Future Salary Cap transactions

SEEMS LIKE IT

I like that the Chicago Fire is getting broken apart, they did that to DC when we punished every team in the league so before the fire can start a "dynasty" the league stoped it.

 

hey superman, did you know here are more metro fans in woodbridge than scum fans??
learn something everyday now dont ya

 

you think you know, but you have no idea

 

Tim- No you are not full of crap. Just that metros poster. But if one ignores him you are pointing to one of the most interesting aspects of Hudson's rebuilding- how will Hudson make the transition from the team he's assembled now to the team he will assemble in two-three years and can he keep it competitive? (Of course I'm assuming the team he just put together is competitive, but that's another story.)

If you look at it, no coach in MLS hs so far has been able to take the core of a championship team and revamp the core into another championship team:

United- Arena of course didn't stay around long enough to need to revamp his teams. Rongen tried and went with with a sort-of youth movement (remember he kept those big Etch, Pope, and Jaime salaries) and it didn't pan out at all. The holdovers didn't pan out in time, and the vets either got worse (Williams, Presthus, etc.) and/or were injured (Olsen can be included here.) So now Hudson is trying all over again, this time from scratch almost.

Chicago- Bradley did a better job than Rongen did, no question. But looking back, one can see that the Fire had their peak years of 98-00 and since then have slowly slid into non-competitiveness. Injuries played a big part of the recent failed Fire seasons, but injuries are part of the game and a well built team can handle them and stay on top. But if you look closer you see that the Fire wasn't able to replace their core from their best years. Instead they got old, stayed expensive, got worse, and now just went through cap hell as Bradley departed.

They have kept some of their more important role players around still (Armas, Beasley, Thornton. etc.). The interesting question for them will be can they find good leadership, particularly on the offensive end this year or next. I think they are still in a cap bind. They have a bunch of young players who will probably be up for raises in the next few years which will eat away at their cap without providing them with a Nowak-type leader. I predict a couple more years near the bottom of the league standings, until someone does the thorough cleaning that Hudson is doing.

Kansas City- Gansler went the opposite way of most teams by revamping the team a fair amount after it's 00 Cup winning team. It didn't work in part because he didn't replace Preki and Chris Henderson adequately. Now he's being more incremental by getting rid of Vermes, Burns, and McKeon while still keeping Preki and adding Wolff (who couldn't do his part in replacing the core of the Fire team). Last year KC (like Chicago) lost touch with the best teams, but to me it appears that they may be able to get back up towards the top sooner, maybe this year even if Wolff doesn't pan out. Like Hudson with Etch, Hristo, etc) Gansler will have Preki and Meola retire in a year or two which will help their cap and he has several good younger- but not too young- players who can play the game (the three forwards, Chris Brown, Zavagnin, Garcia, Klein, Armstrong, Talley, Quill) and who already make a decent salary- which means their salaries probably won't rise too dramatically. KC should be a team that will be reckoned with in the next few years.

San Jose- Like Chicago, the Quakes are gonna take their lumps this year, but for different reasons. They lost Graziani the old fashioned way- cap problems. But they lost Barrett and Cannon in a new way (for MLS)- they lost mid-level players to Europe because Europe is slowly realizing that good MLS players can play the game just fine. (Actually Tony Sanneh is the pioneer in this regard.) If this trend gets larger that it will play HAV-OC with every team.

So now their team has a couple of good players (Mulrooney, Donovan) some average players (DeRo) some real old players and other players in decline (Goos and Dayak and Lagos, Eklund, etc) and some young guys like Barclay. To sum up they look real awkward right now and will definitely take a step backward this year. Their long term future looks bright if they can translate their old guys into real value but that remains to be seen.

LA- They will hit the cap wall next year, big time, and that will be the time to see how Sigi will go about rebuilding. Still one would think that since it looks like they are willfully driving into the wall full speed that they will need a couple of years to regroup. But if they will the Cup back-to-back, it will be worth it.

