I've been looking over the roster and am noticing something really interesting. For the first time in a few years we have had some real difficulties on the back line and allowed some boneheaded scoring plays, way too many chances, and a lot of corners. This makes me think that as things change for the better in quality between our 3 central defenders, it also creates an issue where we might just have too much talent at one (well 2) position(s). We've all seen teams move a guy out to clear space for another younger player and get max value out of a guy while there's still time (before injuries take their toll). This happens constantly in baseball, particularly at corner infield positions. They will trade a 3rd or 1st baseman who puts up big offensive numbers just in time to acquire some young talent that can pitch or play outfield to clear a spot for a youngster who has outgrown AAA and needs to play every day. So they address a weakness, but in the meantime add some talent, clear some payroll, etc. In a way the Cardinals did that this past offseason with Pujols by letting him walk and he is clearly not the player he was 2 years ago. So... here's my question.... you can trade anybody and you know you're going to get value back (different than my Dane Richards question in that I'm not asking as much about who we're getting back). But who could we trade now and strike while the iron's hot? The second part is which 2 of the 3 make the most sense to keep at central defender? I'm almost of the mind right as of today that keeping Olave around and letting Shuler grow with him is a pretty good way to go because where Olave has had knee problems, they don't seem as bad as a couple of years ago. I do feel like Borchers is suffering a bit to recover and hasn't been himself this year. So while Olave and Borchers are our strongest 1-2 punch, Either combo of Nat and Shuler or Jamison and Shuler isn't a tremendous dropoff. I think Shuler is ready to start and has many good years ahead of him and is likely a guy who will stick in MLS for a long time. So lock him down and make him a starter? What do you do? What position do you try to go after if you are to trade one of the 3 (Olave, Borchers, Shuler)? Me... I'm going with Olave and Shuler like I said. As much as the idea makes me kind of vomit, I'd trade Nat to a team that is dying for defense and I'm getting some speed that can score in return. A midfielder or a striker. I still like the Dane Richards idea. Maybe Nat to NYRB? Please, hold the egg throwing. I'm just talking about roster management. Not that I want ANYBODY on the current roster gone. I love 'em all. Honestly, I think we have a great bunch of guys and leadership can't ever be overlooked.
If the issues persist on set piece defense and such, then I think you need to look at borchers trade value as well I think we should try to move pj asap. If anyone is willing to give us anything of worth I would do it. I really don't see anybody on our firstXI that we could upgrade through a trade unless we coupled them with multiple players. I would rather stick with what we got at the moment
I don't know how you define high value, but if I were forced to trade a contributor it would be Gil. He plays a position where we have some other good options. His perceived value is probably higher than his real worth, which is the key to getting the better deal in a trade. And let's face it - if Luis starts making noise, he's gone for Europe anyway. Please don't construe this post as me saying I don't like Gil or I want him gone. I'm saying that if I had to trade a contributor, it would be him. But I really like Gil on and off the field, so I'm glad this is just a hypothetical.
+1 for Gil. I have a feeling he'll be bound for Europe within a couple years anyway. Getting a solid trade would be nice. At the same time if he's under contract with us when sold, don't we get part of the transfer fee as allocation money? I could also live with trading a guy like Borchers before the decline hits. These decisions always suck, but if its to get a solid young player with some upswing I could live with the decision to trade/sell them.
I am going to say Wil Johnson because with 3 Canadian clubs now in MLS I would think their is some value their. This team is deep at midfield and some of the younger players are going to need time playing to improve.
