Revs 2014 Roster Thread

Unwarranted quoting? Guilty as charged.

 

Well, I'm no writer (majored in math and computer science), but I believe that turn of phrase is meant to say that the argument/rebuttal that follows the statement will ignore whatever point is mentioned. However...

… my "total lack of empathy" line came from my scanning too quickly (I am supposed to be working) and totally misreading one of your statements - I honestly thought you put 'why should I care about staving kids in the 3rd world', which would be a pretty bad thing to say, totally lacking in empathy, but that is not at all what you said, totally my bad, and my apology on that.

See, I just don't agree with that, it seems a convenient line, brought up to excuse the Revs for not living up to their side of the deal. It sounds like you think the Revs are saying ‘Well yes, it says we’re “supposed to” have 4 players there at all times, but even though it says that, it doesn’t really mean that.' If it doesn't mean that, then why is it so clearly put in writing, and why have the Revs said something that's been quoted 3 times here that they're supposed to have 4 players there all season?

Also how do you define "core players”? I would say that core players are the top 3 or 4 guys you build the team around, but it doesn’t mean the top 11-15 guys they’d expect to play all season. I would think the minor league team in such a deal would hope to get guys who would be constant contributors - if not regular starters then at least regular subs - since we'd all hope that reserve players in the top league would be first tier players or close to that in the 2nd league. And, if Rochester had been expecting 4 such players but they don’t get all 4, then they'll either have to play short one on the roster, or go out and get a player who wasn't good enough to be on a roster in that league already – either way, they’d be playing with a weaker roster than they would like to have had. Yes, Rochester is probably able to deal with such a thing without folding the whole organization, but it doesn’t mean it’s ok for the Revs to leave them hanging. I could even understand it if the Revs had been hammered by injuries, and needed to call some players back, but they didn't even have a full roster, so I see no reason why the Revs aren't living up to this obligation due to any kind of unforeseen circumstances or the like.

Right, you said you criticize him for not living up to something he said he'd do, which is why I asked the question. I don't get the logical consistency of saying you don't like Beckham doing that, but you say it's nobody should have any issue when the Revs fail to do not just what they “said” they would do, but actually signed an agreement which indicated they would have 4 players in Rochester for the whole season. Are things in writing less binding than things someone said he would like to do?

 

No, I just think it's a non-issue with the Revs and Rhinos if both parties are okay with the way things are going. I think people are thinking its a more rigid agreement than it really is. A plan like this only works if all parties cooperate and consider the other's interests. Expecting both teams to live up to the letter of the agreement no matter what is not conducive to a good working relationship. Flexibility, patience and common sense are.

I never brought up Beckham in comparison to the Revs/Rhinos sharing arrangement - it really doesn't fit. I brought it up in contrast to someone who held Beckham in higher esteem than Bob Kraft (see, Beckham isn't seeking public money, yet Bob Kraft won't do anything without it). Yet, Beckham and his group really are seeking public money and we don't know whether or not Bob Kraft expects/requires it himself (his personal experience should have lowered any expectations, I would think).

 

We understand you think it's a non-issue, and you think it's not as rigid as written in the agreement they both signed, but what makes you so certain of this? Do you honestly think that the Rhinos wouldn't have preferred to have another free player on their roster? Do you think it might be possible they were expecting more, but were told that it's take it or leave it, and they're keeping mum only because they don't want to poison the well, even though that well isn't giving as much water as expected. And you're also focusing only on the Rhino's side, what about the fact that the Revs have a perfect opportunity to get players some game action, which they're not taking advantage of, for no known reason? Never mind signing another prospect who might be one for the future, would it not be better to give some game experience to one their players with the Revs, who apparently doesn't seem likely to play anytime soon?

Um, who said you brought it up? You were asked about it because it seemed your position in one argument, people shouldn't go back on things they said they would do, seemed to go against your position in another argument, that even though people said they would do something, nobody should expect to really do all of what they said they'd do. Obviously you wouldn't bring up an argument which might hurt another argument of yours.

 

So back in late March we were told the Revs FO was going on a scouting trip. I would imagine they have gone and come back by now. has there been any more on this? Who was the trailist that was in camp a week or two ago?

 

Y?

Are they secretly up to Z? What happens after that? They're out of alphabet! Did they start at X, knowing that there would only be 3 significant trialists? Conspiracy!

 

With the additions of Larry Jackson and Shalrie Joseph, the Revs have one remaining roster spot. Will they use it on a player to send to Rochester? Will they save it for the summer window? Or, will they actually manage to sign a player from one of their recent, super-secret scouting trips? Inquiring minds want to know...

