Interesting trade. Looks like San Jose wanted someone who could be a compatible strike partner to Katia and that unloading the first round pick for a proven commodity so to speak was worth the deal. Don't know where she will fit in, but the first player to go would be Kim Clark, or at least would be relegated to the bench. Right now on paper, the Charge gets the better of the deal depending on who they pick in the draft. However, the real result of the deal will be played out next season when Clemens gets a chance to show what she's made of. and no Heather _______ Mitts. Cheers!
Charge have #4 and #6 and #7 selections... Clemens is fine if you keep her at a COMPLEMENTARY forward to a primary forward. When Smith tore her ACL, Clemens got dropped to midfield, where her lack of play making skill got exposed, but when she had to just finish what others created, she was more than fine.
Instead, it was Christina Bell getting her walking papers. Why do we have to be stuck with Clemens? Shouldn't it be Heather Mitts for the top Rays pick and (name player here)? Cheers!
The assumption is Clemens is better than any other posible forward avaiable at #4??? Welsh clearly is forward #1, and the gamble is Clemens is better than the next available college forward. This also means a foreign allocations won't be used for get a partner for Katia. If the draft falls the way...wagner...welsh..orlandos..then I think Charge get the piece they want... if not, then it's Orlandos, which isn't too shabby neither.
No Mitts necessary I know you are being facetious (well, or just wishful), but seriously we need another defender like a hole in the head. Besides, our defenders are not only easily as-good-as/better-than Mitts, they're all already much better looking as well. (No, I'm not kidding!) Do you REALLY think Mitts is THAT good looking??? And will you be advocating us signing Anna Kournikova as a forward next? As for the whole Clemens for draft pick deal, I do think it's an interesting trade... I'm still pondering it...my $0.02 later today!
from a Charge perspective, I'd say Iverson was our best defender, followed closely by Benson... Mitts has a huge advantage, mobility and good ball skills, when she passes the ball, it has a huge % of connections, and she has a very good ability to get forward and create good offense.. now if you want your defenders not to do those things, that's ok... and the other thing is, she's NOT afraid of physical contact while defending... outside backs who play like Benson and Mitts are VERY rare in AMERICAN soccer...
Re: No Mitts necessary Really, we don't need another defender, unless there are those who think that Brandi is getting there with age. On paper, Clemens could fill in the void that others could not last season and that is a striker who not only can provide the goals but give a playermaker like Sissi another option to pass besides Katia. I'm seeing her filling in for Julie Murray but much younger. She could play the role of setup player where she can not only shoot but set up the other players. A few of us are in that demographic where it's the "Heather is so dreamy" talk is there, much akin to those who think the same for Landon, Clint, and the like. No matter what, it's all about the game. I'd rather see someone with a buzzcut who could score goals with great frequency and accuracy than someone who does nothing but play back. It is a bit of a gamble to get a player and sacrifice a draft pick in the process. I would be thinking about getting someone, be the draft or trade, who can be groomed to take over for Brandi when and if she hangs them up. (I'm not the rancher or that Premium guy so no facetiousness there...) Cheers!
I think that this is great for the 'rays. I like Mandy Clemens- she's skilled on the ball and feisty. In this draft, other than the first 2 picks, I'd take Mandy. Nice trade
More raging Mitts debate I'd very much agree with that. Iverson in particular impressed me. San Jose already has Chastain, French, and Borgman who do those things as well or better (French and Chastian I personally put in the "better" category in most aspects, most notably in reading the play and getting forward at appropriate times, ball skills, passing ability, and contributions to offense--4 points for Mitts this season compared to 7 for French and 11 for Chastain) than Mitts, and I don't know of anyone (who's actually seen many SJ games) who thinks any of the 'Rays defenders are shy about physical contact. Our defenders are TOUGH--not a shrinking violet amongst them. This is true, and outside backs who play like French and Chastain are even more rare. (Benson's and Mitts's combined points this season only equaled French's personal offensive output and didn't even touch Chastain's.) Anyway, my point's not to bash Mitts, just to say the 'Rays don't need her since we already have comperable players (we already have a ton of defenders, and there's no obvious advantage to Mitts over anyone we already have aside from supposed good looks). Also, to vent my frustration a bit about having to hear her name EVERY time Philly is mentioned. UGH! I'm not saying Mitts is not very good, because I know she is. So are the defenders we already have. 6 of one, 1/2 dozen of another. Trading apples for oranges when you need oranges makes sense, but trading apples for apples when you need oranges doesn't!
Re: Re: No Mitts necessary I think the idea of grooming a successor for Brandi was behind the drafting of Borgman and trade for French last year. Borgman at right wingback, French at left wingback, and you are good to go. No one can ever truly replace Brandi in all aspects--she's too much of a "Jane of all trades"--but Borgman and French can both be similar attack-minded players. Borgman still has a mountain of untapped potential in terms of her ability to contribute to the attack. Brandi wasn't the Brandi we think of now when she was 22, either, remember! OK, that's even LESS my demographic (the "Landon/Clint is cute" demographic, that is). Given only those two demographic options, I guess I'd actually prefer the discussion on Mitts. Mostly, I just don't personally care to spend much time on a ton of talk about the players' appearances.
