Ever since Hansen took over it's been floating around in my mind. The treatment of Javi was the first outright incident that fits the pattern that bothers me about meddlesome ownership.
Absolutely agree. I've given dear leader the benefit of the doubt until now for all that he is investing into RSL infrastructure but this Javi thing is beyond disconcerting.
I am withholding judgment at the moment. All we really have so far is one side of the story. I am secretly worried that if/when the whole story emerges that Javi will not end up looking as pristine and innocent as it now seems. That being said, I would like to remeber him as it was in the better days, not how it ended. Sort of like forgetting the last year or two when Karl Malone went to the Lakers and tried to have a sports radio talk show.
Teams in every professional sports league in the world have done this same thing to players and used the same excuse for legal reasons. Of course it wasn't a tactical decision. Yes, Javi is butthurt about it. I don't blame him. Yet, RSL made the right business decision in this case. As others have stated in other threads, RSL screwed up big time when they gave him the 3-year contract with that (and other) incentive in it. It painted them into this corner where all of their options were bad ones if Javi played poor to mediocre ball this season.
No - you are wrong. Not picking up Javi's option was not a 'bad option', but they way they did that was bad. They just had to be open and honest with Javi, as well as with the public, before the stuff hit the fan. Note that doesn't mean putting all of their cards on the table publicly about how much they would be willing to pay him or what FO role they'd like him to have. Clearly they've done some of the correct things in making decisions that had to be made. But they've done a very poor job on the communications with their players and with the public in this case. Looks like they did a better job with Jamison - likely because there was no intent on bringing him back in any conceivable future.
They absolutely could not tell Javi ahead of time that he was not going to start the Seattle game. That's a bad option of their own doing with the contract they agreed to. Additionally there were other things they could have done during the season to prevent the Seattle scenario. 2 or 3 times during the season they could have chosen to not start him and been able to tell him "We want to save your legs". It would have been more palatable that way. Instead, waiting until the Seattle game was a tactic that stood out for how obvious it was.
The funny thing is they had easily set that up prior to the season when Cassar claimed Allen would be the AM. All they really had to do was give him some starts during all the times we had 3 games a week, and it likely would've been enough to keep him away from the 24 starts. The reality is that they likely didn't plan for when Javi would actually decline(which is why he was given a 3 year deal to begin with), and instead of limiting his time by mid season when it was clear he wasn't as good, they tried to ride out the season with him getting the bulk of the time.
As I read all this stuff, I can still see two different sides. Time will tell. For example: (Optimist) Hey, it's looking like Javi will have a reduced role next year or potentially leave the club entirely. While we can't say anything about that yet, let's make sure we show our appreciation now. I know, we'll give out Javi bobble heads to all the STH's and do a meet and greet with Javi to go along with it... (Pessimist) Javi's on his way out at the end of the season. We gotta think of a way to clear out all these bobbleheads...
I actually don't have a problem with RSL giving Javi a 1 year deal with 3 possible if he plays so many games. I have a MASSIVE problem with us coming so close to that number (24, right?) given his age and level of play edit: essentially what @DrownedElf said
Personally I still can't say the DLH is the Coming of the Apocalypse. I mean if he didn't pay the bills and take over when he did, would we even have a team any more? He is no Uncle Dave, but Uncle Dave was essentially lipstick on a pig when he left. I do question his decisions for those he hired but that doesn't mean he doesn't care or want it to fail. I find it hard to believe that they guy who wanted to re-sign Olave because he thought he was "awesome" would actually want Javi to leave in this manner. No, I still blame Waibel and Cassar (which I guess is indirectly DLH's fault but only indirectly).
In general, I don't have a problem with the overall structure of the deal. In practice, RSL really hosed themselves. Anyone with half a brain (not Cassar) could see that Javi was nowhere near his 2015 self. We could've easily kept Javi out of a 24 game start naturally by just limiting his starts in our 3 game weeks, the few times he was injured, or for a few 'tactical' reasons throughout the season. We basically did none of those, because as we all know, Cassar doesn't know wtf he's doing. So we roll into the Seattle game, and based on Cassar's formation pattern, Javi should be starting. Well, he's not, which is really baffling given how Javi has spent the bulk of the season starting, and we're in a must win/draw situation to get into the playoffs. So naturally we don't start him. I honestly can't believe it was for 'tactical' reasons. This was clearly to prevent Javi from his guaranteed contract this coming season. And it was honestly a piss poor time to finally realize he wasn't worth it. We had at least 3/4 of the season to limit his time and we didn't. To finally do it in the last game of the season is a poor choice by the FO. Especially on top of the overall non communication, despite the Olave tweets and whatnot that shows it's not due to a league type mandate. The FO's image took a big hit IMO. I was already on the fence about not renewing my season tickets. I basically did it to not leave my brother out to dry. If there's not MAJOR improvements in the style of this team, I'll be done by the August renewal. And this is me being realistic about not keeping some players, and probably losing Burrito/Plata. If we wind up with that much cap space available and shit the bed, I'm done. Whoever winds up playing for us, I want to see a team that actually gives a shit. I can forgive losses if we're actually looking positive and look like we can score. What I can't forgive is the 'effort' we gave last season, where we'd occasionally get near the box, then proceed to pass it around until we eventually lost the ball. I want to see hunger. I want to see our team actually take on players. I want to see actual shots around the 18. Make me believe in this team.
