thanks, I was too lazy to try to find that. But it's like I said, they didn't make clear where at all the other 2 would fall. If they fall within the draft's natural order, they'll take precedence over most all allocations but the YS's and maybe the 2004's leftover.
I believe the 2nd and 3rd expansion come right after the YS for this year. then you would have all other 05 allocaitons... then you get last years left overs... I know last year went... 1. Dallas YS 2. Cbus 3. LA 4. Met?? 5. Dallas Adu Dallas having not used the #5 should be the first "left over" allocation.
ok, please understand this a guess. a very, very, very unofficial list. i reexamined the order from 2001-2003 (I thought 2000 was announced but can't find the list) http://web.archive.org/web/20040221062448/mlsnet.com/content/03/mls0107allocations.html. note here in 2003, they say the same rules were used in 2001&2002. They mention reverse order of finish, but not if it's playoffs or regular season the 2002 allocations were thrown into the contraction draft http://web.archive.org/web/20040315231550/mlsnet.com/special/draft/2002/dispersal/main.html too lazy to find link, but here's the relevant part of press release 1. Colorado Rapids (Failure to Make the MLS Playoffs) 2. New England Revolution (Failure to Make the MLS Playoffs) 3. D.C. United (Failure to Make the MLS Playoffs) 4. Colorado Rapids (Unused 2001 Allocation) 5. New England Revolution (Loss of Leonel Alvarez and Mauricio Wright) 6. New England Revolution (Loss of William Sunsing) 7. Dallas Burn (Retirement of Lubos Kubik) 8. Los Angeles Galaxy (Loss of Luis Hernandez) 9. San Jose Earthquakes (Unused 2000 Allocation) it follows the natural draft order. It seems to not care about year, but reorder the picks according to the current natural draft order the 2001 list http://web.archive.org/web/20030610050058/mlsnet.com/content/01/mls0109allocations.html was listed in alphabetical order and isn't that helpful in that regard I don't think there are labelled "major" and "minor" allocations anymore and I don't know if that affects the order. But some allocations (Beasley) have been stated to carry more "transfer money" for transfer fees and POSSIBLY cap offsets than others (Bocanegra). The ones carrying more money are the ones for which MLS sold players for millions (Howard, Beasley, Convey) not left on free transfer (Bocanegra and probably Mathis). so here's my guess RSL Super Allocation (rumors might be Mathis or Keller) Chivas USA Super Allocation (maybe Ramirez?) CHI YS 2004 season DAL YS 2004 season RSL allocation #2 RSL allocation #3 (maybe Chivas #2 before this one) Chivas USA #2 Chivas USA #3 CHI Beasley CHI Bocanegra DAL (Etcheverry - but since it was traded it might fall under DC's position, but MLS owes FCD IMO) CLB (McBride) NE (Hernandez) & possibly Nowak? (that one could fall under CHI's position being traded) DC (Convey) remember than any retirements/moves to other countries might result in more alloctions to add to the list
Cbus had 2 allocations (YS and McBride) MET had 2 (Howard and Mathis) but fell behind DC in the draft order. So if the Etcheverry alloction went by DC's position, it would have been ahead of MET's. If by DAL's position, it would have been before LA and NE had 2 alloctions (CHI's Nowak and Hernandez) did you ever here this list officially anywhere or from any inside source? I think I got most of the details off of a matchnight forum where someone listed all the allocations (may have been good guessing)
There's been a debate over how allocations are ordered for a long time. I think it's done by reverse order of finish starting with the YS(in this year actually with the expansion teams), reworked ever offseason. There was a letter put out by Gazidis before the 2002 season that said that it starts with the YS and then goes reverse order of finish. However, that letter was lost when MLS made the switch over to the new website and didn't take their archives with them. This method can also be backed up by how the Contraction Draft was handled with the two YS going first and then reverse order of finish through the rest of the past allocations. Dispersal draft order Personally I think this is more akin to how MLS runs other things like the Superdraft and Weighted Lotteries, so this is how it is ran. Still others believe that it is ordered by the YS(this year expansion, then YS), then after that comes allocations that generated fees, and they run either on how old the allocation is or how big the fee generated was. Then it's based on the age of the allocation or the order of finish for those not used. However, to me this makes it very hard for MLS to make an order and doesn't fit in with how they run other things. So I would say it looks like this with possible allocations in () CUSA(Welcome) RSL(Welcome) CHI(YS) DAL(YS) CHI(Boca) CHI(Beasley) DAL(Etch from DC) (SJ--Donovan) CLB(McBride) (NE--unused allocations from Nowark or Hernandez) (KC--Preki) DC(Convey) CUSA(Welcome) RSL(Welcome) CUSA(Welcome) RSL(Welcome)
The #1 and #5 for Dallas I got from Elliott/Clarke/Burn PR. Cbus 2 was the YS which we know. LA at #3 for Kirovski I can't give a source on but I was fairly sure of it. the #4 I had no idea. I am sure we will just have to wait for the league announcement.
