Semi-Official 2012 San Jose Earthquakes Roster Thread

It goes up 5% each year, just like the minimum salary goes up that much each year. So that puts it just over $2.8M.

Wow. Not much money at all to spread out over 24-30 players. You would think by now , with all the clubs owning their own stadia, the cap would go up considerably. Even these DP rules are kind of lame.

No, what's lame is to think just because there is s stadium, there is excess revenue. Not all teams have a stadium, they are doing this the only way it will survive, with teams like San Jose, never having a money making combination, yet still allowed to compete in the league.

I think Falvo needs to learn about a league called the NASL.

We have Dawkins and Chavez as our starting outside mids, Salinas can backup either. So can Gjoey. He's not as good on the left as the right, but he can cope. Gjoey's not really great, but he did turn in some really ... well, decent games for us. He's alright as depth.

Gordon is backup to Lionheart. Lionheart will earn some suspensions, deservedly or not. So Flash is going to get some playing time. I don't mind paying him $95K at all. Ellis is backup to Wondo. That's decent forward depth.

But we have a bunch of middling good center mids: Ring, Cronin, Jean at the d-mid spots, and Khari, Baca, Ampai, and maybe Cronin at the a-mid spot. And this assumes that we always play Dawkins at left mid, rather than A-mid. I think we can afford to move Khari, Ring, Cronin, or Ampai. (Losing Ampai could come back to bite us in the butt.)

Exactly!! Until every team is in it's own stadium and making money in that stadium, we're in trouble. We're starting to get more traction, better TV deals, better TV viewership, and better attendance or at least comparable to NBA and NHL. But we are a few years off yet from any sort of serious salary cap increase. We just have to be patient about that.

GO QUAKES!!
FIRE FRANK!!

- Mark

It only gets spread over 20 players - the rest of the guys are on the "off budget" roster. That includes Gen adidas players.

In addition, teams get allocation dollars that can be used to buy down contracts. Nobody publishes how much, but conjecture is that teams get $200-300k of allocation dollars, and then teams that don't make the playoffs get $100-200k more. So the Quakes likely have $300-500k of allocation money for 2012 (although some of that was traded for Salinas and Chavez).

By my estimations, which I've made some "worst case" assumptions about new salaries for Lenhart, Salinas, and Wondo, I still think the Quakes have $875k or so of room under the cap, to fill the remaining senior roster spots. And that's not including using allocation money.

Assume 5% raise for all minimum salary players, assume a couple of the more experienced guys get moved to the senior roster, and here's what you get:

Wondo $325,000 (I'm assuming they give him a big raise, just under DP level. Not saying they do, but for purposes of this analysis, I'm assuming "worst case" salary impact)
Lenhart $200,000 (again, assume the highest salary I think they would pay him; likely it's less than this)
Stephenson $187,000 (assume 5% raise)
Corrales $185,000 (5% raise)
Busch $180,000 (assume they give him a new contract for more money, but still keep it under $200k...)
Hernandez $157,500 (5% raise)
Cronin $117,000 (5% raise)
Salinas $100,000 (assume a pretty high salary for a non starter, he hopefully signed for less)
Gordon $99,750 (assume 5% raise, although hopefully he signs for less)
Gjertsen $88,200 (assume 5% raise)
Ward $63,000 (assume 5% raise)
Chavez $52,500 (assume 5% raise)
Attakora $47,250 (5% raise)
Alexandre $44,100 (5% raise)
Ring $44,100 (5% raise, move to senior roster spot)
Beitashour $44,100 (5% raise, move to senior roster spot)

Total: $1,934

That would leave $866,000 to sign Dawkins, along with 3 other senior roster spots. That's plenty of money to pay a transfer fee or loan fee for Dawkins and give him a decent salary, and to get 3 quality guys in the final roster spots. One of them could be a superdraft pick (if they don't get a Gen adidas guy who would hit the off budget roster).

So maybe the last 4 spots are taken up by:

Dawkins $200k salary + $100k loan fee (wild guess, no idea really what the fee might be - but allocation money could also be used for Dawkins)
Second "young attacker" from Tottenham $100k salary +$100k loan fee (again, wild guess)
First round draft pick $150k salary
Last spot - still have $216k in salary cap room to sign a strong defender, which is what I wish they would do


So unless they have some other fees or bonuses that they owe guys that are not reflected in the MLS Players salaries that are disclosed, they should be in very good shape with respect to the salary cap.

What was his salary last year and why on earth would we pay someone who has never scored more than 6 goals in a year that much money?

