PDA

View Full Version : ESPN on McBride



Broadview
06-02-2008, 02:41 PM
http://soccernet.espn.go.com/columns/story?id=541752&root=mls&cc=5901

Ron Manager
06-02-2008, 02:46 PM
Interesting that he thinks we need a defender. I would say that is the last thing on our shopping list.

jabbronies
06-02-2008, 02:48 PM
Striker you ESPN cocksuckers...we need a Striker, not D!!!

Daveisonfire
06-02-2008, 02:49 PM
As for trade material, the men of Toyota have parts to spare. (Although the word is that Justin Mapp was among the first names requested by TFC, and the Fire probably shouldn't go there.) But Conde? He's a talent, for sure, one that has barely dented the lineup in '08. Translation: he's expendable. And TFC can use a guy like that, one who can brace a defense that's still too leaky.
Umm...we top the league in clean sheets? We are solid at the back, this guy doesn't know what he's taking about.

Broadview
06-02-2008, 02:50 PM
No kidding, we're second best in goals against.

Our backs are relatively cheap (salary wise) as well.

We need a guy like, well, McBride.

NF-FC
06-02-2008, 02:53 PM
Interesting that he thinks we need a defender. I would say that is the last thing on our shopping list.

agreed. were have the second lowest goals against. we need more goals for, much more

onemanbarmyarmy
06-02-2008, 02:55 PM
That has to be some of the worst journalistic tripe I've ever had the ill fate of running my eyes over. Is that guy a third grade teacher. I swear I got a cavity reading that siropy nonsense. That and his brilliant idea of sending a def. to Toronto for Mcbrides rights. Does Shit-cago have a second DP spot for him or is he not asking for DP money?

Billy the kid
06-02-2008, 03:05 PM
What was up with that bit about him saving kittens out of trees.....weird.

Keyman
06-02-2008, 03:07 PM
Wow. All I have to say is. LOL

j_capitain
06-02-2008, 03:24 PM
Remember - these are the same dumbasses that list BMO Fiels as being the US, enough said on their credibility! :noidea:

Eastend
06-02-2008, 03:44 PM
This whole situation points to Toronto getting screwed....and where the fuck did this guy learn how to investigate his points.

djking2
06-02-2008, 03:53 PM
I'm not sure I see TFC getting screwed on this deal but I doubt we nail Chicago's ass to the wall either. Take Nyarko and picks or allocation and move on. I don't think Mo needs McBride to set his agenda It's a windfall that has the potential to help longterm and we still pop for a DP striker in July

NF-FC
06-02-2008, 03:59 PM
That has to be some of the worst journalistic tripe I've ever had the ill fate of running my eyes over. Is that guy a third grade teacher. I swear I got a cavity reading that siropy nonsense. That and his brilliant idea of sending a def. to Toronto for Mcbrides rights. Does Shit-cago have a second DP spot for him or is he not asking for DP money?

i don't think he's asking for DP money, Chicago is getting the home team discount

Ossington Mental Youth
06-02-2008, 03:59 PM
yeah, its more about Chicago then about TFC, kinda amazed that he decided to ignore all the important information (especially that bit about us having the second tighest defence in the east/league adn the fact that Condes contract is up in a year and prob wont want to come to TFC.

BeachRed
06-02-2008, 04:10 PM
agreed. were have the second lowest goals against. we need more goals for, much more

We'll have to see how we do on the road. This is a different team home and away.

How different is this situation from us getting Guevara? What did we have to give up then?

Broadview
06-02-2008, 04:30 PM
We'll have to see how we do on the road. This is a different team home and away.

How different is this situation from us getting Guevara? What did we have to give up then?

We gave up conditional picks, so nothing yet. It'll depend on what he does for us. I'm not sure what the cost will be since he's been great.

The difference is Chivas wanted nothing to do with Amado and the whole world knew it.

Given the oppertunity, we would take McBride and will use our "dibs" allocation to do so. In that sense, we're getting a bit of the shaft and would need value for such. There's a long line back up to the top of that list.

Cambridge_Red
06-02-2008, 04:36 PM
Take some allocation. Mcbride most likely wont want to play here. I doubt Shitcago will give up much, anyways I like how MO has properly shopped around for his signings.