As much as I love Will I think you are right and I have said so many times before. I think Will has the most trade value without RSL losing a player that can not be replaced. Obviously Olave, Borchers, Tony, Schuler, Wingert, KB, Sabo, Javi, Fabi, Rimando and maybe a couple others have greater trade value but RSL probably would never be able to get comparable value trading one of those players. Also RSL seems to have greater depth in the midfield than other positions currently. I would not trade Olave, Borchers, Schuler, Wingert or Tony. That backline needs to be kept together. With Schuler really coming into his own rotating those 3 CB's will extend the careers of all of them and their value and time with RSL. I would trade Will for Avila at TFC tomorrow. There has to be a team in MLS that is top heavy at forward and needs help in the midfield that RSL could come up with a deal that gets RSL a player that makes them better. I would hesitate to trade Will for another midfielder with Avila or similar player being the exception but if there was a deal for the right forward with speed who knows. PJ has to have zero trade value. Gil I would not trade even if he does go to Europe like many think. If he really is the real deal RSL needs to keep him under contract as long as possible to get part of the transfer fee that could and would be very valuable in helping RSL improve and replace him. One thing to remember. RSL has an International slot to fill on the roster. I don't think it stays unfilled all season.
Avila is certainly an interesting player. He looks like a worldbeater every time he plays against RSL. Things I like about him are his constant attacking of the goal, his willingness to shoot, his accuracy (his shots always seem a lot closer than most guys), and his effectiveness at getting the ball and moving with it. In many ways he's like Will Johnson (high motor, high effort guys), but Avila may just be a bit better technically in some regards. On the other hand the guy has consistently failed to get solid playing time which makes me wonder. Will plays tons of minutes it seems, even hurt, on no rest, coming back after internationals for Canada etc. It's really hard to judge on a player to player comparison how they'd do because I think RSL uses Will much differently than FC Dallas and Toronto have used Avila. That isn't to say that you have to do a like for like trade. I'm just wondering how he'd fit the overall scheme. It almost seems like right now Avila kind of plays the Jonny Steele type of role. Great thoughts though. I've enjoyed reading them all. The wisdom on this board never ceases to amaze me.
I agree . We have a lot of good midfielders and we need help at forward. I think for the last couple of years we have stayed pack and Real has never used a starter for a trade. Wil would be the best player to trade for a good player but a team has to be able to pay his salary
name a forward we could get in a reasonable exchange that would start over either Fabi or Sabo, please
I don't think you could. I bet you could find one to replace PJ, Arnoux or Bonfigli. RSL once traded an aging midfielder for Findley. A guy who at the time wasn't better than fabi or Sabo but sure made an incredible impact for the team.
Hate these type of questions, Were you able to name Espindola, or Saborio when they were first introduced to RSL?
The discussion is about a trade of one of RSL's players for another MLS player currently on another team. Espindola and Saborio came from outside the league, and shouldn't be considered apt examples in this exercise.
Even Findley was a gamble on the trade. If anything we'd either be trading an aging proven talent for a good younger player, or you're looking at trading bench player for bench player in hopes you find a gem that fits better in our system vs the team they came from.
We're at a point where we play our hand - the team we have now, but if we flopped this year and looked to flop next year - CBs are in big demand. Vancouver has a lot of attackers. The way our salary cap works though, I'm not sure trades are the most consistent ways to grow your team for the long term. They're ways to fill dire needs (imagine how some teams feel about their CB situation) and offload expensive players to teams with dire needs. Yes our rape-trade with Colorado proved to be a wild success, but it isn't the norm. The real way to re-invent your side is via free agents and rookies. We've done ok with Beltran, Schuler and Velasquez, other teams have done REALLY well (the Texas sides). The freedom to move is greater with the international and other-league free agent pool (from which we plucked Russell, Borchers, Olave, Morales, Espindola, Steele, Alvarez, Paulo, and Saborio). That's an area where RSL has had some great success as late. The beauty of the latter approaches is you don't have to give anything up to get there. So while trades are interesting, and sometimes you can see scenarios that work, the far larger talent pool is outside MLS and in up-and-coming talent, which is why RSL has justifiably put so much time into each.
You typically don't trade players to other soccer leagues. Sometimes you'll see a cash + player to buy someone but it's far from the norm from what I've seen. I'm sure it was assumed that it was trading to another MLS team since that is more normal in this country.
What Elf said. Usually, when an MLS team/fan says "trade" it's meant to be differentiated from "buy" or "find" from outside the league. At least, that's what I've come to understand.
Funny but the original question was who should you consider trading away, question even went on to say who we get for the traded player is less important. I took offence to the idea that it was again our job to find another talentd player.
