Answer: Add these players as P40 signees" Brian Carroll, M, Wake Forest (Jr.) Ned Grabavoy, M, Indiana (So.) Adolfo Gregorio, M, UCLA (Jr.) Nate Jaqua, F, Portland (Jr.) Ricky Lewis, D, Clemson (Jr.) Matt Oliver, D, Virginia (R-So.) Logan Pause, M/D, North Carolina (Jr.) Paul Souders, M, Clemson (Jr.) David Stokes, D, North Carolina (Jr.) Jason Thompson, F, Eastern Illinois (Jr.) Chris Wingert, D, St. John's (Jr.) Ricardo Clark, M, Furman (So.) Ryan Cochrane, D, Santa Clara (So.) C.J. Klaas, D, Washington (So.) Chad Marshall, D, Stanford (Fr.) Stop with the bull$hit, and sign these guys MLS!!!!!!!! Another hint: If they can't adjust right away, let them play with an A-league affiliate.
Re: Re: How do you make the draft worth while this year? So why were Capano and Saavedra playing in the A-league? As loans? Cool.
Re: Re: Re: How do you make the draft worth while this year? Well, yes (Curtin and Ring too) but the relationship between Chicago and Milwaukee is a bit different than most clubs and their affiliates.
Re: Re: Re: Re: How do you make the draft worth while this year? The man himself said that the FIRE's relationship with Milwaukee & Minnesota will continue much as it was with the USL agreement. Do not entirely rule out MLS and the USL doing the deal again. There are some key issues though.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: How do you make the draft worth while this year? Oh, I know. Milwaukee and Chicago's 'special relationship' would continue USL deal or no. Actually I think it might be better for us would we simply maintain that agreement with Milwaukee rather than have to deal with the USL.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: How do you make the draft worth while this year? MLS needs to do this deal again and sign these players.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: How do you make the draft worth while this year? I don't think they need the deal at all. In fact, arrangements with individual clubs benefit each club better anyhow. Plus, I don't think it's really MLS driving the tractor anyhow...USL/Marcos seems to have no true interest in an new deal.
Even if there is an affiliation deal, guys would still count against the MLS roster - and frankly, if good college players wanted to bag the NCAA and play in the A-League they could have done that any time, but it doesn't happen. Explain to me why it would be in MLS' interest to sign so many players. They would be making a big fianancial commitment without guaranteed success on many of those players - especially considering the limit on roster spaces. Unless all of these guys were going to sign with European teams, MLS doesn't lose much by staggering their signings over the next few years. I find your attitude somewhat illogical. You say that the senior class is crap, yet several of them previously played on the U-23 team. If you had made this list last year, you might have said 'sign Guy Abrahamson now!' - but now, with one more year of college soccer under his belt, he's become a pariah?
1 year can make a big difference in terms of development. ALL of these guys are U23 pool players or U20 national teamers. These guys are already recognized as the CREAM of the college crop.....and the fact is that the U23 team needs these guys to have the professional experience before U23 QUALIFYING happens in late fall. The Olympics are a big deal here in this country and if we get a good enough pool, then by 2004(assuming we qualify), we'll have a nice sized two or three deep of professional players with at least TWO seasons of professional experience. MLS reputation could grow on the strength of a strong Olympic performance, and since all of the guys would be 23 or under, future marketing could be based around this. These college seniors in this year's draft are VERY AVERAGE WITH THE EXCEPTION OF TESTO. Everyone thought Luchi Gonzalez was the $hit, he almost ended up in the A-league. It's better to snag P40 prospects and let them develop rather than snag a four year college senior who only has 1 year of roster protection. A guy who skips out on college has a WAY BIGGER NUTSACK and desire to play soccer than a guy who's worried about something to fall back on.
Guy has simply stagnated another year, and now he has to work TWO TIMES as hard to make an improving league. If he's lucky, he has roster protection for one year. As a P40 he would have had at least two, perhaps three seasons to develop. I wonder how guy feels about a developmental contract? If MLS signs a lot of these college underclassmen, Guy could very likely go undrafted.
