I actually like watching MSL games , I actually make a point of watching the Xolos home games because I feel like the team because embodies the blue collar ethic of the people and has great stadium atmosphere. I don't like stars from any country snubbing Houston because they feel that this is a living here isn't glamorous enough or they act like it's a crappy place to live. Attitude matters. I would love GDS or Carlos Vela here but they would have to love me back.
There's hope. Great players actually choose to live in Liverpool, or Manchester if they can't live in Madrid or Barcelona. It's all about the money. Besides, Houston is really not a bad place to live according to the Texans, Rockets, and Astros players.
Donovan has scored for Leon this season as well. This years's Dynamo team is frustrating to watch to say the least. The "let's coast to the playoff run" symptoms appear to be in full effect. Gives me a headache. Still, it was a really fun night out at BBVA with the temp and the hincha life of beers, songs n drums! Just no goals supplied by our players. We have now lost 2 home games thus far in 2018 where we only lost 1 game at home the entire previous season.
No problem sports fans -- the Dynamo have the easy part of the home schedule next with which to get healthy: Toronto FC, zLAtan, and NYCFC.
And Wildan (or is it Jormir?) got new contracts last week through 2021! Woopiee! damn .... I'm starting to change my mind on SaveTheCrew. Precourt might be a better owner than this guy we have at the Dynamo. What I would do to have AEG back .....
We really do run the gauntlet these next weeks. Good to have 14 days off to figure out what ain't clicking Cabrera. Um, I will bet dollars to donuts that it isn't so much our owners but the lack of vision from our FO on how to have a plan for decades of future growth in a city like ours in the Southern U.S. where the population is always growing, the economy is good more often than not, the youth market is strong here and the level of play/soccer savvy from the grown men in our town is very strong. Thus, our owners are told that there is not much the FO can do but keep the balance sheet looking good and perhaps pay of Stadium Debt over the next decades. AEG would take any of our profits and purchase a new Jumbotron for L.A. Galaxy's home ground, oh wait, that's right, AEG did just that.
Still fighting the last war. I get LAG got Zlatan. But it's been 4 years since they won the cup and compared to their competition they are now in a smaller stadium with smaller crowds (where as of when we were moved they were the big dog, since teams in NFL stadiums at that point weren't draws). Past three years it's been big stadium and big spending TFC and Seattle, and then full stadium participation with loyal fans Portland. LA may have bought a title this year, but the bigger picture problem is that our model is passe. I don't know if Reliant was ever an option, or McNair ownership, but that's one recent boat we're not in, is having an NFL sugar daddy and playing in AC. Only big league team in town not in AC. If I could watch in AC I'd buy ticket packages. As it is I make occasional trips and watch the games on TV. We were never an ideal SSS team in the MLS 2.0 era and even then the dynamics are shifting away from our MLS 2.0 model towards 3.0. Big stadia, NFL groundshares, indoor play, full stand participation. We have a cozy SSS, share with indifferent TSU football, play out in the heat, and are stuck on the SG model, which allows the organization to offload presentation concerns and put in minimal effort. Like I've said before, the issues are (a) this is treated like a standalone money maker and not like a conglomerate or vanity project, (b) we take the low risk approach to making that money, of avoiding pump priming and instead keeping expenses down, and (c) we have some stadium and change of control debt. In that scenario our spending and success would likely come when the debt is reduced sufficient that more money can be diverted to product. Question is, who is left to watch? They could draw well as a championship contender who due to the hard cap spent like everyone else and had a loaded roster. But now it's still hot out and they want to moneyball with an inferior payroll, where everyone can see we're not winning trophies but also not even spending as much. Problem also being I thought the Astros disproved the model earlier this decade, because if the team is bad enough and fans get the team isn't spending, this being pro sports and the hook being watching professionally salaried and talented players, if the team is uncompetitive and underpaid the fans will shift to TV or ignoring them. The whole debt service on a shoestring concept comes in question and you have to spend to win the fans back. You can kind of argue that's what happened in 2017 here. I think they have quietly started spending money on loan or transfer fees but not salary. The product has somewhat improved. But we are not on par with the leaders' spending or entertainment approach, fans are bright enough to separate Elis from Zlatan, and can tell we're only half trying. The Astros are the hotter ticket in the same time period of the year -- not the sorry mess they used to be -- and we all can tell how little they spend. This is not sustainable. My hope is reality forces spending or an ownership change. That being said, you can change who owns the team and you're still in hot BBVA and needing to not just spend on players but try and get the fans involved like a MLS 3.0 team.
I think some of the angst is time specific, they sold Torres and we're basically a 2 DP team til the summer. We are in a sense playing a man down til Russia is over. However, as detailed in the prior posts, we are cheap as an organization, and running suboptimally due to a poor coach and GM. The cheapness puts a premium on how sharp the personnel and game management are, and we don't have it good enough to overcome our limits. I wouldn't overstate the meaning of FO contracts extended through 2020, people can be fired before their term is up. Regular thing in pro sports. What I like less about it is the message that we are a tad complacent when I think a moneyball concept like this has to be, requires constant hard work and nimbleness. They got a little fat dumb and happy last offseason from success and we're sinking back down. They need to learn that if you are going to be cheap and moneyball it requires constant roster churn. You cannot be too loyal, you cannot rest on your laurels, you cannot keep signing players into their 30s. You need to be scouting and signing Elises and with some degree of consistency to boot. The minute we reverted back to the MLS rubbish pile we started sinking back down in the muck. The defensive personnel decisions continue to be this team's nightmare. For some reason the team that makes frontline signings of kids cannot square that with how to staff the backline, which is O-30 MLS clearance aisle. The nominally higher risk area is the more competitive unit. The sector staffed with older brand names chosen as supposedly reliable lower risks is the part killing us.
