[reality] picks I would think. (second rounder or conditional based on games played?) Clearing Jolley is enough cap.[/reality] [fantasy] Jamie Watson. Clears Jolley's cap as Jamie is P40 and there is an open Dev spot on FCD roster.[/fantasy]
Absolutely. Rep for you. Plus, if Jolley went to Chivas I'd give him three games before he got cut for playing defense on the back line.
I'll give the FO the benefit of the doubt whatever they decide, since all my second guessing this off-season has been proven wrong so far (with the exception of the boneheaded trade of the pick that got Chris Rolfe for Henry Ring). Still, I must say I am concerned at the possiblity of a Rhine/Moor/Goodson/Gbandi or Rhine/Moor/Vanney/Gbandi backline in the event of injury or suspension. I'll just assume they know what they are doing this time.
Umm, I think you've got to wait for better judgement of that... "Chicago trades second round pick in 2006 and GK Henry Ring to FC Dallas for 29th pick" A 3rd rounder for a second rounder & Ring? That's not a bad deal at all. Dallas just needs to make sure they utilize it correctly. And if FCD really wanted Rolfe, they could've picked him instead of Marshall and/or Gomez. On a side note, does FCD still own Ring's rights?
It's good math but I would have taken ROlff in the second round and maybe end of first I liked him that much. but I get it in draft math terms. Yes
Understand completely... The Rolfe factor is put aside, because FCD had plenty of opportunity to draft him. And IMO, I think he would've been a good pick too. They apparently didn't want him, and the draft math is great. And if they use the higher pick to get an even better player, then it is a good trade. I'd give CONSIDERABLY more flak for actually not drafting Rolfe, than I would for the trade.
Gordon... always thinking of his five favorite- well- I guess it'd be eight favorite if you add in his daughters- girls in red. Most of the time I get paranoid thinking its Bobby, but this time I don't think it'll be him. He has REALLY stepped up for us with the switch from defense and back, the playing while injured in like- eight million different places and the GOAL from this past Saturday. Jolley has only filled in for Vanney when needed. My only question is is it possible for Jolley to have taken a pay cut seeing as he is mostly playing reserves now? If thats the case... I'd see us needing to go after a starter depending on how much Wilson is.
According to this article in the Salt Lake paper, RSL has traded a future draft pick to LA for Paul Broome.
Agreed, two seasons in a row Phil has done his job and had the starting role taken away because he isn't good enough in the attack while his replacements have struggled to defend. Shouldn't the first requiremnt of a defender be the ability to defend? I think Phil is cheap cover at the RB and is unlikely to be moved unless he requests it and even then it would likely be in the offseason or through expansion. He's a class guy who doesn't complain and just keeps working so I hope things work out for him.
Not only fantasy. Stripping a team of its only real asset at a position where we're about 5 deep is downright immoral.
Phil IMO is a more consistent player than Gbandi, and cheaper. His family is all here and being newly married, I think he would want to stay here as long as he could. He has proven his skills and loyalty to the team with no reward of playing time in return. He is a classy guy and deserves better.
From my sources, Watson is very happy at RSL. Check out their website and the guy is everywhere, radio talk shows, personal appearances, etc. I do agree, why would you want to move him further down on the player list (behind 5 other forwards) when he is starting now and getting 90 minutes. Besides, the RSL fans wouldn't go for it. He is a big draw for games. Average crowd even on Wednesday nights is 15,000. Haven't seen FCD drawing in those numbers at games even on weekends.
Your sources are questioinable and w/ 56 posts to your name, you are very brazen to come here to discuss attendance numbers.
RSL is (1) novel. Novelty wears off, especially when you keep losing. (2) an almost monopoly on sporting dollars in SLC right now. Is there another sporting event in town to be had? I honestly don't know, so don't think I'm being fip. Don't get too worked up about your attendance until you've been doing it a while. It cycles for everyone.
The one problem with expansion is that we get so many fans who think that MLS history started in 2005. On the other hand, you are technically correct. FCD hasn't drawn 15,000 for any game. The Dallas Burn did back in the days when dinosaurs roamed the earth or something like that.
Come talk to us in 3-4 years, when you actually have some history behind you. Go check the league attendances for 1996 and tell me what you find.
That's also one of its good points. Some of MLS's more chequered history is completely unknown in the Kingdom of Deseret.
Besides, it'll be fun to gross them out later with tapes of shootouts and backwards-counting clocks...
Good for Jaime. But a big draw for Real fans? Weren't they drawing better than that before he started? And yeah, real smart talking attendance smack. Talk to us at the end of the year after we've had ten games in our own cozy soccer specific stadium.
So you rate the validity of posts by the total number of posts overall? That's pretty scientific in itself. You have no idea who that person is. Anyway, keep in mind that SLC has only one other major sports competitor in their market. Yes, it's early to start bragging about attendance but I think it's sad to see one of the top teams in the league with 6,000 on a Sat night. The promotions and media coverage in SLC far surpasses Dallas. HS girls volleyball gets better coverage.
I do not question the validity of the post I question the validity and the ethics of the poster. He did not mention his sources, thus; they are questionable; furthermore; he made a remark that some may consider inflamatory and absurd particularly in a board other than his. People like he and you and expansion teams need to learn a lesson we all learned as children. "Children need to be quiet and listen, so that you may learn, and speak only when spoken too."