PDA

View Full Version : Why Do We Keep Trading Guys Before We Replace Them?



ensco
07-26-2009, 11:00 PM
When Guevara went down, Velez got minutes Saturday that would have previously gone to Harmse, and it was a factor in the outcome.

Meanwhile Serioux looks like he's playing with one healthy limb.

I do not understand how the roster is being managed. We have open slots.

Why do we keep getting rid of guys before we replace them? (See Dunivant, T and Marshall, T, for other examples of this.)

jabbronies
07-26-2009, 11:02 PM
Harmes wanted to leave.

Super
07-26-2009, 11:03 PM
I guess it's not always possible to find a suitable replacement at the same time as an offer is made to acquire one of our players. Sometimes you have to unload first, when possible, before you can make moves to bring in new players. But I agree it's not a terribly clever way of managing any team.

ensco
07-26-2009, 11:05 PM
Harmes wanted to leave.

Sure. How about next time we wait until we get a replacement, like any other team in the universe would do?

With Harmse gone it was obvious that we would need someone who can play central midfield on a night when Cronin is absent and Guevara is hurt.

Cambridge_Red
07-26-2009, 11:15 PM
Why do we keep playing meaningless friendlies and lose arguably our best defender. Oh right it's for growth for soccer in Canada :facepalm:

Cashcleaner
07-26-2009, 11:49 PM
You make it seem like every other week we're playing one of these meaningless games. 2 friendlies plus the ASG isn't a boatload by any stretch. Personally, I'd like to see ASG at the end of the season and have no mid-season friendlies, but I don't think we're inundated by them at the moment.

Shakes McQueen
07-26-2009, 11:50 PM
Why do we keep playing meaningless friendlies and lose arguably our best defender. Oh right it's for growth for soccer in Canada :facepalm:

This has nothing to do with the thread at hand.

- Scott

Shakes McQueen
07-26-2009, 11:50 PM
You make it seem like every other week we're playing one of these meaningless games. 2 friendlies plus the ASG isn't a boatload by any stretch. Personally, I'd like to see ASG at the end of the season and have no mid-season friendlies, but I don't think we're inundated by them at the moment.

Same here.

- Scott

Yohan
07-26-2009, 11:52 PM
You make it seem like every other week we're playing one of these meaningless games. 2 friendlies plus the ASG isn't a boatload by any stretch. Personally, I'd like to see ASG at the end of the season and have no mid-season friendlies, but I don't think we're inundated by them at the moment.
these two friendlies happen to be in middle of a crucial stretch of the season

if these friendlies were in during a bye week (which is what LA and Seattle just did), then the impact on players wouldn't be so much

7 games. 20 days. sucks

Cashcleaner
07-26-2009, 11:59 PM
these two friendlies happen to be in middle of a crucial stretch of the season

if these friendlies were in during a bye week (which is what LA and Seattle just did), then the impact on players wouldn't be so much

7 games. 20 days. sucks

Oh for sure. If there was a way to better schedule these games, we probably wouldn't have as big a problem with them as well do.

Shakes McQueen
07-27-2009, 12:13 AM
Unfortunately I assume we have no control over when our "bye week" is.

- Scott

S_D
07-27-2009, 12:17 AM
I guess it's not always possible to find a suitable replacement at the same time as an offer is made to acquire one of our players. Sometimes you have to unload first, when possible, before you can make moves to bring in new players. But I agree it's not a terribly clever way of managing any team.

I can understand if you are at the roster limit and are bringing in a player, sometimes you have to unload one first, but have we ever had a full roster this season? Most teams keep a slot open so they can add a plyer without being forced to trade/release one before it happens.

When you think about it, Marshall, Dunnivant and Harmse didn't really get a lot in trade value, and I agree that it hurt the team letting these guys go before a suitable replacement was found. Was a bit of allocation cash really worth it?

And to expand on this, with a run into the CCL, friendlies in the middle of the season (as mentioned), Gold cup call ups and league games, an injury to a player can put a lot of stress on the lineup and possible subs.

Nana out has really hurt the back line, Serioux looks like he is being held together with duct tape and wire, and we probably won't see OBW at his best until next season. 1 serious injury and this team is going to be in trouble.

Seems beyond risky to me.

ensco
07-27-2009, 07:27 AM
My follow up question is, why are many people here so philisophical about this? The friendly question gets literally hundreds of pages of discussion, but this issue, 100% within the team's control, gets mostly shrugged off.

Oh well.

Dave67
07-27-2009, 08:00 AM
My follow up question is, why are many people here so philisophical about this? The friendly question gets literally hundreds of pages of discussion, but this issue, 100% within the team's control, gets mostly shrugged off.

Oh well.

Friendlies are fairly easy for us all to get our heads around. The structure of an MLS team is not. Domestic, Foreign, Senior, Generation Adidas, Designated Player. It's hard to impossible to follow the money trail around a team.

