Lets use poker for an example of why ambition should always out weight short term results. In poker, one can make the wrong play, but still win a hand due to variance. However, in the long term, if one continues to make the wrong play, it will finally catch up to you compared to the other players who are playing correctly. Read this article if you are interested in why using short term results can be a very poor model for predicting the future. Here is the basic thesis ============ http://randomdirections.com/why-being-results-oriented-is-actually-bad/ I argue here that being results-oriented is one of the most detrimental outlooks to have, whether in the cardroom or the boardroom, in poker or in life. The moment you walk into poker circles, it becomes apparent that everyone is trying not to be results-oriented. Why? Because it's really good decisions that matter, and it's easy to confuse good results with good decisions.
I agree putting the teams in groups is a better way to compare them, but it doesn't sell as many magazines. Do I think the Revs are dead last in ambition...no; but it is tough to argue against them not being in the bottom 4th of the league. About half of the MLS teams have a "B" team that plays in the USL, the Revs don't. That in my book eliminates them from the top half of the league. The Revs did sign an agreement with Sporting, two years later MB and JH took a week and went to Portugal and signed some players. They pretty much ignore their affiliation with Rochester. This to me is the Revs biggest issue; not properly staffed!! You would think the Revs were a start up working out of their garage instead of a professional team in their 20th year. As for not having a SSS, meh. I don't equate an SSS with ambition. Seattle doesn't have a SSS and that doesn't seem to bother their ranking. Would a SSS help, sure, but it is not a sign of a lack of ambition by not having one. There are many more factors for the old east coast cities like Boston and NY in finding available land to place one, rather than chalking it up to a lack of ambition. I think the Rev fans should be very happy that a major publication listed them dead last in their rankings. When the local Boston magazine ripped the Krafts, we got JJ. What wonderful things are in store for us now that it has gone nationally.
Two points 1) again, please don't get caught up in the exact ranking, that is not the point. LA is 1st and Portland is 5th which one just should read they are both in the upper tier. 2) LA can swing for the fences more than others because they have done the work off the field to generate more revenue to spend than any other team. They can still swing for the fences and still come out ahead money wise, so you have to be careful on the "spend smart" idea. You might not consider it smart but their willingness to spend is the exact reason why they have so much revenue coming in from numerous sources.
Ok - points taken but let me address both. First you keep saying the rankings should be read as quadrants not pure rankings. If that's the case Grant Wahl should have ranked them in quadrants. If he says quad 1 teams do this, quad 2 this, etc then we wouldn't split hairs and the "dead last" headline would not exist. It would be "revs among bottom 25% in MLS ambition based on criteria a, b, c, d". This conversation would be quite different and more in generalities than specifics. To be clear, it's the specificity I have a problem with. Second, your (Grant Wahl's) LA argument still doesn't carry weight with me. Buying Gerrard, Cashley Cole, Gio and Keane says hey we want to go after it the veteran way. We are going to use "name" veterans to sell jerseys, win trophies and grow revenues. Spend more, make more. But like climbing Mt Everest, there are multiple routes to the top. Neither MLS Cup finalist had anyone at that level yet Portland has one of the most raucous crowds in the league, constant sellouts, passionate ownership, and now a MLS Cup trophy. Cbus was East champs after being MLS Cup champs in 2008 and their owners have done a lot of great investment in the past 12 months to modernize the facilities, grow the brand, improve commercialization and be more competitive on the field. These are all a series of decisions that have seen short term results and anticipated medium to longer term results, like a good poker player would. That combination is what it's all about. There is nothing negative or pessimistic about being results oriented, that is a load of crock. Indeed, no one goes into business to spend money and not see a return - you wouldn't last long. Poker players need to win more than they lose if they are going to stick around. I can play poker, make lots of decisions and lose lots of money. It's nice to have an ambition of being WSOP champ but if I don't get results along the way it doesn't do me much good. The reality is there needs to be a combination of longer term ambitions, shorter term results and medium term ROI. You need to have all 3 to be successful whether it's business, poker or life.
Why are you ignoring the fact that they have won more MLS Cups than any other MLS team by using their "spend more make more" philosophy? If you want to focus on results, why not focus on their 5 MLS Cups and 4 Supporter Shields? I don't agree with the current way they are building their team but I am certainly not going to ignore that the way they have done it historically has worked compared to the rest of the league. They might have a down year or two as all teams will but overall I would take the way they build a franchise much more than the way the Revs build a franchise from the bottom up. Just look at what LA spent alone on youth development last year.
