2022 Roster Discussion

[ManhattanValley]

Happy for James and it shows other younger players the path etc etc, but this move is pretty close to a worst-case scenario for us.

Losing a player on such a favorable contract in MLS is only worth it if it frees up allocation spots, or generates allocation money. This deal appears to do neither, at least for the next 18 months. Not only that, but Rangers having an exclusive right to buy for the next 18 months puts a ceiling on how much compensation we can expect to get, if we get any at all. Rangers are a team with a history of financial problems and are not in a position to spend big money - they have paid more than $9 million for a player just once in their history, and that was 20 years ago.

Our best outcome here is that Sands dominates and forces Rangers into paying big money for him - hopefully we need the cash more in 2024 than we do today, but obviously we can’t know that yet. Our worst outcome is that he suffers a serious injury/falls out of favor at the wrong time and we essentially receive nothing for the 18 months. For the sake of giving a talent like Sands the opportunity to play in a middling league like the SPL, this seems like a poor return for us.

 

[mgarbowski]

Happy for James and it shows other younger players the path etc etc, but this move is pretty close to a worst-case scenario for us.

Losing a player on such a favorable contract in MLS is only worth it if it frees up allocation spots, or generates allocation money. This deal appears to do neither, at least for the next 18 months. Not only that, but Rangers having an exclusive right to buy for the next 18 months puts a ceiling on how much compensation we can expect to get, if we get any at all. Rangers are a team with a history of financial problems and are not in a position to spend big money - they have paid more than $9 million for a player just once in their history, and that was 20 years ago.

Our best outcome here is that Sands dominates and forces Rangers into paying big money for him - hopefully we need the cash more in 2024 than we do today, but obviously we can’t know that yet. Our worst outcome is that he suffers a serious injury/falls out of favor at the wrong time and we essentially receive nothing for the 18 months. For the sake of giving a talent like Sands the opportunity to play in a middling league like the SPL, this seems like a poor return for us.

What I don't like about this deal is it only makes sense if you assume facts that might be true but for which we have no evidence, and most of them are depressing. The Rangers will gladly pay us in summer 2023 for a James Sands today. This deal only makes sense if:

There is very little market interest in Sands and not likely to be in the next 18 months, and Sands pushed very hard to be moved now despite the lack of interest and the club deemed the cost of not moving him so high (which basically means he threatened to be a jerk) that NYCFC believed they had no choice but to accept bad terms, or
The Rangers' exclusive right to purchase is attached to a price that makes the 18 month deferral worthwhile, but that probably means the Rangers are unlikely to be able to pay it, or
The Rangers are paying an unusually high and undisclosed loan fee.

I cannot really think of a scenario besides the seemingly unlikely high loan fee that makes this a good deal for NYCFC.

Sands get what he wants
The Ranger get him for 18 months on a loan plus they hold an exclusive option to buy with no obligation
NYCFC bears the risk of injury or stunted development (which they no longer control) and in return gets guaranteed (________). Basically NYCFC gets guaranteed nothing in return that I can see. Plus anything they do get is deferred for 18 months.

Last year NYCFC refused Palmeiras because that club wanted to buy Taty on some sort of deferred financing deal. Now transferring Sands with an 18 month payment deferral - which Rangers can simply reject and return him at their preference- is good business?

If the Rangers choose not to buy at the end of 18 months, NYCFC is in a terrible position. It diminishes Sands' market value, and creates a fire sale situation, unless the club is suddenly willing to play hardball and force him to come back to MLS against his preferences, which would create more ill will and bad looks than not letting him go right now possibly could.

To the people who justify this on the grounds that we have to show we do right by developing players: is there any outer limit to that principle?

 

[Shwafta]

To the people who justify this on the grounds that we have to show we do right by developing players: is there any outer limit to that principle?

I think there is an outer limit, of course. However, James is our first homegrown, and what we do with him resonates across the board. I think with future interactions it can/will be different, but James is the test child and it's possible that they over/under extend for him in ways they wouldn't normally do.

I'm willing to trust the FO on their decision here.

 

[Revfugee]

What I don't like about this deal is it only makes sense if you assume facts that might be true but for which we have no evidence, and most of them are depressing. The Rangers will gladly pay us in summer 2023 for a James Sands today. This deal only makes sense if:

There is very little market interest in Sands and not likely to be in the next 18 months, and Sands pushed very hard to be moved now despite the lack of interest and the club deemed the cost of not moving him so high (which basically means he threatened to be a jerk) that NYCFC believed they had no choice but to accept bad terms, or
The Rangers' exclusive right to purchase is attached to a price that makes the 18 month deferral worthwhile, but that probably means the Rangers are unlikely to be able to pay it, or
The Rangers are paying an unusually high and undisclosed loan fee.