I am fully aware of the fierceness of which you lead your vicarious life through 20 year old soccer players. There is certainly no call for the egregious capitilization of the phrase 'way bigger nutsack', lol. The idea that players suddenly lose all value and ability between their junior and senior years is bizarre enough that I can only attribute it to your hurt feelings that those players have ignored your solemn career pronouncements. I'm more interested in trying to see how signing a ton of players fits into MLS' bottom line, which is different than that of the National Team and its foamy supporters. There are a lot of rumors about players negotiating with MLS and I may be off the mark about the league's intentions. Yet in this period of austerity, I would think MLS would want more of a return on $600,000 in guaranteed money (estimate for 15 players) than a marginal improvement of the Olympic Team. I think they would need to be convinced of tangible league benefit. GersMan has noted that MLS has been cool to some players. I wonder what exactly drives the P-40 signing process - is it the input of coaches who promise to secure roster space and playing time?
it's because there are two choices for young players... developmental and p-40 developmental players get peanuts, p-40 players get better deals but p-40's have to produce right away, most coaches want these players to either take a starting spot or be extremely versatile (re: gray) the nature of mls doesn't lend itself as a good developmental league to most of the youth... only so many have the ability to start or eat up minutes in numerous positions... and mls coaches can't have people on their team that aren't going to do much developmental contracts pay the players jack, and are what coaches would prefer to give someone that isn't ready... yet if they will be any good, it's not going to cut the mustard, as they could sign elsewhere for much better money this is a big problem... does mls continue as is, or does it address this issue, so that it can truly begin to develop and harvest the talent in this country personally, i would prefer them to develop and harvest, but that takes some additional dollars the league doesn't appear willing to do that right now and part of the reason they don't is because they aren't going to be seeing those dollars come back to them too fast (at all)... so they are very hesitant these players should be in a pro-environment, but at the present time... things just aren't ready for it i really wish it was otherwise
MLS puts on airs about putting the league on a level with the European big boys, but then they lack the vision to do something as obvious as this. I don't live vicariously through soccer players--they're entertaining, not the center of my life. I can tell somebody the best way to do something, and if they don't choose to follow it, hey, that's their mistake. You put your little smiley on there and then go on to make disparaging comments, when it's quite obvious you don't have any idea what the value of players are on the international market. So I guess I can only attribute this to the ignorance that you so obviously harbor in your pea brain. What's the difference between having a draft of 20 four year college players and a draft of 20 P40 players who are 20 or younger? Comparison--four year college players---22 years age. P40 guys(if they would sign them) average age would be around 19.5 years old. Let's do a comparison: A 22 year old player with the same ability as a 19 year old player 1. 19 year old has higher market value internationally 2. 19 year old player has roster/cap protection 3. 19 year old player has more time to develop 4. Based on #3, 19 year old player is more likely to become an asset to the league than the 22 year old player since he has more time to develop. 5. After development(let's say two years for both players), the 19 year old is 21 while the 22 year old is 24. 21 year old player still has some roster protection/ 24 year old does not. 6. After development, 21 year old player has a significantly higher international market value than the 24 year old. If you don't understand this(specifically market value internationally), get someone else to explain it to you since I obviously live my life too vicariously through soccer and should take some time off. Finally, I might say that the league more than likely took it in the arse on the Landon Donovan loan deal. Leverkusen is hovering mid table and for damn sure could have used Landon's help. So they can dole out the money for Landon, but when it comes to looking for other avenues to help the quality of the league, then they fall short IMHO.
Well, I wouldn't claim that the A-League/USL isn't doing their part to give college players a chance to experience play at the pro level. You'd be hard-pressed to find someone on these boards that doesn't think that the PDL isn't a good thing. And while loads of players come to the system after exiting college and failing to make it in the "big time," the A-League clubs ARE signing talent before graduation. The Riverhounds signed 17 y/o Chuck Kim right out of high school, for example, and from across the country mind you. Of course, the problem is that the A-League is not a "for-life" thing unless you're using it as a springboard to the MLS or elsewhere. (Ahem...Onandi Lowe...) Players have to supplement their income both during and after their playing careers, as it is not a lifestyle choice as Division 1 in Britain tends to be. (You're average youth star Joe out of Sheffield Central High can sign with Wednesday and play there for his career and be more or less financially sound barring injury, but also has the potential to move up in playing levels. Jimmy out of Springfield Central can't sign with Western Mass at 16, and long-term potential at any level is impacted by two more years of utterly useless high school soccer and X more of college) So let's say that MLS expands to 14 teams by 2007. You'll have a correspondingly larger pool of opportunities to develop young talent, but I wouldn't say that this would satisfy the Wanderer's desired quotient of slots for potential pros or prospects. The solution, then, is the long-term financial solidity of the USL, and the increased salaries and level of support that would accompany such financial acumen. This means getting each A-League club up to a certain level -- getting their local youth and PDL sides in order, having revenue controls, and getting attendance up to a level (4K per) that permits profits. If teams like Milwaukee and Indiana actually survive the next 5 years, one would think their attendance and "footprint" would benefit by the increased community exposure, and would help these otherwise well-run organizations to branch out into real player development. I mean, if going to the Silverbacks or the Eagles or the Battery is a real option for kids with talent in the South, then maybe you have that extra talent boost in the pro sector, in a manner that an MLS short of full reserve sides wouldn't be able to accomodate.