I'm not saying that Hansen has evil intent. Ted Turner at the Braves and Steinbrenner at the Yankees didn't have evil intents. They are unaware of how their expertise in business doesn't apply in running a sports franchise and don't realize how their previous negotiating tactics with employees who are not household names doesn't apply when negotiating with public heroes and metaphorical heart and souls of the organization. They don't realize how in a business built on direct competition between opponents is qualitatively different (as compared to incidental competition on store shelves, television, real estate development, etc.). They use the heuristics that served them well in the businesses they ran and don't realize how they are actually destroying the sports business. There is no evil intent, they don't even know that they don't know, and that incompetence born of ignorance dismays fans and the franchise hollows. At the bottom in Atlanta with Turner in day to day charge, I could go to a game, taking my books (attending Georgia Tech). I could put my beer and hot-dog on the seat to the left, my books on the seat to my right, a book on my legs with them propped on the seat in front of me, and not be disturbing anyone because there were so few fans at the game. Turner was lucky that his national broadcast of the Braves was supporting the team so well, because really, the franchise should have failed. Hansen doesn't have national TV to keep him afloat if the fans give up on it.
That seems to me to be understating the important issue here - this is completely DLH's fault. His one role (other than financing the club) is to hire the correct people to run it. And those are two of the three positions that matter, and both appear to be way out of their league. The third position is even a worse situation (club Pres.) because DLH essentially asserted himself into this position while giving some of the sponsorship/marketing duties to Andy Carroll. Of course he cares, but a caring fool is still a fool, right? Garth and Jason faced these similar cases on several occasions: Talley, Mathis, Dema, Will, etc. - and in each case they had a tough conversation with those players, made the right decisions, and most importantly they treated those players with respect. In this case, without being party to the conversations, it still seems obvious to me that they treated Javi as a disposable piece of meat. That's uncalled for in any sport. It's another sign of amateur hour in the RSL FO. Unfortunately the word gets around and nobody wants to play for you. You can break the RSL experience up until this point into 3 segments. I would suggest that the reasons for the results in the first and last era are the same - poor management. The first phase was partly due to a learning curve with an expansion team on a shoestring budget: Expansion era: 2005-2007 21 wins, 50 losses, 23 draws Ellinger coaching Pastorino GM no playoffs Era of success: 2008-2013 84 wins, 58 losses, 50 draws MLS Cup victory (2009) MLS Cup runner up (2013) CCL Finals (2011) USOC Finals (2013) conference finals or semifinals each season Floundering: 2014-Pres 38 wins, 35 losses, 29 draws DLH takes full ownership Kreis leaves (end of 2013), Cassar succeeds Garth leaves (beg of 2015), Waibel succeeds semifinals in 2014, DNQ in 2015, knockout round in 2016 but hey, check out that scoreboard!
So are we now boycotting ownership? Coaches and GMs and players come and go, but ownership is fairly untouchable unless they are like say Checketts where they stop paying bills and stop paying taxes. Otherwise unless it's a financial reason DLH isn't leaving. Is a BS lead boycott of season tickets going to change DLH's mind? I get it that DLH can change many things we don't like, like say how they treated Javi (thread promotion) but in my mind that was Cassar and Waibel's plan not DLH.
I have never thought that any organized boycott amounts to anything productive. That being said, I personally can choose not to spend my money on something that I no longer find entertaining. Game attendance became more of an obligation last year, rather than something that I looked forward to. I think I will enjoy the comfort of my couch and my DVR (and the cheaper food and beverages) this coming year. I will be sure to put anything I'm drinking on my nifty STH coasters, play Gwen Stefani songs after every goal, and surround myself with hot dogs and straws to remind me of the "good old days".
It will adorn the wall behind the TV. All scarves will also hang vertically on the wall. (Side note: binder clips and push pins do an amazing job of hanging scarves with very little effort). I do not know if my existing speaker system it capable of the "blow out your ear drums" volume for the Believe anthem as played at the RioT, but I'll make do at the lower volume.
I have a spare room for basketball and soccer memorabilia, as well as my Air Jordan/Nike collection. Took all my RSL stuff down over the weekend. Yep. All of it. The RSL flag that Nat Borchers mom gave me, numerous photos that I took and had printed, autographed soccer balls, as well as game-worn player jerseys I've acquired over the years. The Javi Mo sign my wife made when he returned from his ankle injury was the hardest to remove. I don't need to know the entirety of the story to know that something is inherently wrong with this organization and I don't need to be a part of it at this time. I'll check in from time to time for status updates.
While the owner is untouchable, he's still the one who appointed these two, and other areas of concern. I fully understand when you appoint someone and don't know how well it will work out, but when you get results like Cassar had, then still decide to keep him around, that's a problem. Since we can't force the owner out, the only real things we can do are things like stop going to game, stop buying merchandise, and call/write to the organization to let them know. Eventually he either starts making more positive moves, or he starts to get hit in the wallet.