You read the "so far" part that proceeded that statement, right? Go ahead. Tell me how Omar has lived up to DP expectations. Tell me how he was the best defender in MLS last year to match his best salary. Tell me what we've won with him as a DP. Go ahead, convince me he's been worth DP money since he signed the new contract.
If someone were to make the argument that "I think having a defender as a DP limits our squad making ability", then that's a perfectly understandable position, even if someone doesn't agree with it. However, one cannot assume we'd have won MLS Cup or the CCL if we'd signed the "best DP ever" and let Omar walk. It also doesn't prove that giving Omar the DP contract was a bad move. It's pure conjecture regardless of whether you think Omar should or shouldn't have gotten a DP contract. Saying "we've not won any trophies since he was a DP" is straw man argument at best.
This is the crux of it, jmaestro. I don't think he can convince you. And you've practically explained why in this post. It is the DP contract that has changed your perception of Omar's performance. All of the data you are basing your "bust" assumption on is highly unreliable opinion on qualitative assessment of Omar's play. At the time of Omar's DP contract you clearly said to yourself, "That's a bad decision". And now, of course, all of the data as you interpret it is probably skewed by confirmation bias. Additionally your argument seems highly speculative as to the opportunity cost of signing Omar to a DP contract, or your perception of what a DP should be. Those ideas should have no bearing on the quality of Omar's play. If that's what you want to discuss, you might as well leave Omar out of it and talk about what you want out of a DP player. I would contend that there is limited data available to truly judge any player unless they are truly outstanding, let's say playing at a level significantly above his peers, or significantly below his peers. And data is also more limited for defenders. With limited data, it's practically impossible to say at this point the decision has been a "bust"or an outstanding success based on Omar's play. And it is highly doubtful that we could ever truly assess the opportunity cost of signing Omar to a DP contract unless sworn statements from soccer stars start pouring in stating, "I wanted to play for the Galaxy and would have signed this contract for $X, but alas! They already had signed that fool, Omar Gonzalez" EDIT: I'm going to retract the specification application of this premise to jmaestro, as he's posted way too many good things in this thread, to really be biased, and this probably would have been better applied to others- but I'll leave the post as a general lesson-learned about posting after only half reading a thread, a testament to my half-baked ideas, and because this probably applies to somebody. Right?
Frankly your expectations are overblown if you think that the 2013 team was going to win anything whether or not Omar had been given DP money. We had a crap Keeper. We had an under performing midfield that contained an out of position rookie, lost the league MVP, lost Beckham's set piece play and had a winger that never stayed healthy long enough to get a rhythm with the team. All we had were strikers, but oh yeah they missed wayyyy more shots then they made. Omar became a DP near the end of the season and helped a struggling backline do well enough to get into the playoffs. Did we win a title? No. Was it because we made Omar a DP? You can't convince me that such a decision was the reason. Especially since he has been the secret 4th DP of this team for years and helped it win 2 titles and he won the damn Final's MVP for title #2; Not Title 1, when you'd think he'd have been most hungry to go all out after losing the final in 2009. And if he were truly the complacent sort he would have been satisfied by the lone title win. By your logic Beckham can be considered a bust for the first 2 years of being here. Because we didn't even make it to the playoffs let alone win anything. (And I'm sure there are those who would say exactly that inspite Beckham's stats those years.) It's unrealistic to call a decision to reward a proven player with a pay increase a bad idea thus far after less than one year of that player operating under their new contract. Omar may not have been the best player on the field but he has by no means stunk up the pitch to such a degree that one should seriously consider taking away his contract. Especially when considering the performances of other teammates (looking at you Leonardo) and DP's on this team and around the league. Omar has been a beast since day. If anybody can take a justified dip in form it's him and inspite of that, inspite of his partners next to him at CB, he is still doing good enough to get called up to the National team and potentially be given an even bigger payday to sit as a damn number 2 in Europe.
You do realize we only made Omar a DP AFTER we weren't able to close the deal on a midfield upgrade, right? United made the disastrous Moyes hire instead of Jose, which meant Jose had to go back to Chelsea, and he talked Lampard into staying another year. Otherwise, Lampard would be running our midfield, and Omar would probably be struggling for minutes ahead of the World Cup with "Euro team x"
A straw man is a fake position that you set up to attack. That's not what I did. I said having Omar as a DP limited our options for bringing in a midfielder to replace Beckham and we haven't won a trophy since we made that decision. Both of which happen to be true.
