Mr. Josmer Volmy Altidore

Discussion in 'USA Men: News & Analysis' started by 50/50 Ball, Aug 22, 2016.

  1. juvechelsea

    juvechelsea Member+

    Feb 15, 2006
    #1726 juvechelsea, Aug 20, 2019
    Last edited: Aug 20, 2019
    I thought we were talking Spurs. You're like, but Seattle paid for him. That means he was valuable to someone else. Spurs preferred wire transfers, briefcases of bank notes, however that was done. As people surely remember, he then struggled his first season in green and there was talk it was wasted money. Dug out of the hole eventually, did well, then the heart issues.

    I also think your argument is something of a non sequitur in terms of setting him up for a move/transfer home. He could have served out his contract at Fulham. He could have asked for a transfer straight here and end run the issues of a EPL transfer felt by the fans. He instead signed a 3 year deal with Spurs. Which suggests that family or not he was going to stay there a while more. And then he moved up the timeframe and left year 1 of the deal.

    To show the fallacy of your argument, we all agree Jozy was crap at Sunderland, what, 3 goals in 2 years? Cost TFC Defoe in exchange, who had his history plus 11 MLS goals only playing in just over half their games. If your career is not a Freddy Adu shambles you still have most of your asset value.

    Which wanders back to my point about evaluating players on their body of work. He had some bad years in particular places that display his limits. About every US star has a hole in their career. The elite have fewer. Plenty have more. That's why he was worth a star player in trade. That's roughly where he fits in legacy wise. Frustrating but good. Now, if we continue to progress and get more technical his place may get revised. But right now that's a pipe dream and it's like do you go with the kids and assume they "have it," or do you go with lesser strikers on age basis. I personally am a fan of going with prospects, because I think they will fulfill their promise. But on performance he remains the first tier of our team, like it or not.
     
  2. freisland

    freisland Member+

    Jan 31, 2001
    Jozy came to Toronto. Toronto won hardware. Defoe went to Sunderland. They are in the 3rd division.

    Who do you think wants a do-over?
     
    tomásbernal, 50/50 Ball and Magikfute repped this.
  3. puttputtfc

    puttputtfc Member+

    Sep 7, 1999
    Two questions. Do you believe Jozy would have saved Sunderland from relegation?

    What is harder for a team to do in MLS, win hardware or get relegated?
     
  4. freisland

    freisland Member+

    Jan 31, 2001
    One question: Do you think Sunderland is happier that it got no more points the season after it got rid of Jozy and brought in Defoe, got relegated the next and that it is now in the 3rd Division and Defoe is playing for Gers?

    (and btw, it is a pillion times harder for an MLS team to get relegated than win hardware... duh.)
     
    Three and Three repped this.
  5. LouisianaViking07/09

    Aug 15, 2009
    And yet those fans welcomed him back when he was on loan in winter 2014. There's always a few pissed off fans. But the majority (and sane ones) still liked Dempsey.

    Either way, he didn't flop at Spurs.
     
    tomásbernal repped this.
  6. 50/50 Ball

    50/50 Ball Member+

    Sep 6, 2006
    USA
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    TFC is so happy they gave Jozy a big raise on his new deal.

    I think it was the rare trade with both sides leaving happy.
     
    LouisianaViking07/09 repped this.
  7. puttputtfc

    puttputtfc Member+

    Sep 7, 1999
    Still doesn't answer the question.

    I do believe Sunderland was happier with Defoe and Toronto was happier with Jozy. I don't believe keeping Jozy would have staved off relegation.
     
  8. freisland

    freisland Member+

    Jan 31, 2001
    If you think Sunderland was happy about the outcome of the Defoe deal you don't understand economics nor football, nor, perhaps, life.

    There is not a team in the world happy about dropping out of the EPL. Would Jozy have stopped that - probably not given how dumb Sunderland has been, but one thing is indisputable: Defoe didn't.

    Jozy got a fat raise, some hardware, some bonuses, fan adoration.

    Defoe got to move to Glasgow.
     
  9. puttputtfc

    puttputtfc Member+

    Sep 7, 1999
    Defoe was far more productive than Jozy in Sunderland, Jozy was more beneficial to Toronto than Defoe. Sounds like a win for everyone involved. It's odd that the meaning of life is tied to Sunderland transfers but, oh well.

    Defoe had a huge role in preventing it for a season or two but poorly run, small market teams are doomed to relegation in most leagues.

