Easier said than done. If a player wants to go to Europe now, MLS cant do much about it. We dont know much about Besler's situation though and what he wants to do. In my eyes, he seems really loyal to KC. I dont know if he is the kind of guy that really wants to flee straight to Europe at the moment.
It does suck when MLS gets little or nothing in return. However, John and Espinoza were offered new deals and turned them down. You can't force people to sign a contract if they aren't interested in resigning. If there is significant interest abroad MLS can't sell for players for pennies. This may be the case with Besler, too but we just don't know at this point. You aren't going to garner a transfer fee off everyone. Sometimes players and clubs are stuck between a rock and a hard place when deciding to sell, keep, or offer new contracts. it's a tricky business and there's no exact science.
This has nothing to do with MLS as a whole and everything to do with the SKC front office bungling it. No one stopped them from offering Besler an extension good enough for him to sign. If they cannot identify and lock-down their talent before they walk for free, that is on the club, just as it is for every other club in the world. Don't know how this could possibly be a uniquely MLS thing.
I really do not think you need worry about the business savvy of MLS and its owners. They are looking at the big picture and that picture is about making American soccer stars. The price of a team has gone from $5M to $40M. That is the real value, not selling young Americans to make a million here and a million there. That is chump change.
The truth is that it's just not as simple as being a selling league or buying league for MLS. Because of the relationship between soccer and the casual American sports fan, MLS has to constantly be building up its credibility to gain new followers. To the uninitiated, it looks bad to see the best young American players leaving to go play in other leagues and just reinforces the stereotype that MLS is a Mickey Mouse league not worth following. We of course know the truth, but that doesn't change the fact that sometimes perception equals reality. So it's understandable when owners sometimes sacrifice what is in the best interest of the players long term for what is in the best interest of the clubs credibility short term. Kansas City specifically has made incredible strides over the last year towards gaining notoriety and respect in their market, so having as many marketable young stars as possible is in their best interest going forward when it comes to marketability or selling tickets. So basically what I am saying is that anyone who thinks it's bad business to try to keep star players as long as possible is just wrong. Especially young American stars. Owners aren't in the business to promote soccer or advance the interests of the national team. They're in it to make money.
Yes, it's more SKC bungling it, but it hurts MLS by extension, as it's not just SKC losing assets, it's MLS losing what it considers to be its assets as well.
SKC could've easily had offered Besler an extension last offseason but Matt turned it down and gambled (he won). He now has leverage to get a nice paying deal from MLS or test Europe and get paid.
The same agent as Donovan's (and a slew of highly placed MLS executives). There are instances where you can't lead horse to water if the horse wants to stay in MLS.
Is it his fault that MLS hasn't already bought several European clubs so it can make a lot of money selling its players to them even if no other clubs are making offers? I mean, it IS the obvious solution.
I think the argument would be that, had KC offered a decent (~ $300K salary) and a low ($300K) buyout, that Besler would have considered signing it. Once again, to use Dempsey's example - Fulham offered a very lucrative contract. When Clint refused to sign it, they moved him. Second example - this one of what not to do - Fernando Llorente refused to extend with Bilbao. They, in turn, refused to sell him and refused to play him. Now they are in 14th place and will lose him on a free at the end of the season.
Problem is there was zero market for Besler last winter and up to that point, what would selling him for say $500K do for SKC (less after MLS's 1/3 cut)? A $300K buy out, is that a joke? A year ago, he was viewed as a solid 24 y/o MLS defender. He blew up this year and helped SKC to 1st place in the Eastern Conference, which continues to drive up the demand of the club in the market because of their success. A six figure transfer fee wouldn't outweigh losing him on a free, especially to a billionaire owner like Neal Patterson and the other wealthy partners of SKC. They also qualified for next year's CONCACAF Champions League part in thanks to Besler and guarantees them at least 2 more home games next year (and likely sell outs). And SKC will also receive allocation money for qualifying for the CCL.
I think people consistently underrate the value of simply having a player like Matt Besler for an MLS club. Sure, it's nice to get a transfer fee. But you know what else is nice? Having a player like Matt Besler on your roster for another year with his 2012 salary. It's not that it's impossible to find a replacement for Besler on the international market. It's just close to impossible to find a replacement for Besler (or someone like Stuart Holden) at the same price point. In a league where roster/salary management is of paramount importance, this matters. Sporting Kansas City's primary goal is to win MLS. Having Matt Besler advanced them towards that goal in 2012, although they ultimately fell short. Having cash in hand along with a lesser CB or having cash in hand along with lesser depth in order to accommodate the price of an equivalent CB would not have helped them in 2012. EDIT: I should also repeat what someone said above -- Besler improved in 2012 and it's not at all clear that there was a market for him last offseason anyway.
He should go, DO NOT re-sign. Go while your stock is highest. Goodson is still getting games with the US and Boca will be phased out very soon. Take your chance while you can.
Agreed. But he seems to be quite unknown. Any idea of clubs tracking hin? Scandinavian leagues? Higher?
Playing in MLS didn't stop Geoff Cameron from breaking into the national team and it's not about to stop Omar Gonzalez, either. Besler will have his reasons for making whatever choice he'd like to make, but re-signing is hardly the death knell of an NT career.
You might be right but I feel going for free would entice more clubs to look at him, no transfer fee. True, just because you're in MLS doesn't mean you're not good enough for the NT. But if there's an opportunity presented then go. I feel Besler is more polished than when Ream left. I also feel Gonzalez has peaked, he can't get any better in MLS IMO. He too needs to push himself to the next level, fight for a spot in the gameday 18, forced to earn it in training everyday. In MLS both Besler and Gonzalez are guaranteed to start, even when they're not playing well. If they fail MLS will always be there.
