I believe the easiest solution will be for MLS to extend the grandfather clause for the remainder of LD's contract, however many years that may be. Same for Ruiz et al. This way, smaller clubs such as RSL, KC, Columbus et al. will not get pissed when the big boys have and use 2 DPs say. After LDs contract is up, he'll have to renogatiate for a salary below that of a DP. This will be an interesting off-season to say the least.
This is probably what should have happened in the first place, it's sort of unfair to make people on contracts when there was no such thing as a DP, bend and break to actually be able to take advantage of the existing rules...
Again: so you mean that MLS didn't make "special rules" to favor the Galaxy when they instituted the DP rule? I would love to see some concrete examples of LA favoritism that we keep hearing about.
Why is such an itch about Donovan going abroad..... He does not need to go anywhere away from his girlfriend and his season seats with the Lakers
Shit. He needs to leave this country if his wife finds out he has a gilfirend! Plus, the Lakers won't be shit at the end of the season so those tickets will be less of a status symbol!
Does anyone know who else besides Cobi has had a No-Trade Clause? Obviously his has been effective, since I would guess that at some points during his career with the LAG the team would probably have liked the option of trading him, but were unable to exercise that option. And while he had renegotiated at lower wages in the last few years, I think that happened after earlier contracts had expired. He wasn't re-negotiating an existing contract to get paid less money. In like manner, I doubt Donovan will be negotiating a lower salary to "stay in LA." He has the right under his contract to stay and to get paid the amount contracted for, he doesn't have to do anything. Now, as a result, the Galaxy may be gutted and forced to play with only developmental players, but that would be his choice. He could follow the example of Elway and take less money in an effort to help the team recruit or keep players that help competitively, but he certainly is not obliged to do so. And, you, to some degree, contradict yourself when you say the contract is "worthless". Certainly AEG may breach the contract, but Donovan would be likely be entitled to the full amount he could expect if the contract were fulfilled, which would be "worth" quite a bit indeed. Considering the cost of abandoning the contract, and the fact that Beckham's performance and reliability is still a bit unsettled (at least with this team), it would seem that the option of casting off Donovan would be unattractive. LA will trade for a DP slot. How strongly do I believe this? I think that if they don't manage a trade by the start of the season they will still retain Donovan and not play him until they can trade for a slot or negotiate an exception. Of course, that is excepting the possibility of a trade with Chivas, which is easier to imagine being agreeable to all parties.
Here is the question I have. Does a no-trade clause prevent someone from being left exposed in the expansion draft? If it doesn't then there could be a likely outcome. I don't see anyway SJ doesn't take Landycakes if he is available.
If LA had to leave exposed any players they wanted to keep, it would be a great ploy. Leave him exposed, knowing LD can't leave without his own approval, effectively exposing an undraftable player...... It's a shame there aren't enough good players for that to be useful, in fact I wish we could leave more people exposed to get taken off of our hands.
1. MLS teams are REQUIRED to protect their DP players (ie: LAG couldn't expose Beckham, NYRB can't expose Reyna, FCD can't expose Denilson--even though it's a sure thing they won't pick up his extension so he'll be gone in January!). 2. So the question is: are grandfathered players (Ruiz, Mathis, Donovan, EJ) required to be protected? 3. This is all theoretical anyway. I don't see any way that LAG exposes Donovan in the expansion draft. If he really won't leave LA than Yallop should know that (or be able to find that out quickly enough). And if you're LAG, you don't expose Donovan in the expansion draft--you're giving him away for nothing. No, you trade him to SJ for an allocation, a first round pick, a promise not to take anyone from the LAG (which means you don't lose Harmse or Cronin) and SJ promises to trade you a player that they pick in the expansion draft from another team (say....Brian Carroll from DC United or Richard Mulrooney from Houston or take a gamble on Chad Marshall if he's exposed by Columbus). I bet San Jose would do that deal in a heartbeat. It would give them a proven young veteran who they can build a team around. And LAG would gain cap room, not have to deal for a DP slot, get the means to add more good foreign talent (allocation), the means to add cheap depth (first round pick), not lose what limited depth the team has by getting protection from an expansion selection and then add a guy who "might" start but would more likely be a good reserve.
