Nunez to Dallas?!?!?

I have no problem with this. We had guys available and made our moves already. Suppose we had passed on Earnie and let Dallas have him and then Tyson doesn't work out. We would look pretty stupid then. If they get him, that is great for MLS and I still think we are better than them.

 

I think he'd work out better than Dogleash.

Dalglish - Dogleash
Tomato - Tomahto

 

Ah well, just bad timing for us I guess. But then we wouldn't have done some of our moves since we couldn't have afforded him with everything else we've done and Dallas is gonna have to unload some salary to get him. Still Nunez is what Dallas needs to move forward and really be a serious contender.

 

If the whole league gets better, it is a good thing. I think Nunez would improve the league.

That being said...this Ivanov better be damn good.

 

I like Nunez--a lot! He's a tremendous player. But this wasn't Ivanov or Nunez. Instead, it was Nunez or Stewart. Remember, we were planning on spending an allocation on a striker. Hudson talked to Nunez and he said "no" (or actually said "more than you can afford to pay me Ray") and so Hudson went elsewhere.

Signing Nunez would have had a multitude of ripple impacts. He's a SI. Since I'm not sure if Stoichkov has his green card now (I'm not sure if the customs hangup was that or a chance in his work status) and we already had Nelsen, than we probably would have still added Ivanov and ditched Nelsen OR not added Ivanov and looked for an American central defender (maybe put Petke there). Certainly if we'd added Nunez we'd have passed on Stewart--and he'd have gone to Dallas.

Will Dallas sign Nunez? At first, you'd think that is a no-brainer. Except that Jordan may not return and they've got Countess (who has gotten injured both years in MLS and barely played)...and Johnny Walker from Catolico is supposed to be returning to MLS. If they can add only 1 player, Nunez is clearly the better player but they may need to reload at keeper more.

We asked Nunez. He said "no". The only way we'd have had a shot at him now is to pass on Stewart, pass on Joe Max Moore and then who knows what our draft strategy would have been (probably would have traded a pick for Razov!).

 

It's still crap that neither Joe-Max or Nunez were available to the teams that had allocations when those teams still had them.

What's the point of a "you suck" allocation if the true impact players aren't available to the bad teams?

And, even worse, since MLS controls all player signings it creates the *possibility* that the league can influence the strength of each team in a number of ways.

And you don't have to believe the league actually exercises this power to believe it's harmful either. There needs to be some sort of oversight -- just like there is in ever other sport, every other industry and every other institution.

 

I'd say the point of the you suck allocation is to get first (or second) choice at what might come along in the offseason. Even still we get first choice at Nunez or Hedjuk or JMM or what have you. But the salary cap and SI cap makes us choose how to build. Honestly I am happier with Stewart than Nunez for a variety of reasons.

 

I agree Skip. I think Stewart gives us much more versatility than Nunez and Nunez is still not a sure thing.

 

If Stewart plays 40+ matches for DC I'll be surprised.

But my point is that what use is a "you suck" allocation if a team like Dallas, who didn't suck at all last year, ends up getting the next Ruiz? Not saying Nunez is that guy, but he might be.

 

Good things come to those who wait.

 

Tyson would have been a great fit in DC. For whatever reason he didn't want to come to DC or decided not to come here for the pay.

The scary thing is that if Tyson can adjust to MLS then I think Dallas would be my favorite to reach the MLS cup this year. They have a solid back line, the best pair of wide midfielders in MLS IMO, and then a speedy forward to pair with Kreis which is something they have never had (Graziani was slow and a poacher). What can Dallas do now that for the first time ever they have both wide midfielders and 2 forwards?

However it seems that lots of teams have upgraded considerably (LA, NY, KC, Col, NE), DC has reshuffled, Dallas has stayed put, Columbus is in limbo (what happened with Hejduk? is McBride back for sure or might he be bought and not play the MLS season?) and San Jose and Chicago will field weaker teams than a year ago.

Dallas pretty much needs a player to push for the title against teams like Colorado, LA, and NE that look strong from here.


But on the DC side I don't think you can be disappointed in signing Earnie. He isn't going to tear up MLS, but he will do better than anybody did last year and he is the type of person you want on your team (experienced, easy to manage) to help along all the young players on the roster.

 

Stewart = Bird in the hand

Nunez = Two in the bush




The bird in the hand is always better.

 

I think that the value of allocations has gone down dramatically. I'm not whining about that--it's only the reality of what MLS has evolved into. It used to be the only way you got talent was from an allocation (be it Jorge Campos or Digital Takawara). Now, an allocation can just as easily be DeWayne DeRosario. Or Arnulfo Cruz.

We can complain that we didn't get a shot at Nunez. But we did. And he said "no." If Hudson had waited until the Euro transfer window was closed, had gone into the draft with NONE of the allocations resolved, had delayed on a bunch of players coming out, then yes, we'd be a player in the Nunez sweepstakes. Frankly, I'd rather have the team together sooner rather than later. It makes other decisions (draft choices in the superdraft, waiver selections, contract signings) much more informed.

