The results of the 2002 Waiver Draft follow: 1. D.C. United - pass 2. MetroStars - pass 3. Kansas City Wizards - pass 4. Chicago Fire - pass 5. Dallas Burn - pass 6. San Jose Earthquakes - Craig Waibel 7. Columbus Crew - Luchi Gonzalez 8. Colorado Rapids - Billy Sleeth 9. New England Revolution - pass 10. Los Angeles Galaxy - pass
I think it says a lot that Bradley did not take his former player Billy Sleeth, especially since the Metros could use some depth in the back. Hopefully, it means that the Metros are committed to bringing in some higher profile defenders, but it may only mean that, having seen him up close, Bradley knows he's not worth the roster spot.
I think if you take a player in the waiver draft, you use up one of your picks in the next "Superdraft". So you want to make sure anybody you take would be as good or better than who you could get with that draft pick. At least that's how it works in the NFL with their supplemental draft. Anybody know the exact deal with the MLS version?
No, you just go to the end of the line for the next time a player is waived. And apparently, if a player picked up in the off-season waiver draft is himself waived before the start of the next season, the team incurs a small fine (assessed against the salary cap I assume).
Nowak loved playing with Walsh, who had a great 2002 campaign. Billy recognized the idiocy of Nick and OZ long before any of us did, and he wanted out. Can we blame him for having the same emotions we now have, just a season sooner? Face it, you don't hate Billy, you hated his views which were ahead of his time, and you hate his brother, but he did nothing but produce for Metro all season long.
Walsh had a great 2002? Chicago waived him. But you're right that he evidently realized what an idiot OZ was early on, and most of us took OZ's side. If Billy was clearly good enough to help the Metros, Bob Bradley would have picked him up off waivers. Evidently he's not good enough. Or do we get to hear about what an idiot Bob Bradley is now?
I for one wouldnt be suprised to see Walsh back on Metro in 2003. Bradley likes his type of player, and Walsh can cover either defense or offense. He's not a gamebreaker, but at the current status that MLS is it, there is room for a player like a Walsh on every teams starting eleven. I wouldnt worry too much that Chicago waived him. May have been more a salary issue for Walsh, who, living away from his Chatham home, conceivably is looking for a raise to afford a decent dig. Good to see you back on the boards Haig.
Bradley didn't believe you last year, cause Walsh was only a stopgap starter when injuries tore through the Chicago lineup with all the delicacy of a neutron bomb. Otherwise he was a scrub. Name me the regular Metro starter last season who you'd drop in favor of Walsh.
Jeff Moore may be a better defensive mid, and there are better defensive mids out there, but your honest, unbiased view on Walsh cant be that he's a bad footballer. He is a much better player then Petke, Chronopolous, Lisi, Ziadie.....He may not waltz through a defense but he doesnt relent on defense and doesnt make mistakes with the ball at his feet.
And the players you listed don't play the same position as Walsh (with the exception of Lisi and I keep him because he has potential- billy boy has none). What kind of comparison is that?
I can't agree with this one. When Walsh played here he usually led the team in unforced turnovers in the middle of the field. It was a serious achilles heel for Walsh (in addition to his lack of speed). Sure, Walsh would then fight hard to try and win the ball back, but his give-aways were just way too frequent.
If Jeff Moore is a better defensive midfielder THAN Walsh THEN there is no way Walsh is a much better player THAN any of those listed because Moore sure isn't.
It's time to get past personalizing this. Walsh is a journeyman player. The best coaches the US has-- Arena, Bradley-- have seen enough to want a good look at him, then decided he wasn't good enough. Bradley refusing to take him in the waiver draft is a good sign that he's not a player that Bradley sees being in his starting 11 (we need a d-mid, don't we?) or even on his bench. If we're in a pinch, and we need a third-string defensive midfielder playing for a pittance until someone heals, we could do a lot worse than Billy Walsh. But no current MLS coaches see him as a starting 11 player, and there isn't anything else to be said on the matter.