And many won't be in their prime for a decade. MLS is committed to player development. It's not a trial balloon. Obviously MLS will continue to amend its approach. But thus far all amendments have been towards more investment in youth development, not less.
Yes, scouting costs money, too. Happy? Obviously, high-quality DPs are big drivers of success, but that's got nothing to do with the salary cap question at hand. Not sure where you're going with this. Obviously, it's possible for one club to make money hand over fist while the others take a bath, but I already explained that I was talking about aggregate numbers. Yes, but for most participants, RSL residency is very expensive. Not sure about Vancouver, since it isn't available to Americans. We agree that the process is evolutionary. If you re-read the comment you're responding to, you'll note that it describes the range of ways in which things could evolve. But that doesn't change the fact that it needs to show results, and the sooner the better. For the first time in its history, MLS is in a free-spending era. You seem to be assuming that that's going to last forever. Again, I have to ask how long you've been following soccer in the country.
Yes it does. Your thesis basically was "the homegrown player initiative is not cost effective because teams like Portland and New York show you can fill a roster with cheap foreign players." But their rosters aren't filled with cheap foreign talent. They have some bargains, sure, but they also have expensive players. I'm sure both clubs would love to be able to fill their rosters with quality American homegrown depth. But the incentives are totally different for an individual club than they are for the league as a whole. The league wants better player development, so it mandated clubs have U18, U16 and U14 academies. Now, sure, clubs can half-ass this (San Jose comes to mind). But the clubs that better develop talent, like DC United, will be able to reap the rewards, like from selling an Andy Najar. So basically the league is providing clubs the right incentives to develop their own talent. Pay to play is still an issue. But clubs are doing more than before in terms of trying to keep costs low. I find your stance remarkable. On other threads you criticize clubs for short term thinking because they aren't playing enough young players. But your view is that if the academy program doesn't start seeing better results soon, MLS should scrap/marginalize it. It's your thinking that is short term. Teams are spending more, sure, but that's because they have more revenue to spend. Game day, sponsorship and broadcasting revenue are higher than they were 5-10 years ago. Not enough for most teams to profit, but enough for clubs to increase their investments in their rosters (both through DPs and player development). But I certainly wouldn't call the era "free spending" whatever the heck that means. Nothing lasts forever. But yes, I am bullish about soccer's prospects in the United States. I don't see the situation being comparable to the overspending by NASL at all. MLS clubs have much more solid financial footing. The league has rich owners that largely control their own venues and attendance that has been solid and stable. The long term trend lines for soccer's popularity, motivated in part by demographic and generational change, bode very well. I don't see how that's particularly relevant. I was too young to see the NASL collapse, but old enough to watch the World Cup in 1994 and the opening game of MLS. Like many in the United States though, my interest in soccer has greatly increased the last several years. It's much easier to follow soccer on TV and the internet than it used to be.
No, I wasn't suggesting that you fill your entire roster with cheap foreign players. You only have to sign enough reasonably cheap players in order to keep room clear for the expensive ones. This discussion is less about what I think MLS should do, and more about how speculative investments are usually handled (and surely you'll agree that MLS academies are speculative). When early returns are good, the amount invested grows. When they're not, it falls. All true. If the NASL had anything close to what MLS has, it would never have folded. But there are still going to be periods of relative feast and famine.
I agree this GA and HGP programs are far overrated as compared to the regular four year college route. Players like Geoff Cameron, Lawrence Olum, Omar Cummings, Shalrie Joseph, Graham Zusi, Futty Danso, Chris Schuler, Luis Silva etc are much more successful than many of these GA and HGPs and a much better investment. Some like Cummings, Joseph or Danso were already 24 and over during their rookie year but have developed in to great MLS players.