By the way RevsLiverpool, I completely agree with your categorization of Portland and Columbus in recent years. What I don't agree with is that NE belongs in that group based on what we have seen of the organization off the field. Everyone of us said Jones was not the marker for whether the organization had turned. The true marker would have been what they did AFTER they signed Jones. No one expected another $3m a year player but the fact that the team did not sign a complementary $800k-$1.2m type player using allocation money really stood out for me that the Krafts do not put winning first (which was another criteria Wahl used). You don't hear many successful teams saying "this player checked all our boxes on and off the field". Even if there is always an off field component, keep quiet about that and give the public perception that the player was signed for one reason only, to make the on field team better.
Yes they have won 5 cups and 4 shields - their approach has proven to work over the past decade+. However, they have beaten the revs in 3 of those MLS Cups - which means the revs have been in the championship game. Yes, LA won and the revs lost but does 5 title appearances, plus a USOC title in 20 years count for nothing? To be explicit, that means the revs have been in 1 of every 4 MLS Cup finals. To put that in context, let's use your "series of decisions" argument vs my results/ROI. Is it better to make it to the final once a decade and win (ie Colorado in 2010) then go away competitively for years at a time Or Make it to the MLS Cup final 4 in 6 years, losing on pks or in ET, then again come agonizingly close in 2014 ...think about the series of decisions to get there. Decisions. Over time. Results are winning your conference. The balance is the fundamental measure of success. This is after acquiring arguably the best performer and leader in the 2014 US WC team? Was getting Jones not a sign of ambition from the revs? Did Bob Kraft facilitating a coin flip and ensuring the revs were in the running for Jones not speak volumes? I would suggest your "series of decisions" argument applies better to the revs than almost any other team across MLS. If you want to say "results don't matter, decisions matter" then you are making a great case for the revs being right up there in the overall rankings or at minimum top quarter. They have balanced both short, medium and long term goals and have seen the ROI from it both on and off the field. Seattle hasn't done this, SKC, TFC, no one else. To mean it's clear, the revs are top 25% in both MLS ambition and results.
And here is the crux of our disagreement. You are using results based on an MLS that was a COMPLETELY different animal. Look at the time frame you are quoting, 2002-2007. What year did Beckham enter the league and everything changed? At the very very end of that run. NE built those teams based on the college draft and the contraction dispersal's. There is no arguing that they did that very well even if many feel they got way too much help in the contraction dispersal's. No one was spending any money in that time frame which is why the Revs were playing on even ground and could compete. Personally I don't see any relation to that old time frame which is why there is no coincidence that the Revs have only made 1 MLS Cup final since then while LA has been to 4 and won 3 of them.
Ok if we are going to disregard the first 11 years of the league then LA never won the cup in 2002 and 05. DC has no titles. The quakes never did anything special in the early 2000s. Houston has just 1 title - 2007. Chicago and old KC never won titles. Everything that happened from '06 prior, all those early decisions, now does not exist so let's strike all of that from the record. The league effectively started when Beckham joined in '07 and all the legacy teams, their team building strategies, the early tv rights and commercialization and everything else pre-Beckham does not matter in this conversation going forward. The revs need to be judged from their MLS Cup final loss in 07, with their USOC title that same year, onward through their 08 Superliga title and 2014 MLS Cup final appearance. But for some reason we need to discount the 2014 cup run, even if it happened post Beckham it apparently doesn't matter. Your arguments are all over the map - I can't keep track anymore.
I guess we need to end this on a disagreement. We will never find any common ground if you consider MLS from 2002-2007 the exact same as today in terms of how you build a team.
Looking at the 8 teams who have been around for all 20 years, here are telling stats for those that are stuck on results In terms of trophies won, the Revs are tied for 5th out of 8 all time (only Dallas and Colorado have won less trophies in the 20 years) In terms of points achieved in the regular season, the Revs are 7th out 8 (only Colorado has managed slightly less in the 20 years).
It's not the exact same as today, please don't misconstrue what I am saying. However, I don't think it's valid to entirely discount that period in time. I like to think of the league in 3 eras - The Doug Logan commish "gimmick shootout" era '96-'99, The "early Garber" contraction/static era 2000-06 "The Don" era Beckham/expansion era 2007-present You've made some salient points - we will agree to disagree but I would prefer we don't discount earlier eras and only judge clubs over the last decade. No one does that in other leagues - the Celtics still won all those titles as did the Habs, 49ers etc. It's fair to say the eras were different but unfair to say they effectively did not exist. We shouldn't do that in MLS in my humble opinion. Good discussion though, I enjoyed our back and forth.
I agree on all 3 eras you described. The Revs dominated the Early Garber era, which is not coincidental because it was also the era that no teams were spending any money to compete. The Logan and post Beckham era were much more about how and where money was spent. We might be just barely entering a 4th era where home grown products will start to have a major influence on teams since most teams have DP's now. It is too early to tell though whether this is really a new era or not.