I cannot really think of a scenario besides the seemingly unlikely high loan fee that makes this a good deal for NYCFC.

Sands get what he wants
The Ranger get him for 18 months on a loan plus they hold an exclusive option to buy with no obligation
NYCFC bears the risk of injury or stunted development (which they no longer control) and in return gets guaranteed (________). Basically NYCFC gets guaranteed nothing in return that I can see. Plus anything they do get is deferred for 18 months.

Last year NYCFC refused Palmeiras because that club wanted to buy Taty on some sort of deferred financing deal. Now transferring Sands with an 18 month payment deferral - which Rangers can simply reject and return him at their preference- is good business?

If the Rangers choose not to buy at the end of 18 months, NYCFC is in a terrible position. It diminishes Sands' market value, and creates a fire sale situation, unless the club is suddenly willing to play hardball and force him to come back to MLS against his preferences, which would create more ill will and bad looks than not letting him go right now possibly could.

To the people who justify this on the grounds that we have to show we do right by developing players: is there any outer limit to that principle?

Or maybe, just maybe, when they signed him to the long-term deal last year, they said “help win us a cup and we will help place you in Europe.” Perhaps they underestimated the demand in that scenario but were bound contractually or otherwise to honor the promise. Either way, I doubt Lee is stupid enough to do this deal without at least some form of salary relief. It does leave us very thin at the back for now but the trajectory on development/signings and depth has been upward over the last couple of seasons. I’ll miss the guys leaving, but I think we have only scratched the surface on our expensive young Brazilians and we now have DP flexibility. So I’m gonna be patient.

 

[mgarbowski]

However, James is our first homegrown, and what we do with him

If you ignore everyone who went to Europe already. It’s not like we have no history.

 

[Kjbert]

If you watch his interview, he implies that he signed his extension last year with the promise that they would let him leave this window

 

[Shwafta]

If you ignore everyone who went to Europe already. It’s not like we have no history.

Yeah, but it's slightly different with James. Gio never played actual minutes for us and Scally was sold before he even stepped foot onto the senior pitch.
Jack Harrison, while being an awesome story, was not a homegrown player.

James is, and always will be, "The First" and what the club does with/for him goes a long way to future academy prospects specifically. I think one of the main reasons CFG picked New York is because of the huge potential of young talent within the city. Building mini pitches etc. They'll do anything they can do to show the young prospects here that there's a future for them, and that's something different from "Hey you young brazillian, look what we've done before!"

...Also separately, dang it rangers i just wanna see our boy jimmy interview T-T

 

[mgarbowski]

Or maybe, just maybe, when they signed him to the long-term deal last year, they said “help win us a cup and we will help place you in Europe.” Perhaps they underestimated the demand in that scenario but were bound contractually or otherwise to honor the promise. Either way, I doubt Lee is stupid enough to do this deal without at least some form of salary relief. It does leave us very thin at the back for now but the trajectory on development/signings and depth has been upward over the last couple of seasons. I’ll miss the guys leaving, but I think we have only scratched the surface on our expensive young Brazilians and we now have DP flexibility. So I’m gonna be patient.

Was there something in my post that indicated overall unhappiness with our roster development, or even any mention of the front office?
I thought I was pretty clear. I even explicitly said one possibility is the club believed it had to move Sands and this is the best deal available right now. That might be true. That does not make it a good deal, just the best available from a weak position.

But neither you nor Shwafta seem to have addressed my main point: this is an objectively bad deal and I see no reason to be happy with it. Grudging acceptance is the best, I think, anyone should muster. Yet I see idiot takes like this from MLS writers:

https://twitter.com/x/status/1478809901518499850

Monumental? We've developed 2 players who have flourished into the Bundesliga, but sending someone - on loan - to the SPL is monumental?

Best case scenario is Rangers pay the undisclosed purchase price and nothing negative happens. But we have sold away any upside, taken on risk, and deferred the payout. That's bad business unless you had no other option, and yes I find that possibility mildly depressing. Maybe we did promise James and had to accept this crap to honor the promise. If so, I am glad we honored the promise. People should honor their promises. But nonetheless, it is objectively a crap deal. You want to put lipstick on the pig, fine, but it is still a pig. Risk + capped upside + no guaranteed floor + deferred payment = a bad deal. Maybe the best available under the existing conditions, but that's still bad.

Also, if we did make that promise and this is the best or only deal we could get, then all the praise for signing him to the extension a year ago is rendered wrong, because from the club's perspective the reason that was good business was to put both James and NYCFC in a position to negotiate from a stronger position, but we basically did not actually have a strong position because we promised to make a deal no matter what.