But you're comparing apples to oranges. Because it's a relatively new program, none, or a handful at most, of the homegrowns are 24 or older. Graham Zusi came into the league at 23, but didn't become a regular starter until he turned 25. He started nine games in his first two years. Is Graham Zusi a better player than Zach Pfeffer? We don't know, because Pfeffer is only eighteen. When Zusi was eighteen, he was playing on a travel team; Zach Pfeffer is a full-time pro currently training with a Bundesliga reserve side. If your criterion is how well developed a player is at 26, asking if a 26-year-old or an 18-year-old better fits that criterion isn't meaningful. An academy by definition is a long-term investment; you judge it by the long-term prospects, the ones who started in your academy at 14 and made it all the way to the prime of their careers. There aren't any of those yet. What we have are a few early-blooming stars like Najar and Fagundez, that colleges can't create by definition, and a lot of potentially good players that haven't had time to develop yet. In other words: if you're expecting every good player to force his way onto an MLS first team roster at age 17, then college is a waste of time. If you're not, you have to give the 17-year-olds time to develop before you can say they're failures.
I just hate that players who were not teen age phenoms or left college early and were 23 or older during their rookie seasons initially get paid much less than these GP or HGP players. Players like Omar Cummings, Futty Danso, , Shalrie Joseph, Servando Carrasco, Chris Schuler, Graham Zusi, Luis Silva had to struggle to get recognition and a decent pay day while these teenage phenoms who accomplish nothing and get paid much better. MLS has to give a fair pay to four year college soccer players.
Why? First of all, you seem to be working under the assumption that homegrown player contracts are a lot more lucrative than they are. Few of this year's homegrowns are making more than $50,000, and many are on league minimum of about $35k. But even if they are paid slightly more than equivalent draft picks--which I don't think has been adequately demonstrated--so what? The market sets player salaries, just like it does in most professions. Omar Cummings was a third-round draft pick in 2007. He didn't command a high salary because not many people were interested in his services. Third-round draft picks are gambles; you sign a bunch of them at low salaries and some of them pan out. Now, Omar Cummings turned out to be one of the good ones. But remember, in 2007, nobody thought he was going to be. If you wanted to pay Omar Cummings $150,000 as a rookie, you'd also need to pay that much for Steven Curfman, Edson Elcock, Scott Jones, Richard Asante, and Greg Dalby, all of whom were drafted ahead of him. These players want a chance to prove themselves, they don't have other options, and they're willing to earn $30,000 for a year or two to prove it. So that's what they get. To sign homegrown players, MLS is competing both with colleges and, sometimes, with other leagues abroad. A four-year college degree costs $60,000-$120,000 a year these days. So it will sometimes take a little bit more money to tempt them away, especially if the deals aren't guaranteed. GA players aren't paid more because they're willing to come out early; they get paid more because they're in demand. GA players are expected to be early draft picks, and early draft picks get paid more, whether they're out of college or high school. Of the players you listed, only Luis Silva was drafted in the first round, which is why he earned a guaranteed $80,000 a year in his first contract--more than most or all of this year's homegrowns, and about the same as many of that year's GA players, like Sam Garza and Andrew Jean-Baptiste. tl;dr version: the players you're complaining about weren't underpaid because they went to college; they were underpaid because they were late-round draft picks that weren't in great demand as players.
I understand what you're saying. It just sucks that's all that a player would make so little after going to school four years.
Not every 4 year degree has a high pay scale when they come out of college.. Hell, quite a few college grads would love if their job had a starting pay of $35k+
Not true. The CBA sets these salaries, and they're much higher than a free market would offer. Ask Wondo, Herculez, Larentowicz, Perkins, and Arnaud what they started on. I assume the "a year" is a typo, but even so, the range is much wider than this. With room and board, the most expensive four-year programs are on the order of $225K, and there are also still ways to get a good degree for under $60K, for instance, if a kid lives with parents and racks up credits at a community college.
I haven't seen the new CBA, but if it's anything like the old one, it really only sets minimum salaries and the salary budget, plus a few incidentals. There is still a wide range of salaries players can make under the CBA structure--from $35,125 guaranteed to $5,000,000 guaranteed--and the market determines where on that line you fall. Yes, should be total attendance, not annual.