So, PHI contacted the Revs. In other words, Burns was just sitting on his, er, laurels, waiting for the phone to ring, instead of making calls to try and improve the team. Yes, I know that doesn't mean he didn't make other calls. The point is, only one call came to fruition, and it was initiated by the other team. I've never been a fan of stockpiling future assets. It can backfire on you (see Boston Celtics and their 8 draft picks, June 2016).
Sort the standings by PPG, and the Revs are below the red line (7th) in the East. PHI is only 2 spots ahead of us (5th) and we helped them improve. AUG 13th, PHI at NER. I wonder what the Vegas odds are that Charlie scores a goal against us? Think the Revs will do anything to recognize Charlie during that game? Ha, sorry, I tried to type that with a straight face, but I couldn't...
Personally, I hope he scores a hat trick aginst the revs next week. I want Philly to devastate the revs. 5-1, something like that. Embarrass this team, it's players, staff, management and everyone associated with the New England Revolution enough that the Krafts make some changes.
I had not thought of it this way, but it makes sense They picked up a very good striker in Kamara and are now recovering some of the assets they spent by trading Davies. They had 3 strikers (Davies, Agudelo, Femi) and the net-net is trading Davies for Kamara. I like the Davies for Kamara trade, but who knows how much the TAM difference was. Agudelo can play on the wing and Femi is more of a sub at this point in his career That said, I wish they had done something else in the summer transfer window (e.g. center back depth)
The Celtics plan was to package some of those draft picks in a trade for a top line player. When they couldn't make a trade, they were stuck with too many draft picks for a 15-man roster. That forced them to use some of the picks on players they could stash in Europe for a few years.
Teal sucks starting at striker. We have seen so many examples of that, starting with his first few games. I'm pretty sure you've even acknowledged that in the past. I don't know why this is even a debated point? I'm sorry you're right. This team will just be just fine. Good point. That Bunbury guy you just mentioned scored his second goal of the year yesterday. Of course, he played over 1,000 more minutes for the Revs to get that second goal, but let's ignore facts. Of course it is.
Typical KAD move. Sing his praises while he is here, then turn on him the minute he is out the door. Ignore the fact that he was the team's leading goal scorer last year. Ignore the fact he's having an off year because he had cancer. Nope. The all-knowing front office made the right move yet again, and us peons are just too stupid to realize it...
Also that he was pretty sure that the player would be better than last year (in the prediction thread).
Yes, we didn't do anything this window, which is very disappointing and fully worthy of criticism. But, it doesn't make the Davies deal a bad decision IMO. They basically chose to "sell high" on Davies, since someone was hot for him. Like the money we never spent to get Kamara, one of the league's best scorers? Actually the most life we'd shown lately (until he got injured recently) was FEMI, not Davies. Femi has more goals in fewer minutes than Davies, and showed a knack for energizing the Revs and making things happen - something we hadn't seen from Davies this year. Actually, the Revs are pretty good at dealing within MLS - accumulating draft picks, getting value from players from other teams, etc. There are things they aren't good at, but calling them amateurish is pretty silly. Even the media thought the return for Davies was quite high. He's not a great solution, but his scoring rate is no worse than Davies' (even when playing forward) - so essentially we still have enough depth there. Regardless, we're still talking 3rd or 4th option when we have our full roster healthy, so it's a pretty insignificant issue. No, they probably won't be this year. But that doesn't make trading Davies a disaster - it was an example of dealing from strength because a player was in demand (by at least one team) and getting a significant return. It was very unlikely that Davies was going to make much of a difference this year. Heaps plays one forward and Kamara is a fixture (and certainly seems quite durable) and Femi has been the one to show the spark off the bench. Not just me saying that, I've read the same in the media. I'm not sure that I mentioned Davies in that list (if I did, I'm sure you'll find it ), but I never claimed to be right all the time. And this trade was about dealing with the here and now - not last year. Last year Davies had a ton of minutes and scored 10 goals - that's "okay". This year we have Kamara and Davies isn't getting minutes, for multiple reasons. If the view is that he wouldn't be getting a lot of minutes the rest of the way and a team was making a good offer for him, it's just good business to make the deal. That doesn't excuse the fact that we haven't made any other moves to strengthen the team.
Not sure how many people heard this last night on the half time report but Twellman basically said Davies wanted this trade to happen and basically forced the trade. I would think that with Kamara on board and the fact that Heaps seems unwilling to play with two forwards Davies knew his PT was going to be almost nonexistent. Plus according to Twellman Davies contract was up in Dec and figured he was be picked up by an expansion team. He probably saw Philly as a step up from that especially with Bedoya joining. That said getting GAM, TAM and a first rounder for Davies and a third round pick seems like a win for the Revs........Now if they would only spend the money!
Yup, I heard that as well and commented in the game thread. Here is a related tweet as well: During HT of Revs-Fire #USOC2016 semifinal, @TaylorTwellman notes upcoming expansion drafts, says Charlie Davies wanted the trade to Philly.— Charles Boehm (@cboehm) August 10, 2016
I kinda thought it was a no-brainer that he'd want this. He'd never be in the two-forward system (or at least attack oriented system) he needs in order to be effective here, AND he's been relegated to a backup/15 minute a game guy. No surprise that he wanted a change.
CD9: “Feeling wanted is something new for me. i was extremely excited to get going here, to perform for Jim & this team." 1/2 #NERevs #DOOP— Brian O'Connell (@BrianOConnell21) August 14, 2016 "They believe in me & that’s important when it’s not only ur team believing in u, but the coaches & FO believe in u, that says it all.” 2/2— Brian O'Connell (@BrianOConnell21) August 14, 2016 Interesting comments.
Sometimes I hate being right, though the ass kicking is only half of the equation. Making smart changes now is critical.
I get it. He was the starting forward for the Revs throughout their great run toward the end of the 2014, and then the Revs went out and brought in Juan Agudelo at great expense in the off-season. Davies essentially beat him out, and after he was diagnosed with cancer, the team didn't go out and pick up someone to fill in for a couple of months... they traded for freakin' Kei Kamara... again, at great expense. Without saying it, they've told him twice that they didn't believe in him... that they didn't think he was good enough.
Perhaps that's what he's saying. But I think that's the correct evaluation - he's an okay scorer, but he's also frequently injured. I feel, like others have said, that if he's your best forward ... it's not good enough.
Teams always should be trying to get better players than the ones they have. If they aren't, then they are not doing their jobs (ahem...)
And that's fine... but I felt as if CD9 could have settled into a role in New England as the team's 2nd-best forward. Maybe not your go-to guy, but a veteran presence who can start a handful of games and be one of the first guys off your bench. I'd certainly rather have CD9 in that role than Juan Agudelo at like $425,000.
Well, yes, but ... Part of the GM's job is maximizing assets. If the offer for the player is more than they think the player is worth to them (considering CD wasn't getting and may not be getting much p.t.), then making the move may be worth it. I still think the deal makes sense in that it recovers much of the load of assets used to acquire Kamara - so I look at it as a package deal: Davies and "some" assets for K.K. Certainly they will need to find another backup forward in the off-season, but I don't think it's likely to become a critical need before then (for good and bad reasons!).
So..... you are claiming that what we have seen from the Revs, GM or manager, is "maximizing assets"???? In the Village it is all Good.
As an isolated move, recovering some of the assets we gave up for Kamara in return for Davies seems like a good move, especially since he wasn't going to get a whole lot of time for us. So.... why is it that we couldn't swing a deal for an actual player who might have been able to step in right now and help us? In the Globe article Heaps says we can turn it around, but really, this team ain't going nowhere and everyone knows it.