Crunching the Cap numbers...

IIRC McKinley - 100k (Ray Hudson promised to double his salary for taking a pay cut last year)

...that is a total of $1,345,000 before our allocations and draft picks.. That leaves us with $285,000 to play with..

 

Chris,

According to Gazidis' "Open Letter" today, we got the minor allocation from SoS in the trade, so we have (2) $75k allocations.

So going by Gazidis' other statements on Bergin's site, Stewart would cost us $195k against the cap in 2003 and then the full max $270k in 2004.

Eskandarian's contract was reported for $50-60k, but wouldn't count in 2003.

Looking forward to 2004, if Alecko comes off P-40, we take the full Stewart salary, but we lose Etch and Olsen, we should still be OK cap wise.

 

The open letter say nothing about the transfer values for any of the allocation. The link in the letter to the MLS press release on the NY/DC trade indicates DC received a "major" allocation from NY (which should be the $150K type). As far as I know, DC already has their own $150K type. The NY minor (75K) was for Diallo.

 

Re: Re: Crunching the Cap numbers...

Olsen? That's just speculation right?

 

Yes, Olsen's leaving is just speculation, but since his contract expires at the end of this season and he keeps saying that he wants to go back to England...

One could also throw in that ITT most likely is in his last year as well, and thus be off the books for next year, but that's getting a bit ahead of ourselves.

 

From MLSnet.com
http://www.mlsnet.com/content/03/mls0107allocations.html

If we know that our allocation for missing the playoffs is $75k, then the Metros must be the same right?
We thought all along that we were getting the $150k (or whatever amount) allocation in the Pope/Moreno trade, but it seems like that is not the case.

Its not a matter of if, but WHEN Olsen leaves for Europe when his contract is up at the end of 2003.

 

This an interesting article on Twellman's new contract. WTH am I doing bringing it up here? Glad you asked. MLS as apparently agreed to increase Twellman's contract using incentives to prevent an adverse impact on the salary cap. What the hell is going on?

I can't cut and paste the relevant paragraph, but it would seem that Twellman does not earn the league maximum, yet is compensated through incentives that do not count against the cap. Is this new creative capology?

JoeW? Bueller?

GM

[MLS' new motto: incest is best.]

 

Yeah the Twellman signing is dodgy every way you look at it, about as dodgy as the Rapids getting an allocation for Valderamma.

 

My Estimates

I'm going to make my additions in italics after your estimates Chris. I may be incorrect, but I was under the impression some of these numbers are different. Here's my impressions:

So my estimate would leave us at about $1,310,000 or about 420k for everything left. If we assume 1 max salaried player, that leaves us with 150k to spread around 2 other full roster players, and we then use our 4 draft picks on P-40 players and we have a full compliment of 22 contributors while remaining cap compliant.

If Bergin's estimate of 11 P-40 players are announced (and I have been saying for a long time that this would be the best draft yet), then we stand an excellent chance of picking up 4 P-40 players. Certainly we will get 2 good ones and be assured of a shot at one with the #11 pick, and possibly at the #14 pick as well.

So, we do look to be in good positions on all fronts.

-Tron

 

Re: Re: Crunching the Cap numbers...

What I find incredible is that the Metrostars are getting an allocation for Diallo!

DC United was forced to trade Moreno for nothing and Chicago was forced to trade Wolff for nothing (okay almost-nothing).

Needless to say DC United & Chicago did not get an allocation for those players.

I know, it is comparing apples to oranges (and it is slightly off topic) but both Moreno & Wolff are as allocation-worthy as Diallo.

Maybe DC United would have been better off selling Moreno to an English or Bolivian team.

Back on topic, I hope that Ray can manage to get the players needed and stay within the cap.

 

Diceson said the not if but when about Olsen.

That's what I based my speculation off of.

 

Cweedchip--resident capologist? I'm honored! You've done a great job. Here is my take on things.

1. I simply don't have enough background on the cap impact of allocations. DCU just hasn't had enough experience with them for me to have acquired any good gossip, let alone knowledge. Your numbers there seem right except for....