 

So I guess we now know that the scouting trip was to Grenada

 

But the KADs kept telling us it was OK having 3 open roster spots two months into the season, because the front office was taking their time to make sure they got the signings right...

 

So all sarcasm and snarky comments aside (not a criticism, I thought the same things, but people beat me to saying them) what does bringing Shalrie back mean for the roster? I don't believe it's a sign and retire type thing, since he's been training with the team (right?), and as has been said, if it was a sign and retire, it most likely would have been announced all at once. Unless they do announce a retirement shortly, I'd have to think that this is why they kept one of the open roster spots since pre-season, and if that is true, I can't imagine they would do that, and bring him back to the roster unless they thought he could contribute on the field in some capacity. So if this is true, where? The options are d-mid, forward, or possibly even centerback. I can't see him playing forward in the team we've seen recently, as a forward would need to have good speed to chase the ball and harry opposing defenders as they chase the long balls forward. Would he be ahead of Caldwell as a reserve d-mid? I guess the biggest question is, what kind of shape is he in, and has he recovered anything physically compared to what we saw before he left here? I can't imagine the team will say much of anything about why he was brought in other than the usual 'happy to have him back' statements which totally lack substance and information, so we'll just have to wait and see I guess.

 

Regarding Davies being a bust (from the Chicago thread), Imbongo not getting any minutes this year, Bengston, Teal, Sene, Tierney, Diego, JG, the DM position, square pegs/round holes, etc... I have to wonder what things look like in practice? I have to wonder about Jay's coaching and personnel management? I have to wonder about if fitness is keeping players out of the lineup?

Just considering the on-field situation, fans of this team have so many questions and nobody is looking for answers in the press or anywhere. Does anybody in the press or with a blog ever go to practice? Is there any "media" outlet that ever interviews the coaches or players ahead of a game besides Jeff Lemieux?

Regarding Shalrie getting minutes as a striker, if a soon to be 36 year old with limited striker experience walks in ahead of Imbongo what does that say for Imbongo's prospects? Is Shalrie going to bring with him a salary of about 250K and guaranteed money around 294K or do they get to renegotiate the contract since he is coming off of waivers?

Regarding Davies, I think he is ill suited for the 4-1-4-1 "system" and would be add more value playing second striker in a two striker lineup. Anyway, the Revs are probably fine with any contribution he makes given his salary. He has the lowest guaranteed money of any forward on the team and his base salary is only 5-10K more than Mullins and Neumann. He needs minutes and we can only speculate why he has not gotten any after one decent appearance as a sub this year.

I think the Revs probably will not make any "system" changes until the system gets another few consecutive games with Rowe in the lineup. Right now there are just too many other things, from the Revs internal perspective, that can be used to explain the slow start. Injuries, road games, early season, transfer window is still open, etc. From the Revs internal perspective, they might think that they have not really had a good stretch with their best team on the field so why make any large, long term changes. I hope that they realize that they have a share in the blame of this situation. To me, I think that they should make some, at least, short term changes given what they have seen so far and the available personnel. They make short term changes and adjustments every game based on many factors. They should be open to making similar changes prior to the game as well.

I do not believe that things will change too much even when all of the other possible explanations have run there course. This team is a lower-middle of the road team whose flaws were masked by a forward who was not replaced, a new defender who had a great year, a team that pretty much avoided injury, and a veteran goalie who was a leader on and off the field. At this point important players have not been replaced or signed, there have been injuries, and players are not playing at the same level they did a year ago. That all adds up to what we currently see. This is a team that we had high hopes for, but that was not nurtured or invested in and the result might be another "bridge" year. But will we ever get to the other side of the bridge with Burns/Heaps driving the bus?

Final thoughts. Do you think Burns's job was/is ever in jeopardy? Was it in jeopardy last year and, if so, did the Agudelo signing and playoff appearance buy him more time regardless of results this year? How much more time?

 

I agree with your statements. I grabbed Shalrie's salary info from one of the google docs created in the salary thread. I am interested to know what he will make in NE and who will be paying him if it is the salary listed in the google doc.

 

Really gotta wonder whom initially called whom -- did Shalrie 1st reach out to the Revs? Or the other way around?

 

I missed it in the Shalrie thread, but bwidell posted there that Shalrie is probably available around the league minimum. Sorry for the confusion.