People keep using the word "trade"... How many times does it need to be repeated that he has a no-trade clause? He can't be traded unless he agrees to it. (I don't see him agreeing to it.)
Starting a new thread would only dilute my disdain. From Jorge Campos to Luis Hernandez to Carlos Hermosillo to Landon Donovan to David Beckham, the league has been giving favors to the Galz. Of course, it can be argued that AEG and MLS were essentially one and the same for the longest time and the boss was only looking out for himself. PS. Whether Landon Donovan can be waived is besides the point. Since he has the no-trade clause, he ain't going anywhere unless someone comes in with a really sweet offer and the only offer he might possibly accept is from San Jose because it's about an hour flight to/from beautiful downtown Burbank (whereas Manhattan Beach to/from Burbank is about an hour drive). PPS. I actually do not think he is a very good PK taker but most GK's often take a dive too early to test him. When Miguel Calero decided to wait him out, Donovan shot straight at him.
Read the post. I believe I prefaced this all by saying that it depends upon if Donovan is willing to leave LAG. As in, he's willing to waive the no-trade clause. Right now he's saying "no." That maybe exactly how it plays out and LAG ends up trading for a DP slot. Or it maybe that if Yallop wants him, he may agree. And Yallop should be able to find out easily enough (as I indicated in my post).
Listen, if you really think that there won't be some kind of a change to help out this situation you are most definately kidding yourselves. AEG will have seen this coming from a long way out. And although Mr. Garber may have said that an added DP slot is not in the making, the salary cap was discussed and he hinted that it will likely be upped. Besides, I have no doubt in my mind that Mr. England and Mr. USA together are what the league and AEG want. Y'all just sit back in C-Bus and watch how we do it out here in La La land.
Apologies if I misunderstood, but I didn't read it that way... To me, that reads like you're only applying "if he really won't leave LA" to just the draft situation (why else would you go on to say "No, you trade him..."?). Again, sorry if I misread it.
Examples of MLS rules being bent to accomodate LA: 1. Luis Hernandez: MLS did not have a DP rule in 2000-01, yet Hernandez was paid over $2 million to play for the Galaxy. (The "maximum" league salary was aroud $250,000 at that time, and the team cap was around $1.8 million). 2. Landon Donovan Part I: when Donovan came to MLS from Germany the first time (in 2001), MLS initially tried to allocate his rights went to the Galaxy (despite the fact that San Jose had the first allocation at that time). Luckily, San Jose's new GM at that time (Tom Neale) refused to go along with the scheme, and inisted that San Jose was entitled to Donovan. LA then proceeded to offer the under-performing Hernandez to San Jose for the allocation, but Neale resisted league pressure to accept the deal. It's too bad that the Dallas GM did not have similar scruples when the same scheme was tried again in 2004 (Adu to DC) and 2005 (Donovan to LA)... 3. Landon Donovan Part II: Donovan stated publicly that before leaving for Germany in November 2004, the Galaxy (most likely either Lewieki or Hamiltion) had promised him a spot on their roster if he came back in 2005. Since he was still with San Jose at that time, such a conversation amounts to tampering (a violation of league rules). When you consider the circumstances that brought Donovan to LA, the Galaxy's 2005 MLS Cup title really should be accompanied with an asterisk (rather than a star on their jersey). 4. Charter flights: In 2006, MLS did not allow Red Bull to use charter jets for travel to away games, on the grounds that this would create an unfair advantage over other teams. In 2007, MLS had no such objection to the use of charter jets by the Galaxy. 5. Landon Donovan Part III: the "grandfather" clause was attached to the DP rule for one reason (to allow LA to sign another player). KC (with Eddie Johnson) and RSL (with Freddy Adu) had no real need for such an exception. 6. Landon Donovan Part IV: look for MLS to increase the salary cap to more than $3.0 million (perhaps as high as $3.5 million) for next season. This will allow Donovan's contract to fit under the cap (with no need for LA to acquire another DP allocation).
