Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'LA Galaxy' started by m vann, Feb 15, 2008.
Or we cut a deal with Seattle so he can play next year.
You got me thinking so I searched for any of my old posts about my first impressions of Harden. I did find this interesting preseason post. Stupid 2007 season!
Actually, just look at the precedent with LAG. What did the Galaxy have to do when Lalas "unretired" to play for y'all?
Philanthropic endeavors? Huh... With a name like Ty Harden, I always thought he was more suited for a life in adult film rather than soccer. It must suck when a pro athlete is making just a little more than me a year, so whatever his reasons, can't say I blame him
Not so worried about Vanney's age. Some of the best defenders in the world right now are the wrong side of thirty, some closer to forty. Vanney has international experience and if we are going to win a championship, we'll need players with that mentality that have been there before. Kirk might have had potential, but we need quality now, not a few years down the line.
Jay Needham was cut from camp yesterday. Guess he didn't impress.
So right now, we have 4 central defenders on our roster -- X, Vanney, Roberts and Valentin. I guess 5 in a pinch - since Jazic can play centrally if we need it, once he returns from injury.
I don't pretend to know whether the contract situation of Lalas and Harden were the same. My understanding is that Harden would have signed a standard 4 year agreement. Maybe LAG has his rights for the life of that agreement. Maybe not. I really don't know. Nor do I know how many years Lalas had on his deal when he retired and then unretired. Do you?
In other words, this may be a bit more complex than you suggest.
Vanney can take free kicks when Beckham is injured...
I'm not sure that's 100% true. I think he's not in DC's camp because DCU isn't willing to pay him what Puerto Rico is paying and with the new SA players coming in don't think they need him. I personally think that DC is still a little pissed he went to PR last season and this is a form of payback for the snub, even if it's only against a player who would provide depth and wasn't going to be a starter. Although look at McTavish and Burch, had Needham been on board he could have found himself in their place.
Needham told Buzz Carrick that he had been invited to DCU's camp, but they changed their minds. Looking at the timing, they signed Gonzalez and Peralta in the same time line. There was no room in the inn for Needham or Vanney. DCU didn't invite Vanney into camp either. He was at home when traded by DCU to LAG.
I agree. I think DCU is still upset with Needham because he wouldn't take a developmental contract.
Coaches feedback on Needham, both DCU and LAG, has never been negative. Coaches and managers in the USL picked him Rookie of the Year. Until he plays in the MLS, we really won't know how good he is.
Like the majority of sports situations, most negative comments about him have come from blogs. If you don't think this happens, just check the wild blog reports on DCU's Peralta going home to take care of personal business. It is almost off the charts.
1. I agree that is what Needham told 3rd Degree. But what DCU's coaches told Goff before Peralta and Martinez were signed is that they weren't interested in him--they didn't see him as MLS material now and that there was no intention of calling him in. Didn't Needham also say in the same interview that he'd love to try out for other MLS teams but couldn't because of DCU? If so, that's clearly not true--he isn't under contract to DCU and can try out with any team he wants. Plus, he clearly was in LAG's camp.
2. I'm not arguing he's a stiff. DCU did draft him in the second round and didn't cut him outright in camp but did think he wasn't good enough for the top 18 spots. He did make the USL rookie of the year. He was invited into LAG's camp. Those 3 things indicate that he clearly has some ability.
OTOH, DCU didn't take action to invite him into camp. It's easy to say that he would have been invited except for the foreign signings. Except that the Peralta signing came very late. This argument that implies that Needham would have been in DCU's camp except for the foreign signings makes about a dozen assumptions. DCU could afford to sign a backup center back for $40-45k, they were certainly offering Vanney far more than that AFTER having signed Peralta and Martinez. So the timing, the foreign signings to me weren't factors in this.
Why did LAG cut him? Not speculation on DCU wanted Landon Donovan for him or PR was insisting on $400k in transfer money. But what has LAG had to say about him? And if Needham has been so impressive for LAG but just found it unlucky to try to win a spot on the 2nd worst defense in MLS last year (and this AFTER Harden retires and they trade Albright), then we should see other MLS teams lining up to give him tryouts--yes?
Maybe he's a good player. But the argument that "we'll never know" ignores the reality that:
--LAG, starved for depth and good defenders cut him.
--DCU, who has a track record of welcoming back guys who didn't take our first offer, has said they don't think he's good enough for MLS.
--When plenty of USL guys get callups from MLS teams, none came for Needham last year.
The arguments some people are making for Needham (management has it out for him, angry he wouldn't sign for a pittance, DCU trying to deny him opportunities with other teams) sound like the Mike Burke conspiracy theories all over again. The simpliest explanation (though I'm willing to admit it may not be right) is that after a year in USL where he looked good by USL standards, he did not look good enough for MLS.
Good Luck Harden
WOW! Now that was a convoluted post. What are you saying.
Clearly, you are demeaning him groundlessly on the basis of speculation alone. Apparently, in your opinion, his USL award was meaningless. Have you seen Needham play?
I attended all of the 2007 Florida spring training and as I reported on the DCU forum, Needham was their best draftee by a long shot. He easily made the 2007 roster. I was shocked, as I am sure DCU was, when he signed with PR. IMO, he has MLS quality.
