Agreed about trashing players and coaches. Probably could do with less of it. My original post in this thread was actually to question where the love was. Seemed like somebody would be more in tune with you RSLFM, and thanking Jamie for his service....rather than some of the "good riddance" stuff I was seeing.
IMO, no. There is more to running a sports franchise than what happens on the field. With your ties/relationships with the FO, I'm sure you're very aware of that. Sure, it's a nice sports platitude to say, "It's all about wins and losses, baby" (channeling Dick Vitale here ), but especially for a fledgling MLS franchise, there is more. Think about where we were last year. From the "highs" of signing Freddy Adu , to the lows of watching botched PR from the front office throughout the legislative session to the point that Checketts was not only threatening to move the team to St. Louis, he was neglecting the team and not making necessary roster moves because he wanted to leave the options open for the new team owners once RSL was sold off. All the histrionics and bad blood on both sides of the political fence had little to do with wins and losses. And into that mix, it appears that "no contribution" Jamie Watson steps in and helps the governor (through his wife or daughter or something) see the benefit of having an MLS franchise in Utah. Somehow, I doubt an extra goal or two on the field would have mattered. In the political realm, it was image, relationships, and personalities that made the difference. Lest you think this is a post from Jamie's mother, I don't think I'll miss him (assuming RSL gets at least one more forward before the season starts, I think we're thin in front right now). But, that doesn't mean I can't recognize and appreciate his ability to generate new fans (12-year-old girls spend money too!) and his obscure yet crucial role in the whole stadium debacle of a year ago.
I have to disagree... In the context that my post was presented, which was about a direct comparison of the value of two specific players to the organisation, not on how to run a franchise. You say "ties to the FO" as if it is some kind of bad thing... I have friends in the FO if that is my "ties to the FO" than so be it. I have ties... I won't apologize for that. Other folks have friends and sources in the FO does that not also tie them to the FO? Every season ticket holder has ties to the FO... No? I am not trashing former players. I agreed with a Scottt1115's assessment of the value of two specific players. Since then that he has changed his assessment, I have not. I have said it more than once that as a PR asset Jamie was valuable, but I don't believe he was invaluable. As a person he is awesome, I chatted with him countless times, he has done numerous interviews and has appeared on the RSL Show at least once. Even more than that he was a great guy. Being a great guy and a great PR Asset does not automatically make him a great soccer player. I believe that RSL assessed his overall value to the organisation as a whole and made a decision based on that, and that alone. Last season everyone, including myself, was screaming for change. We got what we asked for. Now people don't like the changes that are being made. I say wait and see how things work out. I will say again that I wish nothing but success for Jamie where ever he goes.
My mentioning your "ties" was an attempt to acknowledge your superior insight and understanding on most RSL issues. Knowing people and being privy to information some of the rest of us don't have is not a bad thing. It was meant as a complement of sorts, not criticism.
Good post. Only wanted to clarify something on my stance. I did change my feeling on Jamie perhaps being more valuable to the franchise than Chris Brown (given the marketing points made earlier), but in know way do I see either of them as invaluable. I think letting them both go was likely the right decision. The stadium will give the team plenty of PR wins, thus they won't need Watson. The influx of 'talent' at the forward position should make Chris, also fairly expendable. The only thing that was more valuable about Chris was his ability to plug in virtually anywhere....but if we have enough role players, that too isn't all that important.
I don't think he's as bad of a player as some of you want to believe. Here are two stats from 2006 (the last year he played any significant minutes) that I find interesting. RSL averaged 1 goal every 64 minutes on the year. With Watson on the field, RSL averaged 1 goal every 19 minutes. If you do the plus/minus thing like they do in hockey and basketball to measure player performance, with Watson on the field RSL was +5 for the year. With him off the field, RSL was -10 for the year. EDIT: Those stats may be a coincedence - him being on the field at times when we did well for other reasons. But they may not be coincedence either - the difference is striking. I'm NOT saying he should have stayed, and I'm NOT saying I wouldn't have cut him, and I'm NOT saying we can't do better. I AM saying just two things: 1. He was better on the field than some of you give him credit for. 2. He DID have value on the field, just like Brown also did (and for the record, I was a huge critic of Brown).
