2017 Roster Discussion

[NYCFC_Dan]

I would hope after 2 years our FO has realized what kind of players the team needs in order to be not just competitive but really challenge for a title in this league.
I would imagine the 3 replacements for our 3 removed players will be far younger.

 

[Falastur]

How many visa players are we allowed?

Nominally 10 but we can trade for more. I believe we're at 11 for next season so far.

 

[LionNYC]

Nominally 10 but we can trade for more. I believe we're at 11 for next season so far.

It was actually 8 as of 2016. It may changed based for 2017.

 

[JGarrettLieb]

It was actually 8 as of 2016. It may changed based for 2017.

Wait you mean people read the MLS roster rules before commentating?

HERESY!

 

[EganSoccerWords]

there were reports last year that eirik and jack were getting a green cards. idk where they are in that process.

i think this would be my fantasy starting lineup after the summer transfer window:

villa-rossi-shelton
tmac-harrison
de rossi
mata-chanot-brillant-allen
eirik

villa and tmac would be fluid on the left side on offense.

 

[NickA]

there were reports last year that eirik and jack were getting a green cards. idk where they are in that process.

i think this would be my fantasy starting lineup after the summer transfer window:

villa-rossi-shelton
tmac-harrison
de rossi
mata-chanot-brillant-allen
eirik

villa and tmac would be fluid on the left side on offense.

Sign me up for that.

 

[NYCFC3rdDP]

How about Rossi tim ream and a couple young euros and call it an offseason

 

[canchon]

How about Rossi tim ream and a couple young euros and call it an offseason

Ream would be an interesting pickup. Knows MLS, versatile (has played all along the back line), has the technical quality needed to play out of the back. Could also potentially be a TAM level player and not a DP. Ream could allow Chanot to play RB or CDM as well.

Of course, RBNY fans would go nuts that one of their guys has crossed the line to NYCFC.

 

[JGarrettLieb]

How about Rossi tim ream and a couple young euros and call it an offseason

Where pray tell are we going to get the international slots for that?

We had to buy 3 slots for last season, what we need are American players.

 

[NYCFC3rdDP]

Rossi and Ream are Americans

 

[EganSoccerWords]

Where pray tell are we going to get the international slots for that?

We had to buy 3 slots for last season, what we need are American players.

I dont really think we are spending alot of money to get the international slots. Any team that doesn't use them, gets nothing unless they trade them. Its a buyers market.

 

[JGarrettLieb]

I dont really think we are spending alot of money to get the international slots. Any team that doesn't use them, gets nothing unless they trade them. Its a buyers market.

I can't seem to find the exact amount charged per slot, but let's assume it's the same as a discovery claim, $50k. I use this $50k figure because that seems to be the standard minimum inter team transaction figure for the purchase and sale of things unrelated to a specific player. I can be wrong, please correct me if I am.

That is $50k in allocation money that cannot be spent on our players, and $50k in allocation money that another team can spend on their players. The big question here is whether the team gains $50k in value by hiring a foreigner versus another American. Following my assumption, we lost $150k purchasing international spots; or exactly one Matarita, alternatively one Saunders.

Is the quality that we gain for three international spots worth one Saunders? Alternatively, do foreign players give you more than an additional $50k in soccer value for their contract. Is a $100k Argentinian worth more points at the end of the season than a $150k American. At that price point, probably not, but at a price point $100k more, Id argue that there is a good case to be made that the foreign player is worth more, even with the implicit $50k tacked onto his salary.

The point I'm making is that while it might be a buyers market, we still have to pay for those international roster spots. And there is a definite point where the marginal benefit of an additional international roster spot is less than the marginal cost. Especially if I'm correct about these kind of deals being worth it only for players you'd start considering buying down with allocation money anyway.

There's also another concept to consider, why is it a buyers market? A buyers market implies that teams aren't finding the additional value in foreign players. Or rather that they aren't finding additional soccer value in the international market versus the domestic market. What could be the reason for this?
1. The value just isn't there.
2. The value is there and isn't being discovered.
3. The value is there and is discovered but is not being acted upon.

I think we can safely discount 3.

So which one is it, one or two. Looking at who buys international slots, NYC and LA mostly, we see its the better financed teams. Or rather the ones with a scouting network. Which leads me to believe the correct answer is probably 2. If so we can probably expect Chicago to be a selling team to the end of current ownership, same with Philly.

Long story short. I think we are spending real money on these slots, if only because MLS is probably making us do so for competitive balance; I prefer it this way to be honest. Otherwise I think we would have had far more than 11 slots this last season. The restriction on international slots is on our end, what blend of allocation money spent on players explicitly versus implicitly offers us the greatest gains in soccer playing talent, the fact that its a buyers market is almost irrelevant.