I think SJ made a great move by acquiring Mandy. Since it only cost a draft pick, ATL or CAR could have done the same thing to acquire Mandy. Great trade for both teams. Sawyers knew a good thing when he saw one.
I have mixed feeling about this trade. I think the CyberRays will be helped more this season by the addition of Clemens than they would have been by any player they grabbed with the #4 pick, so in that sense, taken at purely face value, this is a good trade for the Rays. However -- and, yes, there is a hint of irrationality about this -- I can't help feeling a little disappointed that Clemens is the best we could do. I had been hoping that the Rays would announce some huge, blockbuster deal to bring in a superstar, or some surprise foreign signing, but now it looks like those things are not on the cards. I think Clemens is a fine player, and she's certainly a big step up from Kim Clark or Christina Bell, but she's hardly going to strike fear into the hearts of opposing defenders. If I were picking our lineup now I'd probably go with: Code: Beene Borgman Bryan Lindsey French Chastain Sissi Pretinha Venturini Katia Clemens but I'd be trying hard to make one more move, possibly packaging two defenders (Alagich plus one more, depending on who we'd get in return) for a d-mid with Chastain reverting to right back.
Chastain will be more of a stay-at-home defender with the Rays and with the National Team. I can't anticipate her playing up front anymore or moving up as a librero. I can see Alagich being dealt to New York to be with Semoni (new coach) and they are pressed for defenders that can move up--they reeled hard from the loss of Gro Esperseth, who literally held the back line in 2001. Maybe getting their pick, or a defensive minded player (Ronnie Fair?) in return? I don't expect any more superstars to come here or international spots open up (unless Alagich gets dealt). However, what is good about 2003 is that the PR will deal with the world's best players and a few of the home grown up and comers instead of the 1999 WWC team... For me, I'm hoping that this is the piece that takes the Cup from Carolina. Cheers!
Inquiring minds want to know... Ok I still haven't really formulated much of an opinion about this trade yet, except that I think it will be good for us (I do think we'd be hard pressed to find an American forward of Mandy's caliber still available, even at #4, in this year's draft), but I have come up with 2 questions: 1. How the heck do we still fit under the salary cap? We'll have 2 founding players (Chastian, Venturini), 3 allocated players (Beene, French, Clemens), and 4 internationals (Sissi, Katia, and Pretinha from the first international draft and Di as a discovery player)! Is any other team that "top heavy" salary-wise? Di might be the "bargain" of that group depending on what the 'Rays initially signed her for, but the rest are certainly drawing top dollar. The Founders have a publicized salary of $85k. As for the rest, I have no official knowledge at all so this is all rumour and speculation, but I've heard the allocated players rumoured to be in the ballpark of $70-$75K (depending on the article), and the internationals I've heard about $50-$60k or so. If Washington was in salary cap trouble last year just trying to buy Roseli out of her contract AFTER trading French and Pretinha for the much-less-expensive Little and Cook (with only founder Mia, allocated Mullinix, and foreign players Bai and Makinen on the roster), then how is SJ possibly fitting under the cap this year? I'm not complaining! If we fit under, more power to us! I just can't figure it is all...The idea that we might NOT fit under, and that someone has to go, is going to bother me until the season starts and I see the roster still has all our "money" players on it! 2. A friend reminded me of this: Whatever happened to the "future considerations" we were supposed to get when we traded our 2nd round pick in last year's draft to Philly? Are they still in the future? I know we are missing our 3rd round pick in this year's draft because it went to Washington with Little for Pretinha, but so far we have nothing for last year's 2nd round pick.
The Mandy deal may entail PHL eating the salary difference between Mandy's & the 1st-rounder's. If this was so, how can Sawyers refuse?
After watching Mandy for two years, either she was very good or very poor in her performance. With the DC playoff match exhibiting the very poor. Keep her as a pure forward, don't ever require her to have much of a play making role, she simply doesn't see other players well enough for that. Running with Katia, Clemens should be in the role she can be very good at. So, SJ gets a player rhey know can play and fit a certain role. The either part is she struggled with confidence when things didn't go well. And that's an area very difficult for any coach to deal with. What the Charge now have is #4, #6, #7 picks in the 1st round...
It is possible this is the case (good idea), or perhaps we received that as part of the "future considerations". I just haven't heard anything official either way. Maybe more details will be released later.
I think you hit the nail on the head. The part of Mandy's salary that PHL will eat will be the "future considerations".
Apparently to make room for Clemens, Christina Bell was waived. I can't really say I'm surprised. It happened on October 1, so I can't believe I didn't find this til now. http://www.wusa.com/press_room/327756.html It first talks about the whole Clemens thing, then if you scroll down to the bottom there's a little blurb about Bell being waived.
they also had a lil blurb thing about waiving bellie at the end of the article on SJ's website: http://www.sjcyberrays.com/news/rel_20021001.html