West (ommitting RSL) 1. LA Galaxy 2. FC Dallas 3. Colorado 4. San Jose 5. LA Chivas East 1. KC Wizards 2. Crew de Columbus 3. DC United 4. Chicago Fire 5. NE Revolution 6. Metros West: I really like what Clavijo has done, and am not as down on him as many. IMO, the top three could go in any order in the west depending on how LAG & Colorado gel. I really think it is SJ and rSL for 4th (both of their midfields are questionable), depending on who gels better, although RSL's lack of depth and GK concern me. And who knows with Chivas. I still think that they'll be horrible unless they pick up some better talent. East: Again the top could go many ways IMO. Can Columbus overcome Andrulis? Injuries (already hurting)? Will Chicago gel? How will their midfield hold up? How will DC's backline minus Nelson be? GK? Can NE put together a full season? Where is their D? So many questions that will affect the order. IMO, KC is solid, the Metros aren't, and a good team will miss the playoffs; that's about all that is set.
I don't necessarily disagree with you, but one thing that always makes me wonder a bit - is the comments about "depth". In MLS, where parity has reigned (in terms of teams AND individual talent), I really wonder how big of a difference this is in player caliber. Of course you have the top players/stars, perhaps 1-4 on a team... but even then are they significantly better than the rest. As an example, did teams perform significantly better or worse with/without their "stars"? If they did, then what about significant changes in the next tier of players (say "supporting players") - meaning as long as stars were there, then the difference wasn't so great. Yes, it's a good sign, that MLS teams tend to make it down the stretch of say the US Open Cup, but there have been years where an "A League" team runs deep in the tournament - even eliminates MLS teams. So, perhaps talent disparity isn't so great within a team and even less difference outside the "stars"? I'm not arguing this point because I don't have facts to back it up either way, but I have wondered that at times if this might not be the case since you see top A league players also doing well once they move to MLS... I mean the goal of every coach would be to not let any players in the "A League" go under their radar (so to speak), but in reality, when teams don't have extensive scouting/recruiting budgets and they are limited in how much they actually get to see players first hand - some good ones will get missed. Anyway, comments / thoughts please.
Shhhhh...... don't rock the boat. The pundits love to talk about "depth". If they can't do that, how are they going to fill space in their columns?