The mls draft does more harm than good. here's why: - players have no say on what teams they play for. league-wide, this hurts player development. -its basically just an infomercial for mls...it doesn't generate more than a minor blip though. - the draft does not help create parity. it doesn't impact the level of play the way it does in other sports. -it is getting harder and harder for draft picks to make mls rosters. the galaxy even passed on a pick in this years draft. My #1 reason is this: If players have options, they choose the best fit for themselves. Part of this would be picking the team they have the best chance to play for. If mls rookies see a particular club never playing their young players, they will be less likely to sign with that team. Overall, this model will create an incentive that is currently not there for mls teams to develop and play young american talent. Long term, this will help the USMNT which will help mls as well.
Seriously. I doubt you would find many people who disagree. However, it is not practical, as it helps level the playing field, as most young players would flock to certain teams and few would "choose" other teams. This would work only if MLS established academies in the world sense of the academy. That is not likely, as it is way too expensive. Also, the colleges might have something to say about it.
College players have no say on what teams they play. They made the choice to go to college (and which college) instead of being developed through an academy. Even if this were true (which it's not), it's not a compelling reason to abolish it. You're making the perfect the enemy of the good. If it is agreed that parity is good, (which is seems that you do) then this is simply false. See below. Not a compelling reason to get rid of the draft. If the draft isn't affecting MLS rosters, than there's nothing to worry about. If players got to choose, 100% which teams they were going to play on, then there would be 100 players in LA, NY, Seattle, maybe Miami and Toronto...small markets would have to pick up the scraps that the better teams don't want. How, in all of the hells, is that not a direct affront to parity? MLS' job isn't to help the USMNT. And there's no way that MLS owners are going to make financial decisions so that the US can win a few more Gold Cups.
player development has stagnated to the point where most draft picks don't even play. so why force players to go to the team that wants to not play them? you are overestimating the amount of room these teams have to sign young players. the big market teams might have better teams...but guess what the drft is doing nothing to prevent that...and its doing less and less with each passing year. in fact, i think abolishing the draft will actually help smaller teams who can market themselves as "young teams" who give young players a chance...unlike big market teams that dont see ...this is where i really disagree...sometimes things are not as black and white as they appear. if the USMNT could go really far in the world cup it would boost mls immensely. imagine how big mls would be if the usa won the world cup. i think u are right that mls owners are not so invested in the usmnt as they were in the beginning when it looked like mls might actually fold. now that they have more stability they have loosened the connection and motivetion to help the usmnt is not as strong as it once was... this is a mistake. mls helping the usmnt will help mls owners immensely. maybe u think that there is nothing mls could do to help the usmnt get really far in a world cup...i think that cumlatively over a few world cup cycles of really trying to cultivate a strong national team you will see the dividneds even moreso than the significant (though apparently waning) contribution mls has made to the national team already.
does it really help level the playing field, though? most good teams play mostly foreigners or players they didnt even draft. most draft picks, even first rounders dont even last in mls. the past few years all the same teams have drafted in the top 5 but they still suck...and dont even play any of their draft picks.
also another key point.....with homegrown signings it waters down the draft significantly. if mls teams could just sign college/high school players whenever they are ready...it would make the transition to the pro game so much more seamless. there could be a rule to limit too much signing of young players by one team that they have to be ready to play on the first team or something....or there could be a quota like 3 or less per year or something.
also....hahha ...got another one.....abolishng the draft would incentivize mls teams to scout college and high school soccer even more than they already do....the way it is now you have to scout everyone with a good chance you wont even get the player.....if you can sign anyone...it gives you incentive to find the player first. also it would incentivize mls teams to dig deeper and not miss diamonds in the rough. investing in scouting would make more sense if teams knew they can sign who they find.