    The fat raise is odd, don't you think? One league goal should not yield such a payday from a minor league. Kudos to him. I'm not sure if fan adoration is the term I would use. Vanney and Garber weren't using those terms after Couva when fans were booing Jozy.

    Pretty good club for a 36 year old. Everyone won.
     
  10. freisland

    freisland Member+

    Jan 31, 2001
    Sunderland did not win. That you don't understand that is... interesting.

    Do you not understand the economic impact of them dropping?
    Or of them paying a transfer fee for Defoe and 80k lbs a week and watching him go on a free as they crashed out of the EPL?
    Or that bringing him in on a 3.5 year deal did not increase their points or keep them in the EPL?

    I'm not talking about who was the better player. I am talking about the outcome of the deal. If you think Sunderland was happy... well... ok

    I am just glad you don't run my business.
     
  11. puttputtfc

    puttputtfc Member+

    Sep 7, 1999
    Of course I understand the economic impact of relegation. I'm a Hull City fan. One year, we had a guy who scored one goal for us and got a red card in a game where we needed a win. Wonder what happened to that guy.

    Sunderland traded a guy who scored one goal for a guy who scored over thirty goals. Crapping on the other guy doesn't elevate Jozy.

    I'm curious, what business do you own?
     
  12. freisland

    freisland Member+

    Jan 31, 2001
    #1737 freisland, Aug 20, 2019
    Last edited: Aug 20, 2019
    I never "crapped" on the other guy. In fact, I said he's a better pure scorer than Jozy. But it was a bad move by Sunderland, because they didn't understand what they needed to stay up. Defoe is a luxury scorer on a crap team. He provides no bite, no backtracking, no hold up. With him a team like S'land trades goals for goals, but with a premium. And thus they go down.


    I own 4 businesses. You can run none of them,
     
  13. puttputtfc

    puttputtfc Member+

    Sep 7, 1999
    I'd call that crapping on Defoe and Sunderland.

    I bet.
     
  14. freisland

    freisland Member+

    Jan 31, 2001
    I crapped all over Sunderland. No doubt about that. I guess you think they did well... Ok.

    Just don't bet on footie and you'll be ok.
     
  15. juvechelsea

    juvechelsea Member+

    Feb 15, 2006
    #1740 juvechelsea, Aug 21, 2019
    Last edited: Aug 21, 2019
    Your arguments are laughably strained. I have an article showing he was widely booed on return (and interestingly, a teammate who made the same move wasn't). You try to parse flopped. And then in terms of the overall process you ignore that basically what happened is he signed a long term deal with Spurs, then left after a year of it and tried to rebuild his Fulham bridge. A played beloved at Fulham doesn't need a final cameo to fix his relationship. A player beloved at Spurs doesn't get run off 1/3 of his way into the deal. I understand he wanted to come home but that was not the way he started his Spurs tenure thinking, and to be blunt, it sounds like the sort of PR language we use at the Dynamo when we mutually tear-up a deal with a player who didn't fit here. "Missed his family." "Homesick." There might even be some truth to it, but these decisions tend to correlate to players getting benched in a league far from home.

    I also think the snobs tend to like to emphasize club decisions, but Dempsey does what he does in a World Cup year. He stabilizes his club situation. He ensures he is getting playing time. He tries to get fitter and sharper. He then goes to Brazil and has 2 goals. As with what Jozy and Bradley did, it was for our benefit as well as theirs.

    This is an approach that is out of fashion right now, which is that at least in the time period leading up to a world cup (and perhaps quali also), get with a team that will play you and get as fit and sharp as possible. This seems to have become passe like the agents are driving the train and sending them to name clubs and money. But there are ways of handling your career to maximize NT benefit. The fact I think he felt Spurs wasn't doing that, says something. You can ignore that, you're ignoring the whole scenario I have presented as well as how Fulham and Spurs actually treated him.

    Players then used to go abroad or take risks at the front end of the next cycle. When it is less impactful on the NT if you have an off period. When people are dissing MLS moves by NT they tend to ignore that one reason to do it is to shore up your club situation and NT utility/cred. Berhalter can't say you're sitting. How many quality prospects are being left off right now behind claims of "playing time" or "form?" You can't say that if they play every week in Holland or MLS (my argument is not so much pro MLS as pro "get someplace and play"). Mind you, other coaches like JK look at it more broadly, and take into account where you play. But even that ignores the fitness and sharpness effects of disuse. Which our big 3 fixed in an instant coming back.
     