 

[Kjbert]

I can't seem to find the exact amount charged per slot, but let's assume it's the same as a discovery claim, $50k. I use this $50k figure because that seems to be the standard minimum inter team transaction figure for the purchase and sale of things unrelated to a specific player. I can be wrong, please correct me if I am.

That is $50k in allocation money that cannot be spent on our players, and $50k in allocation money that another team can spend on their players. The big question here is whether the team gains $50k in value by hiring a foreigner versus another American. Following my assumption, we lost $150k purchasing international spots; or exactly one Matarita, alternatively one Saunders.

Is the quality that we gain for three international spots worth one Saunders? Alternatively, do foreign players give you more than an additional $50k in soccer value for their contract. Is a $100k Argentinian worth more points at the end of the season than a $150k American. At that price point, probably not, but at a price point $100k more, Id argue that there is a good case to be made that the foreign player is worth more, even with the implicit $50k tacked onto his salary.

The point I'm making is that while it might be a buyers market, we still have to pay for those international roster spots. And there is a definite point where the marginal benefit of an additional international roster spot is less than the marginal cost. Especially if I'm correct about these kind of deals being worth it only for players you'd start considering buying down with allocation money anyway.

There's also another concept to consider, why is it a buyers market? A buyers market implies that teams aren't finding the additional value in foreign players. Or rather that they aren't finding additional soccer value in the international market versus the domestic market. What could be the reason for this?
1. The value just isn't there.
2. The value is there and isn't being discovered.
3. The value is there and is discovered but is not being acted upon.

I think we can safely discount 3.

So which one is it, one or two. Looking at who buys international slots, NYC and LA mostly, we see its the better financed teams. Or rather the ones with a scouting network. Which leads me to believe the correct answer is probably 2. If so we can probably expect Chicago to be a selling team to the end of current ownership, same with Philly.

Long story short. I think we are spending real money on these slots, if only because MLS is probably making us do so for competitive balance; I prefer it this way to be honest. Otherwise I think we would have had far more than 11 slots this last season. The restriction on international slots is on our end, what blend of allocation money spent on players explicitly versus implicitly offers us the greatest gains in soccer playing talent, the fact that its a buyers market is almost irrelevant.

No. American players are overpaid because there is a lack of quality Americans in a quickly growing league. Hernandez makes $225k. Wingert made $210k. Grabaviy $225k. Jacobsen $180k.

Point is that, much like Englishmen in the Prem, Americans are overpaid here relative to their peers. Give me Matarrita and his contract over any American LB in MLS.

 

[LionNYC]

Less than a month until Protected Player lists. Don't imagine any new signings until after the Expansion Draft.

 

[JGarrettLieb]

No. American players are overpaid because there is a lack of quality Americans in a quickly growing league. Hernandez makes $225k. Wingert made $210k. Grabaviy $225k. Jacobsen $180k.

Point is that, much like Englishmen in the Prem, Americans are overpaid here relative to their peers. Give me Matarrita and his contract over any American LB in MLS.

So you agree with me?

I said at the 100k price point its probably not worth it, and at the 200k it probably is, which is exactly what you're saying.

I agree with you on the Americans are overpaid and the reason why, I just never explicitly stated it.

 

[EganSoccerWords]

I can't seem to find the exact amount charged per slot, but let's assume it's the same as a discovery claim, $50k. I use this $50k figure because that seems to be the standard minimum inter team transaction figure for the purchase and sale of things unrelated to a specific player. I can be wrong, please correct me if I am.

That is $50k in allocation money that cannot be spent on our players, and $50k in allocation money that another team can spend on their players. The big question here is whether the team gains $50k in value by hiring a foreigner versus another American. Following my assumption, we lost $150k purchasing international spots; or exactly one Matarita, alternatively one Saunders.

Is the quality that we gain for three international spots worth one Saunders? Alternatively, do foreign players give you more than an additional $50k in soccer value for their contract. Is a $100k Argentinian worth more points at the end of the season than a $150k American. At that price point, probably not, but at a price point $100k more, Id argue that there is a good case to be made that the foreign player is worth more, even with the implicit $50k tacked onto his salary.

The point I'm making is that while it might be a buyers market, we still have to pay for those international roster spots. And there is a definite point where the marginal benefit of an additional international roster spot is less than the marginal cost. Especially if I'm correct about these kind of deals being worth it only for players you'd start considering buying down with allocation money anyway.

There's also another concept to consider, why is it a buyers market? A buyers market implies that teams aren't finding the additional value in foreign players. Or rather that they aren't finding additional soccer value in the international market versus the domestic market. What could be the reason for this?
1. The value just isn't there.
2. The value is there and isn't being discovered.
3. The value is there and is discovered but is not being acted upon.

I think we can safely discount 3.

So which one is it, one or two. Looking at who buys international slots, NYC and LA mostly, we see its the better financed teams. Or rather the ones with a scouting network. Which leads me to believe the correct answer is probably 2. If so we can probably expect Chicago to be a selling team to the end of current ownership, same with Philly.

