NYCFC Players Wanted Thread

[sbrylski]

How would everyone feel if Jack Harrison is the next DP?

As of today, it would probably be an overpay. Would he really be fetching a $1 million or greater salary in Europe right now? More than fine with using TAM on him to retain him though, and eventually DP status. But if a European team offers a transfer fee and $1+ million salary, I'll take the GAM and wish him well.

Harrison is great, but let's hope he's not a one-off, rather the first of many great young talents cycled through here. And $600k GAM buys us a hell of a player to replace him.

 

[Kjbert]

Are you out of your mind?

Nope. What has Pirlo accomplished here? How many good free kicks has he provided? 3? 4?

 

[snugglefarts]

Nope. What has Pirlo accomplished here? How many good free kicks has he provided? 3? 4?

He did score one entire goal.

 

[Gotham Gator]

As of today, it would probably be an overpay. Would he really be fetching a $1 million or greater salary in Europe right now? More than fine with using TAM on him to retain him though, and eventually DP status. But if a European team offers a transfer fee and $1+ million salary, I'll take the GAM and wish him well.

Harrison is great, but let's hope he's not a one-off, rather the first of many great young talents cycled through here. And $600k GAM buys us a hell of a player to replace him.

It's interesting that the rules actually encourage us to sell him. Even if we are willing to pay him full market rate and keep him as a cornerstone of the club for years, the GAM we can get from a transfer fee gives us a big incentive to make that deal.

 

[SoupInNYC]

How would everyone feel if Jack Harrison is the next DP?

As sbrylski pointed out, right now it wouldn't be worth it. But I do think if Jack continues on the progression he is on, he could develop into one. But first it would be into a GAM-type player, and then a DP.

But that said, I have confidence by the time Jack was to develop into a DP-level player, and assuming we have still kept him, I have confidence that the league will have grown enough and continued to enhance its roster rules that either there will be 1 or 2 more DP spots available and it would be worth using on Jack, or there would be other methods which to keep him.

 

[Ulrich]

It's interesting that the rules actually encourage us to sell him. Even if we are willing to pay him full market rate and keep him as a cornerstone of the club for years, the GAM we can get from a transfer fee gives us a big incentive to make that deal.

Agreed, and that's wrong on so many levels.

HG/drafted players should be exempt from the Cap. If they are worth keeping past the initial contract, then the club should be allowed to pay whatever wages they deem reasonable and not have to make an either/decision.

That said, deciding whether to sell Harrison is no different than the decision every other club in the world is faced with regarding their youth/talent. Sell high to improve the rest of the club, or keep and reap the benefits/talent developed from within?

 

[SoupInNYC]

Agreed, and that's wrong on so many levels.

HG/drafted players should be exempt from the Cap. If they are worth keeping past the initial contract, then the club should be allowed to pay whatever wages they deem reasonable and not have to make an either/decision.

That said, deciding whether to sell Harrison is no different than the decision every other club in the world is faced with regarding their youth/talent. Sell high to improve the rest of the club, or keep and reap the benefits/talent developed from within?

That is actually a very good consideration. Though I do think they should still have somewhat of a cap-hit, but make them somewhat DP-like. Though I think I would keep this to just homegrown players rather than also drafted players, though I would love to apply this to Jack.

Players that were homegrown, after you receive the early homegrown cap benefit, will count exactly their salary against the cap. Once they start making a certain threshold, for this example I will use the DP-threshold, their cap-hit stays at that rate, no matter how much they are actually paid. This benefit would not be transferable to teams if you trade the player or they decide to sign elsewhere later.

 

[Kjbert]

He did score one entire goal.

You are right.

Remember Mehdi's awesome goal?

 

[SoupInNYC]

You are right.

Remember Mehdi's awesome goal?

Medhi scored two

Edit: just checked that other thread, he's scored 3

Edit2: Also wanted to add that yes his direct free kicks have been terrible, but I feel as though his other ones have been pretty decent. Everyone gave Maxi a ton of credit and shit on Pirlo a lot for the set piece goal that Maxi delivered, but honestly, that was about 90% Villa on that one with his run and the ridiculous angle.

 

[gbservis]

You are right.

Remember Mehdi's awesome goal?

Even better remember when Jacobson scored that screamer from the top of the box and took it as a sign that he should shoot from there as much as possible and then proceeded to blast about 20 shots over the goal and into the stands the next 5 games. Ah good times.

 

[JayH]

Nope. What has Pirlo accomplished here? How many good free kicks has he provided? 3? 4?

I was thinking about it yesterday. I would have set the over/under on Pirlo individual free kick goals over 2.5 season to be around 7-ish (conservatively). By comparison, Drogba played the equivalent of one MLS season and scored 5. Gio scores bushels of them every season. Pirlo of dead ball lore, 1 so far. That alone is disappointing and shocking.

 

[mgarbowski]

Even better remember when Jacobson scored that screamer from the top of the box and took it as a sign that he should shoot from there as much as possible and then proceeded to blast about 20 shots over the goal and into the stands the next 5 games. Ah good times.

Finally paid off for him last weekend.

 

[sbrylski]

Agreed, and that's wrong on so many levels.

HG/drafted players should be exempt from the Cap. If they are worth keeping past the initial contract, then the club should be allowed to pay whatever wages they deem reasonable and not have to make an either/decision.

Disagree. It makes sense for a player like Harrison, but a majority of homegrown players aren't stars. Making *all* homegrowns cap-free would place a premium on players with homegrown status and increase their wages, despite most of them being squad players. It would put money in the wrong places.

