Roster, Draft Picks, Allocations, Discoveries: What we know, how we know it. [N&A]

It might not be a bad idea for them to wait until next year as this year's draft is supposedly weak. However, I'm sure the Mutts will manage to screw this up anyway.

 

Additionally, they are guaranteed to have the last pick this year. The question is it worth waiting for another year for a higher pick (possibly) or do the scum feel that there is someone that can take them to the next level and finally win a 1 playoff game!

 

The question for the Scum is whether it is better to have the 12th pick in 2005 or potentially the 14th pick in 2006 after DCU wins the Cup again and Garber gives Toronto a franchise along with Club America's team in Houston.

 

It's not necessarily a weak draft, but an unknown draft. So many of these players coming out were over shadowed by others on their team last year, or by those players that did come out early in 2004. For example, Segares from VCU, and probably very high on DCUnited's wish list, might very well be in the the same vein as Bocanegra or Nelsen. I don't believe this draft will rank up there with the 2001, but there might be some good players that come out of it. Remember, many of these players won't make an impact for a couple of years, but they'll have the advantage of playing in reserve games before they are thrust into the fire. I will say that it is likely the P-40 class is below average because it has been raped over the last couple seasons in the drafts.

 

You are correct. I wasn't going to guarantee that DCU was going to win the DCU cup again (but it was inferred )

 

I was not aware of the San Jose deal listed. Is that from the Barclay trade, does anyone know?



http://www.mlsnet.com/MLS/news/mls_news.jsp?ymd=20050106&content_id=20675&vkey=news_mls&fext=.jsp


2005 SuperDraft™ Draft Order
ROUND 1
1. Real Salt Lake
2. CD Chivas USA
3. Chicago
4. FC Dallas
5. San Jose
6. Los Angeles (from MET)^
7. Colorado
8. Los Angeles (from CLB)^
9. New England
10. Los Angeles^
11. Kansas City
12. DC United

ROUND 2
13. Real Salt Lake
14. CD Chivas USA
15. FC Dallas (from CHI)**
16. Colorado (from FCD)+
17. San Jose
18. Chicago (from MET)
19. Colorado <+
20. Columbus (from COL, CLB)
21. New England
22. Los Angeles
23. Columbus (from KC)
24. Kansas City (from DC)

ROUND 3
25. Chicago (from RSL)
26. CD Chivas USA
27. FC Dallas (from CHI)
28. KC (from FCD)**
29. San Jose
30. San Jose (from MET)
31. Colorado %
32. San Jose (from CLB)
33. Kansas City (from NE)
34. Los Angeles
35. Chicago (from KC)
36. Kansas City (from DC)

ROUND 4
37. Real Salt Lake
38. CD Chivas USA
39. Chicago
40. FC Dallas
41. Colorado (from SJ)%
42. San Jose (from MET)
43. Colorado %
44. Columbus
45. New England
46. Los Angeles
47. Kansas City
48. DC United #

CONDITIONAL PICKS BASED ON PAST TRADES:

% S.J. receives Colorado's highest 2005 3rd and 4th round picks

+ D.C. receives Colorado's highest 2005 2nd round pick

# S.J. receives D.C.'s highest 2005 3rd round pick. If no 3rd round picks, SJ receives D.C.'s natural 4th round pick
** K.C. receives FC Dallas 2005 2nd round pick, if not available K.C. receives natural 3rd round in 2005 and 2006

^ Chicago receives a 1st round pick from L.A. (either L.A., MET or CLB) at L.A.'s choice

& MetroStars receive either Top 30 pick in 2005 or Top 20 pick in 2006 at D.C.'s choice; in addition to 1st round in 2005 or 2006 at MetroStars choice
< Chicago receives a Colorado 3rd round pick; if not available Colorado's natural 2nd round will be used

NOTE: Dallas receives MetroStars' 2006 natural 1st and 2nd rounds, but MetroStars may provide 2005 1st round instead if they acquire such pick prior to the SuperDraft.