Long story short. I think we are spending real money on these slots, if only because MLS is probably making us do so for competitive balance; I prefer it this way to be honest. Otherwise I think we would have had far more than 11 slots this last season. The restriction on international slots is on our end, what blend of allocation money spent on players explicitly versus implicitly offers us the greatest gains in soccer playing talent, the fact that its a buyers market is almost irrelevant.

I agree with you and think it is number 2. An overwhelming percentage of MLS teams don't have even have someone with the title of scout on staff. Some person with most recent version of Football Manager probably knows more about the international market than the average MLS team.

I just don't see how you can draw the conclusion that a buyers market for international slots is irrelevant when we are years away from our academy producing results and the lack of American talent to play the style that Vieira wants.

 

[Kjbert]

JGarrettLieb does raise a good point that you need to include the acquisition cost in a player's overall cost.

But GAM isn't a straight swap for salary cap space. If you don't use it otherwise, then who cares? We've also traded useless draft picks I think for GAM and international slots as well

 

[gbservis]

No. American players are overpaid because there is a lack of quality Americans in a quickly growing league. Hernandez makes $225k. Wingert made $210k. Grabaviy $225k. Jacobsen $180k.

Point is that, much like Englishmen in the Prem, Americans are overpaid here relative to their peers. Give me Matarrita and his contract over any American LB in MLS.

I wish I could like this more than once. It's a truth that's over looked in so many discussions.

 

[sbrylski]

I'll throw out an opinion to see if it sticks: I think right back could be the key to unlock our entire formation/personnel.

Everyone agrees that improving the defense is an offseason priority. But everyone is focusing on our defense up the middle, when an extremely sizable portion of our defensive struggles were down the wings. Both Matarrita and Allen have struggles with effectively tracking back, and Vieira tried multiple players at RB to correct this issue (White, Hernandez, Iraola) that were massive failures.

A quality right back would do a ton of things for us tactically. First, it would obviously improve our defense down the right wing. Second, it would likely improve our set piece defense. Third, it would unlock Matarrita to realize his full offensive potential, with less of a concern placed on ensuring defensive coverage. Fourth, it would improve our passing out of the back. Fifth, it would allow us to shift into a three-man backline comfortably whenever necessary, which would also allow Chanot to step into a sweeper role and maximize his impact.

In contrast, a great CDM would also be a good addition, but it wouldn't solve our issues with defending down the sidelines, it wouldn't really unlock Matarrita to go forward on offense, and it wouldn't help with formation flexibility.

I'm not saying we should sign a DP RB, just that it may be an extremely critical spot. It may have been our worse position last year.

Here's what I'm imagining:

If we can grab a quality defense RB, we could afford to find a solid yet reasonably priced CM/CDM to play next to Pirlo and have a very strong defensive shape with the ability to pass out of the back. Plus, we can make sure we leverage our DP spot into a player with an attacking player (any of the top four). This roster probably still needs another attacking player and another midfielder for depth, but I would be very happy with this for an opening day starting lineup.

To throw out some names for the spots, I've brought up Alvarado for RB a few times, and Will Johnson would be a good CM/CDM option. Any other suggestions?

 

[ktdNYCFC]

I'll throw out an opinion to see if it sticks: I think right back could be the key to unlock our entire formation/personnel.

Everyone agrees that improving the defense is an offseason priority. But everyone is focusing on our defense up the middle, when an extremely sizable portion of our defensive struggles were down the wings. Both Matarrita and Allen have struggles with effectively tracking back, and Vieira tried multiple players at RB to correct this issue (White, Hernandez, Iraola) that were massive failures.

A quality right back would do a ton of things for us tactically. First, it would obviously improve our defense down the right wing. Second, it would likely improve our set piece defense. Third, it would unlock Matarrita to realize his full offensive potential, with less of a concern placed on ensuring defensive coverage. Fourth, it would improve our passing out of the back. Fifth, it would allow us to shift into a three-man backline comfortably whenever necessary, which would also allow Chanot to step into a sweeper role and maximize his impact.

In contrast, a great CDM would also be a good addition, but it wouldn't solve our issues with defending down the sidelines, it wouldn't really unlock Matarrita to go forward on offense, and it wouldn't help with formation flexibility.

I'm not saying we should sign a DP RB, just that it may be an extremely critical spot. It may have been our worse position last year.

Here's what I'm imagining:

If we can grab a quality defense RB, we could afford to find a solid yet reasonably priced CM/CDM to play next to Pirlo and have a very strong defensive shape with the ability to pass out of the back. Plus, we can make sure we leverage our DP spot into a player with an attacking player (any of the top four). This roster probably still needs another attacking player and another midfielder for depth, but I would be very happy with this for an opening day starting lineup.

To throw out some names for the spots, I've brought up Alvarado for RB a few times, and Will Johnson would be a good CM/CDM option. Any other suggestions?