Likely, LA dropped him due to excessive demands by DCU for his rights. If so, shame on MLS. This player never signed with MLS yet because he was offered a contract by DCU he is now effectively blocked from MLS for 2 years.
1. I'm not demeaning him on the basis of speculation. Goff asked DCU's coaches before Peralta and Martinez were signed. They said that Needham was not in their plans.
2. You're the one engaging in "groundless" "speculation." Have any of the LAG "braintrust" complained about DCU driving a hard bargain? DCU just traded Vanney for a guy who has started, what, 11 matches in 3 years? I think Quavas Kirk has value because he's Gen Ad and also young and fast. But I'm also clear that he's not a starter for any team in MLS at the moment (and maybe never). That doesn't sound to me like a "hard bargain." And DCU has traded (or even released) plenty of players in the past: Prideaux, Cerritos, Reyes, Quaranta based on what the player asked for--they didn't try to drive a hard bargain.
You're assuming that DCU is still PO'ed at him, that DCU is blackballing him and that LAG didn't keep him in camp because he'd cost too much to acquire. He's a far simplar explanation: LAG decided that they had 4 better central defender options in their camp than Needham.
Kirk sucks, and makes way too much. He can't pass the ball, or cross a ball, or defend. How does he get considered "young talent." Are you really a knowledgeable(sp) soccer fan?
ahem. kirk may "cost" a lot, but he's generation adidas so his salary doesn't count against the cap, and regardless of where he actually plays his salary is incumbent on the entire league due to the structure of MLS. in other words it doesn't matter where he plays the galaxy's financial responsibility remains the same.
mbar - for those who've been around these parts prior to 2008 - is a very knowledgeable and well liked member of the forums.
Yeah, what he said ^^^
Repped for a well deserved "Talk to the hand" moment.
Hey! Cheers for that.
One of my co-workers was a college roommate of Ty's at UW and still remains pretty close friends (they did just graduate less than a year ago after all). Apparently Ty's heart just wasn't in it anymore and his personality had "changed" since playing for the Galaxy, probably due in large part to the circus that was Beckham's first year. I floated the idea to my co-worker that Ty should play with the Sounders either this season or next, since it will allow him to remain in Seattle with his friends and family. The co-worker thought this was an "interesting" possibility, so we'll see what happens. Also it seems that Ty never was really concerned with being a pro soccer player and felt it might be "delaying the rest of his real life". Apparently he's very big on charitable work and since his dad is now the head of Goodwill, it would make since for him to jump at this career opportunity. I've let to actually meet Ty in person but probably will at some point in the near future, if I hear anything else from him and if anyone here really cares, I'll let you guys know.
Good luck on the season.
Agree 100%. Good post.
As a Harden-defender from last season, I think its a real shame for the team. He was never going to be world class, or even the best for LA or MLS, but he was a solid defender who put a lot of effort in. He could likely have gone to Europe and had a solid career in the lower leagues, considering some of the shite I've seen in League One, he'd walk into a few of the lower teams here.
Well done to him for making his decisions, and I hope to see him play again.
Ty won me over with his heart and marking of Drogba in the Chelsea game last year. Drogba's obviously on another planet skill-wise, but Ty never let him get the yard he needed to get a shot off. It was more will-power than skill, and it was somethin' to watch.
Hey no fair posting this after I just had to watch Roberts and Vanney play this past week!
Re: Bad Move
Baysider, I missed this response - I know it's a little old, but since I never tire of criticizing the Galaxy front office, I thought I'd respond now.
You are right that DC can walk away from the deal. However, both us and Colorado did not have to be teams without leverage. The reason we had no leverage is because we both went to the bargaining table desperate. There is no reason that Colorado and the Galaxy could not have also been prepared to walk away from the deal.
The price for both Gomez and Vanney need not be what DC wanted. It needed only be more than what other teams were offering. Then if DC wanted to refuse to sell at this "fair" (market determined) price, then there would have been pressure on them to do so so as not let their assets go to waste.
Here's how the Galaxy should have handled the situation - they needed only to #1: have developed real, or at least credible alternatives to Vanney at CB. We have international spots available, Vanney's taking a senior spot and probably not working for free. This was not that hard. And remember this player doesn't have to be even as good as Vanney - just a real alternative.
#2: Be prepared to exercise those alternatives, if DC was asking too much, or at least have DC believe we would
These aren't really that hard with a little patience. Then LA has the superior leverage in the deal. They can go with there option B and DC gets nothing for Vanney. If they wait until the seasons begun, its likely Vanney may have decided he's done and not want to play and they get nothing for him.
And in both the Gomez and Vanney situations DC had already shown their hand that they had no intention of signing those guys. So, if Vanney still wants to play and some team has offered a fair price to him and DC is refusing to pay it, that doesn't look very good for DC or the league - they just look vindictive. This scenario is one where Lalas could put his mouth to good work. A few weeks of "It's a shame that DC is treating their Veteran player, Vanney they way they are. They cast him aside, don't try and sign, and then refuse to let him play elsewhere"."That's not good for the league. It's not how a super club should act." might soften their stance. I mean what do they have to gain to denying Vanney to LA? Are they really worried that LA with Vanney are a serious threat?
Anyone with the tiniest bit of savvy would have played this easy hand and gotten Vanney or Gomez at far less then what LA or Colorado paid.