Revs 2014 Roster Thread

It's bothersome because it shows incompetence. I'd guess that no other team in the league has 3 open roster slots. SKC did, and they signed another player within 24 hours. The Revs are at 6 weeks and counting. In addition, they have failed to meet their obligation to send 4 players to Rochester. Is it too much to expect the Front Office to be, you know, professional?

 

Maybe we're all fired up over nothing here. Some folks have a point, no one from the back end of a roster has ever developed into a worthwhile player in this league.

 

To get specific, SKC cut a guy on March 25 and another on the 31st. They were replaced on April 1 and April 4. Both roster spots were filled within a week of them opening.

 

OK, I think you're missing my point. I'm not saying they shouldn't fill those spots, I'm not saying it's a good thing that they're empty, I'm only saying I don't have any great need to see them filled with "project" players, meaning players who aren't as good as what they have already. I don't think them finding 3 bodies that they'll say are guys for the future would show competence, in my opinion that would show even more incompetence. The team on the field has real needs, getting some project guys would be meaningless for me, I want players who can help this team now.

 

OK, fair enough. But leaving the spots open for 6+ weeks, instead of filling them with players who could:
1. Fill roles in practice
2. Possibly show potential for greater things
3. Fulfill your obligation to Rochester
4. Be cut when the promised starters arrive

only further exacerbates the problem.

 

Few notes on #NERevs training: no Shalrie, Kelyn training off to the side, and a couple of trialists spotted.

— Brian O'Connell (@BrianOConnell21) April 9, 2014

@guypatterson @WeberKing We'll find out more about one of them pretty soon.

— Brian O'Connell (@BrianOConnell21) April 9, 2014

 

Well, on point 1, do we know that practices are in any way hurt by not having 2 more guys there (as the third would be in Rochester)? If we knew practices were hurt by the lack of players, I'd agree wholeheartedly, but I'd thought that was just idle speculation on a possible use for extra guys, not something that was known to be a problem. Plus, I don't even know when they practice. If they need an extra body or 2, do they or can they just bring in an older youth team player?

On point 3, I'm actually confused on this, seeing as I thought they were required to send 4, but have only sent 3. What exactly is their obligation, is it just that they have to send a 4th by some deadline? Even so, a bunch of the guys we've sent haven't even been good enough to play in Rochester, so unless we're sending someone who is going to benefit from playing there, that's also meaningless to me to say we have extra guys practicing and not playing in Rochester rather than doing that here. If they do need to send another guy down, I'm obviously not saying they shouldn't get someone to fulfill an obligation.

As for Potential for Greater Things, all kidding and kvetching aside, I have no doubt that if they had seen someone they did think had potential, they'd have brought the guy in already. And if you don't need bodies for practice, don't see any potential, and don't need to send to one more to Rochester, I don't see as much value in bringing guys in you think have no chance to help the team, whom you intend to cut soon. I'm aware there's a chance a guy brought in like that could surprise you, but I think that chance would be very small, so doing this would seem to me more like something you're doing just so that you can say you have 30 guys, which isn't that meaningful to me.

This is not a team that is so good it has the luxury of building for the future with the last spot or 2, or so bad they have no other choice but to build for the future. For me, all their efforts should be on the present, and if while searching for the present they stumble across someone for the future, fine, but I don't want what little resources the team has for finding players focused on anything but helping the team now.

 

Cool! I'm going to get "Player Y" on my jersey from the Pro Shop!

 

I'll get one that says "Plan C"

 

MLS has rules about when a team can announce a signing. Newspapers don't.

I know everyone's anxious to add one more thing to criticize the Revs about, but generally the Revs put out a release as soon as things are official.

Is that really an obligation or is it an option? It's nice to know that you're looking out for Rochester's interests.

 

Jossimar Sanchez was loaned out to Rochester and played in a match before the Revs announced it.

Speaking of which, I just read Sanchez and Sundly are injured. Could be why they didn't see the roster last weekend.

 

That's basically what I was asking before, as I was under the impression that 4 was indeed an obligation. I'll leave it to those with more patience in keeping up with the arcane ins and outs of MLS rules for confirmation though.

 

From the announcement last year:

"Club affiliations between MLS and USL Pro sides will be tailored to the needs of each specific team, and will include at least four MLS players going out on a long-term loan to their USL affiliate."

http://www.mlssoccer.com/news/article/2013/01/23/mls-usl-pro-reach-deal-restructured-reserve-league

Most, but not all, clubs have sent four to their affiliates: http://www.mlssoccer.com/news/artic...have-been-sent-loan-season-usl-pro-nasl-teams

This list isn't constantly updated, so it's just accurate up until the date it was published.

There probably isn't really any "punishment" for not sending four, so it might be that in those cases where teams haven't sent four, there's been some discussion/agreement between the MLS and USL-Pro club.

 

I believe the Revs have until sometime in May to have those 4 players in Rochester, at least from what I remember last year. And let's be honest, what's the rush? Who cares if they get acclimated in Rochester and have a chance to claim a starting position early on. It's not like the point of sending them there is to give them an opportunity to get significant playing time and improve.

 

That's why they should have just signed Omanga to the Revs, sent him to Rochester and let him count as the fourth player. Unless Rochester wanted him as their very own and offered a better contract than the MLS minumum, which has been known to happen from time to time.

 

There something ironic about the thought of the Revs getting outbid for a player by their own affiliate...

The article says he's been with the Revs since last week. How long does it take? It's not like there is an ITC involved or anything, he's a recent college grad who was in camp with another MLS club.

As others have pointed out, it's an obligation. Here it is from the Revs own website:

Nice to know you are looking out for Burns' reputation.

 

The #NERevs have signed former Santa Clara Goalkeeper Larry Jackson. http://t.co/UqjaTIRpPr pic.twitter.com/mfKna2JvpK

— New England Revolution (@NERevolution) April 9, 2014

 

I wouldn't read a great deal into it. Revs recommend Omanga to Rhinos or Rhinos see they may end up with him anyway and like the guy. They offer a two year deal with a buy-out clause specific to the Revs and I sign that in a second if I'm Omanga. The money wouldn't even need to be over MLS minimum at that point for me.

 

Brian O'Connell @BrianOConnell21
Follow
@guypatterson @WeberKing We'll find out more about one of them pretty soon.


Define "pretty soon."

Nobody got anything on the trialists today?

 

Unfortunately, I think Larry Jackson is the one Brian was referring to hearing more about. Revs officially announced his signing a few hours later.

Brian tweeted this later.

@James_Paleo I spotted 2 today - one was Jackson, the other was a field player. Not sure of his name.

— Brian O'Connell (@BrianOConnell21) April 9, 2014

 

Ok, so a 2nd 3rd goalkeeper of the season... and no impact signing at GK, DM, or FWD all year... seems legit.

 

any word on our mystery Trialist?

 

Player x was already signed so maybe he's Player y?

 

More likely Player Why.