Certainly the on-field equation is part of it. The object here is to win and win with some style, and Landon Donovan is a great weapon at MLS level to help you do that. And since Landon's salary counts for only $270k on the cap, there's not really much better you can do on the field. - There are guys like O'Brien, for instance, who are a bit of dumb luck (nobody knew when he was signed that he'd be this good). - There are guys like Dempsey (or formerly Johnson) which are products of younger players in this league more or less always being underpaid (until they get out of their first contracts), which you take advantage of by drafting well (with or without signing Donovan). - And that leaves you with guys like Guevara, but MLS history has shown that trying to sign the next one is anywhere from a 3:1 to a 10:1 shot (outnumbered by the ones who end up solid but not dominant, and the ones who end up like SGR), and whose contract shoots up to max-cap the moment they do. (As his is). With foriegners, there's almost always a little luck invovled. Given all that, it's not surprising that it's worth a premium to get a guy that you come as close to soccer allows to certitude will consistently be in the top 5 or so players in the league for years. Same sense I meant it. It just seems to be you were arguing that AEG was kind of 'taking Donovan's side' and thus making the negotiation a little moot. I'll disagree in that I took his quotes to imply that playing time was a not inconsequential part of his problems in Germany. Another part was bad (non-) interaction with the coach. Another part was cultural that might have been unique to Germany or his particular town. And also, to be sure, the desire to be back in California. I don't know what he earned with Lev, so I can't say how much of a paycut he actually took to come home (probably, in the long run and considering endorsements, no pay cut at all). For me to argue that because he didn't take a huge cut means he wouldn't have taken one is a little circular, but you don't see players taking cuts every day just to feel more confortable (in many cases, even where you'd think they would), if only because agents and unions pressure them not to. AEG probably did not have the time to do this in this case. Or at least they'd have had to wait for the next transfer window. (Time pressure, btw, is one of the classic negotiating disadvantages, right next to information asymmetry).
OTOH, here's another angle: Looking at NE's salary structure, it makes you wonder if a winning strategy is not: - Don't sign anyone for over $200k - Trade allocations or cap space for draft picks - Scout more than anyone else Clint Dempsey at $58k would clearly be the league's MVP if you were taking into account how much he was paid. In addition, Parkhurst is also quite underpaid for his performance, due to his also being on his first MLS contract. Noonan, probably on his second contract, is making $76k, but is probably still underpaid for his performance. Also Shalrie Joseph and Taylor Twellman are a relatively recent Rev draftees, and certainly not overpaid at $120k and $132k, respectively. And don't forget good role players in Dorman and Riley. Rev may have had the most successful draft run in league history over the last three years. It seems the lesson there is that good drafting pays big dividends. And they can even last into the second contract, if you leave enough space for several $75-150k level acquisitions. But then, has anyone ever won the championship with a backbone of guys with three years experience or less? And further, why does Chad Marshall already make $91k as a second year player? Which is the rule here and which is the exception?
Oh don't get me wrong-- I certianly agree you'd always prefer to have name field players-- they will sell more tickets. But if, say, you need 3 Mexican name players-- any 3-- to create an impression of ties with the mother club, and each of the field players costs $400-500k like Ramon, then adding Zuniga doesn't seem like such a stupid idea. I agree few gks are going to be so superior to the average American GK that spending the extra bank makes sense normally-- but I think Chivas' unique marketing needs made this an acceptable decision. Now, with hindsight, given that Zuniga hardly played at all and was awful when he did, the decision to spend that money on him is catastrophic, given the fragility of the rest of the team.
The same reason Eskandarian makes about the same in his 3rd year and the reason Besagno and Quirk signed for $86k without playing a game. It's all about what kind of leverage you have in other offers when signing your contract. Look at how MLS lowballed players with no other options (Alex Yi anyone, Szetela after the Everton deal fell through, Twellman's original deal).
I get it. I understood the principle--in this case, that the first couple picks in the draft (like Eski, Marshall, Besagno, though not Kirk) appear to have a history of getting paid 2 to 3 times the minimum salary (obviously not counting that Adu got a good bit more than that) and it drops off fairly quickly after that. I just didn't remember he'd been drafted 2nd.