 

[mgarbowski]

Yeah, but it's slightly different with James. Gio never played actual minutes for us and Scally was sold before he even stepped foot onto the senior pitch.
Jack Harrison, while being an awesome story, was not a homegrown player.

Why would any academy prospect GAF whether they play as a homegrown before moving to Europe? And why would anyone prefer to wait longer to move, and end up in the SPL - on loan - instead of going sooner and younger on a permanent deal to the Bundesliga?

 

[Kjbert]

Was there something in my post that indicated overall unhappiness with our roster development, or even any mention of the front office?
I thought I was pretty clear. I even explicitly said one possibility is the club believed it had to move Sands and this is the best deal available right now. That might be true. That does not make it a good deal, just the best available from a weak position.

But neither you nor Shwafta seem to have addressed my main point: this is an objectively bad deal and I see no reason to be happy with it. Grudging acceptance is the best, I think, anyone should muster. Yet I see idiot takes like this from MLS writers:

https://twitter.com/x/status/1478809901518499850

Monumental? We've developed 2 players who have flourished into the Bundesliga, but sending someone - on loan - to the SPL is monumental?

Best case scenario is Rangers pay the undisclosed purchase price and nothing negative happens. But we have sold away any upside, taken on risk, and deferred the payout. That's bad business unless you had no other option, and yes I find that possibility mildly depressing. Maybe we did promise James and had to accept this crap to honor the promise. If so, I am glad we honored the promise. People should honor their promises. But nonetheless, it is objectively a crap deal. You want to put lipstick on the pig, fine, but it is still a pig. Risk + capped upside + no guaranteed floor + deferred payment = a bad deal.

Also, if we did make that promise and this is the best or only deal we could get, then all the praise for signing him to the extension a year ago is rendered wrong, because from the club's perspective the reason that was good business was to put both James and NYCFC in a position to negotiate from a stronger position, but we basically did not actually have a strong position.

Think he’s right. That’s the entire pipeline right there. First homegrown signing ends up hitting every single box.

 

[Revfugee]

Was there something in my post that indicated overall unhappiness with our roster development, or even any mention of the front office?
I thought I was pretty clear. I even explicitly said one possibility is the club believed it had to move Sands and this is the best deal available right now. That might be true. That does not make it a good deal, just the best available from a weak position.

But neither you nor Shwafta seem to have addressed my main point: this is an objectively bad deal and I see no reason to be happy with it. Grudging acceptance is the best, I think, anyone should muster. Yet I see idiot takes like this from MLS writers:

https://twitter.com/x/status/1478809901518499850

Monumental? We've developed 2 players who have flourished into the Bundesliga, but sending someone - on loan - to the SPL is monumental?

Best case scenario is Rangers pay the undisclosed purchase price and nothing negative happens. But we have sold away any upside, taken on risk, and deferred the payout. That's bad business unless you had no other option, and yes I find that possibility mildly depressing. Maybe we did promise James and had to accept this crap to honor the promise. If so, I am glad we honored the promise. People should honor their promises. But nonetheless, it is objectively a crap deal. You want to put lipstick on the pig, fine, but it is still a pig. Risk + capped upside + no guaranteed floor + deferred payment = a bad deal. Maybe the best available under the existing conditions, but that's still bad.

Also, if we did make that promise and this is the best or only deal we could get, then all the praise for signing him to the extension a year ago is rendered wrong, because from the club's perspective the reason that was good business was to put both James and NYCFC in a position to negotiate from a stronger position, but we basically did not actually have a strong position.

I don't disagree with any of the above. and the MLS i thing is an idiot take. But we had a happy player who was a key piece of a cup run and I don't think when the deal was struck last year that anyone on this board or elsewhere would have traded the cup he helped deliver for keeping him. BTW, in addition to his two cups in 2021, also absolutely stunk up the room where it counted, in WCQ in Honduras, which could not have helped his value overseas (he's like the Anti-Pepi in that frame).

Had we not signed him, his value would be the same and we would ACTUALLY have zero upside. I'm not saying it's a great deal. Losing Isi wasn't a great deal either and getting nothing for Gudi isn't a great deal. But if it was the best they could do under the circumstances, so be it. None of us know the exact conditions of the deals, either (we don't know for sure that the upside is capped, for example).

So I'm gonna be patient. Most of us didn't expect him to be around at all past June anyway, we won a cup, and even without him we have a pretty solid foundation.

 

[Shwafta]

Why would any academy prospect GAF whether they play as a homegrown before moving to Europe? And why would anyone prefer to wait longer to move, and end up in the SPL - on loan - instead of going sooner and younger on a permanent deal to the Bundesliga?