The A-league is a great place for guys not yet ready for MLS. However, they have no type of P40 system, and this definitely hurts them. MLS should get creative, sign those 15 players plus Memo and Gaven, and you've got a VERY strong draft of 17 players who have a very good chance of making an impact in the league two seasons from now. It's not like a four year college guy is going to have an immediate impact IMHO, those are few and far between now. Have the A-league split the salary cost for this year, and if the guys can't contribute on their MLS team let them play a season in the A-league. Or half a season. Something. I just think that you're better off investing in these guys than you are most of the four year college players. The four year college guys are likely to end up on developmental contracts this year and then it's still up in the air if they're going to contribute in the future or not.
I much more interested in trying to understand what the league _will_ do this year rather than discussing someones dreamcasting. I may be incorrect about this, but in order to bring in any underclassman, MLS has to guarantee money to them. If Luchi Gonzalez tanks, it doesn't cost the league. If Paul Souders signs as a P-40 and washes out, then the league is on the hook. I am far from convinced that some marginal improvement of the olympic team will redress that loss. The question of transfer values is fairly moot since MLS is not selling players, and these fringe U-23's are not likely to ever command large international values. MLS has done a pretty good job at signing players who have the aptitude and interest to contribute quickly. I expect they will do the same this year, and those players and some very good seniors will contribute to the league. There may be more young players signed than I anticipate, but the possible reasons why or why not that may happen is clearly a discussion for another thread.
The Souders kid got stuck in there somehow. I agree, it would be a dream scenario. Hopefully they'll end up with at least 8 signess. Brian Carroll, M, Wake Forest (Jr.)-potentially has an international future as a RB a la Vanney(I realize Vanney is a LB). Vanney sold for like 500K I believe. Ned Grabavoy, M, Indiana (So.)-could easily reach Martino's level IMHO. Adolfo Gregorio, M, UCLA (Jr.)-Ralston type player Nate Jaqua, F, Portland (Jr.)-in the McBride vein(granted Mc isn't worth that much, but still has decent value) Ricky Lewis, D, Clemson (Jr.)-Cherundolo/Suarez esque potential Matt Oliver, D, Virginia (R-So.)-somehow snuck in here--should stay in school. Logan Pause, M/D, North Carolina (Jr.)-Vagenas type player with decent value Paul Souders, M, Clemson (Jr.)-see Oliver David Stokes, D, North Carolina (Jr.)-Pope-esque potential Jason Thompson, F, Eastern Illinois (Jr.)-could end up having McBride type value Chris Wingert, D, St. John's (Jr.)-could have Cherundoloesque value Ricardo Clark, M, Furman (So.)-could be a star Ryan Cochrane, D, Santa Clara (So.)-could be a star C.J. Klaas, D, Washington (So.)-Cherundoloesque value Chad Marshall, D, Stanford (Fr.)-could be a star Sure, the U17s have the most value since they are the youngest with great training. However, I think there are a number of potentially very good future MLS players available from this list. We can't immediately discount non U17 residency players just because we're loaded (offensively) at the U23 level--look at Martino, Cherundolo, Garcia, Pierce, Quill, West, Bocanegra, Twellman, Olsen, McCarty, Dunseth, and Carrieri as P40 players who have turned into solid/good MLS contributors(some even potentially great ones). Yes, many of those guys were U20 team members, but that was before U17 residency. I just tend to think that many of these guys would be good investments. I was under the impression that only thing the league was responsible for(as in guaranteed) was the tuition for these kids should they decide to finish up their degrees. The P40 deal is three years with an MLS controlled option IIRC.