The Designated Player

Get rid DP rule it hurts more the teams in the long way.
it makes fake the salary cap.
for exsample my galaxy team.
beckam 6,000,000
donovan 900,000
the rest of the team 2.3 mil - 800,000 = 1,500,000
total = 8,400,000
I think is the highest real salary in MLS and they are not the champions
with the money they could build a better team not just to compete in MLS but in
SL and CCL and win it.

 

If the league continued to add DP slots per each team in the years ahead, those roster regulations would be a fine (and somewhat expected) step in the continued maturation and growth of the league.

Of course, not all teams are going to opt (or be able) to use all (or any) of their DP slots.

Ideally, the designated players in MLS of the future will be in the league more and more for their skill (on-field productivity) than for their marketability (name and off-field promotional value).

But of course, the DP rule was (primarily, it would seem) set up initially (for the first DP) to be a marketing tool for the league (and it is hard to argue that in that sense it didn't work).

It will be interesting to see what becomes of the DP rule in the years ahead, or in what other/new ways the league may work to get players into the league (and/or keep them on MLS rosters).

completely agree. I would suspect the resolution to the CBA negotiations will affect (and come before) many other decisions and areas of the business of MLS (or at least the league's formal announcements of those decisions and business steps) this off-season.


Here's a quick look back at the first announcement from the league on this topic from Nov 11, 2006:

(note: was it really that recently when MLS was just expanding from 12 to 13 teams? what a cute little league.)​

http://web.mlsnet.com/news/mls_even...11&content_id=78396&vkey=mlscup2006&fext=.jsp

 

Here's some info about DPs that I posted a little while ago in the SJ Earthquakes forum. I believe DPs will continue because this is the only way to get still-big-even-if-old names into the MLS at a salary they will accept. And, each team is paying for DPs anyway.

-mj

- - - - - - - -
I found the Beckham Experiment in the library and so far it is great reading, particularly if you are interested in the business side of the MLS.

According to Grant Wahl, Tim Leiweke started talking to Beckham in 2004, and AEG invested >$20M in the DB Academy London branch. In 2005, Leiweke presented the Designated Player or "Beckham Rule" to the MLS owners. It was turned down, but adopted in 2006 just in time for AEG to make an offer to Beckham on Jan-1-2007.

Every owner has to annually pitch in $400,000 (as of 2007) towards DP salaries, whether or not they have a DP. The rest of an individual DP's salary, which is not included in the team's $2.1M* salary cap, is paid by his owner

So this kind of explains why JD is considering adding a DP, because they're essentially already paying for one.

- - - - -
*Compare this paltry sum to Chelsea's salary budget of $200M.

 

OK, I'm going to play devil's advocate and support the DP concept as a tool for the league.

If you read Kasey Keller's thoughts on the CBA negotiations, it's all about player mobility issues and adherence with FIFA, etc. That's the side the union is pushing. Nothing on DP, only a modest salary cap increase.

I think the DP, therefore, is a key factor in the owners going directly to the public with talk of dramatically improving the talent level in the league without conceding any of the power of single entity.

This is where the cheapo faction of owners is hurting MLS's negotiating power. Saying "no" to everything is not the answer. Getting the public on your side is--and they can do this by talking about big name signings after the World Cup (not specific players, just the intention). Tie the excitement of league growth together with 2010.

Mid-Jan, they should release something about "every team will sign a Designated Player" and that all owners agree to do this.

This, a solid bump in the league minimum and a decent salary cap bump (above $3M, at least) might allow them to win the public battle.

When the union talks "rights", the league should talk "money" and quality on the field. Go over the heads of the union to the fans.

This moment of synergy--with World Cup excitement, significant league expansion, new stadiums debuting, ESPN fully on board and pushing soccer--likely won't come again.

Can you imagine MLS commercials on ESPN during the World Cup announcing the policy of a guaranteed world-class player on every team?

The DP is the key to all of this. The reason the DP hasn't been a more effective marketing tool is that not every owner is on board with it, or on board with getting a quality DP (Emilio? Lopez? Landin?), so it causes consternation among fans toward their own teams.

This is the year of all years to unveil a true commitment to the DP and to do so publicly.

 

In the first year of the DP, all the hardware was won by non-DP teams.