Here is a interesting tidbit that was in the press release:

 

Update:

As of right now there will be no allocation for Nelsen. The team said, "He was on free transfer, therefore no allocation is available." I put the condition in because we all know that KP & Co. will strenuously argue the importance of Nelsen. At least at the moment, don't expect any help.

 

I was also surprised to see that we will lose our 4th rounder. I thought that the Barclay deal was him for our #1 pick in the supplemental draft in which SJ took Ching with the pick. If that deal was not horrible enough (even though Ching was SJ bound from the A-League in one way or another), don't tell me that we had to also throw in a draft pick.

Speaking of Barclay, what did we ever get from the Crew for him?

 

I believe we got a stale potato chip for Barclay. Yes the Crew did overpay us...

 

MLS "Double Secret" Compensation Rules.

 

I was confused about that too. Somehow I don't think there was a special provision written in to the effect of if Moreno is United's season MVP and leads us to a championship the Metros get another random pick. But hey, I would have taken that deal anyways, so I figure if they want the pick because they are a major market with major problems I guess we're just going to have to let them take it.

 

Re: Roster, Draft Picks, Allocations, Discoveries: What we know, how we know it. [N&A

Ok, all of this crap is confusing as hell, maybe some of you guys can further enlighten me. Does this "pick list" incorporate the conditions or is it the list prior to the conditions being applied? Do the conditions mean we're giving up the 12th to Scum (if they want it, or '06 if they don't), and then getting 16 from Colorado? Also, I would guess next year we'll be giving Scum a top 20 pick since we'd have to give up the 16 this year since it's our only pick in the top 30.

As for the "developmental" draft, this blows. I guess we won't have a pick until #24, and then #s 36 and 48 right? I'd rather they just allow the teams to fill up their rosters by signing the undrafted players as Free Agents after the draft, like in the NFL. This substantially hurts our chances of signing late round sleeper talent that we'd have a much better shot at in a Free Agency.

 

I always thought that it was only one pick too, now they are getting two!

Did they give the Metrostars another pick so that they are not shutout of the draft?

 

Didn't they have some rule in past years that the teams had to declare who their "market draw" players are and those are the players that earn an allocation if they're gone? I remember this came up when Ben went to Forest.

 

You're referring I believe to the marque player rule (which said teams could designate a limited number of players--3 I think but I could be wrong--as marque players and the league would provide a replacement if they went down). This came to a head when Ben Olsen was injured (b/c he wasn't designated as marque b/c we thought he was going to be sold.

In any case, that rule has since been eliminated.

It used to be you didn't get allocations for a player who left unless he was sold (or you'd used an allocation to get him). Than the league gave an allocation to Dallas when Lubos Kubik (who was there one year) retired. The league didn't give an allocation if a player left on a free transfer (see: Sonora, Diego) until Chicago got one for Carlos Bocanegra. But now it appears that this "rule" has changed as well.

I think there are so many allocations out there this year that the league is probably just being a bit stingier with them. As a result, we're likely going to get stuck.

 

Yeah, but losing Nelsen and Stewart has to equal something. I have a hard time believing that we're going to get shafted on both deals. Hell, they can come up with some provisional allocation for the future and that would satisfy me.

 

I wonder if the fact that we left Nelsen unprotected in the Expansion Draft will make that argument a tougher sell.

Cherno

 

Given how much Fulham paid for Bocanegra, I can see their point.

 

Re: Roster, Draft Picks, Allocations, Discoveries: What we know, how we know it. [N&A

First things first, the Metrostars have to declare if they are going to take DCUnited first round in 2005 twenty-four hours in advance of the draft. If they decide to take it this year, then they get the #12 overall. If nothing changes, then DCUnited decides if they want to give up the #16 this season, or wait until next year to fulfill the trade by giving up a top 20 pick in 2006.

Now the interesting part. As a draft wizard, almost as fun as being an armchair GM, DCUnited's could really screw the Metros. For example, if the Metros decide they want the #12 pick this season, then you trade Q1 to SJ for the #5 and #30 overall picks - they need forwards! Once that's done, then DCUnited has the #5 and #16 picks, and the Metrostars have the #12 and #30 picks. DCUnited does give up the #48 pick to SJ to fulfill that conditional trade.

