Nice article. Great to see Ben recovering so well. It really sucks when you need to concentrate on a martini bar. Luckily, Gazza hasn't reached that point yet. (NOTE: That was a joke, only a joke, I wasn't trying to dis Gazza, it's just that MLS is so squeaky clean that there aren't many candidates for that joke.) -Tron
175K sure seems like an awful lot of money for a winger on a team with salary cap problems. I doubt Ralston, Beasley, or Henderson make that much money for example. Certainly Quill, Victorine, etc. make much less. Just an observation.
Ben Olsen has been playing soccer at the professional level for 5 years, with experience comes the salary increase. He is worth every penny. If Beasley is not making that much, it is a tragedy. The others are just not in his class. Both Ralston & Henderson have put up incredible numbers, but no Ben Olsen are they. Let's not forget that Ben Olsen played and helped defeat Vasco de Gama for the InterAmerican Cup (Only 4 North or Central American teams have ever done that! In fact DC United is still the reigning Champion! ) Ben Olsen was the MVP of the 1999 MLS CUP. Ben Olsen is ELECTRIC! The only bad thing about the whole deal is that next year will most likely be his last year with DC United.
I hope that Olsen gets his chance to go back to England. It would do him a lot of good. I want to visit his bar in Harrisburg next time I'm there.
Jose, didn't mean to suggest he isn't worth the money, just wondering if he's worth the money for DC United. His 175K represents exactly one tenth of the total salary cap. Should a winger command that much money is all I'm speculating on. Look at the most successful teams of the past 2-3 years, their wingers certainly didn't command that much of their salary cap. Guys like Hendrickson, Victorine, Russell, Lagos, Henderson, Klein, etc. all helped their teams win MLS Cups at far less money. Heck even the '99 salaried Olsen was more of a bargain. If fact no one in MLS pays a winger that much as far as I know. Ralston and Henderson are the only ones even close (I think). Ben's good for about 5-7 goals per year and maybe 10-12 assists, plus some excellent energy and leadership. Is that worth one tenth of the total team? I'm not so sure. Like Eddie Pope, Ben's a guy you have to pray he earns every penny towards the merciless salary cap, or DC once again won't have the cash left over to make up a decent bench.
Yes, I think Ben is worth 10% of the salary. Ben brings all those intagibles to the team. The team had no personality until Ben came back. He would get put into the game, and the energy level of the team (and fans) would take a huge jump up. Ben Olsen is DC United. Also, he's in his second contract with MLS, while Beasley is still in his first. Expect to see Beas get a big jump in pay (or big jump across the pond) at the end of his contract.
A healthy Ben Olsen is well worth 10% of our cap. But he'll probably be making much more than 175k in England after 2003. (Good for him, sad for us...)
Actually, I think that Ralston and Henderson DO make $175K, thereabouts or better. As for DMB, the deal there is he was P-40 and has only recently gotten to the point where we're talking pro contracts (and not P-40 ones). For instance, Convey isn't making $175 either but that's primarily b/c of his youth. And there are plenty of other examples that make Olsen look like a bargain--Wolff has yet to score 10 goals in MLS but makes the league max. Marcelo Balboa makes the league max (and even if he wasn't hurt, you'd have a hard time justifying it). Salary paid out has little to do with what is fair but what market leverage someone has. A youngster just out of P-40 or only 1 good season has little leverage. The other point (before we talk about how he's not worth it, is worth it, whatever), is that he would at least double that salary and probably triple it in England.
BTW--on the Rongen article, here's my take. I was extremely critical of Rongen as coach of DCU. I don't think he's a bad choice as a youth coach and may turn out to be a splendid choice. Here's my thinking. 1. I think he's bad at managing people, egos and personalities. Think of Presthus' comment that got passed around the boards "he (rongen) always managed to say the wrong thing at exactly the wrong time." Bruce Arena is masterful as massaging egos and figuring out what buttons to push. I think for a variety of reasons, this was something Rongen was terrible at. Yet, this issue isn't that important for youth players. While you're concerned about personalities and people skills, massaging egos shouldn't be part of the job at the youth level. 2. Rongen has had exposure to the Ajax system. The Dutch have pretty much had the philosophy (which is why a small nation can crank out so many incredible players) that (a) it all starts with ball skills and quickness (including mental quickness) on the ball--so that is what you emphasize. That's a great thing for youth players--but even Koeman (the current Ajax coach) admits that sometimes they won't always go all out on attack or will have their wingers drop back into midfield to defend more. (b) attack, go forward and have your players have an attacking mentality. Again, this is a great thing to install in players (b/c you can always get someone to be more defensive in nature or work harder off the ball but if they have no vision or creativity going forward, they aren't going to acquire that as an adult). Great to do with youth players but sometimes you defend (as Arena showed advancing to the series against Vasco where we had two of the Mexican coaches lauding our defensive skills and ability to shut down attacks). (c) play your 10 most skilled players on the field and figure out positions later. Thus, we had guys like Lisi out there and Denton (clearly skilled, just not at defense) and even Ziadie. That is how O'Brien started out as a left back for Ajax with their youth system. They view him as one of their 10 most skilled players, not necessarily their best outside defender or d-mid. This approach (starting your 10 most skilled players) means that by the time your youth side becomes pros, you've got guys like Frank Rijkard and Edgar Davids in positions that you'd usually see a Chris Armas or Frankie Hejkuk. In otherwords, its a fine approach if you start young and those guys get a chance to spend 3-4 years on youth and reserve sides learning to play defense. Otherwise you've got a leaky sieve on defense and when it comes to winning balls. Thus, I think Rongen showed he can grow players and get youngsters to improve (or even see some of the possibilities of youth). I think he showed lots of patience with younger players (which is part of the reason Convey is probably so supportive of him). But I don't think he was good at managing personalities (and that was probably an issue with Albright who the harder he pressed, the less effective he was), at dealing with tactical decisions (we didn't adjust well to different teams), game situational preparation (we stunk on restarts and defending them during his tenure--we were just incredibly sloppy in that area) and being willing to adapt game by game (you obviously don't want a situation where the coach changes everything every match--ala Sampson at France "98--3 different lineups and tactical setups and strategies for 3 different games--ugh. But you also don't want a coach who starts the same lineup, same gameplan, same expectations every match and just rolls the ball out there and expects talent to float to the top!). I think Rongen was a very good intro coach for Convey. I think Hudson was also good--he challenged Convey ("tough love" is overdone as a metaphor but it applies in this case. He demanded more of the lad--that he track back, win balls, get tougher physically, impose his will on matches, not just be a creative, technical player).
What exactly are you implying? It would make more sense if you said I don't think this player is worth that much, but to say that he's not worth that much as a winger, just doesn't make sense.
Great player. Good to have him back. I'm sure he wasn't worth his salary cap the last two years (seeing as how he didn't play). But, a full season of Ben is worth 10% of the salary cap. He is the Ben Hur the team needs. He runs the whole game, but also runs intelligently and effectively. Most importantly, like all great team players, he makes the players around him better. That is what makes a player worth salary cap money.
Despite the title and the, ahem, plot of the movie, if you scroll down, you will see that it is Rated R... Go figure, I thought the plot was worthy of at least one X...