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

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

  1. Revs in 2010

    Revs in 2010 Member

    Joined:
    Feb 29, 2000
    Location:
    Lexington, MA
    I'm one of those who felt he had an attitude issue (my opinion, not a verifiable fact), but I don't think anyone has said he put no effort in -- if so, hyperbolic to an extreme, I'll agree. It's been more of an issue that I've felt that his effort was quite variable depending on a lot of factors. In my opinion, Benny really feeds off being around quality possession players (for theone and two-touch passes that are his forte) and when there were fewer of them around at the end of the year he was out of his element.


  2. ToMhIlL

    ToMhIlL Member+

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 1999
    Location:
    Boxborough, MA
    Club:
    New England Revolution
    Country:
    United States
    But that' the thing, people have used the same source of salary numbers and MLS rules and concluded that even with a little extra room for ambiguity (not knowing the salaries of players who joined after the list was published), there is no way the Revs could be close to the "limit." And you are likely right that they used the allocation money to pay down high salaries in the past, but then that would leave them even more room under the cap.

    Yet Brian Billelo said they had "no room" under the budget after they signed Toja last year. Everyone's MLSPU calculations concluded that there seemed to have been plenty of room to sign another $200k player. Not like we can use a guy at that level or anything.

    I just thought that if you had any real info about how they actually did spend money, that would be helpful to sort this mess out. It doesn't help when the Revs just say "no, you're wrong" when someone makes a (seemingly reasonable) estimate on these things.
  3. LongDuckDong

    LongDuckDong Member+

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2011
    Club:
    FC Schalke 04
    Country:
    United States
    Really? My calculations put us at $2.7 million for this year's salary budget. That's what I would call "close" to the limit. Maybe someone can tell me if I'm doing something wrong.

    Salary budget.jpg

    I forgot to halve Boggs' and White's salaries, but that would only reduce it to 2,675,000
  4. patfan1

    patfan1 Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 1999
    Location:
    Nashua, NH
    Club:
    New England Revolution
    Country:
    United States
    Well, first ... only 20 players count against the cap. Bengtson was here less than half a year (which you covered correctly with Toja) and he was only at $127k. You've taken half of Gavin's contract off, but left Joseph in at full.

    Now, since we used every single penny of allocation money we received ... we're not even close to $2.5m, never mind $2.7m.


  5. LongDuckDong

    LongDuckDong Member+

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2011
    Club:
    FC Schalke 04
    Country:
    United States
    Bengston was a DP. His hit for half the year was thus $175,000 (because of the transfer fee). This year, his hit will be $370,000 despite his much smaller salary. We also need to think about Moreno. If there were any loan fees, those would be included in the salary budget.

    I have included Joseph's full hit because I was under the impression that we absorbed most of Joseph's salary in exchange for future allocation in the Gavin deal.

    Well, I lopped off Feilhaber's salary, so there's at least $100k in allocation used. Who knows where the rest went.

    EDIT: Just speculation, but I suspect the remainder of the allocation was used to slightly lower Bengston's transfer fee. Seems like something KSG would do.
  6. Joeyfitzclick

    Joeyfitzclick Member

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2008
    Location:
    Newport RI
    Club:
    Tottenham Hotspur FC
    Country:
    Ireland Republic
    Benny confirmed he was done here when he sought out and received that second yellow in Phily at the end of September. He quit on this team and despite his obvious skill set I'm glad he is gone.

    Anyone that complains about the trade is an idiot. We are lucky we got anything for him. If he goes back to Scandinavia or Germany or even England we get nothing. We are lucky an MLS team wanted him after his sorry display here in 2012 and that they were willing to give up anything at all.
    RevsLiverpool repped this.
  7. Joeyfitzclick

    Joeyfitzclick Member

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2008
    Location:
    Newport RI
    Club:
    Tottenham Hotspur FC
    Country:
    Ireland Republic
    I just pray they don't use the AM for a dog with fleas. (Hargreaves, Mido, Malbranque etc.)
  8. rkane1226

    rkane1226 Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2000
    Club:
    Stade Brestois 29
    Country:
    United States
    Or at least 95% possible which is the new 100%.

    And 2 is the new 4?
    Crooked and patfan1 repped this.
  9. Revs In First :)

    Revs In First :) Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2001
    Club:
    New England Revolution
    Country:
    United States
    I think we can all agree that the Revs are not interested in spending like the Big Boys, since their team payroll was 19th in the league last year IIRC. The problem is a combination of cheapness and ineffective execution with/use of the signings they've made. Houston, KC and SJ were with us in the bottom 4 in terms of payroll - but all were far more successful last year. At the same time, it doesn't do much better to spend like, say, Toronto and get crap in return. I'd like to see the Revs spend more, but if they can spend less and be successful, great. Thus far, they've neither put in enough resources into building a better team, nor have they been good at building a good team on the cheap.
    RevsLiverpool repped this.
  10. LongDuckDong

    LongDuckDong Member+

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2011
    Club:
    FC Schalke 04
    Country:
    United States
    Well yeah. It follows the same principle as significant digits. At best, we can only estimate to the tens of percent. A 5% difference is statistically insignificant.