That said, there's probably a middle ground. Like 1-3 cap-free roster spots for homegrowns or something.

 

[Ulrich]

Disagree. It makes sense for a player like Harrison, but a majority of homegrown players aren't stars. Making *all* homegrowns cap-free would place a premium on players with homegrown status and increase their wages, despite most of them being squad players. It would put money in the wrong places.

That said, there's probably a middle ground. Like 1-3 cap-free roster spots for homegrowns or something.

How would it increase wages? If the players are only squad players (at best), no team will want to keep around guys that aren't contributing every game while carrying high salaries. Plus, there's a roster size limit, so again, teams aren't going to be stockpiling avg players for the hell of it.

 

[SoupInNYC]

How would it increase wages? If the players are only squad players (at best), no team will want to keep around guys that aren't contributing every game while carrying high salaries. Plus, there's a roster size limit, so again, teams aren't going to be stockpiling avg players for the hell of it.

I think he's taking your original comment to say that all homegrowns should not count against the cap at all and "cap-free".

In essence, it would make homegrown players have higher salaries than they would normally deserve, because no matter their skill-level, they would not count against the cap, therefore providing better "value" to the team in the form of extra cap space to spend elsewhere, outside of just their skills.

For example, lets pretend that Tommy McNamara is a homegrown player for us. He's making $184k this year, that in essence would be cap-free. No matter what side of the fence you sit on as far as him starting or whatnot, I think most of us would agree that Tommy provides us some value off the bench. For teams with deeper pockets (NYCFC), we would be more willing to pay TMac more than his market value in order to keep his valuable bench status on our roster, and in the meantime, have more cash to upgrade another position.

 

[Kjbert]

I think it's much more likely that Matarrita is sold and that helps fund a new Harrison contract

 

[Ulrich]

I think he's taking your original comment to say that all homegrowns should not count against the cap at all and "cap-free".

In essence, it would make homegrown players have higher salaries than they would normally deserve, because no matter their skill-level, they would not count against the cap, therefore providing better "value" to the team in the form of extra cap space to spend elsewhere, outside of just their skills.

For example, lets pretend that Tommy McNamara is a homegrown player for us. He's making $184k this year, that in essence would be cap-free. No matter what side of the fence you sit on as far as him starting or whatnot, I think most of us would agree that Tommy provides us some value off the bench. For teams with deeper pockets (NYCFC), we would be more willing to pay TMac more than his market value in order to keep his valuable bench status on our roster, and in the meantime, have more cash to upgrade another position.

I understand what you're saying, but the economics for a club won't work like that. If a HG player is only advantageous to the team that developed him, then there will not be an explosion of salaries. If Player A is developed by Team X, but PA is only good enough to be a marginal squad player, then Team Y won't be outbidding TX for his services (because TY doesn't get the HG exemption). It also means TX won't be paying more than they should because there's a threshold PA could get from TY or TZ. If PA doesn't like TX's offer then they can see if TY or TZ will offer more, but both teams will be thrifty with their cap-tied funds.

If Player B is a star, and is good enough to go to Europe, then TX should be allowed to keep the player they developed and not have to use a DP slot. Now if TY or TZ wants to make PB a DP when he's a free agent, then that's their option to offer a compelling contract to attract the player, same as European teams.

This rule would provide a ton of reward to clubs that really develop HG players of quality, (and also better than average squad players) and that's something the league as a whole should be promoting.

To your point about rich/poor clubs, that's just part of the game. The club still has to fork out the money, and if it's being "wasted" sitting on a bench or not dressing, then so be it - no club is really going to want to operate in the Red for very long, so if they have the operating capital, go for it.

Even CFG wants NYCFC to be self-sufficient after the initial outlay for expansion and capital expenditures, and CFG is considered on the extreme end of rich owners, so I don't think NYCFC would fall into a domestic arms race.

 

[Midas Mulligan]

CFG is considered on the extreme end of rich owners

A net spend of almost 120 million pounds more than the next highest PL team over the last two. Posted this in the PL thread, but works here, too.

 

[Ulrich]

A net spend of almost 120 million pounds more than the next highest PL team over the last two. Posted this in the PL thread, but works here, too.

Is MCfC self sufficient or are they still suckling at the proverbial teat?

 

[SoupInNYC]

I understand what you're saying, but the economics for a club won't work like that. If a HG player is only advantageous to the team that developed him, then there will not be an explosion of salaries. If Player A is developed by Team X, but PA is only good enough to be a marginal squad player, then Team Y won't be outbidding TX for his services (because TY doesn't get the HG exemption). It also means TX won't be paying more than they should because there's a threshold PA could get from TY or TZ. If PA doesn't like TX's offer then they can see if TY or TZ will offer more, but both teams will be thrifty with their cap-tied funds.

If Player B is a star, and is good enough to go to Europe, then TX should be allowed to keep the player they developed and not have to use a DP slot. Now if TY or TZ wants to make PB a DP when he's a free agent, then that's their option to offer a compelling contract to attract the player, same as European teams.

Agree with the parts that I did not include here, but I still think a total "cap-free" hit for homegrown players would still lead to it. There could be the possibility that PA wants to leave for TY, but TX is able to offer a lot more compensation because they know they won't get the cap hit for it.

Ultimately, I do agree with the not having to use a DP-slot on homegrowns that develop into special players. I think that would be a great incentive for teams to hold on to these guys and would really help further the development of this league. At some point though, there needs to be a cap-hit. I get why MLS provides relief when guys first come into the league as homegrowns, but think after 1-3 years, that relief should either disappear, or start to diminish.