He's young and from a European league so he must be good? About the level of our scouting these past several years.
Alexander picked over OBG. that says all you need to know about OBGs current value. PS at least they made a bobble head for him.....
They posted a Xmas video the other day and I saw Beasley on it, concerned that's a hint where we're headed. More of this same Ching style GMing, we can get him again this year for half the price. With Wenger retiring you'd think they'd want to secure at least one of the flanks. I think we are literally going to burn the whole Honduran window "making do" with aspects of this backline. So it will forever be all offense no defense. Said it 20 times before, why are we willing to take youthful forward risks but back has to be us trying to squeeze value out of a past prime player.
I don't mind them taking the initial risk on Lundkvist, I am more peeved at them optioning him when they could have washed hands of it. If you look at the way that's handled it's reminiscent of Torres or Landin, like being more expensive buys you more time, when it should be the opposite, particularly if you lay an egg. We can't afford to be dragging weight behind our low budget. Kinnear understood this, Koke, Ade, etc. Show up or hit the bricks. I'm also miffed at the low batting average by the GM but it's a recipe for irrelevance to use current mistakes as an excuse for future inaction.
I knew before he showed up that he wasn't a great defender, posted as much here. Beasley isn't exactly a great defender either. The guy (Lundkvist) ultimately puts in a better cross than 90% of the left backs in the league and we score a shit ton of goals off of headers, so pin point crossing is extremely valuable to this team. The way this team plays (or should play given the pieces), it is outscore the other guys. It isn't Dom-ball, try to win 1-0. This is win 4-3. Fullbacks that are strong on the attacking end but weaker on the defensive end are frankly okay. Get younger and quicker and CB and even more okay. My thing is how often did he actually play LB? He made 16 appearances, I didn't see all of them but every time I did see, he was playing RB or in the midfield. And not starting over Beasley, that doesn't really move me. 1) Beasley is team captain, was always likely he was going to remain the starter last season regardless, 2) Cabrera has shown previously that he's reluctant to put in season arrivals in the starting lineup. Doesn't really mean anything to me. Summary: Would I have signed him? No. He's here, though, and they paid money to get him so if I'm in their shoes, I give him more than half a season playing out of position before I declare it a failed signing and move on.
No no no. Beasley is a decent defender who no longer has the legs to do the job consistently. But Lundkvist to a defender's eye is like Robinson with the Nats, literally doesn't get defending. Doesn't position right, gets routinely throughballed, and lacks the physical tools to keep up. That, to me, is not settling in, it's he is not sound for his position. He literally flinches like a bad HS player. That would be a 5 year project. That's basically you have to start over. And he will always be a step slow even then. Lundkvist hits a nice ball but in terms of cold numbers, 1 assist in 16 games. I often have similar thoughts on Beasley, who doesn't hit as pretty a cross but "gets forward." 1G, 2 A. For his career here, 3G 4 A 5 yrs. That's fewer than a goal or an assist a season. Looks can deceive. So we put a weak defender out there on purpose in exchange for 2-3 assists over a full season. Meh. If you want to play Eredivisie ball the money is better spent in the midfield. We play a 433 but really don't have playmakers. Our mids are picked more to stymie than create. I'd rather spend hundreds of thousands or millions on players who are worth 10-15 assists each then kid myself that deliberate weakness in the back is worth an assists contribution I can count on one hand. Go the Portland route instead of what is almost like Klinsi's 3 DM midfield, despite its aggressive appearance. We aren't really that committed to offense tactically. I think Ashley Cole had like 10 assists as a wingback. He does that we can talk. Are we half heartedly committing to more offense, or are we actually going there? And if the dynamic we set up ahead of time is literally him back competing with AJ and Beasley for time, we have literally not kicked the position forward one roll this whole winter, and the old backs are even one more year older.
Here's the thing: it is a business. You dropped $1 mil on the guy. So you play him another 3-6 months and it doesn't work out. He is considered a quality starter in the Allsvenskan and is on the fringe of the national team, flip him back to a Swedish team and recoup some of your losses. The Dynamo aren't the kind of deep pockets team that can just go, "oops, we flushed $1 mil down the toilet 6 months ago, no big deal move on".
