2022 Roster Discussion

The loans, on their own, did help in a way, in that they demonstrated to prospective young players that if you want to continue your development and "move up" to top European leagues, we work with you toward that end. However, not replacing Sands and Taty... that hurt.
 
Brooklyn Blue said:
I’m happy for you that all the teams you support win every year.
Click to expand...

all the teams I support, except the Giants, try every year.

In MLS, you don’t have to. And we didn’t try our best. This is NOT the best team we could field. To say otherwise is a LIE.
 
Kjbert said:
all the teams I support, except the Giants, try every year.

In MLS, you don’t have to. And we didn’t try our best. This is NOT the best team we could field. To say otherwise is a LIE.
Click to expand...

how do you know the club didn't try? maybe they did and got denied by the player/club.

Even if we signed a few young, up and coming players, what's the bar to say we are fielding the "best team we could field"? Would you like to sign another veteran from la liga and get an amagat?

i'm also unhappy with how we are performing lately. but with all that's going on with the team (new coach, players leaving/injuries), i can understand it. maybe, pelligrini will be an additional spark in midfield that we need.
 
moogoo said:
how do you know the club didn't try? maybe they did and got denied by the player/club.

Even if we signed a few young, up and coming players, what's the bar to say we are fielding the "best team we could field"? Would you like to sign another veteran from la liga and get an amagat?

i'm also unhappy with how we are performing lately. but with all that's going on with the team (new coach, players leaving/injuries), i can understand it. maybe, pelligrini will be an additional spark in midfield that we need.
Click to expand...
This is being complacent, which is fine and perfectly understandable. But I think @kjbert’s statement that we didn’t do our best is indisputable. We didn’t. This window confirmed it again. We have the money, the network, and the roster flexibility to make improvements whether roster changing or depth, and didn’t. That’s a fact. There’s a difference between winning and putting yourself in the best position to do so. We can still do the former but didn’t do the latter. Again, that can be ok based upon what you expect and how you feel about it. We are still spoiled with a great roster, a well performing team, and a cup, so it doesn’t bother me so much. And there is some value in having things to complain about!
 
With the amount of contracts that are to free up this winter you have to wonder if Lee and the FO decided to abstain from moves this summer in order to maximize their potential off season flexibility. But on the other you can look at history and see that as a whole the team doesn’t do a huge amount of off loading and reloading each year.
 
JayH said:
This is being complacent, which is fine and perfectly understandable. But I think @kjbert’s statement that we didn’t do our best is indisputable. We didn’t. This window confirmed it again. We have the money, the network, and the roster flexibility to make improvements whether roster changing or depth, and didn’t. That’s a fact. There’s a difference between winning and putting yourself in the best position to do so. We can still do the former but didn’t do the latter. Again, that can be ok based upon what you expect and how you feel about it. We are still spoiled with a great roster, a well performing team, and a cup, so it doesn’t bother me so much. And there is some value in having things to complain about!
Click to expand...

again.. what is "our best"? and how do you know we didn't try? just stating that we have money, a scouting network, and roster flexibility does not prove anything. "our best" is subjective. for some that may be signing a bunch of young players to develop. for others, that may be signing proven, but declining, veterans from a league in europe. where is the line and how do you meet it? And again - how do any of us even know they didn't try to go after players and were denied for one reason or another? just because we have money and the network, doesn't mean we won't get denied a transfer, even if it's within the CFG network.

we got pelligrini because it made sense for whatever reason. so obviously, the club isn't against signing new players.
 
moogoo said:
again.. what is "our best"? and how do you know we didn't try? just stating that we have money, a scouting network, and roster flexibility does not prove anything. "our best" is subjective. for some that may be signing a bunch of young players to develop. for others, that may be signing proven, but declining, veterans from a league in europe. where is the line and how do you meet it? And again - how do any of us even know they didn't try to go after players and were denied for one reason or another? just because we have money and the network, doesn't mean we won't get denied a transfer, even if it's within the CFG network.

we got pelligrini because it made sense for whatever reason. so obviously, the club isn't against signing new players.
Click to expand...
Our “best” is somewhat objective in that you could look at when the team has performed the best statistically over a period of time and what players were on the field at the time. I think you would be hard pressed to say the MLS Cup final starting 11 (plus Keaton and Anton) is our “best” all at one time. So if you take that lineup vs. say our current lineup you could decide who is performing better including historical same player vs. current same player if they are in the same position.
 
