thanks rkrupp I was about to say that this could be the first internet poll of 100% agreement. You could have a poll of "are you alive" and always get that one troll who votes no. And while i know your trolling. I would like you to at least attempt to give us a troll explanation for not wanting to fire mike burns. Should be a good laugh.
Dear KO, In the interest of your sanity, please, I beg you, Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass.
He is allowed to vote no without being named a troll, isn't he? Seriously, it takes more cojones to be the lone voice than to be (like me) one of the crowd with the pitchforks and torches.
Fair enough. Most polls have a variety of views, but it would be interesting to hear the rationale as to why our lone wolf thinks Mike Burns deserves to be pulling down a paycheck. I can see someone arguing that the Moreno fiasco was not Burns' fault, since he did sign him to a legit contract, and it sure looks right now that it is the player who reneged on the deal. But I think for a lot of us, this is the straw that put the camel in a wheelchair. So little activity in an area that was obviously a priority. The decision to get rid of 3 players would have been fine if they had signed guys who could replace them, yadda, yadda, yadda. This is the vote of no confidence among many of us. This incident may not have been Burns' fault, but a whole lot of other stuff sure seems to be. Having said that, there is no way they don't give him the whole season. And even then, if things are as bad or worse as they are now, he probably still will have the job for another year after that...
To be fair, there are now 2 no votes. Of course, the second person is a Fire fan ... so rkupp is in good company.
And vote #2 comes from a Fire fan, so that shouldn't count. Hell, if I supported one of our rivals, I would want to see him rewarded with a long-term contract!
Ridiculous. All of us together could easily be wrong. Did Burns have a bad draft? Are the two Colombians we did get a bust? Is it Burns' fault a guy bailed on a contract? We have a new coach, a young rebuilding team, and supposedly a new style of play. We have not seen them play or practice yet, Burns has. Bringing in an expensive veteran player could easily be destructive rather than constructive in our situation. I don't like that Burns has no experience, that he supported Heaps as a coach, that he re-signed Joseph, and that he hasn't spent much of the available money.....so I'd be glad to see him go. I also could be totally wrong. Until the team plays, our anger at Burns is nothing more than premature shirt puffing by a bunch of egotistical arm chair quarterbacks. Is it possible Burns is right, that a young team freed of Nicols' derisive coaching style and playing a different of soccer might gel and do better than expected? The Revs are not winning the MLS cup this year, no matter what we spend and who the GM is. Giving Burns/Heaps a chance to see what they can do is hardly indefensible. rkupp doesn't want to be another lemming. Nothing wrong with that.
Correct. I thinks Burns abilities as the person responsible for finding, signing and closing the deal on a signing is the issue, not the current evolution going on under coach Heaps. The repeated failure to meet their own stated goals in signing a DP et al is all the data I need to say--"Your Fired".
I know you didn't ask me, but personally, I think it's loyalty. Not to Burns, but to Biello. I think Kraft isn't happy with what's happened over the last few years. I think he assumed a rising tide would lift all boats. It obviously hasn't, and won't. In the next 2 years, I expect him to either ACTUALLY change the organization, or consider selling. As the league grows beyond the Revs, he won't want HIS business to be an embarrassment, even on the small stage of US soccer. This will drive his decision.
Another serious question for DOC: Why are you just focusing on ability to sign? Just like some prior SN years, they seem (I know they haven't kicked off yet and miracles can happen) to have planned to build a team that is no more than one deep at a bunch of positions. That is a PLANNING problem to me, not a signing problem. In a lot of ways, I think we should be bashing the hell out of Moreno for being unprofessional. This unique deal, stand alone, seems to be about bad faith on his part. Yes, Burns can't close the deal but why don't we have any other serious people on the roster to play forward? This seems alot like the season where TnT had been concussed for much of the prior season and we were entering camp with him only doing light workouts, hoping to play again but no serious alternative(s). He played two halves and retired. No real backup existed. SJ started moving up. It's bad planning. You can continue to pin that all on Burns but I think there is a group involved. One thing I'm pretty certain of is that SN isn't responsible this time. We should have other serious forwards in camp weeks ago. Shilawski doesn't count. [Edit] Burns talking about the Moreno situation: “This is a unique one because the deal was and is done,” Burns said. “You have a bunch of contingency plans beforehand and, now, you're thrown into a situation where you may have to look at something after the fact. We're still hopeful and optimistic that we can have conversations with the player and see exactly where he's at before we get too far ahead of ourselves.” It reads like we had one and only one plan.
I don't see a young, rebuilding roster. The Revs participated in the draft (like 18 other teams), but one of the most outstandingly disappointing features of the offseason has been how few high-ceiling, young players the team has acquired.