Sorry, but I can't begin to squint hard enough to see that. The 2000s are over. The Revs, Fire, DCU and Houston don't get to run on those fumes. The Revs have done some things right in recent years (e.g. trading draft picks for players and signing Caldwell), though I can't qualify most of those things as ambitious. I do think the Jones lottery was fixed and that was ambitious. Yet here's some things that leap to my mind when I think about ambition: Is the team aggressive each winter about filling holes and constantly looking to upgrade? No. Does the team push after every trophy on offer, in particular the Supporter's Shield? No. Does the team aspire to win the CCL? No. Has the team been innovative in player development and the use of its affiliates? Not particularly. How prominent is the team in its own media market? Still a distant fifth. Add in the stadium situation, which is a running joke, and it doesn't paint a very ambitious picture. What I see is a franchise content to be in the league rather than lead it. Even on the competitive side of the equation, the Revs are hoping to make the playoffs and then take their chances. They're a bit low energy. My current status with the team is I buy a limited package, but I'll drop it if the team heads back into the tank. They can get some of my money when they're good enough (like they are at the moment). Ranking them in the bottom quintile for ambition (along with Chicago and Colorado) makes sense to me.
I think there is a difference between upgrade and revamp. The revs are probably never going to be one of those teams that replaces 5 or 6 starters in an offseason. They are far more about continuity than change. This isn't necessarily a sign of less ambition to me, it is simply a more conservative team building strategy. It's hard to conclude this outright. You could argue the revs don't start out well usually then go through a midsummer swoon (annually, sadly). Those are facts that inhibit a legit SS run. But then they also usually play well down the stretch from Aug to October and salvage points. The revs are usually never that far out of the SS conversation. In fact, they have been too of the league in points and among the hottest teams in May several times in the past few years. The challenge is maintaining that momentum and consistency throughout the summer months, which is a justifiable criticism. But in out league, there are rarely clubs that lead pole to pole. It's usually a battle of attrition by the elite teams - RBNY, Seattle, LA - whoever has the depth and quality to be just a tiny bit more consistent than the rest. Pick up draws rather than a lose here or there. It's the smallest of margins so while I see your point, I don't agree the revs "don't go for it" as if that's a conscious decision. Execution isn't there, ambition still may be, even if they are hush hush about it. Again, how can we conclude this? The revs have not qualified in the CCL places since 2008 and Nicol clearly did not put the right team on the field, resulting in our oft discussed Joe Public disaster. But here as we sit in 2016 with the revs coming just about as close to qualifying for the CCL without actually doing it as any MLS team, again like the Shield it's hard for me to conclude The CCL isn't among their annual goals. Execution isn't there, but the ambition still may be. I probably agree here to an extent. Rochester is underutilized and largely asymbolic 'tick the box' affiliation based on what the revs have gotten from it so far which is just about f-all. The Sporting relationship is JUST starting to earn them a few points though that took a year too long to turn into something. Sending guys to train, evaluate and scout is a good thing when it yields starting or decent player signings. It's less sophisticated than relationships between MLS and other clubs I will say that and probably the biggest area that needs improvement or demonstrates a lack of ambition. This is a tough one to levy against the revs considering Boston is the most sports mad pro market in the country with hundreds of colleges. The revs don't play in Portland or KC or Columbus - yes they could do more (I've harped on this fact as a marketer for over a decade) but I am not going to kill them for not outmarketing institutions red sox, pats, B's, and C's. It would be like getting on Philly or NYRB or NYC for not being more prominent in their major northeast markets. As you know being from the northeast we are traditionalists and it's much harder for younger teams to break in the elsewhere. Doesn't speak to a lack of ambition, more a function of being the youngest team in a big time pro sports town. 20 years is nothing. The stadium is a running joke because there is nothing concrete (see what I did there). When you have an ambition to build a beautiful new stadium and comment on it once or twice a year, it's just an ambition, nothing more. We all want the revs to turn this ambition into a result - which is what I commented on upthread. In teems of conpetitiveness, I think "low energy" is a reflection of conservative team building. Everyone else is happy to revamp, break and recreate on a seemingly annual basis while the revs are relatively conservative. It drives fans like us nuts. We all (myself included) rant about the philosophical differences and perceived laziness or ineptitude. However, the transitional 2010-12 notwithstanding, the revs have found themselves in the hunt for the cup, losing away to eventual champs in both 13 and 14. 2015 was a frustrating stumble into a disappointing play in loss, I will admit they didn't do a good job on the heels of their 14 run and momentum. In fact, a year ago I may have agreed with Wahl, but I don't this year based on new data. Fair enough, that is your prerogative. You give more $ than me at this point as we go to matches only sporadically when it's convenient. I haven't gotten a new jersey or any revs gear since pre UHC sponsorship in 2010. So, there's that. I think it makes sense if we take a long term view of ambition rather than year to year. Use quintiles and say "in the post Beckham era" the revs are among the league's least ambitious teams based on comparable factors. Until recently, DC was playing in a condemned 50 year old NFL stadium. Chicago made an early deal with Bridgeview that is now an albatross for the city, tough to get to, concrete and already antiquated. Columbus was the first to build in 99 perhaps demonstrating their ambition, but even after investment and improvements it's hard to get to, ugly and nothing special. Colorado, same thing, strike a deal with a suburb, yes they have their own SSS but it's nothing special. Dallas, well Frisco is 40 miles from the city, the stadium is nothing special. Yes, these all exist but I am hesitant to give these teams massive kudos for their SSS. Seattle plays in a NFL stadium. Portland plays on turf. The revs could have build a stadium across the street in Foxboro or in Freetown or Revere probably but it may not have been the right solution. I prefer DC's approach. Where I conclude: please don't say the revs are dead last in 2016 ambition based on 2015-16 results, that is a link bait headline IMO.