Not a problem. And it wouldn't have been the first post I was less than absolutely clear on. If Donovan insists he's not leaving LAG, there really aren't a lot of options for what LAG can do. His money is guaranteed so the team could effectively release him or get him to retire. They could trade for allocations (they'd need about $650k in allocations to buy it down enough to get it below the MLS maximum salary threshold I believe--maybe "only" $600k--very few teams in MLS have that kind of allocation money--NE, maybe DC United. A "you suck" allocation in the past has I think been considered a minor allocation worth about $125k but all of that stuff might have changed. In any case, LAG could sell players to get allocation money or trade them for allocations to get a total of $600k). Even then, it's only a 1-year deal and LAG would face the same dilemma in 2009. Or they could try and trade for a DP slot. Or hope that the league rescues them somehow. That might have been more likely in the MLS=Hunt and Anschutz days. But now you'd have to wonder why Checketts or McFarlane or any of the new owners would vote for a new rule (grandfathering players in 1 more year, raising the MLS max salary, some sort of gimmick like that) that would not help any of their teams but only benefit a team they're competing against.
If all else fails, they'll trade for Houston's DP slot. I realize the popular notion here is that they won't or the league will insist on fair value, but push comes to shove I think they'll pack off a couple marginal players to the Dynamo and call it a day.
Because he and Beckham both have contracts that legally must be honored. They don't have any options that are realistic except simply allowing it.
It could and should be argued that financial success of the league was riding on the shoulders of a couple of franchises, LA being one of them. A healthy LA meant healthy league. And make no mistake. The league was BLEEDING money then, especially LA and NY, so putting a marketable player like that in such a critical market was for the benefit of the league. You conveniently forget how The League made the Galaxy pay for that: a "special" dispersion draft that gutted a young team that was building chemistry. Ask LA fans at the time and now: most were opposed to the move b/c we lost so much in order to get that. He had the wrong attitude and the promise of fan success failed miserably. But again: that was a league decision to take the risk. But I *will* say this: this was a proto-type DP exception/rule. The league learned from that, and we have a much better system in place. So the league *gave* something to LA, but more important, LA had to pay a major premium for that "favor". Now. If the league simply looked the other way at the salary, THEN you'd have a case. Big picture. Look at the big picture. Landon giving MLS a try was HUGE for the league. It paved the way for Adu, and the focus on bringing up young talent has paid dividends for the league in uncountable ways. It's far, far better for MLS and for USMNT to have kids stay at home until they are ready to move abroad and they move to a good situation. Have you not noticed the increase in depth since the early part of the decade? Part of that has to do w/ the fact that we're no longer bleeding youth to dead-end clubs abroad. LD wanted to be near home. Real shocker. Did he go to LA? No. Next "favor"... Provide the link w/ the published quote. I'm sure a Smurf will step in, but let's take a look at said quote. Did we get to use charters? I know that we had special travel arrangements (as in elite lounge access or something), but guess what... ... we have this pop icon on our team who simply cannot fly coach like the rest of the league b/c riots would ensue. This isn't exaggeration. If you can't see that, then that's YOUR problem and you need to wake the **** up. Uh. Yes. They. Did. And you're forgetting Carlos Ruiz at Dallas. So 4 teams were given a provision to allow them to plan for the restrictions that would be placed on players who already had a legally signed contract... but it's b/c of the "Galaxy"??? Are you nuts? How many teams took advantage of the DP rule and the grandfather clause? chivas (sold their spot to NY for Amado Guevara) NY (TWICE) RSL (grandfathered Freddy Adu) Dallas (Ruiz PLUS Denilson) LA (Becks + LD) Kansas City (Johnson) Chicago (Blanco) All told: 10 uses of the DP or the benefits of a trade. Chicago practically doubled their flailing attendance. But no. The league was doing "LA" a "favor". Dear Mr. Beckham, Just a line to say "thank you" for all the money you're bringing in. Signed, MLS Players Union Yeah. Raising the cap has nothing to do w/ the fans telling MLS teams that they want to see quality players. It has nothing to do w/ addressing the lack of depth that hinders MLS competing internationally. It has nothing to do w/ competing internationally for top quality Americans and foreigners. It has nothing to do w/ providing a significant portion of the league the resources necessary to put the product on the field that they want. It has nothing to do w/ allowing Chicago, KC, Dallas, NY, Chivas, C'bus (who are using a de facto DP in Schelotto) and DC the legal means to improve their team. It has nothing to do w/... you know... garnering better ratings for Telefutura and ESPN. Nope. It's ALL about giving "special favors" to the Galaxy.