Yep. I said it at the time: it was a 3rd or 4th option. Doesn't make it a good move. Another lesson from basketball: if you can't get a max - level player to sign one year, you are always better saving the cap space and trying again than locking yourself into a max deal with a player who might be good but isn't max deal good and in the end limits your teams potential. I've made three early, and controversial statements on these boards that have gotten me a ton of flack, and I stand by them all: 1. I posted against Omar's contract early and often. 2. I posted that the Rogers trade was terrible not because Magee was going to be the MVP or Rogers was gay, but because Rogers was just not that good of a player to start with. 3. I posted that Donovan lost a step or three this offseason and I think his odometer flipped over some crucial amount of miles. I think this team has the potential to have a rebuilding project on its hands in 2 years.
I think the RSL games were a decent test despite the coaching change but agree 100% that the real test is in front of us. In particular our next 4 games make for a brutal stretch: on the road against Colorado, Portland, and Houston followed by league-leading Dallas at home. Even without playing terribly we could end up with some big dents in our record over that stretch. In any case we will know a lot more about our team after we go through this mine field.
Thanks @skydog. I've been writing in the USMNT forum that Omar's form has been much better for the Galaxy. I get laughed at, but your argument helps my debate! I don't think he's been GIANT but he looks much better than the tail end of last year. Plus...he has a dumpster fire playing to his left. But he still has work to do. I'm still not comfortable with him starting at the World Cup. I like him better than some other options though.
The irony is that you decry the Omar DP contract as poor, but it is the only one that has the potential to help the team in 2 years. With LD and Keane we will absolutely have to rebuild our attack. 1. The belief that if we hadn't signed Omar to DP then we would have an awesome third DP is typical of Galaxy fans, but not supported historically. Bringing in Donovan, Beckham, and Keane were big deals. Not easily duplicated. Additionally the timing of it all meant we had three options - keep Omar for the rest of the year and then he walks (LA gets nothing), send Omar to Europe in the middle of our season and replace him with nobody, or sign Omar to DP. I think option 3 was actually the best option. Sure it's not Kaka, but it was the best. And your assumption that because we have Omar signed as a DP that we couldn't move him if we wanted to, I'm not sure that's true. 2. Rogers in his prime was just as good a player as Magee and probably a better fit for the Galaxy's on the field needs. The huge problem with the trade is that Rogers was retired and Magee was game fit. Way too much riding on "if Rogers can get fit and regain his form of more than a year ago". Of course this trade was clearly only partly about on the field for LA, whether you believe in league driven propaganda, Magee wanting to go to Chicago or wanting a chance to be the main guy. 3. LD is older but the tendinitis may be much bigger than loss of speed. I think his demise is over exaggerated because of the whole Nats politics. I think the story is he's got some tendinitis that he'll either work through or it will force him to retire. I think he's a lot tougher than he gets credit for, so he'll play out the season. Plus when Juergen leaves him on the bench he whole tournament hopefully he'll get some good rest.
Tactics vs strategy. Strategically AEG/Galaxy have been spot on from the early parts of this century. Tactically they’ve made dozens of errors – even Beckham was a tactical error for the first 3+ years. I’d classify Omar’s DP contract as neutral so far. To call it a bust (or a success) is premature at best. On the plus side Retained the keystone of defense Didn’t lose him on a free transfer On the negative side: Used up a Designated Player spot Performance has declined relative to 2012 Currently Unknowns Will Omar get sold at some point? Is a 4th DP coming in 2014? Will there be a plethora of DPs available post WC2014 LA will be unable to pursue? Never knowable: Would we have been in the market for Bradley (Defoe was a non-starter)? What would LA have had to do to replace Omar in terms of trades/transfer fees/international spots? What impact would that have had on signing Ishizaki, Friend or Husidic?
Flapjack and Dashiel, I hear all your points. I think you know mine, so I won't just repeat them again. We'll see how it goes in the future, and I could get proven wrong. I don't think so, of course, but I've been wrong before. One additional thought: in a capped league, you always have to make value calls. As it stands right now, and totally disregarding how the trade happened, what contracts were in place, etc., I would rather have someone like Husidic on his salary than Magee on a DP deal. I do think Magee is a quality player who raised his game in 2011, but I think he had his career year last year and for a team that needs all of the DP slots like the Galaxy, I think he would not be good value.
