https://www.mlssoccer.com/post/2020...d-coach-guillermo-barros-schelotto-his-duties GBS is free. IJS. Can we trade players for managers? Is that allowed?
It seemed he was on the short list of possible managers before the 2019 season, and then he wasn't. I don't know why he went to LA anyway, and it's clear things didn't work out there, but if he was good enough for us to look at in 2019, he still is.
I'd hold off until I know more about why it didn't work @ LAG. If his coaching resume was based on better talent and team that could easy finish in the top 4 of their league regardless then it might be GBS is more bite than bark. If the failure in LA was more to the roster and the aftereffects of Zlatan then maybe he's worth a brief look, but I don't remember anyone saying that the Galaxy looked prepared but unarmed as if the only issue was lack of talent. Meanwhile at least 2 different sources have suggested Atlanta put in for Jack Wilshire. I loved his promise as a kid at Arsenal and he may yet come good, but I'm doubtful he's worth DP money.
GBS was indeed talked about. He had success at Boca, which is where he was a player. That hasn't really translated at his other coaching stops. I thought he was a good candidate when LAG hired him, but the fiscal constraints of MLS require a certain kind of coach. Arena, Bradley, and Pareja have figured it out, and they've all built solid teams with mediocre talent at multiple teams in the league. I don't think Atlanta wants that kind of coach. I suspect Atlanta is looking for the next Alex Ferguson or Pep Guardiola, which I fully support, but in making that search you'll also occasionally grab a Frank de Boer or the coaching equivalent of Barco. Guys with lots of promise, but for whatever reason they can't make it pay off in MLS.
Don't you mean the reverse? He's had only four managerial stops, and one at Palermo was cut short over a badge issue. I can't glean anything from searching his history. I can't call it- I saw them only twice, and that was against us when we were great. I'm not opposed to that, but I just want them to get a manager first this time instead of getting someone who's unfamiliar with how the current team plays. ...and don't forget Seattle's Brian Schmetzer! lol I've had two exchanges on social media with a troll who poses as an Atlanta supporter but constantly refers to the Sounders. I love United and always will, but I'm becoming more disgusted every day with the way the league enforces artificial parity to prop up deadbeat owners. It's looking more and more like the whole thing arrived 10-15 years too early for the maturity level of fans who won't support a losing club and can't understand anything but an Americanized version of real football. I'm pretty sure I don't. I'd rather be an attractive, better-than-MLS team for three of every five seasons, be horrid for one and rebuild during the fifth than be a solid, plodding MLS team that looks and plods like an MLS team, unless they can win literally every other season. I don't think there was anything wrong with de Boer, but he was given a roster for which his tactics were unsuitable. I do think he made an attempt to meet the talent halfway, and it worked until JM7 missed that PK. But in the attempt to remake the 2020 roster to suit his tactics, the FO ruined the team. Barco didn't forget how to play the game between the 2018 Final and the beginning of 2019. It was just plain irresponsible of the FO to shackle him and Pity (and the team as a whole) with a guy whose system was unfamiliar to them. Especially when those two were bought specifically to be sold high. He didn't suck at Independiente, playing with and against much better talent than there is in MLS.
Regarding league parity: - The financial control measures aren't so restrictive as to be punitive, and they're only (IMO) a modest measure to enforce parity. What matters is how teams make use of their DPs. When Atlanta had Miggy and Martinez at their peak they were able to succeed with a Garza/ Ambrose combination at left back, minimal depth beyond Villalba and Krause, and with Barco not living up to the hype. Look around the league and it's largely the same, with teams succeeding based on the merits of their top 3-5 players. - Parity measures don't factor in coaching, so that's another thing entirely under Arlanta's control. - The only reason it feels so restrictive is because league revenues put the league still in the lower echelons of global leagues. Remember, MLS' TV deals through next year still only pay about $90MM per season. For the whole league AND rights to the USMNT. So the base budget for everyone is about $2MM per. - These same measures are what will allow Atlanta to jump back into contention with minimal moves.
I guess it just doesn't take measures that a lot of people would consider extreme to piss me off. I don't feel that this sport should have any measures intended to enforce parity. Especially since we're essentially a cartel already. There's no risk of relegation and the loss of revenue that would accompany it. My argument is that the concept of parity is for preserving a fanbase that won't support a team whose owner won't spend. It's largely an American thing. It removes a natural advantage that teams have when their owners care. FWIW, I never thought Garza was a weak link when he was healthy. And he did become an All-Star in 2018, which might not say a lot given who we were then, but it spoke well of him leaguewise. And I haven't forgotten that it was the MLSASG that took him out of our lineup for a long period, and may ultimately contributed to the shortening of his career. Yeah, I do get that. And there's the one upside to them, which is kinda canceled out if there's no cap, because without the limitations, our whole offseason plays out differently, IMO. The whole DP/GAM/TAM is dropped, and we pay what Uncle Arthur decides to pay. And then maybe the team looks that much more attractive to potential managers.
I don't get the idea that a salary cap is needed to keep parity. We aren't like Euro leagues. MLS has play offs and in play offs the amount you spend on a team won't matter. One bad game in the play offs and what you did the entire season goes down the drain. Biggest example of this is Liga MX. Also this idea that teams would spend to the point that they will go bankrupt because of what the NASL did, I don't get it either. Technically, they can go "bankrupt" too with the rules that are in place right now yet no one has. No one is stopping, say Arthur Blank, from spending 100+ million dls on transfer fees on DPs and another 100+ million on the salary of those 3 DP players. MLS doesn't limit you on how much you spend on transfer fees for DPs nor they limit you how much you pay those 3 DPs. Yet no team is even close to doing that nor will they do it. What's the highest paid transfer fee in all of MLS history to date? Around 17 million? And that is only like 1 or 2 teams that have paid that much on one player. Monterrey and Tigres are very wealthy teams and they don't have limitations on spending. Can they spend crazy amounts of money on players? Sure, but they won't and it's not because they are smart and MLS owners are not. Owners aren't dumb, they all have a budget regardless of what MLS dictates. Soccer is a business after all.
Nah, they were added as depth pieces not brought in to start. This will probably allow Lennon to play more wing or Escobar to move to CB
Have to admit the signing surprised me, as well, but no way they drop Bello. Ambrose probably liked his time here and felt if he was gonna play bench warmer do it somewhere he felt at home.
But with Bello scheduled to spend half the year on international duty, the "backup" is going to be the starter a LOT this year.