News: Revs trade Feilhaber to Kansas City for Allocation + Draft Picks

Discussion in 'New England Revolution' started by bwidell, Dec 11, 2012.

  1. LongDuckDong

    LongDuckDong Member+

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2011
    Club:
    FC Schalke 04
    Country:
    United States
    Well, you technically can avoid spending it, but why would you? These are checks from the league that you can write to pay salaries over the cap. It would make no sense to just stockpile allocation money.

    Fact is, the Revs have used their allocation money:
    2012 - Feilhaber was making more than $100k over the max salary in 2012. We obviously used the biggest chunk of money last year paying down his salary.
    2011 - We used nearly $200k to pay down Josephs contract
    2010 - We used nearly all of the allocation on two players; Joseph and Twellman
    2009 - " "
    2008 - We used a chunk of allocation money to pay for Argenis Fernandez's transfer in addition to paying down Twellman's salary

    This year is really the first year that we don't have guys like Joseph, Twellman, and Feilhaber on the books eating up all our allocation money. We can use it on new acquisitions, or trade it for something else


  2. patfan1

    patfan1 Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 1999
    Location:
    Nashua, NH
    Club:
    New England Revolution
    Country:
    United States
    You can technically have a full roster, but why would you?

    Just because the Revs can do something, doesn't mean they always have. Like I said, I didn't agree or disagree with your premise, just had a problem with a very confident "The Revs have spent every penny of their allocation money over the years" ... and you have nothing to back you up but for speculation. Saying you think they've spent it is very different from saying they've spent it.
  3. Kraft Out

    Kraft Out Member+

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2010
    Location:
    Boston
    Club:
    New England Revolution
    obviously you missed the point of his post
    Chowda repped this.
  4. Kraft Out

    Kraft Out Member+

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2010
    Location:
    Boston
    Club:
    New England Revolution
    "Eating up"? lmao that is so rich. How about they, oh I dunno, use ALL of their resources to build a complete team for once? Their high priced guys aren't "eating up" anything, when a large chunk of their resources go unused every ********ing year.


  5. LongDuckDong

    LongDuckDong Member+

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2011
    Club:
    FC Schalke 04
    Country:
    United States
    They do use all their resources. We spend to the cap every year. We use our allocation money every year.

    The problem is that we spend our money on guys like Jankauskas, Domi, and Dabo. We don't have a proper scouting network and we have a GM that has a poor record when it comes to actually getting pen to paper. We have Fieldturf, an 80% empty stadium, and a small fan base. The local media doesn't care (rightfully so) about this team.

    The problem never was the amount of league resources we used. The problem has always been the people and the FO infrastructure utilizing those league resources.
  6. Kraft Out

    Kraft Out Member+

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2010
    Location:
    Boston
    Club:
    New England Revolution
    O RLY???? So, they have used all of their roster spots every year, even ones that don't count against the cap? They have used all of their DP's? Also, this notion of "spending to the cap" is a load of garbage. It's not a god damned cap. It's a suggested budget, that if they were truly committed to actually providing a quality product, they could finagle as other teams do. But they don't, and they suck, and they lose, and their fanbase is shit...............

    The problem is that they don't use all league resources AND they don't maintain their personal well. They've been bad on both fronts. Spin it how you want, but that is pretty cut and dry.
  7. LongDuckDong

    LongDuckDong Member+

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2011
    Club:
    FC Schalke 04
    Country:
    United States
    DPs aren't league resources. League resources = Allocation money + Salary budget

    They're the "freebies" that come from the league. And yes, we use those every year. You can't finagle the salary budget. It is what it is. There are plenty of teams that have achieved success with these resources alone. We haven't recently achieved success because we've made terrible personnel decisions.

    Also, not using roster spots isn't a failure. You get allocation money (that we've used) when you leave those spots empty.
  8. patfan1

    patfan1 Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 1999
    Location:
    Nashua, NH
    Club:
    New England Revolution
    Country:
    United States
    I'm begging you ... please stop while you're behind.
    You can't say we use all our resources and then later say that not using roster spots isn't failure. But I'll come back to that.

    Burns admitted at the Meet the Coach two years ago that they hadn't spent to the cap every year. Flat out admitted it. So how in hell can you say they do? How can you continue to say we use all our allocation money every year, when you have no proof whatsoever of what they have or haven't used?
    This is flat out not true.
    You're allowed only the last two spots for the allocation money. Anything beyond that (like last year) doesn't get you allocation money. See the roster rules I posted earlier if you're not sure.