Okay, lot of misconceptions on how Generation Adidas works on this thread. Ga players are only "free" in regards to the salary cap. Those players are absolutely paid by the teams (or by the league and then the league takes the money from the clubs, whatever). It didn't cost RSL "nothing" to keep Jaime on the roster, that is a false statement. Secondly, a coach doesn't petition Adidas to keep the player in the program. The league decides when a player graduates out of Ga. Adidas just sponsors the program, they have nothing to do with the players selected or retained into the program. Lastly, Kreis doesn't have to petition the league to get a Ga player graduated simply so he can cut them from the roster. A Ga player can be cut just like anyone else, or at least put on waivers. Now, back to your little slap fight....
In light of the recent evidence presented in the testimony of texgator I resume my position that Brown provided more value than Watson. Secondly, I think IBIK's stats are somewhat misleading. Watson came on at the end of games that season when we were really pressing for goals. I think that season we scored something crazy like 40% of our goals in the last 15 minutes. Sadly most of them were mop up goals that didn't matter much. I don't have the numbers and I could be mistaken, but I was at pretty much every game that year, and I remember thinking Jamie sucked just as much that year as every other year.
Thank you for coming to educate us, wise Dallas fan. Just so we don't continue to revel in our ignorance, do you have any links to back that information up?
Except that, at the end of games where Watson wasn't on the field, we continued to plod along at about 1 goal per 64 minutes. So it wasn't just an end-of-game phenomenon - I really do think his speed made us better at the end of games when the other team was gassed.
Texgator, I won't presume to speak for everyone--but your points were neither 1) previously misunderstood, nor 2) important in changing this silly discussion's equasion. I will presume to speak for everyone now--it's time to turn the page. We thank Jamie (and all the other wiaved players) and wish them luck.
LOL...sorry, actually came on here to see what everyone was saying about Jaime, since he was trialing with us for a bit. Hmmm...you know, it would take me a while to dig up the actual links. Most of this stuff has been spelled out sporadically by different sources over the years. Primarily I've learned what I know from Buzz at 3rd Degree. He's pretty good about finding out all the machinations of MLS roster restrictions and explaining them to us.
No, they don't really change the equation too much, other than the opinion of SOME that since Jamie is free he should have been kept. As far as the info not being misunderstood, I'd say the most of the posts on here indicate otherwise. But you are free to ignore the info, I really could care less.
HA! I wasn't even looking for the information, but found it anyway.... http://worldcupway.blogspot.com/2008/01/inaugural-qna-answers-part-ii.html The 2nd question shows that 1. the players are cap exempt, but are still paid by the teams and 2. The league decides who is part of the program, not Adidas.
Obviously, the shorthand "he's free" is generally understood to refer to cap space damage. And not Dave Checketts' wallet (or rather SCP Worldwide & iStar's financials), which is completely irrelevent anyway--assuming RSL would have used all/most of its alloted cap space on other replacement players. (and for the record, yes, I do realize RSL did in fact spend some of 2007 under cap while pursuing SI's). Yawn.
If what tex posted is true, then it seems that some people did misunderstand a few GA points. What about your own post? It would seem to be a pretty broad use of the word "free" to mean nothing more than "doesn't count against the cap," especially given the potential for confusion. Even if you did mean "free" in that sense, this was probably misguided given that many people have referred to Adidas paying GA salaries in the past.
Not really. It made sense once I found out. I love alter egos. What's funny is I've kept the same persona, I still cheer for RSL, I'm not a member of any fan club (so no switch in loyalties there)... pretty much, i'm the same person online as I am in person.... which in your case, isn't true.
Being never quite sure of who I myself am, I am impressed that you can keep track of other people's alter egos and hidden identities!