Really lazy work by Wahl on this one. We're in the penalty box for not having an SSS. Shocker. Let's call "ambition" what it really is: does it give the so-called MLS press things to write about in the off-season?
Yeah, he seems to rate how many DP's a team signs as the most important component to his ranking system. Weird.
In case people missed this in the article: Wahl sent questions out to every team. Some teams answered in depth, others did not. Here is the info for the Revs http://www.si.com/planet-futbol/2016/03/04/mls-ambition-rankings-new-england-revolution
Why? Going out and spending your own money (not the leagues) on those players is a bad judgement of being ambitious?
It's definitely one measure of ambition, and it's valid as long as you apply that measure consistently to all teams. There are a number of criteria which, applied to all teams, provide a set of ambition rankings which can at least be debated. Wahl's article is nearly indistinguishable from a post in MLS N&A forum. That said, criticizing Wahl's sloppy article should not be viewed as a defense of the Revs.
He did list his criteria at the beginning of the article and also sent out a questionnaire to every team. Which of his questions that he asked the teams did you feel was inappropriate? And as talked about above, if you view the team rankings in tier groups, which teams do you think he screwed up in his general placement of?
Lots to digest with this topic, and many ways to define "ambitious." Having said that, the criteria he lists seem reasonable enough to take into consideration and can help distinguish teams who really are ambitious than those who are just along for the ride. And of course, the business end needs to be separated from the product on the field in a given year, since those things don't always correlate. The most "ambitious" move by the most "ambitious" club was when they signed David Beckham, which really was a revolutionary move, but they finished in last place that year. I used to like Wahl, but ever since he started on his FIFA soapbox, he's shown himself to be a total fool who would have trouble thinking his way out of a paper bag, with the ethical compass of a mid-level politician. A few years ago when he "ran for FIFA President," it was a publicity stunt, but he could have used that platform to expose the hypocrisy and shady side of what is just starting to come out. Instead, he's been the typical media lapdog who will never ruffle feathers if he thinks it could cost him anything. If you want to be a whistle-blower, you have to accept that it will piss people off, and those in power can (and likely will) use their power against you. Anyway, one area that I would weigh on the "ambitious" scale is how well they do with low-hanging fruit. The things that can make a difference but don't take a lot of money or effort, and the Revs do not do particularly well here. This is unscientific for sure, but I've visited a lot of airports in the past few years, many of them in MLS markets. IIRC, they always have some MLS club gear in the airport shops, and this includes "barely-in-market" places like San Francisco, where San Jose is considered like Hartford or Wista, and Cincinnati, where they had Crew gear, even though the airport is in Kentucky and also had UK, Lou-a-ville, UCinncinati, Ohio State, plus Bengals and Reds gear. Montreal had tons of Impact stuff, and that was the year before they were even in MLS. I've seen tons of NYC gear, less (but still some) Red Bulls stuff in New York, but I've never seen revs stuff at Logan. Hundreds of colleges? The only college gear I've seen is BC and Harvard. The Revs gear isn't being pushed off the racks to make room for Salem State, Stonehill and Curry sweatshirts and distressed hoodies. That aside, is there anyone, anyone at all who doesn't think the Revs are in the bottom 20%, along with Colorado, Chicago and Philly?
I actually think we are no where near Philly. They absolutely suck at building a team, but the stuff they do off the field for infrastructure is very impressive and will eventually pay dividends down the line. The money they are spending on youth development puts us to shame. They helped build and run an entire high school. There is zero comparison in NE. This would be laughed at by the Krafts as a waste of money http://www.yscacademy.com/about-us They are also building their own state of the art training complex. We compare that to one tiny parcel of grass that the Revs get at Gillette and it is kind of embarrassing. http://www.mlssoccer.com/post/2015/...ompleted-training-complex-signals-new-chapter