Pachuco
06-02-2008, 04:52 PM
If Shitcago gets McBride, it will be very difficult to beat them, no matter who we get as DP. Personally, it would be more of a win if we can trade McBride to another city in the West far and far away :)

djking2
06-02-2008, 05:04 PM
If Shitcago gets McBride, it will be very difficult to beat them, no matter who we get as DP. Personally, it would be more of a win if we can trade McBride to another city in the West far and far away :)

I know what you're saying but it's already a lock he goes to Chicago. I'm not sure we need to concede defeat and go home if he does.

Toronto_Bhoy
06-02-2008, 05:22 PM
What kind of league "leans" on teams to make deals?

Read this from the same media source—Soccernet.com



MLS tackles the issue of transparency

For all of its notable successes -- adding teams and building stadiums across the continent, signing brand-name performers like Blanco and Beckham, merely surviving for 13 years -- MLS has taken some well-deserved heat throughout its history for what many view as a make-it-up-as-you-go-along attitude towards its own arcane set of rules and regulations. The complaints often have been justified.

Critics argue that with Landon Donovan, the Galaxy effectively have three DP players.
After all, it was only three years ago that the suits at MLS headquarters in Manhattan strong-armed FC Dallas into trading an allocation so Landon Donovan could play in Los Angeles after returning from Bayer Leverkusen. It didn't matter that that FCD probably would have taken Donovan over Carlos Ruiz in a heartbeat, or that Donovan's rights should have belonged to his former club, San Jose.

And that's but one example. In 2003, Dallas had to relinquish the top overall draft pick so that flagship club D.C. United could select local sensation Freddy Adu. And in 2000, the Galaxy off-loaded future U.S. national team star Clint Mathis against its will so the league could strategically place petulant and past-it Mexican striker Luis Hernandez in immigrant-rich Southern California.


Complete article—

http://soccernet.espn.go.com/columns/story?id=528307&root=mls&cc=5739

I've got two words for Chicago and the League…Fuck Off!

BeachRed
06-02-2008, 07:03 PM
What kind of league "leans" on teams to make deals?


A young one still fighting for its life.

There should be less and less of this stuff as the league becomes more solid, but no soccer league will survive in North America if it's dominated by a few teams - the rest will just fold. So, the league has to do what's in the best interest of keeping the league strong (which it does sometimes and screws up badly others).

So yeah, this stuff will have to end soon.

Toronto_Bhoy
06-02-2008, 09:06 PM
A young one still fighting for its life.

There should be less and less of this stuff as the league becomes more solid, but no soccer league will survive in North America if it's dominated by a few teams - the rest will just fold.


That's my point!!! Big media market teams get the benefit of league strong arming at the expensive of others!

Why would you want to invest in a business like that? "Sorry guys but for the betterment of the league were gonna take the league's MVP and give him to…LA 'cause…well…their LA and your not?"

"Sorry Toronto…we know you have the rights to McBride but it's best for the league you give him to Chicago". Why even bother having players rights?

I can't think of a legitimate sports league that would change the rules "on the fly" to benefit certain markets? Let's just change the rules depending on the circumstances?

Insane…

mighty_torontofc_2008
06-02-2008, 09:29 PM
can never have enough defence...defence wins Championships!!

BeachRed
06-02-2008, 09:33 PM
"Sorry Toronto…we know you have the rights to McBride but it's best for the league you give him to Chicago". Why even bother having players rights?



Well, it hasn't happened yet. I'm hoping that MLSE is making exactly your points and won't be pushed around. I don't know much about Mo, but he's been involved with this league a long time and doesn't seem like a pushover.

It's not unprecedented, though. For years the NBA had territorial rights so that "local boys" could be marketed. When it wasn't needed anymore they got rid of it (I'm not sure, but they probably held on to it even after it wasn't needed).

The NHL (I know that's a terrible example when it comes to pro sports leagues) also had an unwritten rule giving Montreal first dibs on French players. It was never an official rule, but it might as well have been.

kdzb
06-02-2008, 09:39 PM
by adding the best players to chicago, LAG, and DC united, you are not balancing the league, you are creating 3 or 4 superpower teams and the rest of the league will fight for survival.
But you know what, we really don't need McBride neither what it comes from him.
Remember guys, before McBride decided to come back he wasn't even in our calculations and we have to trust Mo to build a super TFC team without the help of Fucking MLS suits.

Toronto_Bhoy
06-02-2008, 10:05 PM
It's not unprecedented, though. For years the NBA had territorial rights so that "local boys" could be marketed. When it wasn't needed anymore they got rid of it (I'm not sure, but they probably held on to it even after it wasn't needed).