You and I have a much different definition of 'force', it seems. MLS' relationship with the USL and the concept of LA Galaxy II think your argument is ridiculous. This makes exactly no sense to me. How on earth would this happen? If the US made the Cup Final, and Americans tuned in in droves to watch us play /Spain\ (which they would), and we won the thing...how long do you think the bump would last for MLS? It'd be bigger and longer than the quadrennial World Cup bump already is, but at the end of the day MLS is still no where near the highest level of play available. Nor should they be. MLS needs to focus on one thing, MLS. USSF can worry about who wins the World Cup. MLS exists for the teams in MLS to make money and for no other reason. And we're supposed to take your word for that? Show your work. When Spain won the World Cup, did the Top 24 teams in that country see a rise in sponsorships, revenue, or seats sold? #NonRhetoricalQuestion And I don't. 'Cakes, Deuce, Bradley, Timmy...they've all proven that the best way to make an impact internationally is to stick around MLS until the first, the very first, offer to move abroad comes in. JoeMax Moore shows that this is not a new phenomenon. Yup, and this is already happening, and we still have a draft. Like it or not, the sports culture in this country is Academic->Professional. There are going to be talented players who play for high schools and colleges who become talented professionals. The Draft is almost exactly the same as the Allocation Process for USMNTers and transferred players, just there are more graduating college players every year and they all enter MLS at the same date, so we allocate them to the teams on the same day. MLS signs contracts with players, and then those players are allocated to the teams. I don't know why you think young players should be treated differently. What!? You just said, in this very thread, that high school and college players were so bad that they aren't even making MLS teams, and you think that getting rid of the draft will make teams more likely to effectively scout them?
Here's my question. If you get rid of the draft, what do you replace it with? Remember, right now, all players sign deals and negotiate salaries with MLS. If you keep that feature of MLS, then the only way teams can compete for players is by location, coach, and prestige...which means there will be a strong negative effect on parity. If you allow teams to bid against each other for players, you are dismantling a key element of MLS's financial and legal foundation. This is a much bigger deal than you seem to realize and will have far-reaching effects for the league. The immediate effect will be to raise the price of young talent. As for this claim: it just isn't true. Here are the top 5 2013 draft picks: Andrew Farrell. Appeared in 32 games last year and 8 so far this year for the Revs, who were one of the worst teams in the league in 2012 when they earned the pick, but have since turned things around, made the playoffs last year, and are on track for another playoff spot this year. Carlos Alvarez: Appeared in 29 games in his rookie season for Chivas USA and 6 so far this year. Chivas obviously had more systemic problems, so he hasn't been able to rescue them singlehandedly--but he is playing. Toronto drafted Kyle Bekker after a ridiculously bad finish in 2012. Not a regular yet, but he has appeared in 14 games for his club and been called up by Canada. Toronto is improving and will probably not get a top 5 pick in this year's draft. Vancouver picked Kekuta Manneh with the #4 pick and Erik Hurtado with the #5. Manneh has made 29 appearances since then, Hurtado 21, and Vancouver are now in playoff position in the West. In other words: the top five picks of the 2013 draft were used on players who have all played for their teams; all but one have played regularly. Of the four drafting teams, three have turned things around and look poised for playoff spots this year. Tell me again how the top 5 draft picks are used by the same teams every year, and how the players they draft never see the field?
The draft won't get abolished because it's still more positive than negative for the league. MLS doesn't want teams to compete for players. But I do wish they'd put more effort into production. Lalas and Twellman don't even seem to know most of these college players. Nor are they good charismatic media personalities. Lack of knowledge and charisma = a lot of noise. I suspect the whole thing doesn't attract enough eyeballs for MLS and its TV partners to bother much. But surely it could be improved somehow without much expense. Maybe get college coaches to analyze each player. I think most of them would be glad to do it for free. Or combine the draft with in-depth previews of each team, sit down with every manager. I like the draft, I get excited for it every year. I don't care that talent level is low. It's still a nice way to get reminded about MLS in winter. But it could be produced much better.
BTW already this season the Rapids have used 3 of the 4 draft picks they had in the SuperDraft. All 3 of which have started at least 1 game. Last season the Rapids got two regular starters out of the draft. You might know them as Rookie of the Year Dillon Powers and Rookie of the Year runner-up Deshorn Brown. Brown also had the second highest goal total for a rookie in league history. So tell me again how draft picks never get playing time...
dc united and philly...who drafted 1 and 2 last draft haven't even played a single guy out of the 8 or so they drafted last draft. the draft is almost irrelevant to how teams shape their rosters...and considering dp's and homegrown etc....there isnt much parity in how big market and small market teams compete for players anyway. mls just wants control over player movement and wants to guarantee artificially low salaries....hence, the draft. im not saying rookies cannot have an impact....im saying they could have a better impact and develop better if they werent subject to a draft...and could control which teams, and under which conditions, they signed with.