The other teams haven't yet hit championship-grade even once. (It remains to be seen to me if NE was a flike last year a la te Rapids in 97 or not.) Colorado have the best chance to be serious contenders this year, C-bus possibly, metros doubtfully, and the Burn are doing their yearly self-deluding, thinking their good team is a serious contender.) No team has yet in any way had a championship team and rebuilt it into another championship team. At the moment I'd say United and KC have the best shots at it. For both teams their chances for near term success will lie with two young players- Convey and Armstrong. If either of those guys can develop into adequate Etcheverry and Preki replacements then their team can be competitive right away.

 

Any Metro Fan is a Scum Fan......

 

Re: Re: Future Salary Cap transactions

I don't know about that one, I think the cleaning they're doing now is pretty thorough. Maybe not to the degree of Hudson's, but still thorough.

Also, when you wrote about the potential trend of Europe raiding our league, I think in the next few years Chicago are going to get hit very hard by it. Its sad that this may become regular ala South America.

 

Excellent post TCompton. I also echo Skips assessment.

I think Ray realized he needed to win now, and wanted to keep his core of battlers here for 3 years, which is about the long-term life expectancy for a team in MLS thus far. He assembled a team that is strong on both ends, international experience and P-40. He then built a team that was a bargain with high skill level and a never-say-die attitude. He targeted high caliber players who experienced down years with teams in transition--Petke and Kovalenko.

So I think Hudson has done a lot. The Ivanov acquisition obviously seems to have impressed Ray, considering Ray initially spotted Reyes and Ray is already on record as saying that Ivanov may be the become the best defender in MLS history--high praise for someone he called "a bargain."

Plus Hudson used both of his Allocations (70k each I believe) and spent them on Free Transfers so we could discount the 2003 salary cap by 140k. This has two effects, one it actually allows Ray to add one or two more players of a high caliber later, and it pushes us well over the Cap for 2004 a la Chicago this year. So, Hudson needs at least one high salary player to leave for 2004. As TCompton astutely pointed out, Hudson has stated that he expects this to be Etch's last season, and it is assumed that Hristo will evolve to a full time coach as soon as his green card goes through. And, Stewart is signed on a 2 year contract with an option for a third, which puts United in a good spot.

Other considerations are the "new way" that Skip mentioned of possibly losing one or two players from Olsen, Convey, Santino or Nelsen.

Plus, we'll need salary cap space (probably about 120k) when Eskandarian, Stokes and Carroll graduate from P-40 next season. While either Stokes or Carrol might retain his P-40 status, both certainly will not.

So yes, I think TCompton has identified a clear plan by United management. With all of the talented depth we now have, it seems like a good position to be in when we lose players.

-Tron

 

Re: Re: Re: Future Salary Cap transactions

Very possible. How I got to my idea that Chicago will have to do more is that even though they have lost a lot of salary this year, they were still right against the cap until they traded Stoichkov. Let's say Hristo puts them now what 200K under? They will probably use that to get a decent midfield attacking player. So they sign their rookies.

Go to next year. They have a couple of guys still at max salary or close to it in Razov and Armas. A couple more guys with decent salaries like Thornton and Brown. Guys like Whitfield and Curtin will be due raises. A couple young players who will either be due big raises soon or they go to Europe: Beasley and Faria. Some of their P-40 players will become regular roster guys like Gray and Jaqua at least. All these things add up to hitting the cap again and either players then go to Europe or they have to treade again at 5 cents on the dollar as they did this season. More than likely they will keep Armas and Razov around- 500+K of salary gone right there or almost a third of their cap.

So basically they have a constant juggling act with the cap to deal with. This is tough and we have yet to see how good Sarachan will do. As for Witt- I already think that he and Bradley held on too long- about a year- to the old Fire team and with the drastic cap of MLS a team just can't do that.

I think what Tim may have been hinting at is right: that teams must look a year ahead to see how they can afford their current team. If they find that they woin't be able to or it's hard to do, then they must see if their main salary guys are pulling their weight now. If they aren't then they would be wise to liquidate while they can still get value for the players. Two examples:

-Chicago held onto Nowak a year, possibly two years too long and got nothing for him but cap relief. If they had traded him last year at this time they might well have gotten a decent cheap player to go along with said relief and this year would be looking better than it is now. Instead they held onto Nowak, cruised to a seventh place finish in a ten place league (in other words crashed) and then got nothing for their a-mid.

