I've been thinking over a previous thread about the MLS's all-time best clubs, and have come to the conclusion that this year's edition of the Earthquakes will be as dominant in the regular season as the '98 Galaxy which racked up 68 points (10 better than DCU). (Incidentally, That '98 Galaxy squad was the only team to ever top the 60 point mark for the season.) I think that San Jose will be so dominant no so much by any big signings in the off-season, but rather the lack of any significant player losses. Yes, Yallop and Moore are gone from the front office, but Kinnear should be a more than adequate replacment, and if Lalas can help w/ ticket sales and the stadium situation, then that can only help. Let's run down the rest of the league and the chances of each team being one of the dominant MLS Clubs: Columbus. They sucked with McBride. Not a factor. DC: A sort-of traveling freak show, but I don't see the horses that will make them much of a factor during the regular season. New Jersey: While I think they can be competitive, there are too many way-too-young players here for them to truly barge their way into MLS' top 2 or 3. Then again, who knows what free-agents might wind up on the team. Dallas: On the upswing (no where else to to go), but I will be shocked if this team competes for the Supporters Shield. Its true that San Jose went from wet turds to Champs in a year, but I don't see any LD or Agoos clones in Big D, either. Kansas City: Here is a squad that sees their 40 year-old league MVP break an ankle and out for a number of months. Yes, he can come back and make an impact, but the record has to suffer with him out. I also think Meola slipped a bit last year. So what's left? Chicago. An always tough squad with a great coach and really interesting players. However, losing Boca and Thorton means they will be giving up too many goals this year. A good team, but slippage from the top rung. Colorado. I think this is going to be tough club to beat. They've got a lot of confidence coming off the 2nd half of last year. Chung seems to improve every year and a full year of Super Cannon will only boost this club even higher. That said, I think they are still a notch below the Quakes. They finished 11 points behind San Jose last year, and I could envision them finishing from 7 to 12 behind again this year. New England. The way I see it is Chicago's loss is New England's gain. A healthy Twellman spells trouble for the rest of the league. Still, there are some nagging thoughts such as how they mishandled the Kamler re-signing. I like this team, but they can play like crap for too long a period to put them at the top of the heap. I've got them neck-and-neck with Colorado for #2 in the league. Los Angeles. They sucked last year. So they've brought in Herzog and Kirvoski. Now Herzog for all I know could be the reincarnation of Molnar, but Kirovski - I don't know. Wake me up in July. I think there are some major question marks regarding impact players on this club: Cobi Jones was simply not an impact player last year. Suarez didn't do diddley. Bo is on his last year for MLS - will he be motivated? And the Ruiz salary situation is unbelievable. This is a team that could put it all together again, but I see a collapsing house of cards. So, the bottom line as I see it: Quakes rack up 60 points and come close to LA's record 10 point differential over MLS's 2nd best team. This could be the year of the triple or even quadruple for the Quakes: Supporters Shield, MLS Cup, US Open Cup and Champions Cups.
      I hope you're right (and you very well could be), but only time will tell. -G
While there may be no LD clones in Dallas. Corey Gibbs could definitely be better in '04 than Agoos was in '01
I haven't seen a thread like this since the LA fans spent much of the last offseason claiming the treble for themselves before a game was played. As for the Revs, they signed Kamler to a multi-year deal. I'd hardly call that mishandling the situation...
Fer crying out loud - a DYNASTY???? I think a Dynasty needs at least their own stadium. Or a coach that sticks around. There are 10 teams in the league. TEN!! Make all the predictions you want for next season, but try not to use words like Dynasty. And in terms of LA - we've managed to pick up about 4 more serious additions in the attack dept. We had a killer draft and adjusted our formation. We won't be starting the season with a 100-game road trip. That said, I'm fairly certain that the streets will flow with the blood of the non-believers (aka the Smurfs)
I am a DCU fan who was rooting for SJ against Chicago in the finals last year (because I didn't want Chicago to beat us to the treble), but regrettably, I have to agree with the latter half of Calexico's post. I would not want to have to deal with LA. Quite frankly, I think they are going to be quite devastating once they learn to play together. No way I see SJ run away and hide with the title. It's going to be a dogfight. Despite the movement of some Nats out of the league, this league is still on the upswing. Teams are getting better. So just staying pat from a championship year doesn't guarantee you another title.
do not dismiss Dallas so soon Its easy to speculate this far out. So while we are doing it. Its too early to count Dallas out for a few reasons. They are back in the Cotton Bowl. For whatever reason, the Burn never seemed to have a solid home field advantage in South Lake like they did in the Cotton Bowl. Some people like Countess, and though it was a shame to see him go. To me he seemed green and inconsistant. Garlic is a clear upgrade. Dallas' defence in 2003 was sad. Adding Gibbs and Jolley should make a dramatic improvement. Dallas has finishers already on staff, the midfield is OK. Last year the mids spent too much time sucked into thier own half helping defend. This year there should not be that situation. They addressed many of the problems they had last year. I expect Dallas to do very well this year.
