I thought we were talking Spurs. You're like, but Seattle paid for him. That means he was valuable to someone else. Spurs preferred wire transfers, briefcases of bank notes, however that was done. As people surely remember, he then struggled his first season in green and there was talk it was wasted money. Dug out of the hole eventually, did well, then the heart issues. I also think your argument is something of a non sequitur in terms of setting him up for a move/transfer home. He could have served out his contract at Fulham. He could have asked for a transfer straight here and end run the issues of a EPL transfer felt by the fans. He instead signed a 3 year deal with Spurs. Which suggests that family or not he was going to stay there a while more. And then he moved up the timeframe and left year 1 of the deal. To show the fallacy of your argument, we all agree Jozy was crap at Sunderland, what, 3 goals in 2 years? Cost TFC Defoe in exchange, who had his history plus 11 MLS goals only playing in just over half their games. If your career is not a Freddy Adu shambles you still have most of your asset value. Which wanders back to my point about evaluating players on their body of work. He had some bad years in particular places that display his limits. About every US star has a hole in their career. The elite have fewer. Plenty have more. That's why he was worth a star player in trade. That's roughly where he fits in legacy wise. Frustrating but good. Now, if we continue to progress and get more technical his place may get revised. But right now that's a pipe dream and it's like do you go with the kids and assume they "have it," or do you go with lesser strikers on age basis. I personally am a fan of going with prospects, because I think they will fulfill their promise. But on performance he remains the first tier of our team, like it or not.