So I agree with you that we should have a full roster and that players should not be released without being replaced. I also suspect that if we were to start listing players someone would point out how we cannot bring player X in because we do not have that flavour of a spot open on the roster.

At least thats what I think I think.

rocker
07-27-2009, 08:01 AM
I guess it's not always possible to find a suitable replacement at the same time as an offer is made to acquire one of our players. Sometimes you have to unload first, when possible, before you can make moves to bring in new players. But I agree it's not a terribly clever way of managing any team.

I don't think it's a question of clever... it's just a reality of MLS.

As you say, deals don't come at perfect times. Deals also don't happen sometimes as planned.

If we didn't have a cap, one could stockpile these players and keep them until they were unneeded. But to clear cap room, you have to unload guys.

I like Dunivant, for example, but one can't look at the Dunivant trade in isolation... What did Dunivant's trade allow the team to do later? What were the circumstances of signings around that time?

jabbronies
07-27-2009, 08:07 AM
My follow up question is, why are many people here so philisophical about this? The friendly question gets literally hundreds of pages of discussion, but this issue, 100% within the team's control, gets mostly shrugged off.

Oh well.

It is the teams choice. and the team has been listen to the fans.

Because it wasn't until this season that everyone has been so overly vocal about how bad friendlies are. Last year everyone was on the fence about wether they wanted a friendly or not. The majority did and the majority wanted a big name club.

the club listened and now that we have that, the majority has switched it's view and is bitching about having friendlies. I wouldn't be surprised if next year we don't have any friendlies.

Nuvinho
07-27-2009, 08:09 AM
Its because Mo needs to make a deal a month. He is a trade fiend....he needs to call Garber at least once a month to announce a trade.

boban
07-27-2009, 08:15 AM
It is the teams choice. and the team has been listen to the fans.

Because it wasn't until this season that everyone has been so overly vocal about how bad friendlies are. Last year everyone was on the fence about wether they wanted a friendly or not. The majority did and the majority wanted a big name club.

the club listened and now that we have that, the majority has switched it's view and is bitching about having friendlies. I wouldn't be surprised if next year we don't have any friendlies.
What are you talking about? This post is such utter nonsense.
Since when do the people on internet boards makes up the majority? The boards make up less than 10% of ticket buyers, even less of the tv audience. And even in these internet boards there is a great number who like the friendlies.

jabbronies
07-27-2009, 08:20 AM
What are you talking about? This post is such utter nonsense.
Since when do the people on internet boards makes up the majority? The boards make up less than 10% of ticket buyers, even less of the tv audience. And even in these internet boards there is a great number who like the friendlies.

I see you're one of those people who don't read the entire thread before posting your thoughts.

Originally Posted by ensco http://www.redpatchboys.ca/forums/redbar/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.redpatchboys.ca/forums/showthread.php?p=640274#post640274)
My follow up question is, why are many people here so philisophical about this? The friendly question gets literally hundreds of pages of discussion, but this issue, 100% within the team's control, gets mostly shrugged off.

Oh well.

as you can see he talks about there being pages of discussion on the friendly issue. My comment was in reference to his post.

if you actually took the time to read instead of just posting random thoughts you'd know what the fuck was going on.

Dumb ass.

Steve
07-27-2009, 08:23 AM
It is the teams choice. and the team has been listen to the fans.

Because it wasn't until this season that everyone has been so overly vocal about how bad friendlies are. Last year everyone was on the fence about wether they wanted a friendly or not. The majority did and the majority wanted a big name club.

the club listened and now that we have that, the majority has switched it's view and is bitching about having friendlies. I wouldn't be surprised if next year we don't have any friendlies.

Which is why the Real Madrid failed to sell any tickets, right? Or the River Plate game had no one show up?

Come on. You're right on one hand, it is up to the fans. If the fans didn't like friendly at all, there wouldn't be any. That said, it isn't an internet message board MLSE uses to determine whether friendlies are popular, it's the games themselves. As long as people vote with their wallets, the games will continue.

jabbronies
07-27-2009, 08:27 AM
Which is why the Real Madrid failed to sell any tickets, right? Or the River Plate game had no one show up?

Come on. You're right on one hand, it is up to the fans. If the fans didn't like friendly at all, there wouldn't be any. That said, it isn't an internet message board MLSE uses to determine whether friendlies are popular, it's the games themselves. As long as people vote with their wallets, the games will continue.

I don't think the viabliity of friendlies is the thing people are discussing, it's the timing of them.

Yes they are sold out, financially they make sense, and people love them. but right in the middle of the season? Why not in the pre-season, or in a bye week, or post season? MLSE is a corpoation and the players are thier assets. it's in thier best interest financially to protect those assets. That's why i could see no friendly happening next year. At least not in mid season.

Before people hated them because we werre getting shit teams. Now people hate them because they are mid season or in a stretch when our players are already worn thin.

boban
07-27-2009, 09:09 AM
I see you're one of those people who don't read the entire thread before posting your thoughts.