Yeah, not surprised they don't want to toss him in the garbage. Same deal with Alex Lopez although you hope it's easier to recoup the fee selling someone back to Sweden than Honduras. My big fear with him is that we go back to the Beasley well and then you have Lundqvist either riding the pine or playing in a rotation with Beasley like Remick did in 2017. Only difference is we've replaced Remick with a guy who costs 4.5 times as much. I do think the "needs time to adjust" thing is a little bit overplayed. He got 1200 minutes in 2018, and yes, he initially was shoehorned in as a rightback, but I think he had something like six appearances at leftback by season end. Not saying he couldn't/won't improve, but at the same time I'm not sure this is the same thing as Cabezas being horrid for like the first three/four games of his career here or Martinez only seeing 500 minutes in 2017.
Did this work on Torres? The asset is wasting. The acquisition cost is sunk. What this basically is, is a team whose modus operandi is veteran acquisitions for cost, saying that "he cost me money so try and make it work." Maybe the GM BSs that maybe with a few months he's an asset we can still sell for something. That is hopeful nonsense. I assume we just about had to give Torres away. I mean, are we thinking Swedish teams won't watch any tape? I used to watch MLS games 20 years ago in England. You'd be surprised how far the tape goes. There is a market for our productive players, not for the LB who can't play defense. Sweden is not a rich league and likely just waits us out for a free. I assume it's a variation on your last line, that "we have spent our acquisitions budget." You then need to hire a GM who is more efficient so the acquisitions aren't basically blown. If we "pay for our mistakes" can you hire us someone who makes fewer of them? Personally I think it's a very narrow and counterproductive idea of economics, akin to the idea we will keep our budget low and milk attendance from that, which worked wonders for the Astros. It basically boxes you in at not just low, controlled expense, but also that fans won't be flocking to the stadium to watch the loser you leave out there. That is, caps your revenue pretty low as well. Why not get a different player in, perhaps on a free (same salary expense), perhaps at some modest cost, rebuild the rest of the team, and then voila, more competitive, more tickets sold, pays for itself.
Another pointed thing I am going to say is that if your game is asset flipping and a poor acquisition boxes you in on team growth then you basically have to ruthlessly flip the quality assets or you get stuck on cash flow and forward movement. I'd also question rent to own loan arrangements where the player is not acquired til year 2 which is when a flipper might be looking to flip next offseason. You'd want to own them day 1 and then act freely from then on, enjoying the player while they are here but free to move them that minute. Under the Elis/Cabezas approach we pay two sets of acquisition fees and then right when a flipper would rationally move you are just getting emotionally attached. Or your fans are. I mean, viewed rationally, the salable assets are Fuenmayor, and the front 4. Not Lundkvist. The rational move is jettison Lundkvist for free for wasting salary and limiting revenue, at the same time you sell actually desirable assets. You then use that profit to pay for their replacements as well as acquisition cost for a Lundkvist replacement. You don't box yourself into all of your desirable players plus Lundkvist on a losing team and treat them equally as potential assets. If the goal is team building, retention of quality, then Elis and Quioto and Manotas are here to stay, and it would be gawdawful stupid to put the anvil of Lundkvist around their ankles. You move him fast and cheap to save the positives of the good bit. If the goal is being a selling team, get to selling and Lundkvist goes cheap and just nets out some of the profit. What you are suggesting they are doing is the equivalent of a coin operated coke machine in the work break room, worse, one that has a limited supply of desirable drinks but plenty of Fanta, Tab, Coke Zero, etc. Not a good deal to get that coke machine but be damned if I am going to do a more expensive deal they might like before the potential revenue stream cuts out on the old crap soda contract. Savvy?
Pumas was dumb enough to pay a fee for Cubo actually, think the reported was $1.9 million? We took a bath there, but did claw back at least something. Edit: Dumb is probably harsh. He had value as a Mexican player down there and was coming off a decent year.
On the first paragraph, I guess that depends on your idea of "work". They flipped him for around $2 mil. Which is $2 mil more than they had before the start of preseason last year. I'm quite sure Swedish teams watch tape. They have several years of tape on Lundkvist. What, they are supposed to think that suddenly he fell off a cliff in six months time playing in a more challenging league?
That's not something we have any control over, my friend. We have the owners that we have. You can invent all the fantastic things they should be doing and so can I, but none of it changes the reality of who owns this club and what their modus operandi is. You'd be taken far more seriously by recognizing that and voicing complaints and recommendations within the framework of the givens we operate under rather than pretending those givens don't exist.
P.S.: If I'm an international like Lundkvist who has played near home all my life and I agree to turn my life upside down to move across the ocean to play in MLS under a situation where 5 months later the team has the option to not pick up my contract and send me packing, and I have a halfway decent agent, then you can bet your sweet ass that the contract has a penalty payment or buyout clause for not picking up my option. That's an operating parameter neither you nor I know about that comes into play in decision making as well. If I'm looking at $430k in salary or a $200-300k buyout clause (just to pick a number), it makes my decision a lot easier.