I personally think we gain nothing by talking about who got the most favors or got hosed the most by the league. Yeah, the league gave LAG a favor by giving them Luis Hernandez at a time when A-league callups like Bonseu were being considered allocations and we were contracting. And the reality is that it was good for the league to experiment. And unless people really have blinders on, every team in the league has gotten a couple of bennies or "do-overs" at times and has gotten hosed a couple of times. And with the benefit of hindsight, let's see...FCD didn't get Adu and didn't get Chad Marshall and now unless you're really stubborn about the whole thing and focused just on the principle of it all, FCD probably came out better getting the allocation. Again, every team (even colorado) has gotten some bennies or do-overs. And every team has gotten the shaft multiple times. And we've now reached the point where the league isn't contracting, people are jostling for position to invest in new teams, and we're signing a few players with rep and game (rather than just growing our own and looking for Carribean bargains). Can we move onto the here and now rather than who got what shaft or benefit 5 years ago? B/c with the benefit of hindsight, just about any deal (Luis Hernandez, Freddy Adu, Clint Mathis, Lothar of the Hill People, whatever) can look different than it did at the time.
I don't know if this is the quote that Timbers is referring to, but this is one that I remember. It doesn't specifically mention 2005, but 2005 is implied, along with any number of years following, in the phrase "they didn't know how long it would be". http://web.mlsnet.com/news/mls_news.jsp?ymd=20050331&content_id=25260&vkey=news_mls&fext=.jsp When he says "I came out of that meeting more convinced than I've ever been about almost anything in my life", that's a pretty strong statement. It indicates that they did some kind of major sales job on him coming back and playing for the Gals. How committed are you going to be about playing in Germany when you go over there thinking "Man, I'm more convinced than I've ever been about anything in my life that I want to come back and play for the Gal'ies!" FWIW I don't stay awake at night worrying that the rules are bent for the Gals now and then. They are generally too inept to gain advantage from it. They remind me of a saxophone student I once had. He had a great instrument, a little bit of an attitude, and somewhat pushy parents. And he couldn't play worth shyte.
The quote Donovan gives indicates that by the time the Galaxy spoke to him they already knew he had decided to leave MLS. I don't see what's wrong with them saying, "hey, if you ever want to come back, we'd love to have you come play with us." If my understanding of the rules is correct (it may not be), San Jose had the opportunity to retain Donovan's MLS rights if he returned. I'm not sure by what mechanism; maybe holding his allocation slot open or something. They elected not to do so. That may have been because they figured that if they retained his rights, Donovan would just have refused to come back to MLS if he couldn't play for the Galaxy. Or it could be that they just didn't know that Donovan had any desire to return to any MLS team. Maybe I remember the whole affair wrong, but I don't see how what happened was the result of any chicanery on the part of the league. I think a lot of this stuff about the league favoring certain teams is silly. Look at it this way: most rules enforcing "parity" or spending restrictions such as a salary cap are effectively favoring teams with less money to spend, which is generally the small-market teams. A salary cap benefits Columbus more than Los Angeles. Just like the DP rule does the opposite. The league has to strike a balance between keeping smaller markets competitive and allowing bigger markets to take advantage of their better situations. We can argue about whether a given rule benefits the league as a whole or not, but that's really the important question, not whether some teams will benefit by it more than others, because obviously some will.
Yeah, San Jose could have retained his rights if they hadn't used his allocation. But what we don't know is when AEG talked to Donovan about the Gals relative to the Quakes use of the Donovan allocation (I think part of it was used on Rico Clark, but I don't remember what else they got from it). Could have been before, could have been after. IIRC Donovan joined Bayer in January 2005, and the Quakes acquired Rico Clark the same month. It's also possible that AEG pulled some strings to "encourage" San Jose to spend their Donovan allocation..
The puppet strings of Lalas....he admitted that when asked about why the Donovan allocation instead of the other one SJ had at the time. This isn't an exact quote...too many years ago....but he said that "although he always tried to do what was good for the Earthquakes, he did appreciate the bigger picture of what was good for MLS" and that was the justification.