in 2002, this is the order 1. Colorado Rapids (Failure to Make the MLS Playoffs) 2. New England Revolution (Failure to Make the MLS Playoffs) 3. D.C. United (Failure to Make the MLS Playoffs) 4. Colorado Rapids (Unused 2001 Allocation) 5. New England Revolution (Loss of Leonel Alvarez and Mauricio Wright) 6. New England Revolution (Loss of William Sunsing) 7. Dallas Burn (Retirement of Lubos Kubik) 8. Los Angeles Galaxy (Loss of Luis Hernandez) 9. San Jose Earthquakes (Unused 2000 Allocation) I got that off MLSNET but don't have the link handy the 2002, natural draft order was TB COL NE DC KC DAL MET CLB CHI MIA LA SJ they're consistent the "dispersal draft" order, may or may not be according to regular season finish. i think it is but don't remember for sure. the 2001 season reverse order by points -------------------------------------------------------- 1 Y-Miami Fusion 26 16 5 5 53 57 36 2 Y-Chicago Fire 27 16 6 5 53 50 30 3 *X-Los Angeles Galaxy 26 14 7 5 47 52 36 4 X-Columbus Crew 26 13 7 6 45 49 36 5 X-San Jose Earthquakes 26 13 7 6 45 47 29 6 X-MetroStars 26 13 10 3 42 38 35 7 X-Kansas City Wizards 27 11 13 3 36 33 53 8 X-Dallas Burn 26 10 11 5 35 48 47 -------------------------------------------------------- 9 #-N.E. Revolution 27 7 14 6 27 35 52 10 # D.C. United 26 8 16 2 26 42 50 11 #-Colorado Rapids 26 5 13 8 23 36 47 12 #-Tampa Bay Mutiny 27 4 21 2 14 32 68 would be TB COL DC NE DAL KC MET SJ CLB LA CHI MIA note by not using the draft order SJ is last. by your order (regular season/dispersal), SJ would be before LA, but isn't in the published list so i think it is by draft order (natural)
See last year(the 2004 season I mean) I thought it would be with reverse order of finish. DAL(YS) CLB(YS) CLB(McBride) LA(Cien) DAL(from DC) MET(Howard) MET(Mathis) NE(Hernandez) NE(From CHI) CHI(Boca)
But for last preseason, there was no announcement and won't be any announcement! Was that before McBride was sold? (1/20/2004) bear with me My guess 1. DAL YS 2. CLB YS 3. CLB McBride 4. LA Cienfugeous 5. DC Etcheverry to DAL 6. MET Howard (~major) 7. MET Mathis (~minor) 8. NE Hernandez 9. CHI Nowak to NE 10. CHI Bocanegra so DAL is 1 and 5, maybe LA being 3rd was before the McBride transfer or after the Gibbs signing (2/5/2004) though Kirovski was signed just after that (2/6/2004). maybe it was hearing they were the 3rd team, I don't know. But your Dallas info seems more definite
That jives with what I was told as well about Kirovski. The Crew had an opportunity to request he be assigned to the Crew with one of their allocations, but declined and it then went to LA who had the next allocation.
2004 the draft order and the dispersal order were very similar since there weren't any upsets in the playoffs until the final. that's led to the same debate on I just had with Coach Bailey over in the superdraft thread. I know my 2002 analysis is tough to read above, but I think it shows that the draft order was used (SJ the cup winner going last, not having the best regular season record)
Honestly, they should just do away with the allocation and discovery options. Just let teams go out and sign the players they want. There is hardly conflict between teams anyway. If there is a conflict between two teams, then just let the player decide which club he'd rather go to as long as that team has the cap space for said player. Then to avoid teams getting screwed by players transfering out and teams not getting any compensation for it, just give that team cap space depending on the transfer fee.
Re: Nowak Allocation Hell, if the Revs got interest on Hernandez allocation, they could probably have enough to sign another player as well. How long has he been gone now? That check has to get cashed sooner or later...
Re: Nowak Allocation Dang. Is this thread proof enough that the allocation system needs to be tossed? This is the mechanism for bringing in the most talented players into the league and we're all guessing and wondering. How about each team get a budget for transfer fees and the salary cap ad we leave it at that?
Re: Allocation Quagmire Agreed. I'd also love for Bush to actually designate a National Science Advisor, [as far as I know, he still hasn't done so from his 1st term] and get to work on alternative energy sources. This thread is about finding out what the reality of the league is rather than wishing for what MLS should be. But I digress. I agree that the allocation system should be tossed; At the same time, some form of league-enforced socialism is still required at this point. Thanks to swedcrip for finding out what he can, and sharing it with us. I also think that the expansion "superallocations" are both the most valuable and of the highest precedence of all the allocations, but I think we were already aware of this. My search has also turned up that the YSAs are next in precedence, but then we already knew that. After these, the "leftover" allocations, "retirement/moving to another country" allocations, and the "player sale" allocations form an indiscernable quagmire; This is both for the precedence, AND the value therein. My best guess would be that the "leftovers" precede the "player sale" allocations somewhat; Both of these type of allocation precede the "retirement/moving to another country" allocations, AND are more valuable than the "r/mtac" allocations. Yeah, I know the allocation system remains as clear as mud...
KP stated in an on-line chat today that DC will not receive allocations for either Stewart or Nelsen. Also, it will take an allocation or part of an allocation to keep Gomez if they can work something out with his agents.
I totally understand the reasoning of those two not getting an allocation. they are out of contract. Allocations should come from people who are sold by the league and taken away from their teams. Allocations are a form of compensation. If On the order of allocation usage. it is as follows 1. Welcome Allos 2. YS Allos (the suckiest gets first dibs.) 3. The oldest allo not to be used on down to the youngest to be issued 4. 2 extra expansion allos (these two allos take precedent over no teams, they are last) Khan before even type "wheres the link?" Go to google and do your own research.
Hey, I would, but John_Harkes_6 merely posted "in an on-line chat today..." without referencing a site... He didn't even have the common courtesy of posting where he saw said info.
since i'm reading it now anyway http://dcunited.mlsnet.com/MLS/chat/2004/1123/payne.jsp in the past, the older unused allocations weren't always listed above newer ones player sales are probably the allocations that bring the clubs the most money, cause the million plus MLS receives in transfer fees can pay for a 6 figure sum to the club
Actually as you see from reading the link, JH6 didn't summarize what Payne said about allocations correctly. What was actually said was: Could mean that DCU gets one or no allocations. It also seems like the answer is complicated though by what, we haven't the foggiest.