Dallas was forced to trade the #1 Draft Pick to DC for two firsts (#4 and #6, I believe) and two major allocations. Was this a fair deal for Dallas? It looks like the draft choices are worth only a small fraction of what Adu is worth. Allocations can be good or pretty worthless, depending on the market. Adu is the best thing to come along for MLS since LD.
The 4 and 6 picks have nothing to do with Adu. The deal was just the #1 pick for an allocation. The #4 pick came from DC in the Cerritos/Curtis trade, and the #6 came from LA in the big trade that moved Suarez and Hendrickson and others. The #6 was originally the Metros' pick, but I don't know when they traded it to LA.
As wont as I am to approve of the league's machinations in most deals, this is a special circumstance. Freddy Adu is too important to American soccer to risk losing him to Europe because he couldn't play in D.C. like his mother requested. Dallas may get screwed in the long run with the allocation, but the LEAGUE benefits as a whole with Adu in it.
poor dallas.... they've always sucked and it looks like things are going to stay that way for the forseeable future.
I agree that Adu has to play in DC because he required it as a condition of signing. I'm just wondering if the compensation given to Dallas is fair.
Banking on a single player is never a good idea...even if it is the holy child himself. Soccer is more of a team sport than any other game out there. I think Dallas came away in a relatively good position. A single allocation, though, for the biggest signee in MLS history...depends who gets allocated. Short of a big name, I think more compensation was deserved.
Dallas is receiving a major allocation for the trade. While I'm personally looking forward to seeing Freddy play, it is important to keep in mind that this "trade" was just as much forced on DC United as it was on Dallas. MLS wanted Fredddy, and Freddy, for personal reasons, would only play in DC. If MLS wanted Freddy, it had to find a way of making that happen. If Freddy had gone into the draft pool, I doubt if DC would have been willing to trade a major allocation for Freddy. We desperately need a striker who can finish. Freddy has great potential, but he isn't there yet.
sure it was fair. it's not like Adu was going to play for Dallas in the first place. They could have not traded, drafted Adu and then watched him sign with ManU or something. The only way he was playing in MLS was with DC ... so this way Dallas came out ahead in the deal. so yeah, it was fair.
Re: Re: Was the Adu Trade Fair? To us Burn fans it really doesn't matter that the trade was "forced" upon DC as much as it was us. The relevant question is whether or not an allocation is worth the #1 draft pick, even if said trade is forced by the league. Today we saw NE and Chicago trade the #9 pick for an allocation. Kind of makes our trade look crappy, doesn't it? It all depends who we end up getting for the allocation, AND who we end up getting for our YS allocation. If we get one hell of a player, people are going to think that the deal was fair. However, if we end up getting basically nothing for our YS allocation, then we really didn't gain anything and we lost the first pick. Bottom line, I don't THINK we got a fair deal, but the jury is out until we see what MLS does for us on both allocations.
Hilarious. If that was the case the trade wouldn't have been fair at all for DC and Burn fans would still be bitching about it.
The "trade" was really more pointless than it was unfair. You invent an allocation to give to Dallas for the #1? Why not just use it straight up to bring in Adu? Nobody would have said a thing. But now all of a sudden the "rules" say that you have to go throught the draft to be a P-40? God forbid that the league break the "rules!" But yeah, if Chad Marshall makes rookie of the year, I think it's going to be hard to say that a major allocation that Dallas can't even use was fair compensation. Not that the league gives a sh!t.
It was perfectly fair. Dallas has, for all intents and purposes, one million dollars in cap room. The major allocation gives them the opportunity to bring in a valuable veteran to run the midfield or the defense. In addition, they were still able to get Nunez, the player they really wanted (other than Marshall of course.) No, they didn't get Marshall, but they obviously didn't want Cochrane because they traded that fourth pick for Carey Talley and Eric Quill and the seventh pick.
Hot damn! A million dollars in cap room (right) that can't be spent. I'm sure they're jumping for joy in Dallas. Let me point out the math one more time. One major allocation + no available SI slots = nothing. But oh yeah, we could trade it. As already pointed out earlier, as of today the market value of a major allocation is one #9 pick. More cause for celebration.
Well, to be honest we have one available SI slot, but we have two allocations. So, we probably do fill the one SI slot with the MAJOR SUPER DUPER allocation, and the YS allocation becomes rather useless.
Seeing as how the YS allocation is valued higher than the MA (this year), that would make little sense. Of course, Dallas can always go after a player that has a green card or is a TI or can be developmental.
No one but MLS knows what either allocation is worth, so that's not necessarily true. And not even the point. Even if you reverse the terms YS and MA my point is still true.
Fair? Hell no, but worked out for us. Thanks for the best american prospect EVER! Boy, you guys are gonna suck this season even worse than last year. I didn't think it was possible. You guys should call San Jose and find out how to get some help from a Mexican Team. Oh, uh, I mean...........
Re: Re: Re: Was the Adu Trade Fair? Draft choices are more of a risk, IMO, than allocations, where you can have some idea of the player's professional performance. It depends on who you get. DC's prior experience with the #1 pick isn't so hot. We've had two -- Jason Moore and Alecko Eskandarian. The jury's still out on Alecko, but things aren't looking good. Sure hope Freddy breaks the mold, but I'm not holding my breath.
Don't Transitional Internationals have a limitation on salary? If it's anything like a discovery player, I'd hardly call a player with a $75K max salary a "major" allocation.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Was the Adu Trade Fair? It would have to be a collosal sized bust for this not to be a one sided trade for DC. Even if Adu doesn't quite live up to the hype, he will still be a damn good player, an everyday starter. In fact, if he isn't the new Pele, it actually helps you guys out, because he won't be leaving for Europe in a few years.
This is what I've never understood about the whole deal. The allocation process is *#*#*#*#ed up already - just "pre-emptively" give us one for Etch's departure (all but assured by that point), and let us use it on Adu. Hell, it's still better than, say, just giving us Ben Olsen. RS
It's funny how nobody mentions what a gift the Crew received out of all the machinations. Our bitterness is not so much that Adu went to DC as it is that the Burn were basically screwed out of Marshall in order to make Adu going to DC seem kosher and add some profile to the draft. Unless the 2nd allocation ends up being better than Marshall, which I doubt, I think DC should have been given their imaginary allocation and allowed to use it on Adu. And the "good of the league" refrain rings a bit hollow for us because we are typically the sacrificial lambs in its name.
To answer the question, who the hell knows NOW???? I don't get it. It's not "all of a sudden" you paranoid freak.