In the 2nd year, DC, with 2 DPs, won the Open Cup. The Crew, with Schelotto making over the max salary (paid down with allocations, but functionally a DP) won the Shield and the Cup. In the final, they defeated NYRB, who had their own DP.

In the 3rd year, Seattle won the Open Cup with a DP, defeating DC, who also had a DP. The Crew won the Shield with a DP, and the Gals were the #1 seed (I think) in the West with 2 DPs. The Gals lost the MLS Cup final on PKs.

The record is clear. DPs help teams win trophies. That's a fact rooted in the historical record.

 

I think its been a great success. Teams CAN improve themselves with a DP as dave illustrates above. At the same time, these teams have not dominated so the DP hasn't wildly affected the competitive balance of the league to the detriment of smaller teams or less wealthy owners.

In addition, the DPs HAVE brought a nice wave of attention and publicity to the league. Beckham and Blanco both earned their money off the field and to some extent on it as well.

 

of course, getting all owners to agree to that seems like a large (or impossible) challenge, at this point.

the league certainly shouldn't announce something on which the owners can't agree.

but, any league (or group of owners) will always have owners who are (or are deemed) "cheap" (relatively speaking).

I'd love for all teams to push/work toward getting a DP on their roster. Although, I think that it is unlikely that each would be able (or want to) execute an actual (and worthwhile) DP signing in 2010 or even by 2011.

There needs to be some openness and flexibility to the rule -- it shouldn't be a requirement, imo. some teams need the option to continue to not spend beyond the league-covered salary cap, imo. (not all teams should be forced into signing any DP, just to have one on the roster -- as that seems like a recipe for failure/disappointment).

yes, there should be league-wide support for the initiative (and perhaps the DP rule will be expanded to allow more slots per each team). but, imo, that should be an allowance, not a requirement for each owner/team to actually use their X number of DP slots.

yes, I want more teams to be able to build and manage their rosters more and more as they see fit, but I realize not all owners would think that a DP is needed (or appropriate) on their squad, and it seems counter-productive to set a DP requirement (if the goal in some sense is to allow teams to do what they want as individual owners -- somewhat outside of the single-entity constraints). Allowing owners more freedom and some additional control of their rosters means also allowing owners the freedom not to utilize the DP option.

(as we have seen, with time it would seem that those owners who are concerned about the results -- both on and off the field -- for their club may indeed start to want to play catch-up, and no longer sit on the sidelines, in terms of not using those available DP slots.)

 

it is also fair (and accurate, I believe) to note that with each passing year (from 2007-2009), that there have been more and more teams with a DP on their roster. so, it would be more and more likely for those "DP teams" to finish amongst the group that has success and wins trophies.

not that that is a bad thing, but it's tough to do a true comparison in absolute terms, given that year one of the DP initiative was "a slow adoption" phase for the league. (and it can be argued that the league is still in that adoption phase, and more work will be needed in the seasons ahead in terms of getting more teams/owners to want to sign appropriate and useful DPs.)

or the league might craft other and/or additional roster/salary rules in the immediate seasons ahead that encourage and open up avenues for more and more "quality" (or DP-type) players into the league -- outside of that true "DP" label.

 

Why would signing a guy who makes $2M but counts $400K toward the cap be any more difficult from a personnel standpoint than signing a guy who makes $375K?

Where's the push/work that playing without a really talented teammate for two years would be worth the delay until 2012?

The money and league commitment is either there, or it isn't.

Nicol and New England have been using the "it's got to be just the right guy" excuse for 5+ years now and we all know it's just a cover.

We've already passed the threshhold of a DP having to be a draw at the gate--most aren't, in and of themselves.

Now MLS needs to make the DP a policy, instead of an option.

We're ceaslessly reminded that it's the league that signs players, negotiates deals, OKs Donovan but nixes Cooper as DP, etc. Well? Now's the time for the league as a whole to act on this.

There is no other Beckham out there. The next "Beckham" is a commitment to at least world-class player on every team, packaged as a policy and advertised relentlessly during the World Cup.