He was on the last option year of his rookie contract, and was only making minimum salary (see the list above in this thread). I'm not saying the team SHOULD PAY him that much, I just put in a "worst case figure" for his new salary for purposes of this analysis. I came up with the $200k figure just by asying there's no way they would give him more than that. My point is that even if the Quakes paid that much to him, and Salinas, and give Wondo and Busch raises, they still have plenty of money left.

I do think that Lenhart will be making in the $120-150k range. Look at how much Gordon is making as a #3 forward, look at how much other decent forwards make in MLS. Wondo has been hugely underpaid the past two years and the team has benefitted from it, but I'm guessing they had to overpay for Lenhart to get him to come back. Just conjecture.....

If I were the one doing the deciding on salaries, I would give Lenhart a base of $110k or so and have lots of incentive bonuses based on performance that would let him earn up to $175k or so if he hits all of them (goals, assists, minutes played, team results, etc). That way he's motivated to play well.

Also, if I were the one deciding on salaries, I would only pay Salinas $75k or so base, again with some performance incentives. The thing is that they signed him to a contract before they negotiated the Chavez trade, so they may have projected him as a starter when they signed the contract and overpaid him.

And I would not sign Gjertsen unless he agrees to a salary reduction down to $50k or so. If he doesn't want that, then I'd sign a younger guy as a backup midfielder. The team has plenty of other options now with Salinas, Chavez, and it looks like Dawkins. Also, Baca and Ampai could pay outside mid in a pinch. And it's hard to tell what they're planning to do with Alexandre. Most on this board are assuming he's a defensive mid, but when he played for RSL last year he played forward and some outside midfield.

It still sounds pretty lame to me. I mean you have teams like NY paying 2 players Henry & Marquez 10 million dollars and then everyone else can only spend below 3 mil? Then you have Becks boyz paying 250 mil for what? Doesn't make any sense to me and I don't see how this can be considered a fair single entity structure. How can this save the league? Why not just spread out the 10 or 50 mil or whatever it is, across the whole board? Sounds worse than the NASL to me.

There is no rule keeping the other teams from doing this. The rule is limiting richer teams from populating their entire team with DP caliber players, as the Cosmos used to do.

Your continued, complete, misunderstanding of where that $250M number associated with Beckham comes from leads me to believe that that the time I'm spending typing this is wasted, but I'll try again...

That number represents a predicted amount of money the league or the Gals, may make off of endorsments and merchandise sales associated with Spice Boy, over the 5 years he was supposed to be in the league. They are not paying him that money to play soccer. They are allowing him to keep that amount (which is supposed to be some fraction, I'm guessing at least 50%) of the amount the league and the Filth will collect for selling jersyes with 23 and Beckham on the back, etc.

I freely admit I may have details wrong in this, but I am dead sure, the league did not pay him $50M a year to play in MLS, but you will at some point in the future, declare how unfair the league is because Becks was paid $250M to play for the Filth.

Dude, I'm really being facetious about the LGals $250 mil spiceboy. I know I know I know. Still I find no difference between spending 10, 50 or whatever on 3 players.. Its stupid IMHO it compares to exactly what the Cosmos did and in some ways , its even worse. At least the Cosmos and the rest of the league were allowed to spread the wealth and made the league even more competitive. This to me anyway, does not help either the level of quality or create fan interest in the league nationwide or worldwide, for that matter. It also goes against the elders initial MLS single entity concept where all competition remains on the field and not in owners deep pockets.

Dude, don't neglect your smilies...

The difference is the Cosmos beat everyone while they out spent them. That's not happening here. This league has lasted longer then NASL for a reason. A team cannot spend it's way to the top.

The Cosmos spread the wealth?

Okay, now I'm the clueless one. When did the NASL have a revenue sharing system?

Well no the Cosmos did not they spread the wealth across the league only on their own roster and bought players to stack their team. Wherever they went however, they created a buzz and sold out stadiums so yes in that respect, they did in fact spread the wealth across the league and others tried to emulate them and did the same. Also, the Cosmos weren't invcincible as the Vancouver Whitecaps can attest to as well as the Minnesota Kicks who if they had in place today's MLS /FIFA rules will have eliminated the mighty NY Cosmos in the 1978 playoffs as Alan Willy , Alan Merrick and Steve Litt and company beat them 9-2.

Still I'm not defending the NASL and I'm not saying I don't agree with some of the things the MLS is doing to a point but I don't find much difference in what the MLS in particularly LA & NY are doing as opposed to what the NASL Cosmos did. I mean to restrict teams on who they can or can't buy or whom or which players they can or can't spend it on. Sure the MLS is lasting longer and I'm not saying I'm against this league at all. All I'm saying is I find it stupid that 1 team is allowed to spend whatever amount of money on two COUNT THEM TWO DP players as opposed to spreading it out across the whole roster. I mean I don't know about anyone else but I'd rather spend 10 mil on 5-6 good players as opposed to spending 10 mil on a Henry, Marquez or Beckham.

