Could they be better if they used them? The idea that they are better off for not using them is a tough sell IMO. If the roster rules relaxed, would Philly improve their depth, or just do what their doing? I'm suggesting based on what they do now, they might not invest more in the wages, unless there was a spending floor. And I think if they didn't spend more, it would be harder to keep up. Not impossible, but harder. Just like LAFC not using their last DP, it doesn't make them better.
Are we sure these teams aren't using these slots because they don't want to, not because they are waiting for the right fit?
LAFC will probably use theirs this summer. Not sure what Philly will do. If they view it as creating barriers for their academy players, I think it's unlikely they use them.
The academies are really starting to work at producing real talent. This might be the best approach, and the approach that takes the league over the top. That and also Messi + World Cup.
I think you will see some LAFC players coming through the system. Dueñas and Ordaz have very high soccer IQ and technically are sufficient. Now if LAFC has some academy talent that can compete for minutes with U22 initiative players...the team will be better for it. There eventually becomes a question on whether you get better return on U22s or academy, but only if your resources are limited and you can only afford one or the other. Philly could also use U22 to keep their academy players longer....but then they would have to pay them to stay
As incompetent as our Galaxy is, we do seem to have a decent academy that LAFC has to compete with. So that might hurt them a bit.
In order for Philly to use the U22 spots they have to purchase a U22 player, i.e. spend a transfer fee. The whole point of the U22 initiative is for teams to buy promising young international talent, play them, and then sell them. If an academy player plays ahead of the U22 player.....kind of difficult to sell that player on and recoup that investment. Philly has chosen to play their kids, and then went out and got Gazdag, Uhre, and Carranza (Young DP). Would Philly be better off using U22 slots and not signing one of the 3 aforementioned players? That's highly doubtful. There are multiple ways in MLS to build a roster, that's the point. It shouldn't be down to just who spends the most.
The whole point I was making was that Philly doesn't spend more, even though they have the option to now, so why would we expect them to spend more if the roster rules were loosened? And if they don't then I think it gets harder for them to compete at the same level, as others do spend more. There would have to be significant changes that help keep the academy build viable. Making HG off cap forever is one option, and the rest of the budget can be divided up over fewer others, like you said. I agree with that part.
CBA doesn't have to be renegotiated if they make simple changes like; Excluding the age limit on the 3rd DP. Keep the same cap hit benefits of the U23 DP for that 3rd DP but without the age limit. If a team wants to sign a 19 or 20 or 23 or 28 year old as their 3rd DP so be it. Give them the same benefits currently there for the U23 DP. This U23 DP rule MLS has currently is not as beneficial as many think. That's why you don't see many U23 DP players in the league. Too expensive, too inexperienced, too much risk to flip and too much pressure on a 19-22 year old to perform right away. Same with the U22-I player rule. Just give ALL teams 3 U22 spots without restrictions of "you get 1 spot if your 3rd DP is greater than max TAM or older than 24 years; or you get 3 spots if you have just 2 DPs or 3rd DP is U23". Keep the same cap hit benefits the league already offers for the 3 U22-I spots but with zero restrictions. Let the teams decide if the want to use them or not. Another is excluding transfer fees from the salary cap calculations. Transfer fees are paid by the team anyways. No reason to include it when calculating the cap hit. Just base it off on the player's salary. This would open a ton of cap space without the need to increase the cap.
You're missing the point..... Currently Philly is spending nearly $13M on salaries. LAFC is spending $17.6M currently (that difference is Vella). If some of the restrictions were lifted, and the cap were raised to say $15M, then Philly could pay even more players in that $750K-$1M range than they already currently do..... Imagine them being able to sign another Jose Martinez, as Jose's backup? Another player with a similar skillset to Bedoya as his heir apparent on the bench? The ability to resign Corey Burke, instead of having to rely on Chris Donovan when Quinn Sullivan is off not playing in the U20 WC? Being able to have a better backup keeper for Andre Blake? That's the kind of signings I'm talking about. Actual quality depth. Now they won't have LAFC 2022 depth.....they aren't signing Bale, Tello, Chiellini, etc....
If you take as a basis that no quality depth is available under the U22 initiative, sure. How would having that quality in prime depth not interfere with the academy pipeline as much as the U22 would in the current scenario?
That's not what I said at all.... The U22 initiative is a risk, with the potential of a high reward. LAFC signed Bryan Rodriguez as a U22 signing, or maybe it was a YDP. Anyways....I think its' safe to say that most LAFC fans would rather have had Chicho Arrnago instead of Rodriguez. U22 players aren't proven, and they cost a transfer fee that is usually fairly substantial. Academy players cost less, and have less risk, and also offer the same high potential. Having proven talent playing ahead of them, and allowing the kids to grow into their roles rather than being thrown into the fire is a better path IMO. The majority of young players aren't Thiago Almada. If you have an Academy player and a U22 player that play the same position how is that advantageous? One of those players isn't getting playing time, and neither are experienced. There needs to be a balance ideally.
Don't like the excuses that I have seen. Sometimes you win and sometimes you lose. LAFC had the players to win, but didn't. Buck up. Talking about roster rules is LAME from Cherundolo. I picked Leon to win, prior to leg 1, because I saw LAFC's game slipping leading into the final, especially at the defensive end. And they immediately put themselves behind the 8-ball minutes into the first leg. People are overreacting.
