IMO, he exceeded all reasonable expectations while he was here. What possible standard could they have set where they would have actually signed him permanently after his loan? To me, it shows that there was the clear plan to sign him for the rest of the season just to say that we had a DP, and then discard him.
That's a weak argument. What else could he have done in order for him to earn a contract? He was never injured, and if, for example, his knee was sore and he missed lots of practice but was able to play in games, I could understand it, but from what I remember, that was not the case. And the bold part is something that is true about literally everything in life. If the Revs were "overly cautious" about signing a player because, well, you never know, he could step off a curb and get hit by a bus, so we better not.... then they will never, ever do anything worthwhile, in soccer or in life.
I think that, in those days at least, the loan-purchase price still had to be negotiated - and I suspect that they expected a purchase price that had less potential pain for the risk they felt they were taking on. I'm not sure how this makes any sense at all. He would have been our highest-priced player - essentially a DP, before there were DPs. If you commit large money/years to a player who ends up not being able to play for much of his tenure, you've seriously handcuffed the organization. I liked the guy, thought he was a good fit and felt they should have signed him. But, they didn't. It was a risk/reward calculation - maybe they were overly cautious, maybe the player just overcame the odds. It is what it is, but to pretend this was a no-brainer or typical measure 9x situation mischaracterizes what was a tough decision at the time IMO.
He was a DP when there were DPs - he was literally our first. IIRC, it sounded like the option to buy clause in his contract was extremely high and something that the Revs were never likely to meet. We got a decent player who was trying to work his way back from injury, but with little intention of staying beyond the end of the season.
What!? Caraglio was on loan here in 2011. The Designated Player rule was four years old at that point. He would have been signed as a DP for 2012 onwards, so it would have been five years old. In 2011, LA already had 3 designated players (Beckham, Donovan, Keane). If Caraglio got injured, we would not have been handcuffed. We could have signed two more Caraglios. What handcuffed the organization in 2011, and continues today, is Kraft's penny-wise pound-foolish behavior.
Yeah, got it. I appreciated Crooked's correction more though. I think we both know that we weren't going to invest in 3 DPs then, so if you're only signing one, you want to make sure it's a sound investment, not a risky one.
But what’s the point of even bringing in a “DP” if you have no intention of having him for more than a half season? And a $54,000 “DP” at that? They would have been better off signing a guy like Jerry Bengston, at least there was a genuine attempt for him to be a part of the team.
C'mon, you know what the point was of bringing in a $54K DP for less than a season (and 4 years after most if not all other teams were playing the DP game).
As a TRIAL. He played/started 12 games, had 3 goals and 2 assists. And you think those are the type of results that make purchasing the contract of a DP a no-brainer?
So they brought the guy in for a 12-game trial, knowing full well the terms if they decided to keep him. His numbers were pretty good, but you have to ask what they were expecting in order to justify a contract. Did they think he should have scored 6 goals, which means a goal every other game? That's golden boot territory. For a guy integrating into a new team/country/language/league/playing surface, I thought he did pretty well. It would have been a lot easier if he was a total bust like Denilson, who signed with Dallas and didn't do much, so it was an easy call for them to cancel the $2 million or so he was supposed to get. They also brought in a few other guys who were at least competent players around that time--Lekic, Stolica and -- I'm forgetting his name, a French-Moroccan guy. They weren't world-beaters, but given how hard it was for the Revs to bring in anything resembling an MLS level player, cutting bait on all of those guys and being left with nothing wasn't a good move. Lekic was here the longest, but the other guys were gone after half a season. Y'think those kinds of moves had anything to do with the perception that the Revs are not a good club to deal with? No one has a problem with cutting a player who doesn't work out, but you need to at least give them a fair chance.
Monsef Zerka, I think is who you mean. His cup of coffee lasted from August 2011 through end of that season, appearing in 7 games. Lekic, at least as I perceived it, contributed the least of the four players (Caraglio, Lekic, Solica, Zerka) being discussed here. Funny/odd that he lasted the longest.
I think all these guys where brought in during the summer too, which makes it seem like they really liked the idea of waiting for a player to open up during the transfer window and sign a guy as a trialist, but being able to spin it to the season ticket renewalist as a "big new signing". These guys were treated 100% as trailists, not given enough time to get up to speed with the team and then not offered a contract the following year (except Lekic?). FWIW, the impression I got from Caraglio was that he was just coming back from injury and he wanted to play a few games so he could prove himself and move elsewhere. So weather or not he told them he didn't want to be back next season is unknown.