The Waiver Draft was today: https://www.mlssoccer.com/post/2018/12/12/marco-urena-among-four-players-selected-2018-waiver-draft There were only 4 players picked: Marcus Epps went from Philadelphia to NY Red Bulls Cristian Martinez went from Columbus to Chicago Marco Ureña went from LAFC to Chicago Ricky Lopez-Espin went from RSL to LAFC The Re-Entry Draft starts on December 14.
Neither I nor you know is convoluted English for, let me self servingly speculate. We have previously repeatedly ditched people after 6 months or even less. $200k is a drop in a bucket for teams this level. There are teams in the league with 75x that in payroll or more. Is the real deal that AEG is no longer around to suck it up at a conglomerate level, but rather we have owners who are not just cheap but pay as you go and expense ruthless? That we would rather lose games on the field and revenue from ticket sales, to avoid $200k payment now, and sell ourselves that maybe the asset is worth something. Said asset then goes out on the field while we wait, loses us games, or rots on the bench. Fans vote with their feet, and they lose far more than $200k revenue, as well as intangible respect. I am sorry but are we a pro sports franchise trying to win, or just a single franchise Wendy's and your kid has a college bill? I would think the longer term smarter play for Lundkvist is not to run his career completely aground in Houston with horrible tape but to make an exit while there is something to salvage. Lopez was going back to Honduras, less safe, who knows how reliable pay, and Honduras used him even as we soured. But Lundkvist is not getting called up and is sitting. Sweden probably pays similar and is safe. If he has aspirations, they start with a new home. His career will be hamstrung if he plays here til he's 25 or 26 and the next team he is showing them how he played half the time and here's me struggling in a league that I don't fit in that makes me look like trash. He played for Sweden twice, probably in their equivalent of camp cupcake. "International." Geez you're guzzling the kool aid.
Where have you been? Of course we're a single franchise Wendy's, you're just now figuring it out? The quicker you get used to that, the happier you'll be. You can either follow the team and hope for the best or tune out. If you want a pro sports soccer franchise trying to win, I direct you to Atlanta. As for the other points, I'm just saying as someone who does negotiations for a living, I'd be shocked if someone made a move all the way from Sweden under a deal where the club could send him packing 6 months later with no compensation. It is not a particularly good career move. If there isn't some form of buyout I'd be absolutely shocked. This isn't trading for some local U.S. retread and then cutting him loose.' As to whether $200k is a drop in the bucket, I point you to the above realization that we're a single franchise Wendy's. Yes, there are teams that spend 75x that in payroll. Newsflash: we aren't one of them. From a business perspective, you spent $1 mil less than a year ago, whatever the delta between his salary this year and his likely buyout isn't enough of a savings to warrant giving up on a $1 mil transfer fee after 5-6 months and 12 starts mostly out of position. He sucks next season and you get to end of contract 2019 and you don't want to re-up and you can't move him, by all means dump him.
Narrow minded business BS like everything they try and talk about. If the team is a dog attendance and ticket sales erode and that's less revenue. You're making fun of me without acknowledging this is what has happened for years here, ie, controlling expense while killing loyalty and revenue. We have eroded down to 18th in attendance. We didn't have a sponsor for a year. This is the same sort of short sighted MBA blather that justifies higher ticket prices to maintain the supposed glamor of the purchase, and then the first time people re-think their choice it's, "I am not paying this much to watch a dog." Like supply and demand curves just go away or something. MBAs confuse philosophy with economics or science. I cannot believe what they are doing is profit maximizing. I can believe if they might have a small piggy bank of money to spend each year and if there is a buyout it burns some of the piggy bank, and they thus compound cheapness with scarcity. But that is not profit maximizing, it's a small expense budget and emphasizing limitation of expense, over profit. To repeat myself, if any expense causing error has to be spread out over years, ie, we won't just bite the bullet and dump someone for sports reasons, this requires a better GM and verges on a terminal flaw. A team on our budget has to be able to take risks to compete with the big dogs. If it is stuck with its mistakes then it becomes uncompetitive because we by definition are spending money and thus having to take bigger performance risks. The only way a team in our position competes is accumulating good decisions while shedding bad ones and iteratively trying again. If we have to carry our mistakes for cost reasons then I don't see where we ever catch up. If you don't spend the money you have to be able to take risk and then shed its consequences. I will continue to suggest wisdom that might be using different soccer and economics sensibilities than they use, because I am not checking my brain at the door and ventriloquizing what I see as abject stupidity. We are owned by very rich people. I assume they bought a sports team not as a tax thing or a free standing business but to occasionally win something. We do not know for a fact that this is anything more than stubboorness, but even if it is a buy out, our chances of winning become nil if we cannot ditch players for want of an occasional half million buyout. The clear likely scenario in those circumstances is a mid table side at best, forever dragging its mistakes alongside any players it gets right. You can't optimize a team if you have to keep the errors too. A team like us has to be able to move forward when it messes up. Importantly, if one idea is to be a selling team the windows on this team will be short and fast. How long are Quioto and Elis going to stay? Are we going to kill the upside of those years and the value of that investment to avoid paying chump change on a loser? By the time under your scenario we can move Lundkvist the other two may be gone as well. Do you know how dumb that sounds in practice? That your mistakes won't be on much different of a tenure than your successes? Like I said, guaranteed suckage. I also think y'all would be lousy GMs because the resolution of this is you threaten to keep him here and talk negative about him and sit his butt for another year. You can have your contract and we will make you radioactive for another team. Or we can do a mutual tear up. Or if we are stuck with him in this way you trade him last year at the first sign of issues.
