Poll: Cut Mix or Josh (If It Comes to That)
- Thread starter mgarbowski
- Start date
You can always negotiate a buy out for less than the remaining amount on the deal. Mix doesn't have to say "yes" but under my scenario he would be foolish not to. He wouldn't be out any money, and he'd be back on the pitch.
The downside to my scenario is that if other teams knew of our intent, they could lowball his offer and we would have a bigger difference to make up.
What I outlined is better than a loan. Because we buy him out, the difference between his current salary and his new salary at the other Club is off the books. If we subsidize a loan, the difference is applied to our salary cap.
No team is going to do that, either the way you are describing it or as a loan where they pay his salary. The entire world knows that NYCFC has zero leverage, so clubs won't offer any more than they have to, which is zero. Mix is going to get his buyout, not that we'll ever get confirmation ala Wingert.
There has to be a lot of bluffing going on at least. Because yes, since all other clubs worldwide know that we have to pay Mix in full unless they accept his contract, they know they can offer him their league minimum and let NYC be stuck with the rest. Mix knows he's guaranteed his full pay no matter what and so has little motivation to make any alternative deal. NYC's only leverage is to threaten him by saying unless you compromise or help us get a deal we'll keep you on roster and waste another year which they may or may not actually be willing to do. They want to win, but they also seem pretty mercenary to me. They screwed us out of Lampard for half a season just to have him play about 30 minutes a game for MC. I can see them letting Mix waste away even as it hurts our roster pour encourager les autres.
That will piss me off at least as much as Lampard not showing on time.
Besides, isn't there basically no chance it's a lump sum payout? I mean, I highly doubt the rule requires it all be paid in full (the rule doesn't, not sure what the propagated practice is). They could negotiate payment terms and let him go wherever the hell he wants.
I'm betting it's a problem that they know where he wants to go and are trying to squeeze whatever they can. But it's really pointless, as you can't bluff when all the cards are faceup.
The FO screwed up handling this about as much as possible, and they are trying to save a little face and money here. In the end, they'll pay it all one way or another and move along. At some point, likely just before the deadline, someone will have a crisis of reason and recognize they are fucked. Until then, we can carry on the idle chatter.
As for disincentivizing future similar instances, I don't think that's a legitimate strategic move. If we're counting on that to curb our signing of poor fits, we've lost the plot entirely.
It's not a money issue. It's a cap issue. I think the Saunders trade today is going to result in a conclusion to this saga within the week.
What I meant by that last bit was not to deter the wrong type of player from coming so much as to deter poor behavior by those on the team (with I guess an indirect warning to those thinking of signing who know they have cooperation issues). Repeating the disclaimer that I don't know what's been going on or who's at fault, I am nevertheless confident in saying is that the club believes he has been uncooperative. I hope they don't go this way and I'd give it maybe a 30% chance that they do. Not more likely than not, but likely enough that I wouldn't be shocked.
I just don't see that as an issue to be concerned about. I think most guys want to play. And don't forget, the vast majority of players have contracts that are less onerous on the club, so even if they were inclined to situate themselves similarly they lack a necessary element.
All of that said, I don't disagree that it wouldn't be shocking, if only because I don't have full confidence in our FO. But I might set the odds lower than 30%. I (possibly hopefully) think that K Kjbert is right and we'll now see a resolution soon.
This raises a question for me about working with MLS. Could NYCFC petition MLS for an alternative to the annual buyout in which MLS agrees to take Mix off our salary cap if NYCFC agrees not to play him?
Reasons why:
Reasons why:
- Right now Mix has (in some ways) lots of leverage to get NYCFC to pay his full price before he goes and finds another club so that he (Mix) can fully double dip on his next contract.
- NYCFC suffers maximum losses by not being able to get any value in trade.
- MLS wants teams to be financially strong.
- NYCFC guaranteeing to continue paying Mix's contract would sort of satisfy the buyout concept while allowing NYCFC - and by extension, MLS - to maintain an asset on the books.
I don't understand the benefit of doing this versus buying Mix out. I doubt it would be CBA legal to do.
From a fundamental standpoint of not changing rules midstream, I'd have a severe problem with this if allowed. The team and league created this problem with the initial contract verbiage and they have to abide by it without shooting from the hip.
Interesting issue. As long as they pay Mix he's getting the benefit of his contract so there is no direct breach to him. What he loses is some leverage regarding the terms of his break up with the club, (and so do some of his potential future employers, but they have no basis to complain), but NYC still would have to abide by the core of his contract. The issue is whether Mix or the union do have grounds to object and I think it's an open question given we don't have the CBA. The league changes roster rules all the time. Generally new changes provide more flexibility to teams to spend more on players and the union is fine with it. This rule change would be the same. There still might be a specific provision in the CBA to block it, and maybe the union waives it in other cases, but that's just guess work on our part.
The most likely obstacle to me is whether other clubs would vote for it. Are there enough free-spending owners who would welcome a new rule that lets them remain saddled with the cost of a non-productive player while giving them an alternative way to avoid the cap? I think some might like it but they could also see this as just a get-out-of-jail-free card for NYCFC and vote against it.
Last thought: imagine the comments section on mlsoccer.com if something like this was announced.
Last edited:
The problem once again is that we just don't know why he's not playing, which makes it hard to say anything with certainty. That aside if he's truly never going to see the field again under any circumstances (which we don't actually know) there ought to be a mechanism in the rules to declare a player as non-playing. The player would need to be paid as per the terms of their contract, but the team would benefit with both the cap hit and the roster spot and the player would benefit because they'd be able to go play somewhere else. Perhaps there could be clauses to prevent some amount of double dipping, maybe the old and new teams splitting costs or something, but I'll leave that sort of thing to the lawyers here.
I definitely want him to play, but if he's not going to it doesn't do anyone any good, not the league the team the player or the fans, to have him gathering dust.
I definitely want him to play, but if he's not going to it doesn't do anyone any good, not the league the team the player or the fans, to have him gathering dust.
The problem with that, and it's a fundamental issue with MLS and their intent to stay solvent, is that any team could then designate a player as non-playing if they want to bring in reinforcements. While some owners would have no problem & endless resources to shelve unwanted players, other owners won't want to spend that money and will see it as imbalancing the playing field.
Valid, but there could be rules to it. Like one per year, say, and a requirement that the player not have played in any matches for 12 games, or some number of months perhaps.
I'm just saying there ought to be a way out of the exact situation we're in. Either have them play or if not have a mechanism for alleviating the problem. Like Bonilla with the Mets. It may have been questionable to give him that much money and to be paying him for 20 years or something but we weren't at the same time forced to have him sitting on the end of the bench until he was 75.
There actually is a mechanism, and it's one per year. NYCFC refuses to use it.
Do they refuse? Or, are they waiting for the last possible moment, in case they can defray some of their costs.
I only hope they are also targeting a player (CDM?) that could be signed with all the freed up Saunders/Mix space. If they are ready to sign that player before all Mix options have been exhausted, I want the club to be ready to cut Mix at that point for the sake of the deal.
Whether they are waiting or they refuse doesn't matter. There is a mechanism to deal with the situation and they have not engaged it. Until they expend all possible options of recourse, debating new mechanisms to use is a moot point.
Isn't this different though? The issue here is that we can't drop his contract because of his no-trade clause