I get where you’re coming from too. When you have a limited resource (DP spots) they should be used to measurably improve the squad or at least an attempt to; they’re MLS’ version of a moon shot. Omar didn’t improve the team, he at best maintained the status quo.
It's not easy. It's hard. Lots of teams have gotten it wrong. Heck, we got it wrong with Juan Pablo Angel. But do we want to take the safe route that limits the team in the end? Or are we shooting for a team that can be the best team in MLS? I don't think safe is what this team, this city, and this fanbase are about. I'm not OK with a pretty good team that makes the 3rd seed every year, loses in the conference finals, and isn't really a contender in the CCL or for the SS each year.
That is highly unrealistic given the structure of MLS. LA as it currently stands is as close as the league is likely to get in having the best team in the league over a series of years.
I dunno, I kind of disagree with this. RSL has proved you can be a constant contender by keeping a strong core of good but not exceptional players. We have done the exact same thing. You can stay near the top in MLS for a long time period, to be dominant though is damn near impossible in today's structure. Dominance is what is required to succeed in all tournaments as well
What would it take for you to say the current direction isn't good? I don't mean that sarcastically at all, even though it sounds that way. I mean, say we don't win a trophy this year. Is that when we say we went astray? or does it take 3 or 4 years? Or is contending but falling short enough as long as we're in play every year, and the losses can be chalked up to parity and bad luck? (which does happen)
I went back and rewatched portions of the Vancouver game to see if he was loafing. He's not - he's got some great off the ball runs (some of which are overlapping with Ishizaki - not sure who said that in this thread, @MPNumber9? - what they noticed was accurate). His movement is good. Still needs to be more aggressive in the final third - needs to make more cutting runs into the box rather than being the set up man all the time. But the whole old man/shell of himself commentary - I encourage you to watch him when he doesn't have the ball. His movement is a-ok. I think he's trying to "find" #135 right now. He's got to get this goal off his back.
There should not be teams that are consistently better than us (over a 3-4 year period) who spend significantly less than us. Either spending money on DPs gives us an advantage, in which case if other teams are doing better than we should blame our coaches. Or if it doesn't give us an advantage, we shouldn't be spending the money, or at least spend it someplace else.
Classic Bruce: http://www.mlssoccer.com/news/artic...-rhythm-bruce-arena-disagrees-rhythm-stuff-li Hilarious that his own players disagree with him.
As always: Bruce is awesome. When he retires, someone needs to do a long montage of all his best moments with reporters. He's had some hilarious doozies.
Continuing on the performance issue (this thread probably isn't the best player for it, but that's life) I ranked the Galaxy against the teams that have been consistently good for the last four years - a very good period for us. Average Table Position RSL 3.5 LA 3.75 KC 4.5 NY 4.5 SEA 5.25 HOU 9 Average Playoff Position (1=cup,2=final,3=out in conf final, 4=out in semi final, 6= Did not make semi final) LA 2.25 KC 3 RSL 3.25 HOU 3.25 SEA 3.75 NY 4 SS and Cup LA 3 KC 1 NY 1 RSL 0 HOU 0 SEA 0 Not surprisingly, we perform well on all dimensions. In addition, I would put our team in the top 3rd of teams in all season (including last season) For me, this gives Bruce two years. If this year and next we end up like 2013, then I think a good case could be made for Bruce out.
Hindsight and the metrics you value most in measuring success. The reality is we’re all making, at best, educated guesses the results of which can take months or years to bear out. We take those events that come to pass that meet our guesses as confirmation we were right, while those that contradict our predictions are quickly forgotten or explained away. As for metrics were the 1998 and 2010 seasons a success? Both were Supporters’ Shield winning years, both times we didn’t make the final. What about 2005 and 2012, abysmal regular seasons where the team squeaked in to the last play-off spot and won the whole thing? Personally 2005 and to a lesser extent 2012 were not good years for the Galaxy despite the trophies. For me I want to see a team that is competitive throughout the season and consistently makes the playoffs. I want a team that makes Cup Finals and/or wins the Supporters’ Shield on a regular basis of every 4 or so years. So if LA misses the play-offs this year or if they fail to make a Cup Final (CCL/MLS Cup) or win the Supporters’ Shield within the next 4 seasons then that’s the indication something has changed. Though a caveat being in the next 4 years 4 new teams will be added to the league making these metrics all the more difficult to achieve.