-C-bus would do well to sell McBride this minute. They have the depth at forward to replace him and are weak in other areas- all over the defense- that Hedjuk just won't address adequately enough. (Their coach is quoted as saying that Hedjuk may start at right wing, which teels you something of Hedjuk's defensive abilities and what the coach thinks of Brian West.) If McBride is sold now they get some cap relief, which they could use which they can then use to get more needed players. Otherwise guys like Buddle and Washington are being wasted on the bench.

It pays to be forward looking. It's human nature to hold on, be loyal to the guys who did something before. But that strategy usually fails anmd makes for a much longer rebuilding process.

 

Ursula, I don't think dealing Stoichkov got Chicago further under the cap. AFter their earlier deals (and the rumor of Stoichkov going), the post within Chicago boards was "okay, so if Stoichkov goes we've got some cap room to deal with" and Wilt (who'd just earlier been on a radio show) responded "I said Hristo is on our roster for the time being, I did not say he was counting on our cap." And that was with the "we're about $1 under the cap" statement. So my interpretation is that: Chicago and DC told the league a deal had been agreed to but that immigration details (plus the league negotiating his new contract) made it impossible to finalize the deal by the deadline. So the league cut Chicago some slack and didn't count him on their cap (or counted him on our's) while he was still technically on their roster. So...Chicago was still about $1 under the cap--until they renounced Daniv. That is why they've done nothing about an A-mid and are talking about some of their draftees starting or seeing significant minutes and DMB moving to A-mid.

Here is what I fear about MLS. I think DC United of earlier fame was a freak show, an abberation. Let me explain. There has been no team in MLS that has been consistently good with the same core of players in MLS other than United. Not Chicago: they turned over Podbrozny, Kosecki, Kubik and Okaroah. They continued to win b/c Bradley is good and they did a great job growing young American talent. LA?: Maybe. Cienfuegos, Cobi. But even then, they've turned over a lot of players and their hallmark is how Lothar, Oz and Sigi have grown americans (that, plus all their foriegn allocations hit "7" their initial year).

What I"m afraid of (b/c I don't like this kind of club) is that to be consistently outstanding in MLS, you need to turn over your roster from year to year. I don't mean add a few more draft choices or maybe an allocation or make a big trade. I mean gut your team and almost start over. Let me explain.

With MLS, there are no big rosters. So the guys you have on max salary need to perform and perform well. You get your depth from precocious youngsters, cheap bargains and undiscovered gems. To win and be the best in MLS, you need to have a couple of players step up and just be domenent--to be among the best in the league at their respective position.

How many players can honestly say that for 3-4-5 consecutive years, they've been one of the top 2 or 3 guys at their position in MLS? Almost none. Etcheverry, Moreno and Pope used to be able to say that. But given the finances within MLS, most players fluctuate. They may be among the best 1 year and then drop down to just "good". Or slump. Or have a string of injuries.

But if you "remake" your team each year, you dump the guys you suspect are getting ready to "crash." You dump guys just when they've peaked. You get guys who others have given up on (Preki anyone) yet still have a year or 2 of outstanding ball. And if you're good at judging talent and assembling a strange collection of pieces (Miami Fusion anyone), you get a winner.

Without those remakes, you get...the Dallas Burn. Or Chicago Fire. Good solid teams, always in the mix, but never quite good enough--b/c some key guys are hurt, or they have to ditch their depth b/c they've got too much money tied up in some big guns who are good--but just not dominant players, or it's a team of good players who aren't quite good enough to win it.

I honestly don't know where I stand on this. I think it "may" be true that b/c of the roster size and cap limits, it's not possible (unless you're freakishly lucky) to keep together a core of players and be great. I think to be a serious contender in MLS, that means you remake your team every year or every 2 years.