Right. The question is "what is Besler's price point" now? KC will have to figure out how Matt will fit into their cap at a higher salary. It depends what kind of offers he gets from overseas, and what his ambitions are. Sometimes a player just wants to test themselves in Europe, regardless of the stage. A recent example is Edson Buddle, who went from a Best XI MLS player in 2010 to the relegation zone of Bundesliga II. Why? Doesn't make sense really! He just wanted to give it a shot and see what it was going to be like. It seems recently that we do have some fairly good turnover amongst central defenders. Teams are going to lose players like Omar Gonzalez, George John, Matt Besler, Geoff Cameron, etc. But the conveyor belt keeps rolling out MLS-ready defenders like Matt Hedges, Austin Berry, and Tommy Meyer. There are a host of interesting defenders in the upcoming draft. Due to salary restrictions, etc. MLS clubs have to be prepared for turnover. So how irreplaceable is Matt Besler? It's a difficult question to answer..................
That's true, but there's also the aspect playing at higher levels generally brings one closer to their ceiling, and there's no substitute for facing smarter and faster competition, competition played at a higher pace, weekly. Now, I generally think defenders should stay in MLS longer than attackers. Tactically, attackers suffer more for playing in a sub-par tactical league like MLS imo. They don't improve their soccer IQ fast enough, the pace is considerably slower than many leagues, the tech ability of the players you combine/link up with is poor, and it has a negative affect. I think game early on in their careers are important, but at a certain point the sub par tactics and lack of soccer IQ can be harmful. Look no further than Shea. The tactics at FCD are flat out terrible, and the players he attempts to combine/link up with just don't have the tech ability to execute simple 1 touch soccer, let alone make anywhere near the correct movements. I say that as someone who follows FCD very closely btw. Tactics however don't effect defenders as much. How quickly they combine, playing quickly at a faster pace and their movement isn't as important. It's why I don't mind MLS CB's staying in MLS longer than attackers. But, at a certain point, if you want to be in the NT discussion and make the WC roster, and you have the opportunity to go to a better league, you do it. While I think it's more important for attacking players to play at a faster pace, and read the game at a faster pace than MLS allows, if you want to be a CB getting time in the WC, imo facing more potent attacks will only prepare you better for it. Omar for example is a NT level CB as an MLSer, that's fine, but if I think about him starting for us in 2014 I sure want him facing more potent attacks than what Van, Chivas, NE, Por, Col, etc have to offer. I'd much, much rather have him dealing with Bund or EPL attackers in preparation for the WC. There's just no substitute for it. It's like saying a standout JV player in high school wouldn't benefit from playing varsity. There's no substitute for playing against better competition. I have no problem with Besler being in the NT discussion while in MLS. But if he wants to make the WC roster and get as close as he can to his ceiling, then move on if there's a good opportunity. Also, Omar would be in Europe if it wasn't for his ACL and knows that's where his future his. Nothing wrong with MLS being used to get you in the NT picture, but if you truly want to be the best you can be and offer the NT the most you're able too, you most likely have to make a jump once you become one of the best at your level, which Besler is in MLS.
And Ingolstadt was paying Edson something like $700K. I believe Kenny Cooper was making around $800K at 1860, and as pointed out in this thread, Mainz offered Chad Marshall around $350K over 4 years ago. So, BL2 clubs can definitely pay.
The problem, though...................is that extremely few defenders are signed as homegrowns and GenAds out of Bradenton as teenagers. (Unlike say Jozy Altidore, Michael Bradley, Brek Shea, Juan Agudelo, and elite players further up the field.) Players like George John, Matt Besler, Geoff Cameron, etc. were 4-year NCAA players. [Omar Goznalez was a 2-year NCAA player I believe] The next generation like Matt Hedges, Austin Berry, and Tommy Meyer were 4-year NCAA players too. So by the time their first contract with the league expires, the majority of defenders are already 25 years old. One might argue that's the time to make the jump to Europe (and at an elite level perhaps even too late). The top defenders available to teams in the upcoming draft and as homegrowns are primarily 4-year NCAA players as well (London Woodberry for FCD, Sebastian Ibeagha for Houston, Chad Barson for Columbus, Eric Schoenle out of West Virginia, and on and on......................). There may be one U20 defender signed to a GenAd deal, which is Walker Zimmerman out of Furman. If Besler has ambitions to go to Europe, now's the time.
That's right. In fact Kenny Cooper essentially wanted DP money to stay with FCD, and FCD said quite bluntly that they couldn't do it. This led to the complaints by many (including Kenny's father) that the league (at the time) was giving DP deals to mediocre foreign players instead of to in-their-prime American players. I mean, FCD wouldn't pay Kenny Cooper that money..........but shelled it out for past-their-prime foreign embarrasments like Denilson. If some foreign club offers Besler money that's close to DP money..........................I don't know how SKC can match it. In a perfect world they'd be able to. But not this one.
I tend to doubt Besler would see significant minutes in 2014, provided he makes the team. I just don't think there's a place for him with Cameron, Boca, Goodson and conceivably Omar vying for CB roles. That doesn't even touch on whether Edu would be included in that group. Klinsmann has a bias for players plying their trade abroad, yes. I don't see Besler making enough of an impact in the next year if he goes abroad to even start cracking the NT picture. Typically players also face an adjustment period when they go to Europe that can last entire seasons. It's probably an important step for Besler to make, but I think the more important piece would be how much he makes out of whatever opportunity he gets, home or abroad. Cameron was already a finished product for the most part when he landed at Stoke, so the MLS can certainly be a path forward for defenders. I would imagine Besler would have a better shot at playing regularly for the NT after 2014.