JCMore said:
With the amount of contracts that are to free up this winter you have to wonder if Lee and the FO decided to abstain from moves this summer in order to maximize their potential off season flexibility. But on the other you can look at history and see that as a whole the team doesn’t do a huge amount of off loading and reloading each year.
Click to expand...
Which may be bad or good, because we have been the most steadily successful MLS team over the last 5 years, and maybe that´s a by-product of roster stability despite the freaking coach instability. Yes, we don´t seem to shoot for the stars like TOR or LAX or LAFC do, but we steadily maintain a high floor, which is also hard to do
 
moogoo said:
again.. what is "our best"? and how do you know we didn't try? just stating that we have money, a scouting network, and roster flexibility does not prove anything. "our best" is subjective. for some that may be signing a bunch of young players to develop. for others, that may be signing proven, but declining, veterans from a league in europe. where is the line and how do you meet it? And again - how do any of us even know they didn't try to go after players and were denied for one reason or another? just because we have money and the network, doesn't mean we won't get denied a transfer, even if it's within the CFG network.

we got pelligrini because it made sense for whatever reason. so obviously, the club isn't against signing new players.
Click to expand...

Best would have involved selling Taty and not loaning him and then using those funds to improve our team.
 
Kjbert said:
Why? The GAM money is capped. Loaning a player out is literally the worst roster move available to an MLS team.
Click to expand...
1) If NYCFC were to sell a player well under the value they establish for them, it sets them up terribly in the future negotiation-wise for all future sales
2) I know you like to pretend any money above what can be used for GAM basically just vanishes, but it doesn't. That is money the club can invest in transfer fees for future DPs, into the academy, into fan relations, or into the local community
3) The GAM money is currently capped at a certain amount and that amount increases each year. Additionally, the roster rules and salary cap have been becoming more and more flexible as time goes on. There's no reason to think the amount of money that can be invested back into the roster won't be more if a sale happens next year compared to this year
4) Loaning a player out can result in GAM as well depending on what the team the player is being loaned to is paying for the loan. We don't know what that is in this case, but it is possible that NYCFC could basically double-dip in GAM on the loan, and then later on the sale.
5) Long term growth for the league. Sure, this could be a bit of a reach, but selling the top striker in the league for $15-20m as opposed to $8m helps build reputation for the league, increasing visibility from within the country and around the world, attracting talent to the league (as well as the club).
 
SoupInNYC said:
1) If NYCFC were to sell a player well under the value they establish for them, it sets them up terribly in the future negotiation-wise for all future sales
2) I know you like to pretend any money above what can be used for GAM basically just vanishes, but it doesn't. That is money the club can invest in transfer fees for future DPs, into the academy, into fan relations, or into the local community
3) The GAM money is currently capped at a certain amount and that amount increases each year. Additionally, the roster rules and salary cap have been becoming more and more flexible as time goes on. There's no reason to think the amount of money that can be invested back into the roster won't be more if a sale happens next year compared to this year
4) Loaning a player out can result in GAM as well depending on what the team the player is being loaned to is paying for the loan. We don't know what that is in this case, but it is possible that NYCFC could basically double-dip in GAM on the loan, and then later on the sale.
5) Long term growth for the league. Sure, this could be a bit of a reach, but selling the top striker in the league for $15-20m as opposed to $8m helps build reputation for the league, increasing visibility from within the country and around the world, attracting talent to the league (as well as the club).
Click to expand...


I can easily disprove half your points. Show me where the Taty money was reinvested? It wasn’t.

Your argument is either a) this club needs to sell to balance the books for the operating unit which is frankly horseshit considering energy prices or b) that it’s good the club didn’t sell Taty at a price that certain clubs offered because it would have messed up our recruitment strategy. Yet you’ve been unable to tell me what that strategy is except it’s for 2023.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

mgarbowski
NYCFC Season Discussion 2024: The Definition of NYCFC is Doing the Same Thing Over and Over and Getting the Same Result
10 11 12
Replies
226
Views
10,651
gbservis
gbservis
K
2022 Season Prognostication Thread
Replies
12
Views
2,872
Shwafta
Shwafta
mgarbowski
  • Poll Poll
NYCFC Season Discussion 2023: We Know What We Are, But Not What We May Be
15 16 17
Replies
332
Views
19,389
FootyLovin
FootyLovin
4
Let's bring traffic back
Replies
3
Views
2,061
moogoo
M
Shwafta
  • Sticky
NYCFC Survivor [2022 Edition] General Discussion
Replies
10
Views
2,113
mgarbowski
mgarbowski
Back
Top