2. I'm pretty sure that DC has 2 MAJOR allocations. Goff (I believe) has printed this twice in coloumns. He also pointed out the distinctions (in the trade talks) between the major and minor allocations. I also thought that one of the SoS media had mentioned that they held a "minor" allocation. What is throwing people off is the league letter than talks about the YSA allocations being the first two and we assume that's b/c of the money. Nah--my take is the league decided "order of record" and that's the order for the allocations, not the money amount. One other hint on this--I know there are folks who are real Vaca fans on this list. But if SoS held a major allocation, would they be giving it up for Vaca for their A-mid? Not an insult on Vaca but for a major allocation (and given their cap status) they'd take less of a hit using it on Guevara or some other import.

3. Count McKinley as $100k. A few other small adjustments: Kovalenko may be below $90K. I think the league minimum now be a little below $35K so pencil in Alegria, Namoff and Curtis for less than than. I don't know what Quintanilla makes--that seems like a fair guess. I also don't know what Quaranta makes.

4. Yes, Twellman has some deals on the side to bring in extra income that the league has facilitated. He is not officially at the league max but then the league max is a joke. No news there. Etcheverry got sponorship money from Adidas. Moreno and Pope were making near half a million each. So we have no room to complain on that front.

5. The SoS/Diallo allocation. That's fair. The league sold him and it brought in money. League policy is that whenever a player is sold and brings in money, that team gets an allocation. Granted--he was sold for less money than I think the league paid for him (not positive on that front, I don't think he came on a free transfer). The real sham is the Colorado allocation. No official word on Valderama. The last words from HIS lips were that after he finished his playing in MLS, he'd play at least half a season with his old club in Colombia. He was never allocated to Colorado (and the league did some gyrations to keep him happy). The Post indicated that Colorado declined to pick up his option (which, if that gives you an allocation, than Dallas gets one for declining the option on one of their allocations: Jorge Rodriguez!). And just after Tab Ramos retired (from the team he was originally allocated to). So there is something going on with the Colorado allocation that stinks in my book.

 

So could we all have our thinking backwards in that the You Suck allocations are worth $150k and the Diallo allocation is only worth $75k?

Does anyone remember how much You Suck allocations were valued in the past?

The Valderrama allocation is pure crap, its just a way to justify Colorado signing Grimandi.

Lets see if we get a Etch allocation next year...

 

You may be right that the "minor allocation" to Colorado was just to ensure that MLS didn't get into a bidding war for Grimandi. He wanted to go to Colorado and that would prevent any unnecessary complications (like Hudson going after him). He comes on a free transfer so technically, there is no need for an allocation.

 

If TT were at the max, then there would be no question. The Etcheverry/Pope analogy would be apt. However, TT is not at the max and has, apparently, structured some incentive clauses that somehow do not affect the cap.

For purposes of illustration of my concern take this to the extreme: Why not pay every player $1 and structure the rest of their compensation as these TT incentive clauses? There would never be a cap problem, regardless of the amount of compensation.

We've had to trade away promising players because of cap issues. The TT deal seems absurd from an MLS that insists everything is above board on the cap front.

Perhaps there are bona fide sponsors compensating TT outside of MLS cap -- no problem. However, if sponsorship is being created to avoid cap and contingently pay for performance -- that's fraud.

Any other comments?

GM

 

The league max this year is 280K, So if Etch is making the max - the number should be 280K.

Kovalenko is making app. 110K.

As for CO allocation (minor) for Carlos, it is no different than Dallas getting one last year for Kubik or NE next year (or whenever Nowak retires) for Nowak etc.
The league gives minor allocations for teams that lose "major" players. The same thing would go for Etch when he leaves/retires MLS. IF the team who originally had the player such as Moreno trades that player away then the new club would get the allocation, unless there was a clause in the trade that the old club would keep the allocation.
Such thing was in place for Preki when he was traded to Miami. KC stipulated that if Preki retires while in Miami, the allocation for him would go back to KC. Of course that didn't happen.
So, again this is what the league usually does, BUT (big but) who knows the rules? can and probably will change as often as HQ sees it fit.
ANd CO used discovery on Grimandi (not allocation). So they still have their minor allocation.