To have delayed on using our allocations (which is what would have had to happen in the Nunez case--b/c he wasn't interested in MLS until no-one from Europe came a-calling) means we'd have gone into the Superdraft shooting blind. I know, I know, people say "choose the best available athlete." I like Ursula's analysis on this--absolutely spot on. San Jose was probably the least prepared team going into the draft. They could guess that the needed a left back (given Barretts overseas trials and his public comments about "time to give Europe a try.") but not much else. Otherwise, the only thing they knew for sure was that they had holes. Didn't know if they were replacing Cannon, Barrett, Agoos, Conrad, Lagos, Mulrooney, Ekeland, Graziani--and in December, even Donovan. We went into the draft knowing areas we could use depth at, how many roster spots were committed our approximate cap situation. We knew what trade options made sense (and which ones didn't). I think it led for a smarter draft.

One last thought--what if Nunez doesn't want to come to DC? Maybe this was never an option. Hudson said it was about money. We could speculate about this--maybe Nunez hates Reyes, prefers warmer weather, who knows? I'm sure money was the big issue. But if we'd waited, I think we get a confused draft. I think we'd have passed on Earnie Stewart and Joe Max Moore. I think we might still not have gotten Nunez. And then we'd be starting practice with our head coach criss-crossing Europe trying to find a finisher.

One last thought--Serie Zed, why do you think Stewart is injury prone? This guy has a reputation as an iron-man. He's been there for his club and (except for the injury in the WC) for the USA. Plus he's a "gamer" who brings it in big matches and also plays hurt. I'll tell you what, counting foreign matches, playoffs and the like, I think Stewart might play 40+ matches for DCU in 2003 alone! If he doesn't, I think it's more likely to be b/c of National team commitments than injury.

 

Re: Stewart...he's 34 and his game is based on running. Bad combination -- he's not Valderrama.

I was also thinking only about regular season games, which would mean that at age 34 and 35 he'll play in 2/3rds of our matches over the next two MLS seasons. I just don't think it's likely.

I also don't believe Stewart is an impact player like a Ruiz or Twellman (though I love the guy).

As for Nunez, I understand what happened. But the system sucks. It's broken. It doesn't work.
And that drives me nuts even if you discount the possibility (which I don't) that MLS plays games to manipulate (or maybe "influence" is a better word) end-of-season standings.

 

1. I wouldn't say Stewart's game is built on running. He's smart, technically good, a superb athlete who played many sports and didn't take up football until he was 12, extremely quick. But b/c he has a high energy level and doesn't stop running, we say "his game is based on running." That's like saying Roy Keane's game is based on running b/c we see him all over the field. So we have a different take on this. But I agree that anytime you get a player over 26 (who has played a lot of football) you need to be wary of injuries. That is certainly true of Stewart (and Nunez for that matter).

2. You prefer Nunez over Stewart and don't think Stewart is the finisher the team needs. We'll see. Stewart has done far better in club play than Nunez has (and that includes play in Mexico, Greece and England for Nunez). Doesn't mean he's a punk, only that Stewart has consistently gotten it done at a pretty high level. Nunez has tremendous talent but his performance has been spottier.

3. I wouldn't say the "system is broken." This Nunez situation is a function of the Euro transfer window. And frankly, I don't think getting a YSA allocation (which is what we got and what we traded for) means we are guaranteed first shot at ALL incoming foreign talent. In an off-season, opportunities emerge. You jump on them when you have the chance, or wait and usually the windows close. Remember the Korean striker Hang? We were offered him by the league and passed. Maybe that was a mistake--but that's the reality of a sport where soccer is played professionally in some league at every day in the season (thus, transfers occur year round). The only solution to fix this would be everyone played on the same schedule with only 2 transfer windows.

 

One more positive for signing Earnie is that you will probably sell more tickets with him in your starting 11, don't you think? He's a real name in US Soccer ala Landon, Reyna and maybe a few others. That's got to be worth something.

Plus you guys are going to have a pretty competitive team each weekend. (And maybe even a few road wins this year... )

 

I'll tell you what, if you could ever measure it, Earnie would have maybe a 500 ticket bump for a few games.

We've seen a decline in attendance here the past year and it is generally attributable to two things: sucky team and a sucky service economy. You could bring in Ronaldo and DC wouldn't see that big of an increase in attendance if those two factors did not change.

Hence, if anything were to help attendance round these parts it would be a good team.

I bet Stoichkov and Earnie together will bring in a thousand extra the first two matches. After that it is mostly about winning. A winning team playing exciting matches will transcend economic problems to some degree. A losing team with big names will do nothing.

Cheers,
Tim

 

And yet another postive to Stewart is that even if his numbers a little below Nunez, Stewart is not an SI. Meaning that HCB2, Nellie and either Stoichkov (if he does not yet have a green card) or another SI can be on the roster. T What that means is that Ray can still tinker with the roster by looking at foriegn talent, if he wishes.

 

El Jefe, that allocation bit ain't quite accurate. First, DC United got an allocation this year (the YSA) and traded for another. Dallas could have traded for an allocation.

