American Dps For Nycfc
- Thread starter MrMartinezNYC
- Start date
I think Diskerud could be a fine signing but I am not sure he is worthy of designated player wages. I watched the US match and Green was out of his element (against a not even full strength Turkish side that failed to qualify)—he has potential, no doubt, but I think he stills needs a few years before he'll be at the level necessary to hold down an international role.
I have spent quite a lot of time in NYC, Manchester, and Zaragoza (I am half Spanish, half English, and have family and friends that now live in the US), which is why I am excited all-around for the David Villa signing. You are getting a very, very good player. If you could convince Xavi to join him, and Theirry Ambrose does indeed get loaned to you, NYCFC would have a formidable attack.
From what I have read it is unusual for a 'DP' slot to be used on a defender but you may consider bucking that trend in order to assure a strong spine of the team. Demichelis wouldn't be a miss. Nor would a player like Mathias Bossearts (though, he would likely not be a starter). I don't think you could get Lescott just because of his wage demands (too high for a defender in the MLS). But I wonder if John Brooks could be prized away from Hertha. I have seen him play several times in the Bundesliga and he looked substantial in his appearance on Sunday.
MikeDatTiger
Registered
He got cheers but on twitter he was getting roasted. Dude has no business playing on a World Cup team. None. I'm embarrassed he's on the roster and furious he's there and Donovan isn't. JK gave Green a raw deal by making him replace Donovan, and I wish the kid the best but he needs to stay in development at Bayern Munich. Too much pressure here now.
Interesting. For an ignorant soul like me, could someone link to an explanation/analysis of this allocation system?
Thanks Kjbert. I read through that earlier and it was very helpful but I don't believe it addresses the type of allocation alluded to above. Diskerud and Brooks would be coming from foreign clubs and, as far as I am aware, are not currently owned by the MLS (though, perhaps they have a buy back clause; also, someone indicated that an MLS team may already have a sort of "first-refusal" rights for Diskerud). A subsequent post on they thread touches upon this scenario but I am still unsure as to how the process specifically would work. As it was summarised it seems to disincentivise purchasing non-designated players outside of the MLS player ranks as a club doesn't actually have full rights over the player they are attempting to sign. I can only imagine how frustrating it would be for both the MLS club, foreign club, and the player going through all of the discussions and negotiations only for another MLS club to swoop in and take the player elsewhere. I wonder if this was intentional or just an unintended consequence that has yet be addressed.
The system itself seems very strange, especially when considering how difficult it must make it for an MLS club to buy a promising American talent playing abroad.
Last edited:
SteveMcSteve
Registered
No. Portland tried to negotiate a contract for Mix when they had the top spot in the allocation order last year. But they were unable to, and they don't have any rights to him. Currently, the top spot in the allocation order belongs with Toronto.
However you are right that Orlando and NYCFC will have the top spots at the start of 2015. And that's when Mix will be available on a free transfer, so it makes sense to try to make a move for him.
Also, he is likely to be subject to the allocation order regardless of whether he is a DP. MLS decides on a case by case basis whether USMNT DPs coming to MLS are subject to the order. Bradley and Dempsey weren't, because MLS wanted to accommodate getting those huge names to MLS and there were teams willing to give them big money. But Edu was subject to the allocation order, even though he is a DP. Mix is promising, but he's not Bradley or Dempsey, I think he would be subject to allocation.
Also, I still don't think he should be a DP. If NYCFC could get him for $300-400K per year, I think he would be a good signing. But I don't they should use one of their DP slots on him.
Thanks for the clarification (and I agree about Diskerud).
I am an analyst by profession and from my perspective the allocation systems seems dubious. Is this just a common perspective arising from ignorance or do other, more seasoned, MLS supporters see this way?
Ahh, that is a fair assessment. I'm actually not a supporter of a completely free market as Darwin's Wedge has a tendency of coming in to play far too often without reasonable constraint and oversight. But I also have seen and studied far too many imbalanced centralised systems to be comfortable with a fully controlled market. Call me an Austrian Marxist. ;-)
Essentially, what it boils down to is this: MLS as a league runs a system where the teams are like departments of a single company. Players are actually owned by the league, which allocates them to teams. Now, for DPs and youth players coming up through the academy, MLS allows clubs to "keep" those it invests heavily in acquiring. However, if you don't put in the cash, or don't have a history of training the player through your academy, the league views players you are interested in much more as a league asset than a club one. Since MLS does most of the player recruitment itself it feels no compunction about if they go elsewhere, as long as they stay in MLS.
When players are signed from outside the league, therefore - DPs and academy youths excepting - it makes them go through an allocation process where all available players are up for picking in manner very similar to captains picking teams in the primary school playground (only with twenty captains). To stop teams from secretly persuading players to refuse to sign for anyone else, clubs who draft the players get a first option on the player which means that the player cannot opt to join another club if they reject the drafting team for a set period of time.
It may sound like a chaotic situation, but the clubs do have some tactics. For a start, anyone who makes a habit of stealing other teams' players then they are only making it more likely that their own players will be stolen in future. Secondly, clubs can tell MLS what salary they want to offer the player when the deal is first set up, so if they sign someone to a max wage deal, many clubs might simply not want to use up the salary cap space on him, or might not even have the space in their squads. Remember that you probably have to sacrifice the player(s) you have lined up yourself in order to steal another player. Finally, the league allows teams to trade certain picks for other picks or for players, so if you know you have a gem of a player coming through you could offer NYCFC your overachieving young RB or so on in exchange for their right to pick a player before anyone else. It means that horse trading is not only possible but is positively encouraged in MLS.
He is good. He's 23 and I believe he has played in European competition.
Thank you for such a detailed explanation Falastur.
That is an intriguing system. It seems incredibly inefficient, but that is usually the case for controlled markets where anti-volatility measures are paramount. I have researched the NASL a bit, so understand why the MLS is structured this way, however, eventually they will need to think of redefining incentives and allowing for more direct control of player allocation. I have read quite a few editorials from ITK journalists and former MLS players who argue the current labor system is detrimental to player development and retention (although retention is paradoxical it's strongest tenet). I think they have some valid points, as well.
It should be interesting to see how things progress.
MikeDatTiger
Registered
It's probably worth noting that that's the system we have now. That could change in a few months once the CBA comes up. Now that the very existence of MLS isn't in jeopardy, I could see MLS discarding single-entity. Just doesn't seem to be of much use anymore.
I think what you have seen (and there are people here with a better knowledge of the history than me) is that MLS has slowly pulled back the reigns and let the teams survive on their own bit by bit.
If it operated like the NASL, teams like Columbus, San Jose, Colorado and RSL couldn't compete. For now, this works. Long term, it is being relaxed. The new television deal is a big part of opening this system up. Teams, until now, relied on gate take to fund their operations, according to Garber. MLB, NFL, NHL, NBA...they make all of their money from TV and merchandising.
If it operated like the NASL, teams like Columbus, San Jose, Colorado and RSL couldn't compete. For now, this works. Long term, it is being relaxed. The new television deal is a big part of opening this system up. Teams, until now, relied on gate take to fund their operations, according to Garber. MLB, NFL, NHL, NBA...they make all of their money from TV and merchandising.
If it was operated like the NASL it would have failed years ago, so I take your point and agree it will be a slow transition. As I learn more I am sure I will see the groundwork for those changes being put in place.
Similar threads
