Well, why not? I know the guy a little bit so here goes. 1) FWIW, Taylor would be the first guy to tell you he would've liked to have played better in the championship game. This may not please the "Matt Taylor sucks!" crowd but there it is. 2) He is not the first rookie to struggle in his first championship game. 3) He *did* get four chances to do something late in the game (which is more than can be said for Josh Wolff but why knock Wolff when you can blast the rook?). 4) The idea put forth by one of you that he's a California surfer and the change in climate screwed up his psychology is just so laugh out loud ludicrous I don't know what to think. Yeah, there was an article with him holding a surfboard but he only did it because the reporter asked him to, even though Taylor told the guy he'd been surfing maybe a half-dozen times in his life. 5) Taylor really liked Kansas City. He liked the people, he liked the players, he was *crushed* he couldn't do more in the title game. He's happy to be going back to SoCal but all things being equal, he was looking forward to a second season with the Wizards. Had Matt Taylor tracked down a reporter and said, "Please tell all the KC fans I'm sorry I let them down", would that have changed some of the "screw you, Taylor" posts? I'm guessing not. You guys still would've fried him. You gave up three goals in something like 40 seconds but Taylor is the guy deserving of all of your scorn, I guess. But that's me talking. I know for a fact Matt Taylor enjoyed Kansas City, worked his ass off while he was there, was crushed by the championship loss (while acknowledging his role in the loss) and was looking forward to next season with the Wizards. Young guy, talented, works hard, likes the community, likes the fans. No wonder you guys are happy to see him go.
I'm not sure exactly sue who you are or why you're starting this thread, but I think there may have been a small handful of fans who posted that he sucked it up. I think most people on here who are actually KC fans gave the guy the benefit of the doubt and were at most disappointed that he couldn't step up to the challenge. Very few people used Matt as the whipping boy. And you'll notice that after the Expansion Draft more than a few of us lamented his leaving as he did indeed show potential. But, we here are for the most part the best educated fans in KC and possibly the league, and we all realized, as did the Front Office apparently, that Matt was the low man on the totem pole, and thus was left unprotected. There was no rejoicing other than the fact that we were able to retain two proven, effective members of the team. I think that if KC had protected Taylor over, say Zotinca in later rounds then there would have been some outrage. Not because of Taylor, but because Zotinca is well liked and a proven part of the starting XI. If we had protected him over Simutenkov, I think there would have been some animosity, but not as much. Taylor's numbers and goal rates were pretty good, and I think everyone sees his potential, but he came in at a bad time, saw limited numbers, and fell victim to MLS Expansion. Not the fans' and Manager's displesure.
I think you bring up some really good points. Although Matt didn't convert on any of his chances in the cup at least he created some opportunities and he kept DC on their toes. Also I think you are correct, the defense were the ones that gave up the three goals. We had the lead and the game was ours to lose, and we did lose it. Don’t get me wrong I am so proud of the Wizards for the heart they showed in that game and for the amazing season we had, but I don’t think it is right for us to sit here and rip apart Matt Taylor. The TEAM lost the game NOT Matt. It is really nice to hear that Matt likes Kansas City and the fans. I personally really liked Matt and thought that he had a good productive rookie season… at least what I saw of his play this summer. I was only around for 8 or 9 games (b/c of college), but from what I saw of him this summer I think he is going to be a great player in the future. I wish Matt the best of luck with his new team!! (This is my personal opinion. I know a lot of you are not going to agree with me)
5th leading scorer on the team 19 F Matt Taylor 17 4 524 3 1 7 11 6 0 9 9 0 0 0 Saw limited time, especially late in the season. So no big surprise he didn't look too sharp as a rookie in the championship game. I realize KC had probably the toughest choice to make for #12 on its protected list (see my projections before the lists came out), but since developmental players were exempt, most teams didn't lose rookies. Ara being the only other one lost. Erick Scott (TI), Brenes (TI) and de la Torre (older dual citizen) the only other first year MLS players lost. Though Buete, Wells, Perkins (rookies), and Testo (1st year MLSer) were all available and pulled back. Other rookies available: Maurin, and 1st year MLSers: Boucicaut, Lawson, Saragosa. So most teams got to keep their rookies and 1st year players. Taylor may have been the best of all the rookies made available. Only Maurin wasn't taken back or picked and he was develomental half the year and rarely (if ever) played. But most teams found a way to protect their newly drafted talent. Buete was the only other 1st rounder unprotected and Chicago got very little production (or so far promising talent) out of their 10 picks in 2004. From the 2nd round, none were available though Sumed and Cann have been waived and several weren't signed to begin with. Wells, Ara, and Maurin were all 3rd rounders. Perkins went undrafted. it looks like the protected list was: Arnaud, Davy Burciaga, Jose Conrad, Jimmy Garcia, Nick Gutierrez, Diego Jewsury, Jack Klein, Chris Oshoniyi, Bo Wolff, Josh Zavagnin, Kerry Thomas, Shavar (TI) SIs (1 had to be protected) Diego Walsh suppose Rasovic retired? Rasovic, Vuk I can't argue too much that any of these are less valuable than Taylor. With Garcia and Zavagnin very possibly leaving (possibly carrying allocations), it was a tough call. Thomas may be needed in place of Garcia. With Arnaud and Wolff, the forward slots may be set for years and a first round pick should get a chance at winning a job after a couple of years. Only Brenes of the first years would I "value" higher, so tough loss. Not drafting a p40 1st round is what hurt most teams. Can't really put them on DEV (probably already signed senior contract) and no leaving them p40 if they're not played a whole lot. Drafting p40 is a safe way to go, but NE with Twellman & Noonan have shown it's not necessary. But looking at the list, hindsight is 20/20, but I'd have considered protecting Taylor over Bo. But that might have meant Zotinca to RSL and that's probably not worth it. The question is, did KC want him back (see him in their long-term plans)? Why, oh why is this post so long. By the way, guess Vuk Rasovic is retired. Wasn't protected or on the unprotected list. And not currently listed at MLSNET. Doubt there's a conpiracy out there to allow KC to protect an extra player. That's so Metrostars. So retired?
I read in the final postseason address from the team that Rasovic is retiring. PS- I think most of us would have rather kept him than let him go. With all the possible departures, we ended up becoming deeper at forward than any other position on the field. I know I don't want to face him when he comes back to town. If anything it will motivate him to succeed. Best of luck to Matt. (except against us obviously)
thanks, found it http://kc.wizards.mlsnet.com/MLS/ne...ent_id=19333&vkey=news_kcw&fext=.jsp&team=kcw appreciate that, since I'm keeping links to all player transactions