 

Others would know better than me, but I wouldn't think there's any regular press covering the team any more. I could be wrong, but I think Julian was the last person who was doing anything close to this. It goes back to the subject I've lamented before regarding the slow death of the newspaper industry: when newspapers had lots of ad money, and could just cover what deemed newsworthy, so we were blessed with both FD'A and Gus Martins covering the team and the sport at the 2 local newspapers. Now that papers are forced to cover news that's profitable to cover, they can't afford to cover the Revs. Did the Globe even mention picking up Shalrie, there's no mention on the Herald's site, and they're probably not even aware of any soccer stories not covered by the AP. We will see the odd interesting piece on the team, like the one on the Krafts in Boston Magazine, but I can't imagine there's enough money in any internet site to pay for someone to actually cover the team on a daily basis, nor would I think that such sites would have the clout of a newspaper, where a team would have the respect or fear of the reporter and his/her organization that there would be any fear of lying or at least hiding the truth regarding any questions that were asked of them - nobody has the interest, resources, and wherewithal to dig deep enough to find out when the team had done such a thing, and a hidden truth will only come out when a person/organization has all of those things, just being interested isn't enough.

So instead all we can do as fans is sit and wonder 'why do they have this player?', 'why doesn't that player ever see the field?', 'why didn't the team sign player A when he was available, but instead signed player B?', and on and on and on, with little prospect of ever getting many real answers. This lack of any real press coverage is sad in some respects for the team itself, but it's an absolute dream in other respects, while for us fans, it's well beyond sad in all respects. The only answers we'll ever be sure to get will be ones that are answered by our own eyes, seeing the players on the field.

 

I addressed all this before.

I think the Rhinos probably have mixed feelings - they likely don't want to take too much playing time away from their own promising players, but would also like some useful loanees. Given that, if the Revs said they probably wouldn't be ready to send 4 players until sometime in May, when they get some things worked out, I find it hard to believe that Rochester wouldn't be okay with that - unless they run into a rash of injuries.

As for getting another Revs player p.t., sure that would be great. But, I think MLS results are the primary objective and if Heaps feels he needs the players he's got for now, I think he should keep them.

The whole idea of this plan is to do things that benefit both parties, not have one party sacrificing their own interests purely to live up to the letter of the law.

I've already explained how my position isn't what you seem to think it is. I don't know what else I can say.

 

Heh, "they likely don't want to take time away from their own promising players"? Where exactly did you get that idea, from what evidence? Wouldn't the fact that they signed up for this arrangement mean that they wanted the 4 MLS reserve players? Wouldn't reason and logic seem to dictate that if they didn't want these interlopers coming in and taking time away from their own players, they wouldn't have signed up for the deal in the first place? Especially since the Rhinos don't even have to play the Revs players over their own players. Unless you're saying this because last year might have indicated that the players the Revs are sending aren't as good as the Rhinos thought they would be when they signed up for the deal.

Yes, except the "sacrifice" on the part of the Revs would have been to meet an agreement they signed, and getting another player for one of their open roster spots, who could be waived later in the event that they needed the spot to go to a new signing. I can understand needing to recall players if the top team gets hit with a lot of injuries, but are we seriously supposed to believe that having enough players on your roster to fulfill an obligation you chose to agree to should be seen as a "sacrifice"? I could also understand if they had an imminent signing that it might be silly to sign someone for such a short term, but we're almost 2 months into the season, and the team is still going on scouting trips one would assume in the hopes of finding someone to sign, so it would seem unlikely that there's been someone lined up for that remaining open spot since the season started, or that there was even a prospect of filling that last open spot. So it seems to me that the only "sacrifice" on the part of the Revs was not wanting to spend the money it would cost to pay the player needed to fulfill their obligation.

And I've been trying to explain that while it may not be what you mean, the 2 positions appear from the outside to be somewhat at odds with one another, as if you have different standards/expectations for the Revs compared to others.

 

I signed an agreement with a bank to pay my mortgage every month, but that's OK. I will tell them it's "not in my best interests" to live up to the "letter of the law." I'm sure they will be fine with it, since there are a ton of other things I'd like to buy instead. No big deal.

 

Well yeah, obviously. Why should you have to sacrifice buying other stuff you want, just because you signed something saying you'd give that money to a bank? Don't banks already have lots of money? I'm sure they would figure something out without too much trouble if you didn't give them the money you promised them, I mean, they're a bank, that's what they do.

 

The Rhinos have a long-term investment in their own rostered players that they do not have with loanees.

That's not exactly an agreement drafted with the concepts of flexibility and cooperation implicit, is it?