Originally Posted by ensco http://www.redpatchboys.ca/forums/redbar/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.redpatchboys.ca/forums/showthread.php?p=640274#post640274)
My follow up question is, why are many people here so philisophical about this? The friendly question gets literally hundreds of pages of discussion, but this issue, 100% within the team's control, gets mostly shrugged off.

Oh well.

as you can see he talks about there being pages of discussion on the friendly issue. My comment was in reference to his post.

if you actually took the time to read instead of just posting random thoughts you'd know what the fuck was going on.

Dumb ass.
Deflecting and resorting to name calling. Great, yup you win the debate. :rolleyes:
Last week your posts on the success of TFC vis a vis Beckham were proven to be false, now you have no defense either. You have proven yourself to have no credibility.

jabbronies
07-27-2009, 09:21 AM
Deflecting and resorting to name calling. Great, yup you win the debate. :rolleyes:
Last week your posts on the success of TFC vis a vis Beckham were proven to be false, now you have no defense either. You have proven yourself to have no credibility.

What are you keeping tabs on my posts? no life eh?
How about you show me what you're talking about? because I'm pretty sure I backed up my post (in the beckham thread) with a link. i guess that is just you not reading the full thread before posting again. You're known for that.

boban
07-27-2009, 10:59 AM
I read the thread buddy. This thread only had a few posts in it when I refuted your remarks. One does not need to go into pages of other older threads to post in a new thread.
You mentioned the majority do not want friendlies. I mentioned people in the internets don't make up the majority. But you have some hardon about other threads, rather than what is at hand. In any event it wouldn't matter what the other threads say. It's IRRELEVANT. There are more people who don't post here or other SG forums, for that matter, that don't mind and like friendlies!!!

Bobo
07-27-2009, 11:34 AM
I think DG is partly to blame for this.

Flashman
07-27-2009, 12:39 PM
When Guevara went down, Velez got minutes Saturday that would have previously gone to Harmse, and it was a factor in the outcome.

I am pretty sure that given the lineup that we started, the first off the bench for Amado would have been Sam Cronin, not Harmse. Unfortunately he was still away at the Gold Cup, and that is something no one had any control over, and possibly couldn't have foreseen, as he was a surprise pick for the US squad in many people's view (although all agreed it was a deserved call up).

ensco
07-27-2009, 01:02 PM
^Of course Cronin would have been in if he were available. He would probably have started.

When you have no depth, and you have empty roster slots, and you have a crammed schedule....you can't just let guys who can play go.

Beach_Red
07-27-2009, 01:09 PM
^Of course Cronin would have been in if he were available. He would probably have started.

When you have no depth, and you have empty roster slots, and you have a crammed schedule....you can't just let guys who can play go.

Columbus was probably even more depleted than we were. No MLS team has any depth.

The mistake TFC is making is trying to build for the future. Well, maybe it's not a mistake, but MLS rosters aren't designed for development. Why do we waste spots on the Gambians if they can't play? They may hae a lot of potential, but like you say, Harmse is the type of player we should be after and we should hold onto.

I know TFC is trying to find a balance between getting journeymen players now and building for the future, but this league's rule make it tough.

ensco
07-27-2009, 01:23 PM
Columbus was probably even more depleted than we were. No MLS team has any depth.

The mistake TFC is making is trying to build for the future. Well, maybe it's not a mistake, but MLS rosters aren't designed for development. Why do we waste spots on the Gambians if they can't play? They may hae a lot of potential, but like you say, Harmse is the type of player we should be after and we should hold onto.

I know TFC is trying to find a balance between getting journeymen players now and building for the future, but this league's rule make it tough.

The fact that the league's roster rules make it tough to have depth, is no excuse for making things even worse on yourself voluntarily, Beach.

Beach_Red
07-27-2009, 02:16 PM
The fact that the league's roster rules make it tough to have depth, is no excuse for making things even worse on yourself voluntarily, Beach.


Oh sorry, I guess I didn't make it clear I was agreeing with you. I was adding to the fact that players are let go before replacements are brought in that players are also signed too far ahead of when they may be of any use to the team. Too many of the very few roster spots we have are either vacant or taken up by guys who many never play.

It's all well and fine to want to build a team for the future, the fact is the current rules make it almost impossible.

Dirk Diggler
07-27-2009, 02:31 PM
The fact that the league's roster rules make it tough to have depth, is no excuse for making things even worse on yourself voluntarily, Beach.

Completely agree. From what people are trying to argue here, they are attempting to make it seem as if MLS rules make it impossible for everyone to have any depth what so ever ... that is not the case. If Harmse wanted to leave and we cut him, there is no MLS regulation that dictated that move. Players are unhappy everywhere ... does not mean we cut them on the spot as soon as we hear their displeasure. Same thing with the Gambians that Beach red mentioned. There is no MLS regulation that dictated we sign a couple of young guys who would be ineligible to play the majority of the season while occupying valuable roster spots as well. Mo has brought this upon himself.