    So once again ... you say we use all our resources ... and we don't! We kept talking late last year about having more than 2 spots open, and this is why. It didn't benefit us in anyway, but we still left them open.
  9. LongDuckDong

    LongDuckDong Member+

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2011
    Club:
    FC Schalke 04
    Country:
    United States
    Based on napkin math, we've spent 95% of the salary budget almost every year. It would be statistically and mathmatically difficult to spend exactly 100% of the budget. It's reasonable to assume that most teams spend 95-99% of the budget.

    I know for sure that we've used it on this:
    2012 - Feilhaber was making more than $100k over the max salary in 2012. We obviously used the biggest chunk of money last year paying down his salary.
    2011 - We used nearly $200k to pay down Josephs contract
    2010 - We used nearly all of the allocation on two players; Joseph and Twellman
    2009 - " "
    2008 - We used a chunk of allocation money to pay for Argenis Fernandez's transfer in addition to paying down Twellman's salary

    We've left 1 or 2 spots open. Not really a huge deal when we only have one competition in which to compete. Again, we use >95% of our roster spots

    95% = all for me. We don't have the information to make exact calculations. The 5% difference between 95 and 100 is statistically insignificant simply because we don't have the resources to tell the difference.
    rkupp repped this.
  10. Kraft Out

    Kraft Out Member+

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2010
    Location:
    Boston
    Club:
    New England Revolution
    So you entire argument comes down to the fact that the team has used all the "free stuff" the league has given to them? bwahahahahahahahahahahaahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

    Not using roster spots is a failure...when your team fails on the field.
  11. patfan1

    patfan1 Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 1999
    Location:
    Nashua, NH
    Club:
    New England Revolution
    Country:
    United States
    Fine. I give up.
  12. LongDuckDong

    LongDuckDong Member+

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2011
    Club:
    FC Schalke 04
    Country:
    United States
    Yes. Look at all the teams that have been successful using only the "free stuff" the league has given them. It's 100% possible.

    Given that we've had those resources available and used 95% of those resources, the only remaining logical answer to the question "why do we suck on the field" is that the league resources weren't used effectively.
  13. Kraft Out

    Kraft Out Member+

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2010
    Location:
    Boston
    Club:
    New England Revolution
    I don't care about the teams that have succeeded by using the league "freebies". I care that this team has sucked on and off the field for pretty much it's entire existence. I don't care if it's possible to win without spending extra money. The reality of MLS allows them to spend more money on players....and they don't. The only real logical answer to all these questions about why the Revs suck is that they haven't used ALL of the resources effectively AND that they haven't used every avenue to build their team and business. You can gloss over certain aspects about their budget all you want, but that is pretty cut and dry. They don't do all they can to win, both organizationally, and financially.
  14. patfan1

    patfan1 Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 1999
    Location:
    Nashua, NH
    Club:
    New England Revolution
    Country:
    United States
    Just had to point out one thing...
    Our final roster last year, after the Toja signing:
    That's 4 players short. But, I'm sure that's close enough ...
    Well, you're in agreement with the Revs organization about this part at least.
    Kraft Out and Crooked repped this.
  15. Crooked

    Crooked Member+

    Joined:
    May 1, 2005
    Country:
    United States
    Like...?
    patfan1 repped this.
  16. Kraft Out

    Kraft Out Member+

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2010
    Location:
    Boston
    Club:
    New England Revolution
    I also enjoy this nonsensical argument about them using "95% of the cap" and yet the last few seasons a large chunk of their budget has been spent on players, when the season was basically over.
  17. LongDuckDong

    LongDuckDong Member+

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2011
    Club:
    FC Schalke 04
    Country:
    United States
    Well I agree with you there. We should have been using DP slots and such for guys like Twellman and Joseph. There was no reason not to. Financially, this organization has been hesitant at best.

    I was merely talking about the consumption of league resources.

    To clarify, I meant 1 or 2 players in addition to the 2 players we get allocation for.

    Sporting Kansas City, San Jose, Philly (last year).

    My point is that we waste away league resources. We spend allocation money for years on Joseph when he could have been a DP. We spend hundreds of thousands on guys we cut half way through the season. Our use of league resources needs to be leaner (aka trim the fat).

    Obviously we need to sort out scouting, use our DP slots, market the team effectively, and sort out the stadium situation. That's a no brainier. But unless we use our league resources wisely, we'll just end up like NY.
  18. rkupp

    rkupp Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2001
    I agree. Perhaps not literally %100 of the roster or cap, but pretty much all of it.

    Seeing as how %100 of the cap is an exact dollar/cents figure, I wonder how many teams literally spend %100 of it. It's always been a pretty silly argument. Whenever we've been much under the cap, it's been because we haven't found someone worth spending the money on. Despite this, apparently some people think we need to be throwing money at someone, whether they can play at this level or not.
  19. LongDuckDong

    LongDuckDong Member+

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2011
    Club:
    FC Schalke 04
    Country:
    United States
    Disagree here. We've been unable to identify and sign available players the few times we've been under. Significant difference.
  20. patfan1

    patfan1 Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 1999
    Location:
    Nashua, NH
    Club:
    New England Revolution
    Country:
    United States
    Of course ... why didn't I see that.