 

it's not a personnel decision. it's a financial decision (that each owner should have the freedom to make, or not make). I would think the league would have a difficult time agreeing to a rule that would require all teams/owners to spend their own money to cover that 1.6M overage (or any overage amount) that comes with signing/paying a DP.

some owners, I would suspect, aren't ready to be forced (or vote to force themselves) to pay their own portion of a DPs salary. and that's why I prefer the DP rule going forward as an optional-use initiative. and I see that being the more-likely resolution as to what the league will do as they review and then likely re-implement the DP initiative (or some form of it).

again, I'll state that I'd love for all teams to push/work toward getting a DP on their roster. Although, I think that it is unlikely that each would be able (or want to) execute an actual (and worthwhile) DP signing in 2010 or even by 2011. by forcing teams to sign a DP, I think it would be far more likely that we'd get more "Denilson-type" DP signings as a bad and completely unhelpful (if not outright damaging) side-effect.

that's completely fair for a fan to say and want, but in practice, and for the guys that are signing the checks and running the league, I have a hard time believing that they all would agree to such a "policy" of requirement.

 

Excellent point. I was just going for something limited, namely, disproving the myth that DPs are a detriment to their team. They're not.

 

Is it really that clear? DC with 2 DP's won the Open Cup, but they were the Supporters Shield winner the previous year without one. You'd expect they'd do fairly well after winning the shield, but with 2 DP's they missed the playoffs.

New York got to the final and lost after a unimpressive season. That may be a feat to give kudos to the DP, but then again, any Rapid's fan will tell you that getting to the finals after a mediocre season and then losing is no great prize.

The Crew's cup winning DP is either a DP or not a DP depending on how it's argued. Technically he wasn't because they bought down his pay. But, then he is because, it's close enough as makes no difference. Was he the first player who's salary was bought down via allocations? Should we think of all previous players who's salaries were "bought down" as DP's as well? Should the Rapids think of Christian Gomez circa-2007 as a DP?

For all the success of the Crew and Seattle, there are still teams like DC, Dallas, New York, Kansas City, and Chicago who haven't done any better than expected and sometimes worse. Just saying the record doesn't seem all that clear.

I'm still in favor of the DP for what guys like Blanco and Beckham do for the league's profile. In a lot of ways it's nice that the DP's bring eyes to the league, but if those eyes get wrapped up in the DP and miss the qualities of DeRosario, Morales, Holden, Joseph, and other good MLS players, then I have to wonder how successful the programs been.

 

The timing of my previous post made me miss several intervening posts. I think you're right about DP's not being a detriment, or at least I don't think they're a clear detriment.

It doesn't seem like they're hugely helpful either. When it comes right down to it, well run organizations seem to do well regardless of the DP rule.

 

Five of the eight playoff teams had a DP.

Three of the four semi-finalists had a DP.

Four of the top five teams in attendance had a DP.

The bottom four teams in attendance did not have a DP.


You don't have to have a DP to be a success on and off the field (see RSL), but mathmatically, it does seem to tip the scales in your favor.

 

We can also make the point that trophies can be won without having a DP on the roster as RSL and Houston have done (until inexplicably signing Landin). Both NE and Houston have been consistently good teams without one. We've also seen some dreadful teams that have had DP's (and even multiple ones). The key is making sure your DP fits in with the plan you have for your squad. What was Dallas thinking with Denilson, for instance? I don't know.

Sometimes, it's also a bit of luck. I was all for DC signing Gallardo. On paper Gallardo could easily have done for DC what Blanco did for Chicago and GBS did for Columbus. But he had injuries, including a sports hernia, and clearly longed for Argentina. He's since appeared more for River Plate, and has scored some great goals for them. I also wasn't against Claudio Reyna as a DP, but he just couldn't stay consistently healthy enough to be worth the money.

 

Does it?

The five of eight playoff, and 3 of 4 semi-finalists, teams includes Landin in both, who arguably made very little difference this year. Certainly as far as making the playoffs he wasn't a factor. And, since he was a 10-20 minutes sub in the playoffs, it's a lot of credit to give including him as a difference maker.

And, why go with the top five in attendance, then switch to the bottom 4 instead of the bottom 5?

In the top five your counting Landin and DeGuzman. How did they effect attendance? Since both were late signings it's not clear how they raised Houston and Toronto up to the top five.

