The official Daniel thread

That jersey is a holy relic!!

 

Getting $1 million in MLS for a GK is a lot of money.

I hope they get at least one quality player for that much money.

 

It's only $300k this year, and may not exceed $700k. And we already have $5M GAM supposedly so it's not like we desperately needed GAM right now.

By comparison we acquired Jeremy Ebobisse for ~$1.7M GAM, spread out as $700k, $500k, $500 over 3 years. I consider Daniel to be a more impactful / more valuable player than Jebo.

 

I think what you're saying is that we haven't always made smart personnel decisions.

 

Did we have control over Daniel’s contract for 3 more years?

We haven’t always made smart personnel decisions but who does?

 

Or it could be that Daniel is made out of glass...and although playing pretty well, he's injury prone and usually out for long periods of time, which puts us behind the 8 ball...not a matter of if but when...I think it's a great move....more about upgrading the keeper position.

 

Yeah, I was going to mention that I won't miss him going down after almost every play. I don't know anything about the new GK so don't know whether this will be a good move or not. Appears to be a good move...

 

I really valued Daniel and I will miss him.
$1M of play money we don't use makes it seem like he and Bruce just didn't get along.
Hope the new Scot will understand Bruce's sarcasm and sense of humor

 

Yes, we have to remember what GAM really is. It's not actually $ to spend. It's a license to spend $ (over the cap). We might eventually get $1M GAM (max) for Daniel if we're lucky, but if it's used, it comes out of Fish's pocket, it's not money we "received" from Dallas for Daniel. And we already have $5M unspent GAM. There's no need to be harvesting an additional $300k GAM for this year. I doubt we'll dent the $5M.

Also we shouldn't necessariliy be jumping for joy if Daniel meets his performance-based incentives for the additional $300k. That would be a bit. of a pyrrhic victory. If Daniel meets his performance-based incentives, we get a little more "license to spend" money (that we probably won't spend) and it also means Daniel is performing well for our rival. It's bad to make your rivals stronger, and for what? "License to spend" money that you probably won't spend. :facepalm

Bottom line, I think it's nuts to be crowing about the greatness of this deal, like some people on reddit are doing.

 

like i said elsewhere, I think the rest of our season is doomed.

 

Daniel made a killer save and pulled his right hamstring on the same play coming off in the 18th minute!

Maybe Bruce Arena saw the writing on the wall?

 

Well take your pick - an oft injured good GK or a (possibly) bad one who doesn’t move much and therefore is infrequently injured . Most important is to have someone good at playoffs time, assuming you make it.

 

Daniel's replacement , Jonathan Sirois came in and made a great save too.

 

I think Dallas added Daniel to their existing GK crew so they made themselves stronger at the position. We not only did not improve our depth af the position we probably got weaker at the top.

 

Oh poor Daniel! We don’t have to worry about Angus pulling a hamstring. His legs are so skinny, I don’t think he has hamstrings to pull.

(Wondo used to make that joke about himself )

 

We can't say that Daniel would have gotten injured if he was still with us. But regardless, we'd have Earl to back him up (when he gets back - hopefully soon). Or we could have added Angus w/o dumping Daniel and then we'd have real competition at the #1 spot, and coverage if one gets injured.

Let's be honest - we're not gonna use that $300k GAM (or $700k possibly going to $1M next year) any time soon. This is just cover so that we don't have to say we gave Daniel away for free. We already have $5M in unused GAM.

 

Gunn looks awful. Hesitates WAY too much and lets opponents get the ball under control and look at the gaping holes to score easy goals. He is past his sell by date. He is a serious downgrade from Daniel and will continue to make the defense look mediocre. I was jealous watching JT playing against the Quakes.

 

Daniel was a great GK but being injury prone may have rubbed Bruce the wrong way.

Being out two months after only 18 minutes in his first Dallas game certainly strengthened Bruce stance on him.

I don't know what else it is on why Bruce wanted him out.

Either way, he is gone so let’s hope Gunn will step up.

 

JT who gave up a PK and almost cost the game for LA? Only reason he saved the PK because it was so poorly taken.

No, I like JT as a person, but let's give Gunn a little more time before making a decision on him (Note: I don't disagree with some of your assessment.). Benji and our defense having been giving up a lot of counterattack attempts which would be difficult for any keeper to stop.

 

The word on Gunn, reading the Scotland boards, etc., is that he's slow to get down, and tries to use his leg too much to make saves (vs. laying out and using his arms). Not surprising for a big guy, but it certainly seems to be bearing out. Where there's smoke there's fire.

 

As @falvo says, we have to hope that Gunn gets better. We’re stuck with him now.

Junior stinks. And he’s injured, so we need for Montali to be good.

We should sign another decent ‘keeper in the off-season. Some cheap American who could push Gunn a bit.

I miss Daniel, but that’s water under the bridge.

Go Quakesfans!!

 

GK is arguably the most important position on the team. It could mean the difference of a half a goal to a goal per game, enough to turn wins to ties or ties to losses. And it also affects the confidence cf the defenders. They’re gonna be playing tight as a drum if they believe any shot they concede can find the net. If Bruce wanted to make a change it should be made between seasons not in the middle and especially not when you’re sitting at the top of the table.

If we keep doing poorly and Angus continues to be not great, watch for Bruce to get really defensive about it and refuse to hold Angus accountable and instead keep running his defenders under the bus.

 

I believe that your analysis here is correct.

 

I agree with Mark, you may have hit the nail on Bruce's head...