Yes, Zerka was the guy I was thinking of. The idea of bringing in players to see how they work out is fine, but when your track record at the time for signing players outside the league was as bad as the Revs was, the plan B would be to start all over and try to bring in someone better over the winter. Those guys at least looked like they could contribute, but instead, we wasted half the next season trying to find replacements.
Yes, exactly - he did pretty well. Is that enough to expend significant assets to keep him and sign him to a multi-year deal? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ As I said, I was in favor of keeping him and was disappointed that they let him go. But, I recognize that it was a tough decision. Now you want to open it up to review all the players they've let go? That's a full thread in itself. I wish they hadn't let Cate go! And that Irish winger they had way back when. They didn't cut Caraglio - they declined to purchase him. He was under contract to whatever team loaned him to us. All teams have players who didn't like getting cut and think they were done wrong - any many/most(?) are probably right. But players and agents continue to work with them because they are the ones hiring. There's nothing unique in the Revs' history that you wouldn't find in most clubs that have been in business for a while. In fact, I would guess that in most of the world it's a lot more vicious and cutthroat than it is in Foxboro (and many of the players who have come through here have had to survive those places). I doubt Ilja Stolica was treated more considerately in Serbia.
This is going nowhere. They brought it a bunch of new guys for very brief periods. This was at a time (well, until this year it has always been like this) where they had a really poor track record of bringing in guys from outside the league. They always struggled to bring in more than a couple of guys, and more often than not, they weren't up to the task. These guys were at least serviceable MLS-level players, albeit on a bad team. No sense in rolling the dice to come up with a new player who will likely be worse, or not even be here until next July. In this case, they hyped Caraglio as their "First-Ever DP." but pretty much no matter how well he did, they weren't going to keep him. I'm not buying the revisionist history that he wanted to be here only for a handful of games to get in shape and get a better offer, even if that's what happened. They either had no intention of signing him to the agreed-upon terms (since it was probably for a lot), and assumed that their fanbase (outside of us lunatics who pay attention to this stuff) would have long forgotten about him by the time the next season came around.
I'm willing to let it go, but you are making unsupported claims. I don't believe that and I don't believe you have any evidence to support it. There are other possible explanations (there almost always are).
Here's the story touting him as their "first-ever dp" https://www.revolutionsoccer.net/post/2011/08/02/revs-sign-milton-caraglio-first-dp Such as?
Nice digging in the archive. I remember Caraglio. I thought he showed some skill and may have been a piece they could have built around. I have no insight into why it didn't work out. Seven years later, I don't really care what happened. Burns and the Revs have taken a lot of criticism and I think a lot of it is deserved. However, for some reason I feel more optimistic about how the moves the team has made this season have worked out and how the season has started. This coach appears to have a plan. He seems able to identify the types of players who can fit into his plan. The front office was able to sign some of those players. Those players have proven to be impact players so far. The next test as I see it, is whether the coach continues to identify the right needs and whether the team is able to add at least one more player (two might be asking too much, baby steps) who can fill a need and make an impact in the summer transfer window. As far as what happened with Machado. Who knows? The positive thing I take from that situation is that the coach was able to identify another player to fit the desired D-Mid role and then the team was able to go out and get Zahibo. If we want to speculate, consider this as a possible explanation: Maybe they tanked the Machado deal on purpose because Zahibo suddenly showed interest. I have no way of knowing that is true or not. I do see it as a positive that the team identified more than one player to fill the need and ultimately filled the need. I am happy with Zahiibo so far. Never saw Machado play, so can't say whether he would be even better.
http://global.espn.com/football/lineups?gameId=510895 Look at the line-up for Colorado Springs. Former REV and Pembroke native Luke Vercollone entered in the 66'. He score the first PK in the shootout.
Nice find. Looks like he has been with them since 2015, and has logged over 7,000 minutes in 3+ years.
Fine, but that doesn't have anything to support your claim that there was no way they were ever going to keep him. Such as the the explanation I already gave.
TheCup.us @usopencup 4h4 hours ago Today in @USOpenCup history ... #OTD 2002: New York Freedoms of the @USLPDL (aka: @NYPanFreedoms) edge @AACEagles 1-0 in Round 1 thanks to a 119th minute golden goal by an unknown youngster named @ShalrieJoseph21
Didn't realize Stolica was into coaching. Congrats former #NERevs @ilija_stolica new manager at @antonio_delame’s former club: The new Olimpia coach is convinced that the right choice via @tech2s https://t.co/zZl9zxvpHq— Brad Feldman (@BradFeldman_) June 19, 2018