it's always that whether off-season or in season. Your hatred for just about everyone one on the team makes it easy to troll you. I doubt it's because they don't like you, but more they are bored and our team plays like shit.
More pointedly, we have money beyond payroll for acquisition costs, but we don't have money for buyouts? This doesn't logically follow. We just signed a sponsor deal. True? False? WTF for, apparently.
Drop the garbage. I don't "hate" anyone. The team is what it is and I am suggesting changes. It's a business to present a soccer team for me to watch for money. The team is low-table rubbish most years and the roster thus merits all the criticism it gets. I can like the team and individual personalities but think they suck as soccer players and we need an overhaul. Every other team in town spends money like this isn't Paducah. This is one of the 4 biggest cities in the country with plenty of wealthy people. I don't have to put up with small market mentalities and spending. And more pointedly I DON'T THINK THEY EVEN DO A CHEAP BUSINESS RIGHT. As I explained, you spend slightly more than now, the team gets more competitive, butts in seats. Otherwise this is basically the Astros' death spiral until they decided to spend money, where there were more road fans than home ones. Trolling someone for saying the way we do things is stupid, is some frightening Stockholm BS. You have basically quit and accepted your captivity. If I get depicted as a jerk for saying spend like a top half team in a major city, and don't do self defeating, anvil on your leg rubbish like hold on to a player for want of a buy out, efff it, I embrace it wholeheartedly. This used to be a major team worthy of a major city and has actually gotten worse since AEG checked out.
I mean I think many of you are right now being incredibly two faced, critical during the season but then at the key moment of roster shift you lose your nerve and cite to me any old sad excuse for limiting change. Bark at me for advocating change upon the same people you complained about all season. Then don't join me midseason in parsing the players while they play because you lack the guts to do a darned thing about it now. Just kiss their butt that you even have a team I guess.
I'm not making fun of you. I'm pointing out reality. I wish I was making fun of you. Reality is this is a bargain basement team. From going cheap on a GM, to going cheap on a head coach, to going cheap on the payroll, to going cheap on the CBO, to hiring a youth coach from within to coach the Dash. I could go on and on. You don't seem to understand that, though. We all wish this was the sunshine and ponies team you want it to be where they do everything exactly the right way. It isn't. So what's the point of saying they should do this or they should do that when there isn't a chance in hell they are going to do any of it?
You started off with "now we can sell him" before falling back behind "let's assume he has some expensive out." I think he's an anvil and we have his rights now. I call your bluff. Sell him like Cubo. On further thought that's just kind of proof you're jerking me around, it's we have to keep him or maybe not we can sell him. You seem to be philosophically covering every possible base without any backing in that stuff they call fact. Anything but the thing I asked for. Like definitional trolling. I mean, from my perspective, we know no such thing, they should have declined the option. There is not going to be an enthusiastic market for the player. I call BS on the whole thing. Why on earth would we have a massive buyout exceeding a year's salary? You're assuming but even if true my guess would be $100-200k. It makes no sense to be very high at all if under FIFA I can simply buy out the last year and be free. That caps it at $430k. Only an idiot would agree to a contractual buyout exceeding their FIFA right to simply pay the year salary and be done with it. To me if we can't afford to pay $100-200k to get rid of a sucky LB, at the same time we are about to transact millions in new roster transactions, we might as well quit.