I think I finally get your point...

If you're going to have a team that can spend $10M on players, why not let them spend it, spread out, among the 11 or so starters. Is that it? (cause that flies in the face of the salary cap and gives an unfair advantage to richer teams)

And, again, EVERY TEAM can spend $10M on two DPs and they only count $400k each against the cap, not just NY and LA. (and now there is a third, lower age, lower salary cap hit, DP)

It is not unfair that they do it and other teams do not. With the exception of L.A., this one year, every team that has attempted to do this, has failed to get any real advantage from it. The only reason L.A. succeeded is because they were finally managed properly.

Yes this is exactly what I mean. Not every team has done this because why haven't the Quakes done it yet then? Of course its unfair because even though everyone says EVERY TEAM can spend $10M on two DPs only LA & NY seem to be the only 2 teams who spend it because they can afford it. Also, because they are in NY & LA and are owned by Red Bulls and AEG. Therefore, I don't find how this is fair at all. I mean just because they have money they can spend it on whomever regardless of what the rest of the league can or can not do? How is this supposed to be fair in a single entity structure?

And tell me how many MLS Cups these two teams have won with all their DPs? (I'm counting just one).

The 'Quakes don't do it because there is no ROI. The overwhelming evidence is that spending all that money on just two or three players, does not give you a winning team.

The history of the league has proven that only good management combined with 11 to 14 good players, will get you in the playoffs.

After that it's seems to be a crap shoot, which is the awful and unfair part of this league.

A team can be class for the entire season ('Quakes, 2005), have a couple bad games and be bumped out of the final. And the opposite is also true, as we saw the 'Quakes in 2010 almost get into the final on what could only be described as an middling season, ridding on the coattails of a stunning performance by Wondo.

I guess it just seem so useless to bemoan the extravagant spending of NY and LA. It is their money, they are not taking it from the league, so just sit back and enjoy the nearly consistent failure.

Until we have a means to get some ROI on a DP or two (a stadium), I certainly hope there is no rush to spend on DP(s) for the 'Quakes FO.

It's pointless and somehow off topic to talk about Galaxy, NY or the Cosmos spending big money on big names and great players. They are not the reason why the Quakes don't spend not big, but at least necessary amounts on decent players.

The Quakes FO only cares about putting butts in the seats. They can give a rat's ass about winning as long as they can fill our tiny stadium. The Quakes can play terrible soccer and finish at the bottom, like last year, but as long as they sell out Buckshaw, and Kaval has a reason to get all excited on his blog, that's all that matters to them.

Their goal is not to win, or at least turn the Quakes into a respectable, competitive soccer club. The Quakes are professional just on paper. In reality they are a minor league club and that's exactly how our ownership and FO plans to keep it.

What you describe requires that the FO actually knows how to succeed but refuses to do so. I think it is much more likely that they don't really know how to succeed but are trying like hell to get there.

You know who was trying like hell to succeed Galaxy, and lately NY. They tried like hell and they failed, because despite the generous ownership they had some terrible managers or coaches.

In our case...vay different. Yallop and Doyle are doing their best with what they have. But when after a losing season, when we finished so close to the bottom, the ownership and FO doesn't spend any money (see Yallop's interview, about the money being eaten up), and the money we get from releasing some high salary players are not entirely spent on new, good players (see sportsfan-quakes' post), then it's clear that our FO has no desire to put together a winning team. They sell out Buckshaw despite having such a bad team, so they see no point on spending money to improve it. That's one of the reason-one of the main reasons, I should say-why they want to build a small new stadium, instead of a larger one. It's not like MLS gives our FO any significant amounts of money if the team wins. Lew got this team for the whole stadium deal and for the land surrounding that stadium, not to win MLS cups. I am not saying that the business side of an organization is not important, because it's vital...however, most owners in this league care about winning on the field, too, besides winning financially.