The first round of the 05 Superdraft... 1. Besagno - $86.5 2. Guzan - $45.0 3. Barrett - $37.5 4. O'Rourke - $35.0 5. Ihemelu - $30.0 6. Moor - $42.5 7. Freeman - $40.0 8. Roberts - $16.5 9. Parkhurst - $42.5 10. Stewart - $37.5 11. Sealy - $30.0 12. Ward - $37.5 So if I'm Troy Roberts, I have to be wondering what the hell happened in my negotiations. Maybe he's got a different guarantee for years 2-3, but if not... 2nd round: 13. Watson - $35.0 14. Jimenez - $30.0 15. Enfield - $40.0 16. Pore - $42.5 17. Goldthwaite - $16.5 18. John - $37.5 19. Van Sicklen - $28.0 20. Storey - $16.5 21. Riley - $28.0 22. Nolly - $16.5 23. Mediate - $11.7 24. Sawyer - No contract After that everyone seems to be at $28.0 or less, or not in the league. So there's no difference between being #3 and being #18; it's all about a player's ability to negotiate with the league.
Isn't that how sports work though, especially ones with salary caps. You can't afford to pay underachievers cause they performed well in the past, can you?
To the extent it motivates younger players to perform so that they can receive that same kind of treatment later, yes.
I was under the impression that the under-$28k players were receiving money from other sources and getting stipends, but a couple other people have said that that's not always the case. Hence my original statement was wrong.
The original P-40 program gave the kids $10k a year for college expenses should they leave early and things not pan out. Not cash in your pocket kind of stipend, but it was something. But that was only for P-40/Gen Adidas, not for the regular Developmental guys.
Based on this article, I don't know if we can find a difference between Ga and non-Ga. Doesn't look like it on the surface. O'Rourke's pay is in line with the others, for example.
He's that mythical goalie "pool" the league had in the past in case both your keepers went down in the same week. With the third keeper (reserve reserve) on most teams, I thought they might have gotten rid of it, but I guess not. I heard that Andrew Terris was now in the pool as well, but maybe he was just temping in Columbus for a week or two. Great find on the list! Thx, Jay!
No. You reward the performers. Armas, however, had some sort of a French deal supposedly happening a few years ago. MLS offered him enough to stay. BTW, MLS did basically match Everton's offer for Szetela.
I would discount the DEV players because they are not 'real MLS players.' By last year's rules, these kids would have no MLS jobs at all. The DEV roster is essentially a newly created level below MLS. (I doubt folks count the non rostered EPL players when figuring their average salary, to the extent they even do that at all, but someone can correct me there if I'm wrong). It's an ingenious scheme, in that respect. You're basically taking A-League players, paying them even less than A-League money, and yet having them available on a moment's notice for emergency purposes. I'm surprised by the guys they have gotten to do it. They should at least be discounted for any time comparison purposes, if we're trying to figure out whether salaries are growing or not (btw, it would be interesting to compare this year's total payroll with last).
He has a point, though. These kids all dream of that multi-year, max-cap, guaranteed contract. That seems to be a major motivator in many American sports.
ya, because the sums involved can be huge. What does MLS pay in relative terms? Nothing. I am surprised there's not been more acrimonious hold-outs, aside of Cienfuegos, Ruiz and Garcia Arce.
'Relatve' to what? Relative to $30,000, a lot. You would think NBAers who are already millionaires would be a little more sanguine about their next multi-year contract, but I don't see it.
How do you figure? SGR, while still not a world beater, has more goals than both of those two players combined.
Well I know the kids in San Jose that are under dev deals get a housing per diem..in that they are grouped up and live as roomates in an apartment provided by the team..nothing fancy. I assume that all the teams have something similar in place as it is immpossible to expect kids making 11-15K to afford to live in cities. In fact I remember the Fire Reserves do the same thing for their players in the summer coming in to play..they hook them up with places to stay..so its not just MLS.
It's not a statement you can categorically disagree with. To the extent that young players are motivated by perks that older players get but may not be earning, it works. If they are not so motivated because they do not believe the league will treat them similarly when they are old, it won't work. Loyalty to older employees is viewed as disappearing everywhere, but still people in every profession are willing to work hard when young in order to get perks granted to more senior people on the basis of past performance. Looking at the contracts granted to many older players, I think you see at least some evidence that this is still the case.