  16. freisland

    freisland Member+

    Jan 31, 2001
    The idea that there are two choices: "beloved" and "flopped" is the problem with this argument @juvechelsea

    If a team is giving 2000 minutes to a "flop," that's a team without options. Which Spurs were not.
     
    LouisianaViking07/09 repped this.
  17. puttputtfc

    puttputtfc Member+

    Sep 7, 1999
    Now this is funny.
     
  18. juvechelsea

    juvechelsea Member+

    Feb 15, 2006
    You're selling the false premise that merely being kind of ok is good enough at a big club. 2011-12 Spurs had 4 players in double digit goals. 2013-14 Spurs had 6 guys with at least 7 goals and 4 guys in double figures. What is the odd year out? 2012-13 Dempsey was their third leading scorer at 7.

    If you know what happened after that one year tenure, Bale heads out to Madrid. If they like Dempsey, his flight pattern is cleared. Instead they sell Dempsey (in addition to Bale), keep their best striker Defoe (double digits), elevate Adabayor who had 5 goals (and gets double digits), and sign more than a half dozen forwards (including Soldado and Eriksen who hit double digits).

    To a rational person, this ambitious team felt they didn't get enough scoring and that his contribution was unsatisfactory and showed less promise than a player who had fewer goals(Adabayor). They had more double digit scorers the years before and after he was there.

    You're selling the BS premise that scoring 7 goals is enough for Spurs and that's where you're full of it. You can pretend it wasn't a bad year and parse the word flop but the message of their personnel efforts is crystaline. They sold one striker for massive money, and faced with that hole, didn't elevate Dempsey, but got him out of dodge and brought new parts in.

    Whatever floats your freaking boat, dude. If anything this underlines that expectations differ based on where you land.
     
  19. juvechelsea

    juvechelsea Member+

    Feb 15, 2006
    #1744 juvechelsea, Aug 21, 2019
    Last edited: Aug 21, 2019
    It's kind of like, I am sure people think Pulisic went in glory to Chelsea, as opposed to was rendered bench surplus by Sancho. He had 7 goals for Dortmund last season too. Those people are then confused when he doesn't start opening day of the EPL.

    Some of this speaks to why snobs don't get that merely being ok is precarious at a big club. Big clubs that pay you the money and get you work permitted are not looking for a few goals and solid performances. The standards of performance are different. This is part of why I say we shouldn't judge Weah or Sargent by how they fit in at PSG or Werder. The teams have talent and the expectations are high. I don't require Reus or Alcacer or Sancho or Neymar to have a pretty good NT attacker. Particularly if they maintain a strike rate when given chances, shouldn't bother me.

    But in terms of their club teams? Weah and Pulisic just got sold and so did Dempsey back in the day. That's because for their purposes the sliding scale is different and "flop" starts a lot higher than you'd admit. Because they can go out and get 3 guys next season who can score better than you did, snap of the fingers.
     
  20. freisland

    freisland Member+

    Jan 31, 2001
    You may aspire to the 3rd division.

    But, in reality, most EPL clubs don't...
     
  21. puttputtfc

    puttputtfc Member+

    Sep 7, 1999
    It's a USMNT board. I aspire to qualifying for the World Cup.

    But, in reality, most Jozy fans don't...
     
  22. freisland

    freisland Member+

    Jan 31, 2001
    Well, my suggest would be not to follow the Sunderland post-Jozy model. That is unlikely to result in success...
     
  23. juvechelsea

    juvechelsea Member+

    Feb 15, 2006
    to me, right now, it should be soto and sargent with jozy as the best of the "productive" old guard. the standard of striking at GC was poor so we should be assessing the U20s. but we need at least one option who has been there before. you then see what the U20s have and if we need a late goal or they aren't panning out, pivot back to older players for qualifying.

    the USMNT does not plan ahead for age anymore, and works in the abstract too much. most other good NT if you went several tournament games (ie, after Panama to the end) without striker goals, would be shopping the position. but we are stuck in an idiotic, illogical bind of "playing to win" with the older players even as they rarely do so in the big ones (win, I mean).

    we also under Arena and GB have veered back in the direction of preferring the risk of running out past-it 30 y/o over the upside risk of trying kids. don't seem to grasp that 2002 was the Beasley and Landon show and every other time Arena erred on the side of age and we didn't do so well.
     
  24. 50/50 Ball

    50/50 Ball Member+

    Sep 6, 2006
    USA
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    How does not playing our best forward help us in qualifying?
     
  25. LouisianaViking07/09

    Aug 15, 2009
    Is he the best though? He's the most experienced for sure.
     

Share This Page