Will the age of some of our players hinder or help our team. With Earnie- 34 etc.. some of these guys may help out with expierience and leadership and so on, but does the leadership come with a price?
Calculus of Dependability With only 18 full roster spots it is imperative that the team sustain no more than 3 injuries at a time. Similarly, with only a 1.7~1.8M salary cap, it is imperative that your 200k+ player miss no more than a dozen man-games total. I base this calculus on replacability. Simply put, Moreno didn't cost us the playoffs last season, it was reliance on too many injury-prone players. Forcing midfielders like Namoff to play on the back line because of the disciplinary or injury status of all capable back line players in inexcusable. Having only 3 forwards on a roster is a huge gamble, particularly when one is injury-prone (Moreno), another is 17 (Santino) and the third is a cast off that almost no other teams wanted (Curtis). It forced reaches for players like Zambrano (who cost us a first round draft pick in this past draft to obtain) who have neither the ability nor the future potential to play in MLS. While Hudson has clearly addressed the depth issues this year, forward still remains a disturbingly thin area. Stewart has had injury concerns and is in the twilight of his career. I think he was a great acquisition, but there's no guarantee he'll stay healthy. Santino is young but has also missed quite a few games from injury. Esky is a rookie, and will take time to get up to speed. Ali Curtis looks to be our only dependable lineup selection. Adding Stoichkov as a coach may be a good thing, but as a player coach it compounds an already existing problem. Hristo is a potent forward, but he is also one that is almost certain to miss more games from injury than he plays. Suddenly, our roster of 18 full spots looks much more like a roster of 14 to 15 spots. Add in recent injury histories of players like Olsen, Convey, Etch, disciplinary actions (and we'll have quite a few ) and you have a very thin roster that is designed to be hamstrung from realistic injury projections. So with a roster like this, you had better have contributing players from your 6 developmental spots. Luckily, I think Hudson understood that. Obviously we're counting on Esky to be a contributing finishing forward and Stokes to be a contributing sub along the back line when national team committments or other factors take several back liners. Warren should easily win the backup keeper, but that wasn't really a weakness. The question becomes whether guys like Brian Carroll (decent defender with some athletic ability but mediocre technical skills) and Woodstock (apparently a skilled offensive and defensive player with the versatility to sub anywhere in the midfeild) can fill in when called upon. I also like John Swann if he signs a developmental contract. While Swann's not as technical or athletic as Namoff, he's a good tactical defender who plays physically and knows his role. So, after all of this analysis, the question isn't really whether Stoichkov makes sense as a player/coach, but whether Stoichkov fits in this relatively fragile group of players Hudson has assembled. I hope so, but I don't have a lot of faith that we'll have cover for our sure-to-be string of injuries. Petrosian will have his work cut out for him. So what's next? It has been widely reported that we'll be adding Galin Ivanov. If he is a seldom-injured defender capable of playing central organizing defender and Dmid, then that provides a lot of cover. If not, well we may be in a bad spot. Also there has been speculation of adding John Harkes. In my heart I really hope we do add him. But my brain tells me that he is yet another injury-prone player. I guess a lot depends upon players we don't know much about, like Ivanov and Woodstock (yes I realize his name is Woodworth). But at this point, I am a bit worried. -Tron