So the player has slipped to July. Such a pattern with this team. If (big if) he arrives, he probably plays his first match with 10 or less games remaining.
May or July but realistically yeah July. If it's not a Jermaine Jones caliber player who can come in and grab the team by the scruff of the neck and drag them to the playoffs, they should just forget it.
The Krafts wouldn't comment on this article. Kinda like they won't comment on this team. Damn ... we f'in need a new owner.
Meanwhile this was on Ives : https://sbisoccer.com/2019/03/must-see-goal-jermaine-jones JJ is now playing Indoor Soccer. Im sure he's still better than any other player on the Revs at his position. We should try to bring him in. Even as a sub, he might help this team extract its head from you know where. Yeah 37 is a bit old but I have to think he'd like to get out of indoor and he was wiling to stay but our master negotiator didnt want to pay him. Cant believe indoor soccer pays much. Were heading for last place... we need something
The question isn't about his ability, it's about his durability. And, our master negotiator made the right call on that one.
You've forgotten how ineffective he was in Colorado and LA. Indoor soccer doesn't pay much, that's why their players make JJ look good. We need a 27 y/o Jermaine Jones, not a 37 y/o Jermaine Jones.
The NY Times isn't a big enough media channel for the Krafts to pay it any heed. The Times got no chops.
Big bad Bob is getting a rough ride from the NYT. Every time they write about Trump cozing up to the Chinese woman who became a superpimp and ran the sex slave operation where Bob was sating his appetite for underage Asian girls, Bob gets mention. I only wish he had to sell the team to pay his legal bills.
Maybe so but you know what? I saw more than one ineffective player last night and I do not doubt that even a 37 yr old JJ would be an upgrade. He may not be as fast as he once was but one thing you cant take away from him is that he at least knew how to play. Im not sure that some on our team can claim that. Carlos Valderrama played a until he was 41. JJ could still be useful if he played less and didnt try to run like he's 25. Its working for old man Bradley
If he didn't play with abandon, he wouldn't be who he is. And a big reason why he had such an impact here was because of his work-rate. How would he be able to influence his teammates the same way if he was pacing himself? Certain positions, yes, a player in his late 30's could still have an impact. In central midfield, no way. And, lest we forget, he was having trouble keeping up with the speed of play even in his one good season with us. When he did have to run with an attacker, it wasn't pretty. Valderrama was an exceptional case, but he wasn't asked to do much more than make great passes.
JJ is too old now. But was it the right call at the time? Since JJ was a relatively rare player with “ability” on the roster, maybe it was. If JJ couldn’t be available to SINGLE HANDEDLY CARRY THE TEAM for the majority of games, he wasn’t worth the investment. But also, maybe the team should focus on having enough players with “ability” on the roster that they can survive some of them having reduced durability. I’m so glad we’re putting in the wait for a “durable” player like Andrew Farrel to return.... I hope Gil is very durable. This team is often painful to watch even with him on the field. If he goes down it will be a nightmare. Since this team has not demonstrated a budget that can afford talented AND durable players, I vote we sign more talented players and skimp on durability.
Well, his single season in Colorado,he brought the cRapids to being a Shield contender, and the seasons immediately before and after, they were their usual selves. He was still good, and we could have used him, but not at the money he wanted (and accepted from the Rapids)
I'm really not sure what you're trying to say here. In order to sign him, we would have been paying him multi-millions well after he was unable to play in the majority of games. Again, not sure of your point. Farrell is incredibly durable, but this was a very freak injury, that could happen to anyone. And, since he was on the bench last week, seems to have recovered well ahead of schedule. I think, against Toronto, we were actually pretty entertaining, creating a number of good attacks. Of course, defensive breakdowns are always painful to watch, but in this game, at least, I thought we played some good attacking football.