    No, but we get allocation money for two of them. Would you rather have two players at $33k, or one player at $66k? I'd rather the second option.
  11. Soccer Doc

    Soccer Doc Member+

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2001
    Location:
    Keene, NH
    Club:
    New England Revolution
    Country:
    United States
    It's obvious it's NOT the money being spent but WHO is making the decisions on for who and how the money is being spent. From my perspective the common denominator over our decent to the bottom in recent years has been the Director of Soccer Operations now General Manager--Blooter Burns
  12. NFLPatriot

    NFLPatriot Member+

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2002
    Location:
    Foxboro, MA
    Club:
    New England Revolution
    Country:
    United States
    Just to clarify, if you leave 4 roster slots empty (as the Revs did) only the first 18 count against the salary budget.
  13. rkupp

    rkupp Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2001
    Yes, that's more accurate.

    The argument has been made that they should have signed someone/anyone.

    Yes, that's a major part of the problem. That's why I have a problem with focusing on leftover cap space and unused roster spots - it's just a insignificant distraction from the real problems (i.e., if we had a better quality top 15/18, no one would care about unused roster spots/cap).
    Nah, Doc, it's too easy to say one guy is the problem - especially one who hasn't been in a position of significant authority until recently.

    Nicol did most of the player scouting/selection over that 2nd half of his tenure. And most of those picks turned out badly. And, even when he did pick some good players from abroad, he almost never managed to integrate them (in fact, I think a case could be made that he managed to alienate virtually every latin american player they signed - unless, with the exception of Cancela, none of them were good enough - which goes back to the earlier point). And, he didn't do a whole lot better with African players (his record with Caribbean players is a little better).

    Nicol was also considered a draft mastermind because of his early success with the Revs (I always felt that that success had a lot to do with his development of those draft picks). But, I think at some point he strayed from the strategies that had worked well in the draft, getting too speculative and too independent-minded, and the results fell off. His last year or two, I thought he started to refocus and results started improving.

    Burns was tasked with negotiating and signing players, but that's not something I think can be judged just by the results. There are so many factors involved, it's impossible to say whether he did a good job of that or not.

    With more of a say in personnel over the last 12 months, Burns record in player acquisition is definitely an improvement, but clearly not at an acceptable level yet. I think the fact that neither he nor Nicol, nor their predecessors, have ever been able to do an above average job at foreign acquisition implies that there's an organizational weakness there that has never been addressed.
  14. patfan1

    patfan1 Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 1999
    Location:
    Nashua, NH
    Club:
    New England Revolution
    Country:
    United States
    No wonder this team isn't anywhere close to making the playoffs.

    The good thing of course is that if we're supposed to think that what Burns has done in the last 12 months is an improvement, we should be seeing a new promotion for him soon!

    If that tiny bit of success that Burns has last season is considered a success, we really have low standards here. But then again, so many are willing to accept those standards, so really it doesn't matter.
  15. Kraft Out

    Kraft Out Member+

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2010
    Location:
    Boston
    Club:
    New England Revolution
    By who? One person? Clearly it hasn't been brought up enough times, by enough people, to warrant it being some sort of talking point to argue against. I'm not even sure what the point you were trying to make in bringing it up, because clearly it isn't even a part of the conversation.


    But talking about unused cap space IS a part of the real problem. Theoretically, of course, better players demand more money. Obviously that is not the case all of the time, and maybe not even most of the time. However, when you have consistently been under the cap or not used resources available AND you have had poor results, the two situations are not circumstantial, they can be directly correlated. It's not about spending more money to fill out the roster, or getting more players to complete the team. It is about maximizing all of your available resources (cap space, money, dp's and roster slots being part of those resources) to maximize your output on the field. If you have a gap in any of those resources, and at the same time you have a gap in your results on the field, then there is a clear correlation between the two (or more).

    I don't think anyone has ever suggested that throwing good money out for bad is the solution. What people have, for the most part, suggested was that this team consistently has had poor results and they haven't used all of their available resources to fix that problem. They have had opportunities and resources available every single year to be able to go out and get a top end player, or players, to increase their quality on the pitch. Who those players are? I don't know. I'm not the GM. BUT since they have had a gap in talent AND they have a gap in results, it's clear that the player personal department didn't use all of their resources available to the best of their ability to make the team the best it possibly could be. Money being one of the largest unused resources. Whether it is in the cap space that is disputed on here. Whether it is allocation money. Whether it is DP's. It doesn't matter. They have had the opportunity, through the rules of the league, to spend more money, and they haven't, and the team has never won an MLS Cup, and recently they are one of the worst teams in the league.
    pwykes and ktsd repped this.
  16. Kraft Out

