Draft gamble pays off for RSL By Peter Richins The Salt Lake Tribune http://www.sltrib.com/sports/ci_2469280 Kamler and Pierce lost in expansion draft November 20, 2004 FDA/The Boston Globe http://www.boston.com/sports/articles/2004/11/20/kamler_and_pierce_lost_in_expansion_draft/ Revs lose vets: Kamler, Pierce picked in expansion draft By Gus Martins Saturday, November 20, 2004 http://sports.bostonherald.com/soccer/view.bg?articleid=55000
Also from the Gus article: "Cummings said losing Pierce, who was unavailable for comment, was more of a surprise than Salt Lake selecting Kamler. 'We thought he wouldn't (be picked),' Cummings said." I find that hard to believe.
Burn bridges, burn. Almost every mock draft I've seen had Faux Salt Lake picking up Pierce - but apparently not in the one going on in the Rev's war room. I hope this is just posturing. Even if it is though, it's particularly awkward posturing.
If Pierce re-signs with the league, and stays remotely healthy (which isn't totally unlikely, his thigh bruise was unrelated to his problems from last year, and he didn't seem to have any groin/hamstring problems after he came back), the decision to leave him unprotected isn't going to look much better than losing Okarah.
Actually if he stays healthy, it'll look worse than losing Okaroh. As much as I loved Francis for everything he did for the Revs, he was getting up there in age. Rusty probably has a good few years still in him, if he can stay healthy.
Totally agree. Pierce has grown up and matured as a defender, and I for one would not want to face him on the field. And if Pierce is able to stay healthy, he'll be playing longer than Llamosa has a chance to. I'd rather have protected Pierce and left someone else unprotected.
Remember, Joe Cummings also sounded stunned -- nay, shocked! -- when Gus suggested that the team might expose Adin Brown a few days ago. I wouldn't read too much into these public comments. Clearly, by exposing their best defender, the Revs didn't want Pierce back -- presumably because of the salary he'll likely make in 2005. They may also know something we don't (i.e., that Pierce is set on going to another league). The fact that Pierce went so late in the draft also suggests that Pierce might not be long for MLS. How else do you explain Pierce being taken after Matt Behncke, Nelson Akwari and, well, Brian Kamler? Taking Pierce in the eighth of 10 rounds might be the MLS equivalent of when NHL teams used to draft guys like Tretiak and Fetisov iin the late rounds during the '80s, knowing full well those Soviet stars would never play for them unless they defected. Now, if Pierce re-signs a contract with RSL that doesn't break the bank and become the defensive mainstay in Utah, then the Revs are idiots. We shall see.
RSL may know the drama surrounding Pierce and the Revs and may have drafted him in hoping to change his mood in regards to staying in MLS. This move could be like the DC move of protecting Nelsen after Erza got picked, in hopes he will stay.
Then who is? Heaps? Franchino? Leonard? The only one I could guess they might feel is better is Avery John ,whom Nicol chose to sit for Howey. I think there were reasons they left him exposed but I hope it wasn't ranking as a defender. If they truly tought rusty was 3rd, 4th, or 5th on the defensive ranking chart then we've got big problems coming up in the off season.
Frank it's clear that these statements are not in harmony with any logic held by most others on this Board. There is no question that Rusty was a valued player whose skills as a man marker were better than most defenders in MLS. He does have some downsides to his game and he has been a bit of a hothead in the past but under SN's guidence he has matured and I'm usre would still be in a Rev uniform --IF--the parameters could have been worked out among the parties. The fact that he was exposed in the first place and then not protected when Kamler was taken says that Rusty was leaving for--- reasons not made public. To make statements like you have above is at best your conjecture but more significantly again demonstrates your unwillingness to put anything but a negative spin on anything haveing to do with the Revolution organization.
The organisation obviously did not feel that Pierce's services were worth whatever the potential price was to keep him and they proved that by not protecting him, and not pulling him back after Kamler was taken. What don't you understand about that, Doc? If the organisation thought that Pierce was their best defender, or they wanted to keep him, they could have chosen to protect him or pulled him back instead of Franchino. They chose to do neither. A negative spin? How is it a negative spin when I agreed with what management did in this case? I think it is a case that you need to disagree with logic whenever that logic comes from me.
If you thiink that you can glean what the team's opinion of the abilities of the defenders by who they chose to protect, then why did the team protect Heaps over Rusty and Joey?
Because they deemed him to be more valuable to them. They thought that he will be a better fit into next year's team. They thought he was was a better proposition at their respective prices. They thought that he was the better player. Choose any or all of the above.
I'll bite. For one thing, compared to Pierce and Franchino, Heaps is durable. He's played in 56 games, with 54 starts over the last two seasons. In comparison, Franchino has played in 45 games, with 45 starts while Pierce has played in 35 games, with 34 starts. He also doesn't have alegacy of injuries that could suggest problems in the future. I.e., he's someone you feel safe with going into 2005 that he's not going to get hurt. Second, Heaps is probably not costing the Revs much money, and that coupled with his durability would certainly make him attractive in the expansion draft. Third, if Heaps was exposed and picked up, the Revolution would have no right-side defender on the roster. Ralston could provide cover back there, but with the way he played down the stretch at his usual right-wing the Revs would be watsing him as cover (even if temporary) at right back. Just my 2 cents.