      I remember that too, which is why I stated that only time will tell.       That rules out DC United as a dynasty, then.       Then the '99 DC United squad shouldn't be considered part of the franchise's dynasty years.       *yawn* Already heard this at this same time last year... and it was a bit more believable then than now.       I do agree that it's a bit too early to be calling the Earthquakes a dynasty, especially since the other MLS teams have improved themselves quite a bit - though hopefully the Quakes can be officially called a dynasty in a few more years. -G
No way the Quakes reach 68 points. They aren't that good; they never will be. They just don't have that kind of talent. What they do is play together extremely well...the sum being greater than the sum of its parts kind of thing. It will be interesting to see how a change of coach effects things as well. Also, some people say Champions should never stay pat for the following year, which is essentially what they've done (with the exception of dumping Lagos). They're a year older, never a good thing. They're almost guaranteed to be solid, and probably very good, but anything beyond that is guess work. Still, in today's sports landscape, 2 out 3 championships verges on a "dynasty" label. If they had won the Supporters Shield in the "off" year, which they almost did (leading for much of the year; losing the last game to cost them the Shield), then the label "dynasty" might already apply.
How do you know that Dominic Kinnear isn't just the next Mike Jeffries -- an assistant for a great head coach who can't quite get it all together when he gets his shot? You know, coaching greatness doesn't exactly rub off or transfer by osmosis. Just because a guy worked for a very successful coach doesn't necessarily mean that he's going to be a good coach. As far as I'm concerned, Dominic Kinnear has only slightly better credentials than Peter Nowak. Incidentally, when San Jose and Dallas were filling their coaching vacancies during the 2000-01 offseason, Mike Jeffries was San Jose's first choice. When Dallas hired him, they went with their second choice, Frank Yallop, an assistant with a rather dismal DC United team. Funny how that works.
Oh man, I didn't predict the Quakes would rack up 68 points - especially not w/in 30 matches. They would have to compile a record of something like 20 wins, 2 losses and 8 ties. Ain't gonna happen. However, I do think that 60 is doable. Does anyone really think the Quakes can't go 18-6-6 this year?
I'll respond to a couple of comments here: First, regarding the Kinnear to Jeffries comparison. Kinnear is inheriting a championship club - Jeffries did not. Even if Kinnear eventually ********s everything up, I still think he should wrangle a Quadruple this year. I realize that too much of my first post was: Rest of League Sucks = Quakes Win 2004 Quaruple. I didn't mean to over-accentuate that. There may have been a net out-flow of talent this year, but so many of the key players are young and still developing. my only complaint about the league right now is also its greatest compliment: The league is suffering from the lack of solid international creative midfielders (Etch, Cien, Valderamma, Nowak, etc). However, all the young Americans out there should continue to develop by leaps and bounds. As for the Quakes - look at the lineup. Yes, they are a year older - So the defense could be an issue w/ Onstad, Agoos and Dayak all of the grizzled variety. But no MLS team can match the Quakes strength up the middle - Onstad, Agoos, Dayak, Ekelund, Mulrooney, Donovan, Other forward (DeRo/Walker/Faria/Ching/Mullan).
I love the Quakes. They're my favorite MLS team. But do you know how much parity there is in MLS and how much the Quakes would have to stand out to go 18-6-6? And you do realize that last year the Quakes lost to a Honduran (or was it Guatemalan?) team last year in the CCC? as far as a Quadruple goes? Last year the Quakes lost to Seattle in the Open Cup. Not exactly a sign of total domination. Like Mr. Jefe says: 60 points? the Quadruple? doable? Sure. But highly, highly unlikely.
They have to win it all this year in order to be considered a dynasty. I still believe however, that the ultimate measure for a team will be there international achievements. Until a team can duplicate what DCU did in the early days, there should be no arguement.
Exactly. A dynasty is the Yankees from 1936 to 1953. The Boston Celtics from 1959 to 1970. Teams that went through 3 or 4 line-up changes and never faltered in quality. With that, they captured people's imagination, had a big, supportive fan base, etc. There are no MLS Dynasty's. The whole concept is ESPN jerk-off fodder. There are just some teams that had a good couple of years. Maybe when DCU sells out RFK with Freddinho bringing them their 5th consecutive title, then we can talk.
      But how can DCU ever become a dynasty if they stay in RFK (which doesn't belong to them)? Didn't you just say that there can be no dynasty if the team doesn't own its own stadium? -G
      Oh yeah, and the San Francisco 49ers from 1981 to 1998 were also a dynasty. -G
wasn't Goose defender of the year in 2001? at least best XI ... so if Gibbs tops that, Dallas found something pretty special. I don't think the Quakes will be topping 60 points ... they'll be missing Landon, maybe Mulrooney and Mullan, DeRo and Onstad to WCQ ... I just hope they're in position to make some noise at the end.
but wait! they can't be ... they shared their stadium with the Giants. Remember, dynasties must have their own stadium. for the record, the Quakes aren't a dynasty but to say they're not -- or any team is not -- because of where they play is the stupidest reason I've heard.
Hey that was a Galaxy fan saying that, he's just got title envy. If San Jose wins another title than they can be compared to DC as a dynasty.
Talk of a San Jose "dynasty" is pretty silly at this point. Contrary to the analysis in that begins this thread I'd think that most of the teams in the league will be improved whereas the 'Quakes have stayed pat. Hate to say it, but a Galaxy title seems more likely to me right now.