Re: Re: NO Ah that's good. That suggests we'll get to protect at least 10 players (20 - 10 = 10). I'll amend my protected list to: Donovan Mulrooney Dunivant Ching Agoos Mullan Robinson Corrales Ekelund De Ro Note that if the rules are kept the same as before, only one unprotected player can be a foreigner so at most one of Ekelund, Faria or De Ro could be left unprotected. Some might consider having to protect Ekelund a negative aspect of acquiring Faria. My list might change if it turns out somebody is making tons more than we assume he is. Even though De Ro has been a big positive, I don't want to lose Ching. I'd rather lose the replaceable Onstad than Ching, unless it turns out Onstad is making under 50k.
Given only 10 to build around Dred picked the 10 most critical in my opinion... BEAT the CRAPIDS! tifosi with an agenda... http://www.gazzetta.it/Foto Hermes/2003/10-Ottobre/06/la foto calcio.jpg
Re: Re: Re: NO Another interpetation is that half of the senior roster must be available for the draft, which would mean only 9 players are to be protected. (p-40s at the time did not count against rosters, but if you wanted to make sure you kept them you had to protcect him.) I would bet that only 9 players would be able to be protected. That being said there were 12 rounds to the draft with two teams in each round. So 24 out of 100 players were taken. probably only 12 out of 100 players will be taken this time around so the chance of any team being raided is relitively little, especially with the fact that once a player is taken you can put one back onto your roster.
I would leave the following posters unprotected: spejic-(in the name of team chemistry, doesn't play well with the other posters) Goodsport-(nothing personal, it's an age thing) Noah Elliott-(good poster, salary cap issues) Aimer-(can't stay focussed, always babbling on about Richies abz and licking stuff) living_ded_boy-(just giving myself a chance to explore a more lucrative chance to post on the new Chivas board VIVA LA CHIVAS!!!)
Re: Re: Re: Re: NO I don't think that would make sense. The 19th and 20th best players on any team are going to be so sucky that they shouldn't affect the math. Why should Chivas get to start an entire team full of 10th best players when the last two expansion teams had to start 5 11th best and 5 12th best players? If they want to give Chivas roughly as fair a deal as the Fire got, they should let teams protect 10 men. It was good enough for the Fire to win MLS Cup...
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: NO the developmental roster players make next to nothing and their skill often is worth it. In 97 there were no such things as developmental rosters. If they had the exact same chance as Chicago 5 guys from each team would be available. Teams could give up all of there developmental roster except for their single top prospect. Chicago did so well not because of what they drafted, but what they did after the draft. They held players "hostages" so they could get what they really wanted.
The whole dispersal draft idea is kind of crappy. It'd be better to give Chivas two, maybe three, or even four super draft picks in first two rounds of the Superdraft. They also are entitled to bring three foreigners to fill their SI spots. And then they can trade whomever they drafted (using their priveleged picks) for experienced players from the other teams.
Is there a limit to the number of players that can be picked from a team? For example, could Chivas pick up 8 Quakes players and 4 Colorado players? I would think the DP players would be restricted because those contracts are designed for local talent and highly-touted youth talent. Assuming we need to leave 9 players unprotected: 1. Conway, Jon 2. Onstad, Pat 3. Dayak, Troy 4. Roner, Chris 5. Ekelund, Ronnie 6. Lagos, Manny 7. Russell, Ian 8. Faria, Rodrigo 9. Levesque, Roger That leaves us with: --- *Saunders --- Agoos Robinson Dunivant Waibel --- Mulrooney Mullan Corrales *Alvarez --- Donovan DeRosario Ching *Walker
I understand that they intend to fill those slots with a Russian, a Ukrainian and a Serb just to show that they are not Mexico-biased.
They do get the first pick in the Superdraft as well as an allocation, and discovery picks. It is impossible for a team to get completely raided. For every player the Quakes would lose they get to take one back. By the fourth pick the crappiest of Quake player would be left as well as with the rest of the leauges players. It is possible to lose 5 players though highly unlikely. The toughest hit in 97 was DC with 3 players gone. Just to be anal, it is an expansion draft, not a dispersal draft, they are on opposite sides of the spectrum. I agree that developmental contracts should be limited, but if the player is a P-40 then they should be open for the draft since they make about twice as much.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: NO No, the 5 worst guys from each team is not what Chicago had access to. You're focussing too much on quantity of players available rather than quality. What matters most to teams is their best players. Expanding rosters to 100 (85 of which were scrubs) would not mean we'd get to protect 50. What matters is how many of the good players we get to protect. Seems to me if it was 10 before it should be 10 (or maybe 11) now unless something went wrong last time. Ok but Chivas should get the same opportunities as the Fire, no more no less.