Did they think that Heaps was a better player? You seem to be claiming that you know that the Revs didn't think Pierce was their best defender because they didn't protect him. By that logic, they must have thought that Heaps was a better player because they protected him. But the Revs sat Heaps on the bench late in the season and played Rusty, so it doesn't seem that your theory is correct. I think whatever happened was a little too complicated for you to figure out.
I think that is more likely too simple for you to figure out. They wanted Heaps more than they wanted Franchino, whom they wanted more than Pierce. They protected Heaps. They did not protect Franchino or Pierce. Kamler was drafted, and they protected Franchino. They did not protect Pierce. They did not rate Pierce as valuable to them as they did Heaps and then Franchino. What is so difficult to understand about that? Some people on this board rated Pierce as the team's best defender. The organisation obviously disagreed, or they would have attempted to keep him. They didn't. They had two chances to keep him, and they passed. Twice. Disagree with the organisation, if you want. BigFrank didn't pass on two chances to keep Pierce. The Revolution passed on two chances to keep Pierce. They obviously didn't rate Pierce as highly as some people on this board. Simple enough?
Another way to look at what we lost in the draft is in terms of time on the field that will need to be replaced, just to break even. Guys like Andy Williams and Antonio de la Torre (each over 2000 minutes on the field) represent a larger 'loss' to their teams than guys like Thiago Martins and Jeff Stewart who never stepped foot on the pitch. Surely there can be some conversation about 'potential' for next year and relative contribution while on the field, but overall, these minutes need to be replaced with existing players or new players. Here is what each team let go (regular season only): Chicago.......3278 minutes New England.2832 Colorado......2409 MetroStars...1998 Kansas City..1621 Columbus.....1543 FC Dallas.....1239 DC United......901 San Jose.......798 Los Angeles...599 Add in playoff minutes Chicago.......3278 minutes New England.2832 +339 = 3171 Colorado......2409 MetroStars...1998 + 228 = 2226 Kansas City..1621 + 024 = 1645 Columbus.....1543 FC Dallas.....1239 DC United......901 + 142 = 1043 San Jose.......798 + 005 = 803 Los Angeles...599 + 067 = 666
The point is, you don't know why the Revs chose to protect some players and not others. It could be due to who's contract is expiring, it could be due to injuries, it could be due to who they expect to look overseas next year. You were using the fact that Pierce was unprotected as proof that the Revs don't think he's that good a defender. It suits your argument, but that doesn't make it true.
Clearly there was a lot that went into the decisions each teams made about who to protect and who to expose. Do the Fire think Andy Williams is a bad player or that he is not as good as Scott Buete and Evan Whitfield? I think not. I am sure that contract status, salary, attitude, prospects for replacements and many other factors went into these decisions, as well as quality of the players involved. In Rusty's case, I don't think for one minute that the Revs did not feel that he is a quality defender. He played every minute that he was available for - and that is more than can be said for Heaps and Cancela. I would wager that Rusty's contract status, stated salary demands and perhaps his own desire to move on played a larger part in his being unprotected. Hearing Joe Cummings say that he was surprised that Rusty was selected may even mean that his exposure was a tactical decision and his departure was that decision backfiring on them. I recall an article about LA Galaxy's choices prior to the draft in which it was stated that they exposed players in the hope that none would be selected. Is it so hard to believe that Nicol and Cummings ventured some gamesmanship and lost?
I think the recent disagreement is splitting hairs a bit... I think it possible that the Revs may have wanted Rusty back and did think that he was their best defender and only left him unprotected because of contract uncertainties. The converse of that would be: if they DID think that highly of Rusty why weren't they able to close a deal, or why weren't they willing to take the risk that they could close a deal? While the Revs may not have 'intended' to lose Rusty, their actions did, in fact, lose Rusty. Forget the intent, judge the result: the Revs did not keep Rusty, hence, for one reason or another they did not value keeping him as highly as keeping Jay Heaps, Joe Franchino or Marshall Leonard. Perhaps he was just too plain expensive or risky for their tastes...but the fact remains, the Revs did this to themselves. If they valued him highly but decided to risk that no one else would take a chance on him, then shame on the Revs. Cummings recent remarks seem a bit disingenuous to me. All of us, on a talent basis alone, knew that Rusty would go in the expansion draft. We all hoped/assumed that something else was going on that made him 'expendable'. However, for Cummings to be surprised that he got taken is a little suprising, quite frankly, to me. My question is, given the quality of the defenders chosen in the expansion draft, would Jay Heaps have been chosen if he was on our list instead of Rusty?
I find myself in the rare position of [mostly] agreeing with BF (we could discuss Howey to correct that!). Cummings' statements are pure PR. If he says "we wanted to dump Rusty" then he starts a pissing war with Pierce and his agent. When there's nothing to be gained by being negative, you say nice things (at least in public). When he says that he's surprised Rusty was chosen, I'm thinking that between the lines is "didn't RSL know he's unsigned"? Maybe a change of scenery will cause Rusty to reconsider MLS, but I really think he was determined not to return to the Revs. And I don't think the Revs consider it a loss, any more than any of the players picked are a loss. I think there is too much emphasis put on defenders as individuals (I was a good defender on a good team and a bad defender on a bad team - "I" didn't change that much). I honestly believe that even though Pierce had some very good individual abilities, he did not work well with the rest of the defense, particularly when it needed leadership from a central defender. Avery John did that.