Regardless of how many MLS Cups they've won or haven't, it has nothing to do with it. I'm saying they've been given and are continued to be given every opportunity to win and succeed. Not only that, rules and bylaws the league set forth initially are continuously changing just to accommodate those two teams will to win. Otherwise, why buy these players and why do they make up and change the rules as they go along? Again, I repeat, I don't see how any of this is supposed to help the league or make it fair for each team. I'm only saying I think this DP rule is lame and should be changed and I stand by my belief. I mean I would have love to have seen even an older Alessandro Del Piero , Roberto Baggio, Luis Figo and/or Zidane in the league and I even started a thread about signing those exact players during the 2006 WC. If I recall at that time, many across the boards got mad: where would teams get the money or how could they afford it etc etc. As time goes by though, I don't think any of these signings are helping at all. If anything I think they may be in fact hindering the league more often than not. Most people in Europe perceive the MLS as being an easy retirement league and many think its a joke. This IMHO, doesn't help the leagues credibilty or worth either. You pay or a 40 year old Lothar Matthaus 1 million dollars to play in 16 games or whatever they paid Beckham an obscene amount of money in parts of 5 seasons, is ludicrous. We need better younger players across the whole league , maybe 5-6 per team , not only one guy to be the savior. Mostly because as has been suggested, one DP will not make a championship team. Its been proven time and time again. No one knew or ever heard about a 21 year old Fredy Montero but he has been going strong for 3 years solid and will continue to do so. Or for that matter, a 31 year old David Ferreira and a 27 year old Javier Morales but they've been here for a while and I have a feeling will continue to be strong for at least 3-4 more years. Thats better than signing a 40 year old 16 game player in Lothar.....

Naive question: Loan amounts count toward the cap, right? And typically we don't know what those amounts are? If so, that means that all of these speculations and rankings about what teams are spending what on salaries are bogus anyway. The Quakes were lambasted last year for supposedly being on the lower end of the roster payroll spectrum, but they were presumably paying loans for Luiz and Dawkins, weren't they?

In any case, I wouldn't get all up in arms over the roster yet. It's not even January. Dawkins will hopefully be coming back, and possibly with another Tottenham player. If he stays healthy, I think Dawkins plays as well as most any DP in the league and it's possible that his salary is close to DP level, all things considered. Some players that were really not contributing (Sealy, Luiz, etc.) are no longer with the team. The team has acquired some speed on the outside with Chavez and Salinas. I'm not unhappy with what's transpired so far.

It's also possible that they will leave some cap space. See where the big needs are, see what they get in the draft, and make a midseason signing or two to boost the team. I think they said that they wanted to get the roster more set as they head into the start of the season, but they may still want to leave some cap space as a matter of strategy.

Dude, that's a really depressing post. Sadly, I cannot disprove your theory.

Trying would involve spending enough money on the roster that we might be successful. Trying would include firing your coach and or GM when the team sucks. We have not seen either of these.

We do see some progress on the stadium, and that's great. The team is doing something to get more people in the stands, and that's great.

But on the pitch, we suck.

No. The reported salaries for the players include the loan deal. If there was a transfer fee paid, that had to come out of allocation funds and thus would not count against the cap in any case.

Luiz was no longer a loan player. We bought his contract and had to pay it even though he couldn't play. We should have put him on season ending IR to free up a roster spot. That's another indication that the team wasn't really trying last season.

Bud, getting all up in arms is what BigSoccer is all about!! Sure, it's not yet January, which is good, but Frank just said that Chavez is our last BIG signing. I like the Chavez signing, I think it was a good move. But he's not a BIG signing by any stretch of imagination. If he's the last "big" move we make, we're f$%#&ed!

Neither Dawkin's salary nor his performance even approach DP status. Dawkins is good to be sure, and one of the best players on our side. I'm pumped that he's coming back, and I would be happy to see us buy out his contract so that we get him for years to come. But he's nowhere near as good as DeRo, Donovan, Rosales, Montero, Lindpere, or even LeToux. Wondo is the only guy on our squad who can legitimately be called a game changer. (Well, maybe TheBusch too.)

I agree, but we aren't going to see much more. They'll try to re-sign guys who are already part of the team, but we aren't going to go after some slick Uruguayan playmaker who will catapult us into the upper echelon of the league. According to Frank, that's not even on the table. Which means, that we're going to suck again next season, because are not making substantial upgrades on the pitch, and we are keeping our inadequate coaching staff.

Midseason will be too late.

We play an unbalanced schedule next season, which will mean many more games against the very tough Western Conference teams and many fewer against the relatively weaker Eastern Conference teams. When the transfer window opens in July, we will already be out of it.

Maybe we'll get lucky. Maybe Wondo, Lenhart, Dawkins, Chavez, Baca, and Salinas will all have killer seasons, and Ike will play healthy and like the monster he is all season, TheBusch will be a rock, again. But that's a high risk hope. The main chance is that we are screwed.

GO QUAKES!!

- Mark

just had a flash go off ...

Let's sign a young promising DP prospect from the Spurs under the
new DP rule. I would vote for a holding midfielder, such as, Xabi Alonso type

• Ages 21 to 23: $200,000.
• 20 or younger: $150,000.

Portland is on the right track i.e., young DP signing

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/José_Adolfo_Valencia

Portland look rather more committed to winning that we do.

go quakes

- mark