Exactly. As much as all of us (excpet Revs fans) would like to see Clint and Shalrie get their chance in Europe, MLS is a business, and one that is looking to grow financially. One helpful tool in the growth of this league is making money off player transfers, so they should sell for the right amount, not settle for a low bid. It would be pretty sweet to see Clint play in the EPL and Shalrie wear the hoops though.
It is. They sold Peguero. They sold McBride. They sold Beasley. They were willing to sell Johnson. They sold Convey twice. They sold Ralph. They tried to sell Wolff. I have a nagging feeling I've forgotten a biggie (no, Diallo doesn't count; first, that was a long time ago, second, they WANTED to get rid of him), but I think that list suffices for now. Given the talent level in the league, and the dearth of players who can get a WP to play in England (which I think matters because of the language issue), that's a pretty damn long list in recent years. (I could add Stern John, but I wanted to stick with recent years.) Oh yeah, I remember...they sold Howard. The notion that MLS overvalues its players flies in the teeth of the fact that is the rather long list of players sold. Your argument, which many, many posters repeat, is crap because of that list. Your argument needs to deal with that list. Until someone makes the argument and tells me why all those players sold in recent years don't matter, they should lay off bashing MLS for not selling players. For a league that doesn't sell players, they sure sell a high percentage of their saleable commodities.
I don't see any big MLS conspiracy to ruin players careers or incompetence at work here. What I think we have is simply MLS saying we cannot in good conscience sell integral and vital players to a team 6 weeks before the playoffs start - UNLESS we geta huge offer we cannot refuse. I think they learned from the Chicago situations a few years ago. MLS has to protect their teams first and foremost. While I think it would be great to se some ex-MLS players playing in the Champion's League etc.. - I am glad that they would think twice before they sell my teams best players to the first bidder riight before the playoffs.
we can all agree with what you're saying, northside, except for the long, at times surreal and somehow juvenile debate about the playoffs, the playoff structure, etc. which somehow must go with it. in the end, are there any legs to stand on?
I'm not sure what you're saying. Did I make a juvenile arugment agianst the playoffs? Maybe I did. If I can still act like a juvenile at 38 - I think that's pretty good.
no, northside. sorry. i didn't say you or anyone in particular was making a juvenile debate. i was just saying the debate itself is at times juvenile. and somehow, for me, that would have to enter into any player's mind when he was being told he was being kept for the playoffs. they scoff at the playoff idea as much as common folk often do. it just makes the argument that you made tenuous to me. i wasn't saying you were juvenile in any way, shape or manner. apologies for the confusion.
What players scoff at the playoffs? Even if MLS were single table Euro-style, the players would still have to be kept beyond the transfer deadline(unless a team had no chance at the Supporter's Shield or getting into the inter-league tourneys).
Some interesting points made here; pardon me if I'm repeating one, but isn't there a risk if these rejected bids become the rule that promising players may hesitate to sign multi-year contracts w/MLS, and start leaving on free transfers? That said, $1m is too low.
Agreed, and MLS has a history of losing more players to free transfers than it does $1m+ transfers abroad (Boca, Califf, Nelsen, Elliott, Adin Brown etc...) I think this is even more important because Shalrie isn't American. This might actually scare CONCACAF players from using MLS a stepping stone, and that would be vbery bad for the quality of the league. I remember JP Garcia (Chivas USA) said he moved to MLS to be in a more visable league so he could score a move to Europe. Yeah, good luck on that JPG, unless you see out your deal. MLS is cutting off it's nose.... Personally, as a fan of MLS (and the Revs too, I guess) I wouldn't be gutted by a good player going abroad...so long as he's representing the league and raising the profile. And if he went away and sucked, well, he'd just come back like Lankycakes, Mathis, Cannon et al......and MLS would just be $1m+ better in the bank balance.
Legitimate mistake, no value, no value at the relevant time, no value, and a backup keeper, hence, no value. Really, exactly how many offers, and for how much, were there for Simon Freakin' Elliott??? Try again.
My initial reaction is $1 million is way too low for someone like Joseph, but I didn't realize he was 28; I thought he was 24 or 25. It seems like post-World Cup MLS is GOING OUT OF ITS WAY to make sure it does not set the bar low on some of its best product. I sort of understand: after the debacle in Germany, perceived as a slight against MLS, superdave notwithstanding, and American soccer in general, MLS is making sure the sharks don't get the pick of the litter for scraps while the market is in a bear mode. I understand it in theory, but in practice it makes for some high stakes gambles, and some disgruntled players. Let's hope they know what they're doing.
That's a great idea. I think Best Buy should also let me determine what the value is for a big screen TV and not stand in the TV's way of entertaining me and my friends.
Frankly, the off-season departures of 2 of our stars (of Dempsey, Joseph, and Twellman) would make me wish that Clavijo was still at the helm. I have no faith in Nicol's ability to bring in starting-caliber foreign allocations. It's inexplicable given that he has done quite well picking up good talent out of college, but you can't argue with the results.