Not everyone can or wants to.

Not all players at young ages want to leave home. Not all players at young ages are good enough to be in the Bundesliga yet.

According to the logic you give, we shouldn't even have any academy players or homegrowns because they should already be in Europe.

Was there something in my post that indicated overall unhappiness with our roster development, or even any mention of the front office?
I thought I was pretty clear. I even explicitly said one possibility is the club believed it had to move Sands and this is the best deal available right now. That might be true. That does not make it a good deal, just the best available from a weak position.

But neither you nor Shwafta seem to have addressed my main point: this is an objectively bad deal and I see no reason to be happy with it. Grudging acceptance is the best, I think, anyone should muster. Yet I see idiot takes like this from MLS writers:

https://twitter.com/x/status/1478809901518499850

Monumental? We've developed 2 players who have flourished into the Bundesliga, but sending someone - on loan - to the SPL is monumental?

Best case scenario is Rangers pay the undisclosed purchase price and nothing negative happens. But we have sold away any upside, taken on risk, and deferred the payout. That's bad business unless you had no other option, and yes I find that possibility mildly depressing. Maybe we did promise James and had to accept this crap to honor the promise. If so, I am glad we honored the promise. People should honor their promises. But nonetheless, it is objectively a crap deal. You want to put lipstick on the pig, fine, but it is still a pig. Risk + capped upside + no guaranteed floor + deferred payment = a bad deal. Maybe the best available under the existing conditions, but that's still bad.

Also, if we did make that promise and this is the best or only deal we could get, then all the praise for signing him to the extension a year ago is rendered wrong, because from the club's perspective the reason that was good business was to put both James and NYCFC in a position to negotiate from a stronger position, but we basically did not actually have a strong position because we promised to make a deal no matter what.

It's not a good deal from the club's financial perspective, I agree, but I still don't see the problem from James' development perspective. He'll get Europa league time. He might even get CL time next season. We don't know underlying what happened and if there were offers from other european sides, but the fact is that he will be playing Europa league. Against Borussia Dortmund. If he plays, and plays well, that's a pretty good position to be in.

 

[mgarbowski]

Here's a minor puzzle:

New York City FC | MLSSoccer.com

All the latest MLS club news, scores, stats, standings and highlights.

www.mlssoccer.com

Sands and Mitrita are both officially on loan. Mitrita is still listed on the NYCFC roster page, with his loan status noted. So is Haak for that matter, though I thought his loan ended with the 2021 season. But Sands is just off the roster completely, one day after his loan was announced. Also, Mitrita is listed as a DP, which could be the reason why he's listed, ie, just to show he is taking up a DP slot, but that is inconsistent with the news items from when he was first loaned that people posted very recently that all said the loan freed up his DP position.

It could be as simple as MLS web interns not being consistent. But I can't see any logical reason for this that does not involve human error?. Anyone else know or have a better theory?

 

[Fantazma]

Here's a minor puzzle:

New York City FC | MLSSoccer.com

All the latest MLS club news, scores, stats, standings and highlights.

www.mlssoccer.com

Sands and Mitrita are both officially on loan. Mitrita is still listed on the NYCFC roster page, with his loan status noted. So is Haak for that matter, though I thought his loan ended with the 2021 season. But Sands is just off the roster completely, one day after his loan was announced. Also, Mitrita is listed as a DP, which could be the reason why he's listed, ie, just to show he is taking up a DP slot, but that is inconsistent with the news items from when he was first loaned that people posted very recently that all said the loan freed up his DP position.

It could be as simple as MLS web interns not being consistent. But I can't see any logical reason for this that does not involve human error?. Anyone else know or have a better theory?

its the mls site interns. remember when they made a whole article saying we qualified for CCL and in reality we didnt.

 

[Kjbert]

Everyone should watch the James Sands interview. Seriously. He pretty much says he only signed an extension with the promise that he could leave

 

[joe]

Is my signed jersey more valuable or less tho

 

[Shwafta]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1479108393667215366

 

[Aleeksa]

Not that it was ever our strength-strength, but does anybody know who is taking free kicks come February 15th?

Follow-up Question: are we worried?

 

[JayH]

Not that it was ever our strength-strength, but does anybody know who is taking free kicks come February 15th?

Follow-up Question: are we worried?

Callens takes all kicks of all kinds from all over.

 

[Fantazma]

Not that it was ever our strength-strength, but does anybody know who is taking free kicks come February 15th?

Follow-up Question: are we worried?

Maxi but it wont be a shot at goal, it will probably be just a pass to the box for a header or something.