    4 players missing on a full roster of 30, leaving us at 87% of a full roster. That "using all your resources" definition keeps changing.
  21. Crooked

    Crooked Member+

    Joined:
    May 1, 2005
    Country:
    United States
    The fact that you're comparing us to SKC is ridiculous. You can't compare any of these teams because the salary cap figures and rules are far too murky. Some clubs are supposedly providing cars and housing to players, in addition to the salary they receieve. Until we know how much allocation money teams have/are using, how much transfer fees are for players purchased from other clubs, and what other means clubs are providing to their players as incentives for signing a contract we'll never really know how much teams are actually spending.

    All we know is that the Revs have a propensity for being cheap and that we've been extremely unsuccessful on the field. Those two things speak for themselves.
    pwykes and Kraft Out repped this.
  22. Kraft Out

    Kraft Out Member+

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2010
    Location:
    Boston
    Club:
    New England Revolution
    Ok strawman, cool argument.

    That's totally bull. Who has ever said they need to throw money at "someone"? What they need to do is throw money at BETTER players, because the ones they've had certainly aren't good enough.
  23. LongDuckDong

    LongDuckDong Member+

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2011
    Club:
    FC Schalke 04
    Country:
    United States
    Yes, but we get allocation money for 2. So we're really "wasting" only 2 roster spaces. That was my point.

    I agree with you 100%.

    There are two categories of spending: League spending and club spending. In terms of club spending, you can bend the rules and/or pay DPs. You can perhaps provide living expenses and cars. League spending, however, is limited. If you don't spend your league resources well, you end up like NY. They throw gobs of money at that team, but they don't use their salary budget and allocation wisely and end up with a poorly functioning team.

    That's literally all I'm saying. I would love the Revs to spend their own money on stuff, but they'll never be competitive unless they have a GM and scouting department with the proper resources and decision making capabilities to use league resources wisely.
    RevsLiverpool repped this.
  24. ToMhIlL

    ToMhIlL Member+

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 1999
    Location:
    Boxborough, MA
    Club:
    New England Revolution
    Country:
    United States
    Long Duck, you seem to be pretty sure that your conjecture equals fact. I don't necessarily agree with your points, but do you have some inside information about what the Revs are actually spending? If you can crack the Foxboro KGB code, you may have a future in international espionage.

    The term "Salary Cap" is used a lot, but it is really a "Salary Budget." Revs officials have even confirmed this. Now just as your company is figuring out the budget for next year, how much they are choosing to spend on this or that, the Revs also are making budget choices. Based on $X revenue, their salary budget is $Y. People speak of the "cap" and see how much LA or New York or whoever is spending on players, but it's just that they have likely chosen to spend more than the Revs in their salary budget. From what I have been told, there is a maximum amount teams can pay, but as someone else pointed out, there are ways to get around it. For the guy who wants $300k, if you give him a nice house to live in, a couple of high end cars (the wife needs to ride in style too), and whatever, then he'll be willing to sign for $200k to help the team stay under the budget and maybe sign that other player you need.

    The Revs also could have had Shalrie and/or Twellman as DPs to save on the cap/budget, which would have freed up money to bring in at least another $100,000+ player, but they chose not to use this perfectly legal manouver that other teams employ. I guess we can't expect much when our GM is having a hard time figuring out where the 7 goes in his Sudoku puzzle. I want a guy who is always trying to figure out how to make the most of loopholes in the rules that will allow us to sign better players, not someone who doesn't know to come in out of the rain.

    Having said that, I don't doubt that the Revs have probably squandered a lot of these resources on transfer fees and loans for players who didn't work out, or in the case of Milton Caraglio, guys they never intended to sign, DP or not. Other idiot moves that have hurt the team's ability to compete would include the Moreno signing, but even if you can justify having him at the start of the season, they didn't cut him until after the contract guarantee date, so they were stuck with his salary hit for the rest of the year, whether he played or not.

    Whether they are lying or just clueless, I'm not sure which, but niether one is a very good option.
    RevsLiverpool, huskydeac and patfan1 repped this.
  25. LongDuckDong

    LongDuckDong Member+

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2011
    Club:
    FC Schalke 04
    Country:
    United States
    I'm not sure my posts have much conjecture at all. My posts are based on the MLS Players Union salary numbers and the MLS roster rules. What I posted about allocation money is based on the league maximum salary (anything over league maximum has to be covered by allocation money or a DP contract).

    I agree with the rest of your post.

Share This Page