MLS thinks these guys are worth more to them than foreign teams are willing to pay. All the players that left on free transfers - why is that a loss for MLS, necessarily? Perhaps MLS felt that having these guys play out their contracts was worth more than a team overseas was willing to pay. Seriously, I don't understand why everybody has their panties all twisted up about this. It comes down to this: These guys are worth more to MLS than they are to the Euro teams. So MLS doesn't sell them. Why is that so bad?
You don't need facts when you call the league "the MLS." And when the writer refers to himself in the third person. He doth not need thy facts!
Were there any serious offers (or even interest) for Bocanegra while he was under contract? He didn't really start becoming highly visible on the international level until 2003, which happened to be his contract year. I hope in a year or two that people won't try to claim that MLS let Wolff go for nothing.
Yet Elliott walked onto an EPL side? The point isn't whether offers existed, it's that MLS was too short-sighted to not have such players under contract in the first place...as much as to know when to let them go. And you don't think DC's Championship winning captain had no value prior to walking onto Blackburn's team and becoming an EPL stadout? Here's a couple more, sure, they didn't leave but both DeRo and Zavagnin had trials in the EPL/CCC and could have walked. De Ro had just won the Goal of the year, which he subsequently repeated after coming back from his trials, and came runner up in the MVP race (and should have won). Zavagnin has been a consitent selection for the USMNT. If I'm not mistaken, they also let Zach Thornton, Joe Cannon and I'm sure plenty of others walk. MLS transfer history isn't exactly my major.
You're deliberatly misrepresenting what I said. By letting the teams have the say on transfers it lets them set the value of their players. For all we know the Revs would have been more than willing to take $1m for Joseph, on the flipside they may have shot it down as quickly as Garber. My point is that it should be the club's decision to make, not the league's. I will admit, reluctantly, not all of the MLS decisions that have been made for clubs have been bad. Giving the best supported and well known club the "best young player ever" despite their draft position was a good move in the end.
I guess all of you are right and I am wrong. This must just be a weird coincidence: http://soccernet.espn.go.com/columns/story?id=377531&root=mls&cc=5901
1. You dodged the question. Who offered how much? 2. That came to an abrupt halt with the return to health of Diop. 3. You dodged the question. Who offered how much? Actually, it IS the point. You can't blame MLS for not selling snow to Eskimos. This is just stupid. MLS can't force a player to extend his contract. Is it short-sighted for every player in every league in every sport who leaves as a free agent? 1. He didn't really become a player whom MLS could have flogged until his last season, by which time his transfer value was minimal due to his contract only having a few months to run. 2. Name the offer and the amount. And the latter two were so valued that their teams let 'em go back within a year. How much of a transfer fee, exactly, were they worth? And I'm not sure what you are trying to accomplish by naming two players who couldn't get signed when they were available for NO transfer fee, but the result is an own goal. You're locked into this "MLS HQ is stoopid" mindset. But you don't have any FACTS on your side. I named a bunch of players MLS has sold. Name the good deals MLS has passed on. And no, Eddie Johnson doesn't count because he didn't want to go. The other offers are crap offers like $1M for Shalrie Joseph. GIVE ME SOME FACTS!!
mls is retarded they need to sell sell sell while they have a chance with an offer like that. before the player losses his value.....
It is short-sighted. You either extend a player or sell him while he has value. It's called personnel managing. Of course, we went over this already in the Dempsey thread. As to Joseph's market value, if the Celtic offer isn't accepted and no other is received, then it's zero. It takes two to tango and MLS seems to be out of tune. Having said that, Joseph extended his contract with MLS and received a decent (by MLS standards) raise. It apparently did not include a buy-out clause. I am less sympathetic in my feelings for the player in his case than in Dempsey's with Clint still playing out his rookie deal. Now, if this leads the players association to ask for 3-year maximum length for all rookie contracts, then we'll have another repercussion of the 2,006 transfer wars.
Well holding someone back from playing champions league is entirely different than holding some1 back from playing for some piece of crap, at the same price.
My mistake. Point is I really want to keep the good players here, in my league. But I think its selfish to ruin someones career in a deal that will likely be beneficial to MLS.
You guys just don't get it. Sometimes, the best thing to do for both parties is to let them play out their contract. Think about the Dempsey situation. Evidently, his playing another year and a half is worth more to MLS than they have currently been offered. Makes sense - he's a great young player on a big market team who has a Nike contract and has been on TV a lot. He has soccer value and marketing value. They are trying to resign him, but he doesn't want to. I think he's being a bit of a baby, but whatever. So he plays out his contract and, assuming he keeps playing well for the Revs and the US, he will have multiple offers all over, not one offer, since no transfer fee will be involved. He will have more choice in where he gets to go. Everybody wins. MLS gets another season and a half of a great player - which they want more than the transfer fee offered. Dempsey gets to move on when his contract's up, with more options that he would have now. Whichever European team gets him doesn't have to pay a transfer fee to get a US international. I think before people start lecturing on understanding the economics of world soccer, they should try to understand basic economics. If something is valued by a potential seller as more than a buyer is willing to pay, they won't sell it.