I feel you may understand better than you admit. Is this bait? The Revolution focus on cheap and durable over talented weirdly strengthens your (and others) rag against resigning JJ. In my opinion, history went on to prove that the younger more durable “replacement” proved to be less of a leader, less able to single handedly carry the team, and missed probably as many or more games. In short the “wise cost” approach doesn’t work; not for this management team. [EDIT] - JJ probably wasn’t staying under any circumstance. The argument is more about the REV philosophy/approach. Right. He is incredibly durable and very marginally talented. I’d rather be waiting for a truly talented right back to return from injury and send Farrell’s marginally talented ass back to the bench. Glad you enjoyed it. I didn’t. We are into the yearly waiting period where we have to “wait and see” and we’re “negative” if we opine that they have once again failed to put a good team together. It is really hard not to improve on one point out of nine. So advantage over to the optimists. Over the last 10 years (2009-2018) the REVs are 113-137-82. They have more loses than wins in 6 out of 10 years. In my book that is a losing record. I expect the ties will be argued at length to prove it isn’t a losing record. Still, I think the emphasis on cheaper, more durable yet marginally/less talented players has had a long run. It isn’t working. Neither is continuity of roster (vs. big overhauls) nor continuity of coaching staffs.
JJ had a huge impact on the Revs during the season of the run to the title, I'd never deny that. But, in the final, he imploded, killing off our last chance in a one-goal game. That's questionable leadership. Then, he followed that up by sacrificing his body to his USNT ambitions, leaving him unready and unable to play for the Revs. That's definitely not leadership, at least for his club team. As for Farrell, I see your point (about cheaper, mediocre players), but he's curious choice for an example. He was a consensus #1 choice at a time when the draft was much more significant and the Revs moved up for him, expending capital to do so (in effect, focusing their effort on getting 1 better player rather than multiple lesser ones). That he's failed to live up to what most of us predicted is disappointing for sure, but this was an example of the Revs going for the better, more expensive player, not the reverse. And, following up on that trend, the Revs have actually been spending a lot of money (probably too much) on their defenders. The problem is clearly not about not wanting better players (at least for the defense), it's about picking the right ones.
It all depends on the framework within which you are making this comparison. He was the more better expensive alternative within the pool of draft players. But he was still a cheaper and lesser talented alternative at the time within the broader choices of available labor pools within which to recruit. (And still is.)
You always turn it back to a discussion about "JJ the player." I'm trying to discuss the REV approach to building their roster. JJ the Player: He picked a bad day to have a bad day at the office... Never happened before has it? Zidane, Beckham, Pogba recently... all bad leaders because of that one moment apparently. Also he was the first player to put his medical rehabilitation first, I'm sure... REV Roster Building: The argument was and is about durability vs. talent vs. cost in REV roster building. The REVs didn't appear to want to keep JJ (very low qualifying offer). First they wanted to be cheap. Second, like you, I believe they were frustrated with his availability (durability). I was frustrated with his availability. But their decision was not improving the team. In fact it was making the team worse. Despite all of the things you despise about JJ they were a better team with him, even less reliably often, than without him. That kind of decision making has plagued them for years. Not just in the JJ situation but in every off season, in every window. Not enough good players signed, not enough of the signed players any good... In the specific case of JJ, they saved a few dollars for the illusion of durability then watched Kouassi sit for a year. You'll try to whittle it down to a specific case of bad luck but I argue the 10 year record I cited in an earlier post is the result of years and years of applying this logic to player/personnel decisions. 10 years of relative failure. Someone already pointed out Einstein's Relativity in this case. He was a great DRAFT choice but not necessarily the BEST overall choice. The problem isn't that they signed him. The problem is that they still, years later, favor his relatively low cost and durability over going out and SIGNING A REAL RIGHT BACK!
It is very very very hard to discuss this. That is not great for a 34 game season. Had the REVs signed XX and he was every bit as good and played in, say, 28 games would I be happy? Definitely. Am I happy that Kouassi, IIRC, played 0 games and the REVs were ugly to watch without him (JJ)? Definitely not. I'd rather have had 9 games that were livened up by his presence. We have had a long string of players, back to Dempsey, that they were going to find and sign a good replacement. Almost always cheaper and less talented and months to years after the exit. JJ is just an example. A bad example since everyone (not you) has to lay a major deuce on him every time his name comes up. The REV approach did not improve the team is the point. I would be happy to have let him go and sign an even better DP. That is never what happens here. IMPROVE THE TEAM Mike (or Brad if you're Rkupp).