This is all bored speculation, but..........With all the talk about the Vaca to Metros for a Williams and the allocation for Stewart, I just wanted to point out that DC has at least 1, if not 2 allocations, as well. Despite Hudson's bias against young players, DC might want Vaca partly to appease their Bolivian fans after dealing Moreno and to be the #10 when Etch finally retires (Hudson sees Convey only as a left winger!). So, here's my proposed trade: DC gets: Vaca Rhine Dallas gets: Allocation both DC's first round picks in 2003 superdraft (#1 and another high #) The can keep that later first round pick if they give us Brandon Prideaux. How does that sound?
that's ridiculous....Vaca for allocation straight up...this leaves Bobby Rhine for 2 #1 Draft Picks???...this deal is overwhelmingly pro-Dallas..not gonna happen
What he said. Absolutely no chance in the deal being that extreme in your favor. If anything DC United has the main bargaining power in this deal.
trades Actually, I was thinking for Vaca for an allocation plus the first pick. Hey, we just need AN allocation, I don't it even think it has to be a full one! (no transfer fee was involved, right?) I think Vaca for the 1st draft pick and a partial allocation is pretty even. Then, Bobby Rhine for your later first round pick. That sounds pretty even, maybe even favoring you guys a bit. If you guys don't want Vaca, how's about Zarco or Deering, (preferably Zarco)? I'm sure the Burn front office would be perfectly willing to work a sign and trade for ya'll, but I have no idea what they'd want in return.
Re: trades So basically Vaca is better than Stewart and (probably) Eskandarian? Why would you trade him then? There is already another thread on these boards about this though.
I'll take Eskandarian over Rhine anyday. Rhine is just a mediocre forward. At least Esky has the potential to be another Twellman level player. If DC is going to give up Stewart (i.e. an allocation) then the only player I would want from the Burn is Kreis.
Esky could also be a total bust. At least with Rhine you're getting a proven, fairly durable, approx. 20 points a year player, given playing time. He would have EASILY been your leading scorer last year. The point isn't about wether on not Vaca is worth an allocation to you, I think it's got more to do with the fact that you probably won't have the cap space to use both of yours when your coach is done wheeling and dealing.
from http://www.3rddegree.net/ yesterday One of 3rd Degree's Burn sources says salary cap is not a major issue, "The Burn could find a way to make Earnie fit under the cap"
Sorry, I was referring to DC being unable to afford 2 expensive allocations while simultaneously adding Harkes, Rooney, and the mad Bulgarian.
Re: trades But, if you use the allocation on a player who requires no transfer fee, you get to use the money for the allocation to pay part of the player's salary, so DC's $75k allocation would mean that Earnie would ony impact the cap for $190k this year.
1. DCU isn't interested in Vaca. 2. You don't have Zarco to trade. 3. The DCU allocations are worth more than the one the SoS has--the distinction between a major and a minor allocation. That makes no difference to you (b/c there is no transfer fee involved with Stewart, but it's still a factor). 4. Why should DC make the trade? Either we want Stewart (and he wants us) and we take him. Or, we don't want him. In which case you need to trade for an allocation. You've got Colorado, SoS and DC to choose from. Colorado--for cap reasons--would insist upon several young players or your #1 pick. SoS wants a #10 who is inexpensive so that's Vaca. Otherwise they keep the allocation and use it on on Guevara from Costa Rica. Let's put it this way: DCU would not trade an allocation (regardless of how they feel about Stewart) for Vaca. Dallas would neet to put in more than Vaca to get the allocation. But you think you could get the #1 pick in the draft and something else?
Stewart may be a bit better than Vaca, but Earnie is 13 yrs older than Joselito and his skills are declining. I'd take Vaca over Stewart any day of the week.
There is no way DC would give up its allocation and first round picks for just Vaca and Rhine, thats a ridiculous assumption. DC is in a better position then just about anyone else in the league right now as far as salary cap/allocations go. Allocation for Kries maybe, anything less is not even something that should be considered.
Look--the point is not to trash Vaca. He's a nice little player who will only get better. Now why exactly would DCU want him? Because he's....Bolivian? Right now DC has Convey, Etcheverry, Kovalenko and Quintanilla who play central midfield. The team has holes. Acquiring another central midfielder would be dumb when there are other needs. In otherwords, it would be like arguing the SoS or DCU should trade for Jordan when they've got good talent at GK.
If you think that any of your younger players can fill in for Marco, then picking up Vaca would be a mistake. Our point is that the Burn may not have a hole there now, but they soon will. Pareja is the heart and soul of the Burn, but he is 34 and it makes sense to plan for the future, while adding some time on to Oscar's playing days by resting him. Right now, the Burn can do that, with Vaca. In fact, Vaca fills two holes, since he can spell Oscar and he is the schemer of the future. Which is why the Burn has expressed "interest" in Stewart, but has yet to make any trades. And why Burn fans are asking for a high draft pick with Vaca. The Burn will need to draft someone who can play right away in relief of Oscar, and someone to groom for the future. Or...Jeffries wants to make sure DC does not take him, in which case the Burn would be allocated a PDL player. Or...Earnie doesn't want to play in a high school football stadium with a plastic pitch.
1. That's good becasue the Burn have not discussed trading Vaca to DC. They have talked about trading Vaca to Metro. 2. The Burn have an option year on Zarco, they can exercise that year on Zarco then trade him anywhere they like.
3rd degree--don't take it personally--there was no slam on Joselito intended. I think the original post to start this thread was something like "doesn't DC have an allocation? Let's trade 'em Vaca for an allocation and the first round pick and maybe we'll throw in Rhine for another pick." I never argued that Vaca was to be traded to DC and I think my posts have pretty much indicated it would be a foolish deal. Dallas has no reason to do it and DCU wouldn't want to do it. My understanding is that the way that Dallas got under the cap was to not take the option year on Jorge Rodriguez--thus he no longer counts on the cap. Perhaps I'm wrong here. I know that AS muttered words like "of course we'd like to sign him for a lower price." If Dallas picked up his option year, then what was the press coverage earlier (Jan 2nd or 3rd I think) about? I thought it was Dalls declining the option year. As I understand, you've got 3 options with Rodriguez (or HAD 3 options). 1. take the option year. 2. Decline the option year and say goodbye. 3. Decline the option year and hope to negotiate a new contract for a lower fee. The advantage of the #3 is that he doesn't count on your cap. But it also means he's free to sign with someone else (at least outside of MLS and probably inside of MLS as well).
Why would I take offense. I knew how the thread started, but I was trying to make a point about Vaca both to you and to others on this thread. Declining an option is relative. The Burn were already ok Cap wise due to release of Percy Olivares. If they had exercised the option on Zarco they would have been over (as I understand it). I do not know if they have actually "declined" the option, or if the chose to "not exercise" the option and try to renegotiate. But that is not the same thing. It is unknown if the option was "delcined," or if it "expired," or if they could still exercise it and just have not. Since Zarco is still listed on both MLSnet and dallasburn.com it is hard to know.