NBC Sports president: superclubs generate ratings

San Jose challenge LA?
Hell, I was hoping the Galaxy would get their crap together to upend the Quakes (which they did)...
The Red Bulls are just perfect the way they are, I so enjoy watching NY teams stumble about... Granted its not the teams' fault..Its more a resentment with the sports media treating NY teams as the center of the sporting universe. (Giants, Jets, Yankees, Knicks etc. etc)..

 

That was a joke, btw. #WeHazAMeme

 

I thought we had a super club in Seattle. They invented soccer. I will look for the source, be right back....

 

#SeeYouSpaceCowboy

 

How is that research of yours coming along?

 

My research keeps popping up Seattle and genital warts.

 

If the results of your query unsettles you, may I suggest a lifestyle change. No one should have to suffer from genital warts after learning that the Sounders are a super club.

 

Innocence is bliss.

 

But sir, Seattle is a leper colony, filled with chlamydia fanatics. Read that somewhere. Will look for the web site. Be right back......

 

This is only what we tell folks in California. We are tired of them moving here and screwing up our roads.

 

I find it interesting/disturbing that you peruse websites about chlamydia fanatics...

 

A really good post IMO.

MLS doesn't need "super teams", it needs policies that encourage attractive, marketable teams.

It needs stars.

And you're right, they don't have to be located in only LA and NY, although I concede both serve as favored distinations for players themselves. Seattle isn't a huge market -- the 15th largest MSA and 14th largest Metropolitan Market Region. They have demonstrated a willingness to spend money on DPs -- Wahl has them second in his ambition rankings.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/soccer/news/20130103/mls-ambition-rankings/

But you may have noticed from the news wrap, with it's expansion team allocation money now about gone and without the bump from the CCL allocation, the Sounders are looking at chucking all three of their DPs and have already traded Jeff Parke to get under the cap:

http://seattletimes.com/html/soundersfcblog/2020064852_sounders_gm_we_would_only_move.html

I know, I know, fans of teams that show no appetite to spend more on players don't want the rules changed -- they are argue fans prefer parity to stars concentrated on fewer rosters.

Well, if fans prefer it, the TV ratings don't show it.

 

Hey, it must be those annoying Californians who want the porn industry to stop barebacking.

 

$250 mil? Wonder why does that number sound familiar?

 

You seemed to have missed an important part of the article you quoted.. The Sounders might be open to moving all of their DPs, but they are only doing so if it means they can bring in another DP to replace them. The Sounders do have salary cap issues due to failing to qualify for the 2013/14 CCL competition, but they aren't having a fire sale.

 

almost 10 times as much as the primetime MLS deal...lol.

 

I suggest you read it again, because that's not what it says. In fact, it says a DP for DP swap is unlikely:

"The indication then is that if Montero is indeed loaned out, the team would be able to replace him with another high-priced player. At least in theory. In reality, the Sounders "are currently considerably above the 2013 salary cap," Hanauer said.

Therefore a DP-for-DP swap wouldn't much appease the financial constrains of the salary cap since all DPs hit the cap at the same price."

http://seattletimes.com/html/soundersfcblog/2020064852_sounders_gm_we_would_only_move.html

 

time to increase the salary cap.

 

It is time that the league minimum is bumped to @ $60K, and move the cap to somewhere around $3.75 - $3.85 mil, with the later being slightly more important than the former. As a league, MLS should not be in a position where teams have to dump players just to stay under the cap. As much as I hate Seattle, loaning out Montero is not good for Seattle or the league, especially if it is being done for financial reasons. Further, the purge at RSL should not have to happen either. Perhaps a mecanism is needed to allow teams to keep players rostered, even when it puts them over cap.

 

As long as there's a cap that's always going to happen. Each year every team uses almost all of the cap. Then at the end of the year teams want to improve, which means spending more money, not to mention players already on the team who have earned more money. So they'll have to dump some players to make room for the new players and to pay their existing players more.

 

Agreed, with a salary cap, successful teams need to know when to unload players.

 

every team uses the full cap but thats because its so dang low. should just move it up to 6 million.

 

And then pretty much every team will use the 6 million, so next season they'll still have to get rid of players in order to fit under the cap.

 

could afford a lot better and a lot more with that though.

 

Maybe so, but the point being responded to was that the league should never have to lose players to get under the cap. That's always going to happen if there's a cap.