Also, since Landin is counted, and others are counting the 2008 Schelotto, why isn't Claudio Lopez counted for KC among the bottom 4?

By doing the bottom four instead of the bottom five, your eliminating the Red Bulls who simply based on population density alone ought to be doing better.

 

How did Kansas City (Johnson, Wolff (two years ago, not this year), Lopez (this year), Dallas, and New York (Angel, Reyna) do with theirs? How much hardware has Chicago won with Blanco?

DPs statistically don't seem to help or hurt on the field performance.

 

Lopez made something like $120K this year. Far from a DP. Wolff was never a DP. If I remember correctly Johnson was grandfathered in (never a DP) and had a good year before heading overseas. Arguing against the merits of Angel and Blanco is just asinine. OK, refuted that argument-what's next?

 

First an objection--not every opinion you don't like is "whining." Based on the actual numbers from those two years, the people who said that DPs on balance hurt the team appeared to be right. I haven't seen those studies updated, but I can't completely toss aside the idea even still, since it's all other things being equal analysis, and there are a lot of other factors involved. (For instance, LA had Donovan and Beckham hogging a crapload of cap space. . . but they also got a You Suck Allocation for 2009, and Omar Gonzalez took up no cap space last year.)

There's a cause/effect issue on this point. Toronto, LA and Chicago have all been near the top of the attendance table without a DP as well. The DP helped, but it's as accurate to say that high attendance allowed for the DP as it is to say that the DP caused higher attendance.

The fourth team, Seattle, we can't be sure, but we can suspect they'd still have been near the top. (Although in their case, I'm inclined to think the Ljungberg signing helped attendance, not so much in that Ljungberg was famous or worth the price of admission himself as that it sent a signal to soccer fans that the team had some ambition. That's why Philadelphia looks primed to repeat the move, and were I a betting man, I would bet that Portland and Vancouver will give it some thorough consideration as well.)

 

CRAP the only team the won something important was the REVS without
a DP, along with DYNAMO those are the best teams in the last 4 years.

 

The whole point of "The Beckham Experiment" is that DPs tend to pay off financially in terms of increased ticket and jersey sales, and increased media coverage. But they don't necessarily lead to success on the field, which ultimately also drives ticket/jersey/media.

Grant Wahl also points out that the combination of the DP and the salary cap creates a 2-class, bi-nodal feudalistic system. There are 2 classes of players in the locker room -- the highly paid and the poorly paid, with no middle class. And that doesn't lead to teamwork.

The MLS ownership has started down this dangerous road and will have trouble getting out of the rut it is rolling into. In the long term they would be better off to drop the DP system and instead pay all players much more. Wahl quoted several players (including Greg Vanney, who wants to someday be an MLS coach) as saying that the MLS had opted for a system of a few very high paid veterans surrounded by inept rookies, and that such a system was not going to improve the quality of play in MLS. MLS would be better off to strive for a higher level of play and a more globally-respected league.

 

As of mid-2008, the team records of teams that had DPs was actually worse when they were on the field than when they weren't. It was published by credible journalists, and if you didn't see it, that's your issue.

And at any rate, not every opinion that is wrong is 'whining.' And until you can get past that namecalling, you'll always look like you're dodging the issue. In DC, most people felt in 2007 and 2008 that having DPs hurt the team, but they weren't whining about it, they blame their own FO for the decisions they've made.

Houston at one point was making exactly that argument. Their initial response to it was basically "we've got a good team, with a lot of medium-to-upper salary players, and a Designated Player would only get in the way." That was, essentially, the standard opinion of most throughout the league at the time (and worth noting, they only signed Landin after moving DeRosario, nearly cap-neutral move).

 

This is a concern, but it's also a concern in regards to Generation Adidas players who make five or six times as much as the next development player and take the disparity for granted.




I like the DP for bringing out the fans, but it worries me that the result has been demand for more DP's rather than recognition of the good players that aren't DP's.

From a fame standpoint Beckham is interesting, and he generally has a few good moments during a game. But, if the other team is NE, for example, there's a good chance that Shalrie Joseph was consistently the best player on the field. It's one thing when pedestrian fans can't recognize good players, it's another when supposed "educated fans" don't and demand more Beckhams.

People seem better at appreciating resumes than they are at recognizing talent.