The NHL (I know that's a terrible example when it comes to pro sports leagues) also had an unwritten rule giving Montreal first dibs on French players. It was never an official rule, but it might as well have been.


Not unprecedented??? That was 50 fucking years ago!!!

Baseball did it too…but way back then the "old local boy" rule was a given…and was so for years until "collective bargaining" came into effect…which eliminated collusion and antitrust.

It was "legally implemented" to prevented those in power from “rigging the game" and controlling the livelihood of players (workers).

Hey, you and I, I'm sure, are on the same side of this argument…but frankly articles like the two cited on this thread really concern me about the legitimacy of this as a viable professional league?

Mojo
06-02-2008, 10:06 PM
I don't like this allocation nonsense.

If a team wants to sign a player, and that player wants to go to that team, thats that. There shouldnt be any other nonsense about who has the allocation rights.

BeachRed
06-03-2008, 08:27 AM
Hey, you and I, I'm sure, are on the same side of this argument…but frankly articles like the two cited on this thread really concern me about the legitimacy of this as a viable professional league?

Oh yes, I'm sure we're on the same side of the argument. And we're both in a hurry to get this league to where it should be.

The league itself is trying to become the first ever successful soccer league in North America. It's got the potential to be one of the best leagues in the world simply because North America is such a big, lucrative market.

But it's up against it. Look at even the Toronto media - any idiot can see that TFC is going to be one of the major sports teams in this city (in fact it already is, and will only get bigger) and yet the media lags so far behind. It's even worse in the states where too many jerks afraid of what's coming spend too much time bad-mouthing or ignoring soccer.

And the league's got to compete with every established league in the world to convince the best players and coaches they can to come over here so they're makng allowances - are they making too many? Probably.

It's changing fast, though. The sponsorship deals with VW and Microsoft are reall just the beginning. I want to tell the media dinosaurs trying to ignore soccer is like standing in a typhoon with an umbrella. It's coming. What's that line? Lead, follow or get out of the fucking way.

I'm really optimistic about this league, but like you, I'm worried the guys running it will make too many boneheaded mistakes.

But really, they're sitting on a pot of gold, I have faith in greed, it'll work out.

Billy the kid
06-03-2008, 08:44 AM
I agree, I don't care for the allocation system either. The fact is that if the player demands to go to a team and won't play anywhere else, you pretty much have to accomodate. Atleast if they are a big name that the league wants. If McBride won't play anywhere else, TFC has little leverage and the allocation slot means very little. We probably did benefit in the Guevara case, he was worth more than what we gave up for his rights.

Billy the kid
06-03-2008, 08:46 AM
I guess the Guevarra case was different as it wasn't an allocation slot.

Pachuco
06-03-2008, 09:37 AM
The Guevara case was different because the team that had his rights wanted nothing to do with him. In this case, we legitimitaly want McBride, and if we can't get him, we sure as hell better got something big.

Steve
06-03-2008, 09:53 AM
Now, if we decided not to trade the allocation, and the league didn't step in and change the rules, what would happen?

I mean, if Chicago offers us a third round pick for him, without taking the health of the league into account (I'm not saying we shouldn't) why would Toronto NOT use the allocation, offer him a contract, he refuses, and has to retire (or go back to Europe). Sure, we used our allocation now, but it's only for returning (american) players anyway, so I can't see how it will be much use for us later (in either ticket draw or helping the team), plus players returning to play in the states probably don't want to play here anyway. And, if we do that, we prevent the current best team in the league from aquiring a piece that could very well make them unbeatable. Frankly, it's probably worth it for Toronto to do that.

Conversely, if Chicago actually offers us something worth taking, I'm all for taking it.

As for being strongarmed, I think that is going to be much more difficult now than it used to be. As far as I understand, MLS is not some entity unto itself, the decisions must be made by the ownership groups. In the past, AEG owned 6 teams, and Hunt owned 3. Between them, they could change the rules however they wanted to. Now we have 12 owners and 14 clubs, and I can't imagine all of the owners of the "smaller" clubs continuously voting to give LA (and possibly Chicago) an advantage, as they have to know that screwing one team now could mean screwing yourself later. Also, AEG sold Chicago, so the Chicago ownership group now has much less clout than it could have had.

That's not saying we won't be strongarmed, just saying that it will be much more difficult to do it now than it has been in the past.