On another note about salaries and allocations.
For the "impact" US players wanting to come back to MLS, the club after such player would have to pay the max salary of 280K and add the allocation on top of that as bonuses for getting the deal done.
So if Ernie was to sign with DC all or most of the 280K would count against the cap, and just to get the deal done, allocation would be used (this was told to be the case by MLS for Joe-Max when one team inquired about him).
For an non-US player (returning from Europe) another scenario can be used.
For example: Ivanov. Let's say (hypothetically) that he is asking for 150K. Ray could use 75K allocation toward his salary this year so the amount that would count against the cap this year would be 75K. Next year his full 150K would count against the cap.

Hope I don't sound too confusing...
But it's a mess and like I mentioned before it seems like everytime I think I understand (haha) how it works - it changes.

 

That's how i'm looking at it, GM-

-Yes there are several players in the league who make way above leg max but only count on the cap to 270K. This is known and has been consistently applied since da one of MLS. The reports on TT's contract seem pretty clear that he is not one of those folks. They do say, however, that he signed a contract with a fairly low base salary with several easily reached (seemingly) incentive clauses, none of which count against the cap.

This is a really slippery slope that MLS is playing here. In other cap leagues (NBA and especially NFL) the league HQ looks very closely at contracts and if the incentives are deemed easily reachable than they count against the cap. But this does not seem to be the case here.

So look into the future- will the same standards that MLS applied to allow NE to resign TT without waiving more players also apply to other player and other teams? I can't say I'd trust the league to do so and I normally go out of my way to give the league the benefit of the doubt. Will United be able to use the same standards to try to resign Olsen next year? Nelsen? Can San Jose resign Barrett to a TT-style incentive contract?

The other smelly thing is that the contract was announced right after this Jan 3 cap deadline. NE is already taking it's sweet time in waiving Chacon. (Possibly a more objective HQ would tell them since they can't waive Chacon so easily and the deadline passed that they better come up with other players now. Probably what will happen is that the next incentive contract that is signed will be with Chacon's signature. But I digress.) TT's contract probably increases their cap pressure even without the incentives included but they are not in a hurry to deal with that problem since TT's contract magically happened right after the deadline. Yeah. Right.

It just seems like NE is getting a second year of favorite treatment. And it smells at least as much as the Valderamma allocation.

 

Second year of favorite treatment for the Revs?

*guffaw*

To this point the Revs have:

1. Re-worked revisions and extensions into Taylor Twellman's contract, a vairtey of which are performance and appearance-based. He ended up making just under $30,000 last year. In 2003 he'll probably be making between $100,000 and $150,000, probably closer to the middle.

2. The Revs finally came to terms with draft pick Sharlie Joseph. Last year he didn't sign because he hoped to ink a deal overseas. It didn't happen and he spent part of the year playing for the New York Freedoms. His signing is good news, especially when there's a good chance Carlos Llamosa won't be with the club by the start of the season.

3. Revs got Peter Nowak, a very good player, but one who brings what's expected to be a pretty healthy salary (one that may be renegotiated) and some recent injury problems. Revs had the cap space to sign him and Peter Wilt dealt him. I guess Hudson could have signed him: he has the cap space and room for a senior SI I believe, but didn't.

4. The Revs have tried to trade Chacon with no success, same can be said of Jim Rooney. Chacon's probably going to be waived, and has been working towards a new deal that would lower his impact on the salary cap.

5. We signed Steve Nicol.

Favorite treatment? No, just some good moves.

Leave the whining and paranoia to the Metrofans. They're better at it.

The Magpie

 

Choke on your guffaw, because you fail to explain how TT incentive clauses don't affect cap.

Thanks for the NER history in a DC forum.

You are right about the SoS being expert at whining. They are also experts of the absurd.

GM

 

Grill, of course it's fraud. The whole thing is a sham. The only surprise is that people still expect it to make sense, add up and somehow be legit.

I don't understand why so many people continue to go out of their way to avoid this conclusion when there's now seven years of evidence.

 

I believe that in the NFL, once incentives are reached, they count against next season's cap. Twellman's don't count at all.