Andre Blake is a goalkeeper and shouldn't be expected to be playing yet (he has however made MacMath need to up his game, which he has done this year). The other players that Philly selected and didn't cut (Ribero and Marquez) both got loaned out to Harrisburg to get playing time. Another one of their picks signed with Harrisburg directly and, if he does well, will likely get signed by Philly (they tend to sign players from their affiliate in Harrisburg if they do well). DC has loaned Birnbaum to Richmond (their affiliate) so he can get playing time and their second round pick that they cut ended up signing for SKC. So each of these players is getting opportunities to get playing time and also get to play in higher level games if need be. Don't know how you think players not going through a draft will help them. If Birnbaum can't get playing time in DC do you think he gets it elsewhere? Blake isn't starting for any other team in MLS, nor would any of Philly's other picks. In fact, these players are probably in better shape than other players because they are actually fighting for playing time week in week out in the USL.
The draft is necessary given how young academies are. Right now be default we send a number of decent prospects to college as there isn't a better alternative. However, I do think the draft gives teams, some more than others, less incentive to improve their academies and develop their own, something vitally important to the league going forward. There's teams like SJ who practically ignore their academy and instead rely on prospects falling into their laps every year. That's not good. The draft itself also limits player movement which is another issue. If you're a top prospect with options and the ability to choose a club abroad, there's absolutely no reason to go through any of the drafts. But if you're not a 1st rate prospect with options elsewhere, don't really have a choice. Ultimately I think we should do away with the draft but that can't happen until academies and the reserve system are a decent amount more mature than they currently are. There's also not yet much difference in the quality between MLS academy products and NCAA prospects, which is a whole other issue/problem but when the time comes that MLS is developing players generally superior to NCAA prospects, across the board, and NCAA prospects don't have enough class to compete with MLS products and are too old as well to play catch-up, the draft won't mean nearly as much. At a certain point, who knows how far from now, most MLS teams will have 17-19 yr olds coming through their academies ready to produce/play and 22/23 college guys can't and won't be able to compete with them. Their development curve will be too far behind. MLS will produce more Gil/Kitchen/Fagundez/Trapp/Najar types rather than a Zardes type, who btw IMO is too old to be considered a prospect in the world of soccer and is something we'll see less and less of going forward.
2014: Philly, DC, Van, NE, Montreal 2013: NE, Chivas, Tor, Van, Van 2012: Montreal, Van, NE, Tor, Chivas 2011: Van, Portland, DC, Chivas, Philly, NE past 4 drafts....top 5 picking teams...same teams over and over again.
The past four years Revs first round drafts: 2014: Steve Neumann (not a starter, but has made appearences) also: GOTW Nominee Pat Mullins 2013: Andrew Farrell 2012: Kelyn Rowe 2011: AJ Soares Add Chris Tierney (2008 Supplemental Draft), Teal Bunbury (2010 Superdraft), Andy Dorman (2004 Superdraft), Kevin Alston (2009 Superdraft) and you're talking about a significant number of Revs minutes taken up by Draftees. Add two home-grown players and you have perhaps our best 11 when you add Goncalves, Nguyen, and Bengtson. Don't pretend we're not using the picks.
i think you are misunderstanding me. new england has done a good job drafting. give any team a top 5 pick 4 years in a row, it oughta help lol....that said, they are the exception on this list. im not saying college players cant be great in mls...im just saying how they get to mls should change.
And maybe you're misunderstanding the facts. Without the drafts, New England doesn't make the playoffs last year. Without the draft, there is a major blow to parity in the League.
there really isnt parity in mls...seattle and other big market teams play by different rules than the rest of the league. the draft doesnt change the fact that actual stars who come to mls pick which team they play for - and always pick big markets. on seattle for instance, almost no on their team was drafted by them....a few guys - yedlin, neagle - but the core of their team was signed on the open market - like most of mls. if the draft was really a guarantee of parity, it shouldn't take 4 straight years of top 5 picks to turn a team around. the draft only helps cheap teams who don't wanna spend like NE....but if there was no draft they could still sign college players....only without a draft they would have to invest in their team to convince players with options to pick them...instead of holding them hostage like shalrie joseph, twellman and agudelo.
right now the draft is used as a game of chicken to hold players without options hostage for cheap wages (and it's hurting player development).
I just demonstrated how the last-in-the-league Revs became a playoff team thanks to the draft. Your point was, what again? Who cares how many Thierry Henries the Metrostars sign if they can't put the balls in the nets. Your point? Not every team builds the same way in any sport. I don't see the benefit of eliminating one way I team builds. Guarantee? No. Does it help? Objectively so But not Andrew Farrell. Hey, the Revs spent as much as they did and were better than every Eastern Conference team last year that wasn't named after sugar-water or a gerund. Just because you don't like it, doesn't mean it's not an effective way to build a team. And it demonstrates, directly, a counter-example to the idea that the draft can't be used to build parity.