Dynamo Fans: Is It Good Money After Bad From Here On Out?

But there are people out here that are eating that up like it's free cake! Which is even more maddening!

 

Attendance was down from a playoff year. Not just a playoff year but a semi run. Compute that FO.

I think it's amateur hour because what sane organization says it was surprised by its success last season? And then stands pat this year?

 

Over the winter they stood pat on a team that their own GM was surprised by the success level. Which should have hinted lightning in a bottle. Or really they chipped away since they got rid of Torres. Then they frittered away Torres' money on Pena and Lundkvist. Lundkvist may never be useful at anything and Pena is built to play some other (back to goal) system than what we actually play. Both are slow as molasses in an increasingly fast playing league.

And then the coach has a +1 GD but is sandwiched in the standings between teams with -14 and -17 GDs. I think the team overachieved but I also think with that list of blown games this year it should be a borderline playoff team on talent and missed points.

And then there is no accountability for that. With this many blown recruitment decisions and this many blown games, and teams seeming to have figured out our gimmick, where is the demonstration that we know our fans deserve better and are actively pursuing that.

And then there's the financial discussion you're offering, that this has to be going to the bottom line.

After all, to me Canetti's role is to make the big picture decisions, and to me he starts to fail at his job when the financial strategy begins to implode, the team is repeatedly uncompetitive, and he seems to delay in taking corrective action. Like where is the sign that the organization at any level "gets it" and is responding

The big problem, to me, is this bunch was not around for the golden years, and the golden years were a product of being handed a dynasty team. They were surprised we won last year and really don't seem to have a long term plan how to make money and stay competitive. The organization did not have to earn, as much, what it won, and doesn't seem to have institutional grasp of a better mousetrap going forward. And at our payroll you have to be efficient and have a better mousetrap. This season is what happens when you swing and miss several times in terms of retention and recruitment decisions.

And meanwhile our direct calendar competition is a team that does have its mousetrap built and is willing to spend. What they are missing is on everyone but the zealots they are going to get eaten alive trying to compete with the Astros on a shoestring. It's not like we're Portland that gave away its AAA team and doesn't have NFL, and you're the game in town all summer. People here have choices. Or did we not get the basic lesson in reverse when they weren't spending and we were still decent?

 

I think if they tried to make a splash this last off-season then fans wouldn’t be quite as harsh even if it didn’t pan out. They didn’t even try. Then they sold Torres and didn’t get a whole lot this summer season with that money. Two pretty bad windows after getting fans to almost pay attention from last year’s improvement. Standing still is almost always moving backward, especially in a growing league.

The only thing on their side right now is a little bit of youth. But that’s a high-risk gamble at best right now. They need to offload several pieces this offseason.

 

So are some of yous now seeing why i didn't want Cubo gone? i knew they weren't going to use that money for anything better and i didn't believe Manotas nor Quioto were long term solutions.

 

WE know this, but they kind of led the less informed to fans believe that those funds were going to be used for a big acquisition. They just left it unsaid...instead of correcting fans who were all gung-ho about the Cubo money.

i will continue to very politely disagree on the quality of the above 3. the sooner will sell Elis to a Championship club in England the better, Manotas is strating to look like he's going to continue to be a "potential", and Quioto is an enigma,

 

e.x.a.c.t.l.y.

Lundqvist confirmed my worst fears. i never felt i could trust Matt Jordan and his scouts. a pricey Swedish left back when you already had a pricey left back confirmed it.

 

Rey, can you see from my perspective, however, that the risk aversion you want them to have taken up front explains the ramshackle state of every line behind it, which are littered with re-signed players who basically became old and decrepit before our very eyes. To me that instead is what happens when a team takes only minimal risks.

After all, forward has been the most aggresively built line with younger players, most of whom have been acquired within 3 years. To turn that into some bastion of risk aversion is misleading. Compared to the rest of the field, we blew up forward, shipped out the incumbents, and started over. We can only call that a defensible status quo after hitting the fast forward button.

I think Manotas' elevation and performance basically cancels out Torres as "starter" -- or looked at it another way there was no real change in the end of season lineup -- and the real loss is the bench, where Torres if we're being real had been relegated by season's end.

I take the exact opposite lesson, go youth movement all over the field, take personnel risks, and quit with the lazy extensions, options, re-signings, of 30+ players we should know better about already. The problem is not that the cycle of players in and out is too fast but that it is too slow. MLS veterans should have been traded when we struggled. Lundkvist should be back on a plane out of here. etc. etc. A team as broke as us can't carry players from hope and sentimentality. Produce or get on the plane. If Torres disappears down the stretch and playoffs, heck yeah, transfer out. The highest payroll player on the team cannot be bench material.

The simple solution to a GM that sucks is fire the GM, not handcuff the team on personnel. Letting the GM's competence tie our hands encourages keeping Jordan here and becoming risk averse, which to me with a low budget team is a ticket to the permanent cellar. If our personnel strategy returns to risk aversion about the core and mild low risk MLS trades for players other teams no longer want, this is going to be a lousy low payroll team. We have to take risks for decent years to happen. The only reason last year happened was we signed the Hondurans in that one week's flurry of activity.

 

This. Our Swede signing.
One topic that gets left out and one that hits on several levels of our FO's way of being is when they mock a big name signing as it won't move the needle. Then at the same interview or podcast state that they have a trying time to "sell" Houston as a destination. So they are content to get a Swede to sign for us, to endure our heat n humidity. But a Spainard or African that would indeed move the needle in our market, Houston n our heat will be to much to endure.
All this goes back to raising our own crops of footballers. They are here already, endure the heat n humidity alresdy and can be purchased on budget our owners desire. So all things considered, from our FO's own statements, why is the Academy route so stonewalled by the FO?

 

We have scouts? Since when did the FO invest in that?

 

Did we even find Lundqvuist or was it one of those things from where the league office goes ‘Hey we signed this guy to a league contract does anyone want him?’

If we have scouts they should have been fired along time ago (Nick Kowba?)

Jordan probably just fields calls from player’s agents as well as makes calls to agents he’s met that rep players - ‘hey do you have anyone on a free transfer that would take a 150k or less salary?’

 

Cubo wasn’t good enough for MLS or MSL, period. We did good getting rid of him last year but failed in the reinvestment.

 

Actually does his job rofl

 

I do think transfer and loan fees can be seen as payroll-by-other-means, but unlike salaries we have little or no visibility to them.

I've thrown around some guesstimates but I know they're speculation and the point to my speculation was not trying to defend the Titanic while it is taking on water (aka crazy talk), but rather debate about (a) what the sum total of Greater Payroll is and how we rank relative to other teams with acquisition costs added back in and (b) evaluating whether it is money well spent. I've done that in part because I think we are not as cheap as argued but in fact as inefficient as you think. That is not intended as praise, the more you spend for less success the worse you're doing as a front office. I've also thrown around arguments that we might be better off chasing players on "frees" as opposed to "loans" and spending more on "salary" as opposed to "fees." The disparity between the "fees" this team pays to acquire the player and then the "salary" those players earn should give pause. If I could get a $1 million player (salary) for free or instead a $500k one who also costs $500k acquisition fees, we seem to choose the latter route (and drag it out over two years) even though the former player's salary demand suggests a more objectively in demand player.

The most damning version of this is how much the fees were for Landin and then in salary he was barely over $100k. The salary itself should send a warning signal the player is not what you wish. If it works it's a bargain -- until they ask to renegotiate, they don't necessarily just play out the term -- but often enough the player plays to salary level.

 

i do agree that Brener and Co do spend money. i vehemently disagree that those funds are used wisely.