Second, no-one got allocations last year. Or technically speaking, everyone did--the allocation and dispersal drafts. Those were in leu of the normal allocations. The year before that, DC was, I believe, capped out and unable to use it's allocation for not making the playoffs.

I thought that Dallas got an allocation for acquiring Lubos Kubik who then retired the next year.

One last point: I believe Dallas has received more allocations than has DC United in their MLS history. By my count, United has received a total of 6 allocations (Etcheverry, Berthy-Suarez, Moreno as a replacement for Suarez, Cruz, an allocation traded in 2001, and then the YSA allocation which was used for Ivanov). Dallas has received more far more than that. It's just that most of those players haven't chosen to stay with Dallas very long.

 

I wasn't saying anything about Dallas being cut a break in this case. Sorry if you got the wrong idea.

 

El Jefe, let me put my take on team allocations all in perspective so you don't see this as an "anti-Dallas" diatribe or just venting at someone who's not a United fan on a United Board (but I see nothing wrong with other fans posting insight on other Boards).

1. Whether it's bias (b/c of the perceived need to have a successful team in some major markets, or building on the initial first year fan successes in NYC and LA--where both clubs drew some major crowds at first), I think all of us would admit that those two franchises have gotten the lion's share of major allocation talent. Hernandez, Mattheus, Donadoni, Branco. Guys that were deliberately chosen b/c they were seen to have the "reputation" that would supposedly draw fans to those cities and make them anchors for MLS. I actually (as anti-competitive as that is) can't disagree with that strategy. If the SoS had only built on their initial attendance (where they were getting 20-30K+ at early games), I think MLS would have gotten much different coverage and the league would be stronger, more teams and more diverse today. But that is besides the point. I think all MLS fans other than those from LA and the New York market would agree that those teams have gotten lots of big name allocations that cost the league a lot of money. Unfortunately, many of them have been disasters.

2. Almost all club fans then lament that their squad gets shafted by MLS when it comes to allocations. The Columbus folks insist it's b/c "we're a small midwestern city and the league is biased towards the coasts." KC and Dallas also tend to lament the lack of allocations (whether it's "we never got a member of the "94 US WC team" to "we get fewer allocations than anyone else" to "even the allocations we get don't work out.").

At one point I thought I'd take a look at the allocations given to respective teams. It was a while ago, my memory is now fuzzy on this and I can't remember the actual count. Dallas didn't receive as many allocations as the SoS. But I think the team that had received the fewest allocations was DCU followed by KC and then Columbus.

Dallas has received a pretty good number of allocations. Alain Sutter was a pretty big name. Hugo, Damian, Leonel Alvarez, Diego Sonora, Jorge Rodriguez (if I'm remembering my research correctly) were among your allocations. I'd personally argue that Alain Sutter was potentially as big of an allocation as any of the SoS talent they've ever received. Unlike Donadoni or Mattheus, he was still in top form and potentially could have contributed more. Unfortunately for the Burn and MLS, he got hurt and then left.

The line about "haven't chosen to stay with Dallas long" isn't a slam at the Burn. It's just that if someone recites the list of allocations Dallas has received (and I'm not arguing any of them are gifts), the responses tend to be: "but none of them was on the "94 WC team for the US" or "but Alain and Hugo only stayed a year so that doesn't really count."

Your original post implied that DCU has been getting allocations regularly lately and that Dallas has been getting the short end of the stick. The United allocation history is pretty short.

Initially, United was allocated Marco Etcheverry (who was first offered to Columbus but they declined him) and Berthy-Suarez (who they didn't want). Note--United was one of the few MLS teams that only received 2 marquee foreign allocations the first year. After Suarez was a bust and returned to Bolivia, at the tail end of the season, United got the league to replace him with a reserve player from Middlesborough--Jaime Moreno. Two years later, the league than "allocated" Arnulfo Cruz of Honduras to United (a player the team didn't want). United dumped Cruz several games into the season (traded him to San Jose who then cut him). United received a YSA allocation in 2001 but as I remember, couldn't use it (b/c of cap limitations). United then used an allocation on Ivanov this year (and traded for an allocation it used on Stewart).

United was unique in having 2 of it's 3 initial allocations (Etcheverry and Moreno) last for 7 years. Otherwise, the DCU history with allocations indicates that the team has received substantially fewer than the rest of the league, about half of the allocations were for players the league acquired and then forced on the team despite Payne/Arena's wishes.

I'm not arguing poverty or unfairness here. Only that the allocation business is grossly over-rated as a means of determining team results and some of the perceptions of how fair or unfair it has been don't match the actual numbers over the history of the league.

 

Another take on this would be to look at who has departed from DC United against the team's wishes and what sort of compensation was given. Just grabbing a name out of thin air.............Tony Sanneh springs to mind.........Ben Iroha, I think.........Diego Sonora, I recall..........Roy Wegs retired to play golf, but if he had been with the Mutts or LA, would they have received an allocation in return? United received nothing short of a swift kick in the shin for each of these departing players.

Tim