    Kraft Out Member+

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2010
    Location:
    Boston
    Club:
    New England Revolution
    It's both. The two are not mutually exclusive.
  17. Kraft Out

    Kraft Out Member+

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2010
    Location:
    Boston
    Club:
    New England Revolution
    5% of a $3mil cap is a $150K player. Obviously, from a statistics point of view, 5% isn't significant in the long run, but in the reality of MLS, 5% could be the difference between winning and losing.
  18. LongDuckDong

    LongDuckDong Member+

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2011
    Club:
    FC Schalke 04
    Country:
    United States
    But 5% is the margin of error. So if I calculate that we're 5% under the budget, we could be 1% under or 9% under. We cant say for sure that we have 150k to spend.

    Keep in mind that we average the signing bonuses out over the length of contract when we do these calculations. When we sign ao many new players each year (and many are flops) you have to consider the effect of that practice on the salary budget.

    From the looks of it, if signing bonuses are included jn the cap (they almost have to be), we could easily have had a couple 100k in signing bonuses on the book this year. Guys like Toja, Cardenas, Sene, and Lozano must get sizable bonuses.
  19. Kraft Out

    Kraft Out Member+

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2010
    Location:
    Boston
    Club:
    New England Revolution
    But that's my point. A 5% margin for error is ok when you are polling data, but when it comes to a fix cost for a budgeted team or sports league, it can be a huge amount of money.
    That is more baseless conjecture that you are passing off a fact to support your argument.
  20. LongDuckDong

    LongDuckDong Member+

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2011
    Club:
    FC Schalke 04
    Country:
    United States
    It's not baseless conjecture, it's a legitimate point. If signing bonuses weren't included in the cap, then everyone could just give these players million dollar singing bonuses and pay them an annual salary of $1. It would defeat the point of the salary budget. There must be some form of regulation.

    Look at Toja. His salary is 180k, but his average compensation is 200k. If he signed a 4 year contract, that means he's guaranteed $80k in bonuses over his 4 years here. We don't know what percentage of that number is his signing bonus. We just don't know.

    So maybe that large margin of error means we really can't say whether any team is under the budget. We can guess, but I've never seen anyone accurately deal with the "bonuses" section of salaries. Are those bonuses spread out over the contract? Are they a one time signing fees? How big is the yearly marketing bonus? Until you answer those questions, you just can't say that the Revs have salary budget or allocation money to burn (or vice versa).
  21. NFLPatriot

    NFLPatriot Member+

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2002
    Location:
    Foxboro, MA
    Club:
    New England Revolution
    Country:
    United States
    No one outside of MLS know how much these allocations are worth, so your 95% is pure speculation.

    All the things you say the Revs are spending their allocations on (paying down salaries, transfer fees, signing bonuses, etc) are not unique to the Revs. Other MLS teams pay those costs as well. So the fact that the MLSPA figures consistently show the Revs spending less than the other MLS teams, regardless of what the salary budget is set at, indicates that spending is part of the problem.
    patfan1 repped this.
  22. Kraft Out

    Kraft Out Member+

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2010
    Location:
    Boston
    Club:
    New England Revolution
    But you don't know how they parse out the amount of the bonus. Whether it is bulk, a percentage, prorated. You have no idea. So, bringing it up, and making assumptions based on it...is...well...baseless

    Um, no shit. So how could you possibly assume when and how that projects against the cap? You can't.

    Well, you can, because they have admitted that they have. So, we are basing our argument on something the Revs have admitted to, and you are basing your on assumptions with only a fraction of the data. Good to know.
  23. LongDuckDong

    LongDuckDong Member+

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2011
    Club:
    FC Schalke 04
    Country:
    United States
    1.) If signing bonuses didn't exist then you're point would be logical, but they do exist. If we're bringing in new players every year rather than doing our homework and bringing in good long term contributors, then we're spending more than other teams on signing bonuses.

    RSL signs Sabo and pays him a huge signing bonus, but keeps him for 4 years before signing a new contract. We bring in a guy like Lozano and pay him a huge signing bonus, before cutting him a couple months later. Then we need to bring in a new CB next season and pay him a huge signing bonus.

    2.) Looking at the MLS union site, I'm getting around 2.7 million for two additional teams. Kansas City, and LA. I'm not seeing any large differences outside the margin of error.
  24. LongDuckDong

    LongDuckDong Member+

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2011
    Club:
    FC Schalke 04
    Country:
    United States
    No, I'm saying that we use all our league resources almost every year. Burns said they didn't spend to the cap every year. Those statements don't contradict each other.

    If we don't spend the budget 2 of the past 10 years, then both statements above are true.
  25. patfan1

    patfan1 Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 1999
    Location:
    Nashua, NH
    Club:
    New England Revolution
    Country:
    United States
    Make up your mind ... what exactly are you trying to say, since I don't see an almost in the original post.

Share This Page