It's a combination of the two. We have owners that don't have deep pockets and are in this to try and make money, which is a difficult thing to do in soccer. Brener is very, very cheap. I could tell you stories. The org has a tight budget and a lot of what we see and bash is working within that budget. The front office contribution to things is incompetence. Combine cheap with incompetence, and you have a problem.
DynamoManiac, I get the argument we're cheap, and in many ways it's true, but they are spending millions a year above cap right now on transfer fees and loan fees. A debate I keep trying to prompt -- but no one either bites on or understands, can't tell which -- is whether that money would be better spent on salary on free transfers. Elis cost slightly over $400k and Cabezas over $240k, in terms of salary and the cap. The acquisition costs on top of that are probably into the millions. Similarly, Torres was just under $700k salary but the transfer fees reported on that might have been as high as 10x. So you never pay salary in the seven figures but you pay perhaps as much as $10 million in acquisition costs in the past 3-4 years. The fans call you cheap based on salaries and relative brand names. And it's a fair point and it looks cheap. But if you spent $10 million on loans and transfers, you're not broke, and you made an allocation choice. Argument I've made is it's a bit goofy because the gap between acquisition costs and salary suggests a big gap between promise and production. It might be truly moneyball to not spend anything and seek diamonds in the rough on frees. But we're spending some money, just on the costs of acquisitions. I've argued if you had $10 million more in the budget why not quit trying to be cute and unearth a surprise Elis, just buy the name brand and lower the risk. The increased salary prices in the fact they are seen as more productive already and less risky.
I also agree that we have mediocre coaching and incompetent GM work, but I think what snowballs that worse is the limits we're working within. A team that spends and makes mistakes just spends some more the next season to undo it. We have to be hyperefficient and to me our playoff chances are rising and falling each season based on the effort level and efficiency each winter. Last winter turned up a handful who could play for a change. This winter, maybe Steeves turns out later on, but so far, reminds me of 2016. Fat dumb and happy and we don't have that kind of a margin for success. Anyone who was pro-"continuity" should have to suck rotten eggs. To me a lower budget outfit like us needs to be ruthless and constantly upgrading and trying to get some youth back in. We can't afford to carry overrated players or people we don't use or people who have aged past their peak.
I'm calling them cheap not based on what the public sees as dollars and cents but having seen inside the organization. They are cheap. As for the acquisition costs, your timeline is a little off. Torres cost $5.5 mil but that was done under AEG. That acquisition was early 2015 and Brener didn't become majority owner until late 2015. I don't believe that the Dynamo would have paid that transfer fee under Brener. As for other transfer fees, none have been anywhere near what you probably think. Cabezas, Ellis, Martinez were all pretty cheap.
Did AEG pay the transfer fee? I had understood that Torres was signed to a 5 year contract by MLS which then offered him to all of the teams, with the Dynamo being the only one to agree to the terms which included a loan back to Chivas for 6 months. If that were the case it seems to me that the transfer fees were paid by MLS, and the salary by the Dynamo. Even if it was actually AEG, they still would have needed the agreement of the other owners (Brener and that boxing bloke), which had always been a problem. I've said this before, but Dom used to talk about the boxers tight wallet.
According to Canetti, the Dynamo paid $5.5 mil for him. MLS may have paid more, rumor has always been $7 mil, but they wouldn't have passed him on to the Dynamo for free.
which always has been my point that the Dynamo really didn't pay that much for Cubo. The Cubo haters wanted that to be the talking point, but it wasn't true. my second point may come true also. i have always contended that if the Dynamo did unload Cubo they weren't going to replace him with a player of the same salary (but better quality). if anything they'll go cheaper and grab 3 Central American or a couple of 3rd-4th Division Spaniards (David Rocha, Agus, Raul anyone). i'm halfway to that prediction based on what happened this winter (Ceren, Alvarez). let's see what happens in the summer window.
I figured if any of them were expensive it was Elis, Liga MX, Monterrey, Honduras. If the Eddie Johnson of Mexico (Torres) has big value coming and going then I figured Elis was at least high 6 figures. I didn't think Martinez or Cabezas cost that much. Martinez I always thought with the Braga B detour was probably a nominal amount. Cabezas I figured was low 6 figures. I am not as wowed as everyone else on those two. To me, ever more plowhorses to join Alexander and the others, when what this team needs is at least one playmaker of at least Holden's ok level, who can dance around and hit a pass just so. Torres, I see your point. It was December 14 (Torres) and then December 15 (Brener) respectively. My assumption is we had some skin in the Torres game otherwise it would have been any reasonable offer accepted in one of the two winters before he had the decent season and went to Veracruz. If we had no money in that and just owed a salary then he would have been gone years ago. I assumed that either we were paying for that lump over time or had paid a lot for him because he was given way too much time to turn out, and we seemed to hold out for an offer (which had to wait on performance) as opposed to just give him away. I get the idea based on how consistent we were in shopping each winter and how willing he was to go on loan and right back to MX that asset value was always part of the business view on the deal. That better explains the outcome than selling your best scorer. I always felt like as a soccer player he was an overrated misfit who got kick goals more than what you really need from a striker. But if money is no concern then you either tear up the deal or just don't do the option. We wanted something for the asset, probably even at a loss. So I assume we paid substantially for him and that the MBAs couldn't stomach nothing back for an asset, even doing that two or three years ago was the best "soccer" decision. That being said I think they are missing the fact that Torres could pass and move (even if he often retreated to the midfield line to do so), and could earn and finish a kick. I think the relative value of that was overstated but the absence of it hurts and turns it all one dimensional til refilled.