I like the name change back to the CCC and the prize money now starting to get a bit more serious. Concacaf Champions League to be renamed, winners to get $5m as part of big prize money boost Concacaf announced Tuesday that it is renaming the Concacaf Champions League to the Concacaf Champions Cup, and significantly increasing the prize money, with the winners set to receive $5 million. The name change sees Concacaf revert to what was used in the first 47 years of the confederation's top club competition. Concacaf changed the name to the Concacaf Champions League in 2008. More significant is the growth in prize money, with the winners receiving $5m, an increase of more than five times from this season, when Mexico's Club Leon beat LAFC in the final. The changes will start with the 2024 edition of the tournament. https://www.espn.com/soccer/story/_/id/37806740/concacaf-champions-league-renamed-winners-get-5m
Of course we'd like Arango, whether the team could actually fit him under the cap with a TAM or DP contract is not clear because the cap hits are not public (a problem IMO). If LAFC was saving the DP slot....then they weren't serious enough about the CCL IMO. If they legitimately can't use another DP because the rest of the roster already is on the cap...well that's more credible because they have a history of using the mechanisms available. Even now they are investing in the academy even though according to you, the academy and U22s are redundant. We'll see now that their academy grads are 17 and 18 how it works out, but the overall talent on the roster should be higher than if they didn't try with the academy. Sure U22s a risk, but it's not like taking a shot on Philly's version of Cifu couldn't raise their ceiling compared to Joaquin Torres or Andres Perea. Worst case you lose out on a low 7 figure transfer fee,l. Maybe that's too much for Philly and that's fine, but it doesn't make them better. Taking a chance on one or two U22 players is not going to derail the squad, and the potential to add a starter level player is real. Ernst Tanner saying that he can't find a good U22 without blocking the academy kids is... . The argument that they don't use it because they don't have to...well wouldn't it be nice to have a little more margin for losing Martinez or Bedoya in a crucial match?
Brian Rodriguez was an U23 DP. He was a bust. This is why we don't see many U23 DPs around the league. Too much risk. These U23 DPs are expensive to begin with and in order to make profits they have to come and dominate MLS to HOPEFULLY sell them before they lose the U23 DP tag. It's one of the rules MLS should change but keep the same cap hit benefits. As for Arango, I believe he wanted an increase, which he deserved, but would put him as a DP. LAFC already having 3 U22-I couldn't afford to keep Arango since they'll won't be roster complaint. They were going to have 3 senior DPs and would need to get rid of 2 U22-I players. This is another dumb rules MLS needs to change. It is the same reason LAFC hasn't filled that 3rd DP because they need an U23 DP to be roster compliant and since they are too big of a risk they are just riding with 2 DPs.
Come on now, that's not what he said, and you know it. He has said multiple times that there is more than one way to build a roster. Just because PHI choose to go all-in on Academy and forgo U-22s doesn't mean everyone needs to make that choice. So you can ROTFL all you want, but the Union's record seems to indicate they didn't make a poor choice.
You or anyone else can see it as an excuse but what he said is true. He isn't the first to say it. MLS is already spending like Liga MX and in some cases even more but due to MLS rules that money isn't proportionally distributed. In MLS you can't have a balanced team nor a team with depth. You can have a strong attacking line up but mediocre defense and goalkeeping which is the majority of MLS teams. You can have quality defenders and a quality GK but your attacking players won't be that good. You can get away with it in MLS but it won't work once you compete outside of MLS.
I'm not saying there can't be focus on different areas. I do disagree that Philly's maximized their roster within the roster rules, because a U22 player could raise their ceiling. You can argue they don't need to maximize to be competitive, ok...maybe they'll win something, maybe not.
I would say that LA and Philly are the exception to this. Both were the best in MLS last season in Defense and Offense. And each has gone about building their teams ion different ways. The margins between Philly and LAFC were razor thin in 2022. They were separated by a tiebreaker in the Shield Standings, and PK shootout in the final. We'll never know, but I wonder if Curtin had figured out/trusted the 3-5-2 formation he's used the past month back in March/April if the CCL series with LAFC would have ended differently.
Interesting rebranding exercise. The reality is they haven't had a "league" format in years. The writers at mlssoccer.com liked to ignore the Champions Cup era. Can't do that anymore.
In terms of exposure, it's night and day: The old Champions Cup era had a grand total of 2 MLS teams involved, typically bowing out after 2 or 4 games. The new Champions Cup could have up to 10 (!!) MLS teams - between the league itself (5), the US and Canada national cups (1 each) and Leagues Cup (3) - involved, playing anywhere from 2 to 10 games.
Oh, I don't mean the CCC coverage at the time. I mean the treatment of the CCC in the "CCL era" by the writers on mlssoccer.com. They liked to treat the CCL almost like a brand new competition, with all statistics presented in such a manner. Not sure why that is (laziness?). Didn't want to look up spotty records, often poorly kept by Concacaf? There was especially no point in holding on to that treatment once the CCL dropped the group stage and went back to a CCC-style format. Anyway, it's the CCC once again. Can't avoid comprehensive CCC history now.
I mean, there were two bright spots (3 if you add DC United winning the Interamericana) in an otherwise dismal era for MLS internationally, back when teams didn't even bother to host games **coughRevscough**