So, the Metrostars decide to take DCUnited's 2006 first round. However, if DCUnited gets to the conference finals in 2005, their best pick in the second round is 21st for the 2006 draft! All that being said, if the Metrostars choose the 2006 option, then the league will probably re-word the trade to read "top 24 picks" in 2006. That would give the Metrostars DCUnited's first two round in 2006. The actual second round pick might change slightly if DCUnited obtains other second round picks in 2006.

There is a great deal of media punditry emails flowing around at the moment, so take it for what its worth. The original plan was for there to be two added rounds to the draft. However, as correctly pointed out, basically all the rounds after the fourth were being used as trade bait and considered useless by the league. The idea that replaced it was for a four round draft, and allow teams to sign undrafted players under their own plans. Suddenly, several teams realized that this option gave distinct advantages to MLS teams that built up relationships with their local college conferences such as the ACC, Pac-10, and Big East, which are generally considered the better conferences in college. Those MLS teams would have an advantage at scouting and recruiting the "local talent".

What the reserve draft does is allow those teams hindered by geography to obtain the rights of players outside their sphere of influence. If the local team wants the player bad enough, then they will have to trade for him. No decision has been made, but expect an announcement on draft day about a reserve draft.

 

http://www.mlsnet.com/MLS/sje/load.jsp?section=about&content=transactions

"February 11, 2003: Acquired first overall selection in 2003 Supplemental Draft and conditional draft pick from D.C. United in exchange for F Devin Barclay."

http://dcunited.mlsnet.com/MLS/dcu/load.jsp?section=about&content=transactions
"Feb. 11: acquired forward Devin Barclay and fifth pick in 2003 MLS Supplemental Draft from San Jose in exchange for the first pick in the 2003 Supplemental Draft and a conditional pick in the 2005 MLS SuperDraft"

the 5th supp pick was passed on when it came to DC in 2003

So there was a conditional pick also involved as well as Ching. Not turning out to be the best trade! Anyone know if DC will ever get anything from Columbus for Barclay (as asked already by ZManGuner)?
http://dcunited.mlsnet.com/MLS/dcu/load.jsp?section=about&content=transactions
it was "future considerations"

 

Trade Idea

From what I understand, DC now has the 12th and 16th overall picks in the draft. Those picks are still conditional because the following terms apply:

The 1st Round pick, 12th Overall: The Scum can take either this pick or DC's natural 1st Round pick next year. The Scum have the choice.

The 2nd Round pick, 16th Overall: DC must give the Scum either a top 30 pick this year or a top 20 pick next year. DC has the choice.

I have a trade idea that allows DC to hang on to the 16th overall pick and screw the Scum. Acquire a pick in the top 30 for this year's draft:

DC should screw the Scum by trading next year's natural 2nd Round Pick to either San Jose or Dallas for a 3rd Round Pick this year. Dallas owns the 27th and 28th picks in this year's draft. San Jose owns the 29th and 30th Picks. Ideally, DC would trade next year's 2nd round pick to San Jose for the 30th Pick this year. DC would then opt to send that pick to the Scum giving them the bare minimum they're entitled to and keeping the 16th pick this year.

Unless DC finish in the bottom 3 of the league (meaning they'd pick between 13th and 15th next year), they come out ahead.

This trade makes sense for SJ because, even if DC wins the Cup again, they still go from picking #30 in 2005 to picking between #24 and #13 in 2006.

So to summarize:

DC trades 2006 2nd Round Draft Pick to San Jose for 2005 3rd Round Pick, #30 overall. DC sends 2005 #30 to Metroscum, fulfilling their trade obligation.

 

Not that this means much, but in a story out of KC regarding Kerry Zavagnin's hunt for a European contract, Wiz GM Curt "Johnson added that if Zavagnin does end up with a European club, he's hopeful the Wizards would receive a replacement allocation as compensation."

Should Johnson be hopeful of getting an allocation for losing a 30-year-old one-time Best XI player on a free and our GM(s) not be hopeful of getting one after losing a 27-year-old two-time Best XI on a free?