So what does that mean to this thread? It means that Hudson does what he needs to, in order to be a contender (by this, I mean win it or be one of the top 2-3 teams by a large margin in MLS). And then start over next year. Trade a promising rookie from 2002 (Stokes?) b/c you can get a guy you think is ready to explode. Ditch a aging vet who still has game (Stewart?) b/c you identify a really hot foreign talent who will give you more for the same money. Trade a star (Rimando?) b/c you can get someone cheaper AND also a player who fills a key need. Only speculation on my part, but that may be the approach it takes to duplicate United's success from earlier years--resist the idea of a "core." Instead, structure the team to win (and that structure inevitably includes young talent b/c that adds depth for little money). They blow it all up and start over the next year or year after that.

 

I agree with you, Joe. I've thought for some time that the low salary cap would breed mediocrity. Of course, one mediocre team playing another makes for a competitive game. Until the $ start flowing in faster than they flow out, we must suffer this cap.

Hopefully the future will reveal a cap that will let teams develop their talent and reward players for improvements. I remember when it became necessary for DC to cut talent due to the cap and the management was saying what a shame it was that MLS didn't have a cap like the NBA's, which allowed merit awards.

Having said that, it does appear that MLS is moving in this direction. I have heard that both Howard's and Twellman's new contracts contain incentives that don't count against the cap even though the player doesn't make maximum wage. These players were rewarded. But it pisses me off because of the preferential treatment given to the pond scum and the Revs.

GM

 

Great post Joe. I agree with what you say and you said it very well.

A while ago I was bitching over on the MLS N & A forum about how MLS destroys teams. How I don't like that its hard for a player to spend a number of years at one team, let alone a career, and become a hero to those fans because of the tremendous roster turnover year after year. When will this stop if ever? What would need to be done for it to stop? Would larger rosters and a larger cap prevent this? I'm not so sure because when these things come, I think that a larger maximum salary will come along with them.

On a sidenote: I think that MLS needs to raise minimum salary and developmental player salary before it ever even considers raising max.

 

Oh and another thing.

When like MLS says they want, every MLS team has their own youth development system for local talent, and they develop a fantastic group of players ala ManU did in the early 90's. These players will develop into stars, and gradually their salaries will have to be increased. When they can no longer fit under the cap, the team will be gutted and punished for developing such great talent. How could MLS prevent this?


As for the Super Y league, I believe that's what the DCU youth teams play in. I'm talkin when every team has a team participating in this and each one is officially affiliated with their respective clubs.

 

I have to disagree with you on this one Joe. I think Skip's right. Here's my take.

By the playoffs this season United will have identified about 15 top players that have enough quality and versatility to make us 2-deep at every position. Next season we will not have 2 allocations to defray so much cap money, and we'll have salary escalations as well as 2 or 3 P-40 guys commanding full roster slots. So we'll have to cut on both ends, likely one high salary player and three or four mid to low level guys (i.e. Etch retires, Hristo becomes full time coach, trade Prideaux, Namoff and Alegria). So we lose depth, but we now have 12 or 13 quality players and add a couple of P-40/developmental players in the draft.

So we're thinner for 2004, but essentially keep the same team together. Starting 2005 I expect we'll either have expansion or identified the 2 expansion teams for 2006. It'll also be a big Wold Cup ramp up year. At that point, many clubs will be thin. When expansion hits, everybody's depth will wither away. But, I see Ray keeping this defense together through the 2006 season. Stokes and Carroll will play a lot because Ivanov, Reyes and Nelsen will miss a lot of games with Nat's commitments.

I expect Etch and Hristo to retire from playing at the end of next season as TCompton said.

In 2004 I expect to see us trade some depth. In 2005 or 2006 I expect Olsen to leave for the EPL and Earnie Stewart to retire. So at least there is a plan that makes sense.

As for Chicago, I think Sarachan is in a good situation. He had to blow up the team. He's a great coach and his job is not in danger for a good 3 years. The Fire are playing in downsized Naperville so it's a good year to have a team with growing-pains. He'll underperform this season because of a weak midfield and a very young team. Next season--their first back in Soldier Field--they'll be back in the mix and crowds will flock in to see the new fancy stadium at cut-rate MLS prices, so there will be much excitement. In 2005 Sarachan's team will be ready for prime time starring Nate Jaqua. So Sarachan is blooding some young guns to ready his salary-cap lite team for it's return to Soldier Field.

-Tron