Nigel Reed's blog: D-Day looms for Toronto FC

[johnmolinaro]

http://www.cbc.ca/sports/blogs/2009/01/dday_looms_for_toronto_fc_1.html

[CretanBull]

Thanks for the link...Nigel is always a good read!! (no pun intended there!)

[flatpicker]

Of course, I understand why this tradition is maintained on an annual basis - the idea being the best rookies join the worst teams to make them better and thus preserve something of an even playing field across the league. The principle has its merits from a perspective of fair play, but it also seems to me the previous year’s winners are somewhat punished for producing what every fan wants - a winning franchise.


I certainly agree with that statement.
Yes, it is a North American tradition to reward bad teams with good draft picks... but I think more needs to be done to also reward the good teams. The way it is now, if you don't win the Championship, then you might as well finish last. Anything in between kinda sucks because you get no prize and your draft choices get worse the higher you placed in the standings. My preference would be for NA leagues to move more in the direction of developing their own players (which, thankfully, is starting to happen in MLS). Perhaps the best version of the NA draft system is the lottery... the lower you place the more "lottery tickets" you get and thus the better chance at drafting high (though no guarantee). I think that's the way they do it in basketball, but I could be wrong about that.

Anyhow... any measures taken to inspire teams to go for a win is a good thing in my books.
Just look at the Leafs today. Obviously they are not anxious to win because they want a high pick.
"Not playing to win" is becoming part of sports in NA. Losing is a strategy.
That needs to change.
Seriously, if leagues want to attract more fans, would it not be best to sell them a product where every team fights to the end?

[BFin]

If we're pointing out flaws, lets also make light of the fact that in European soccer the rich always get richer and rarely will we ever see Man Utd. or Arsenal even close to relegation. In essence by rewarding their success with the best picks and the most money you are creating a two tiered system in which the bottom of the pool is expected to fight for the scraps, not a title. At least in this system their is an attempt to help create parity in the league and to allow every team an opportunity to improve their team. Rebuilding for four years and winning titles with a core group of players is not a problem, it's just a part of the cyclical nature of sports. Players get old, and eventually you run into problems. No team is impervious to this effect, unless they buy their way out of the problem.

That being said, lets go MO!

[Beach_Red]

Seriously, if leagues want to attract more fans, would it not be best to sell them a product where every team fights to the end?

People may count on players' and coaches' professionalism to fight to the end. Well, that and fear of career ending injury if you're dogging it.

Right now, though, it might be hard to sell the North American sports fans on a system other than playoffs and the draft because of the way the NFL dominates as a league and not as just four or five dominant teams. How many of the final four teams this year are the same as the final four last year?

And still, even with the last place teams getting the first draft pick, Pittsburgh will always be better than Detroit. Some teams do dominate a little and some do seem to always miss the playoaffs, so it's not as simple as Nigel makes it sound, it actually does depend on how well run the teams are.

Of course, the NFL is a "closed" system with all the players coming through the NCAA, but it's still what dominates North American sports so its success has to be taken into consideration.

[billyfly]

^ Just what I was about to point out. Good post although I also agree with Flatpicker about the flaws of the current setup of the lottery system.

[Parkdale]

...lets also make light of the fact that in European soccer the rich always get richer and rarely will we ever see Man Utd. or Arsenal even close to relegation.

not always the case.

Look at ManCity for an opposing example; they are a very rich team because of their owners, and yet they're just hovering a few points out of the relegation zone. For the most part, you are correct that a rich team will stay high on the table just because they can afford top quality players, but sometimes all money in the world can't buy a win when you really need it.

Hell... look at the Leafs.

[flatpicker]

If we're pointing out flaws, lets also make light of the fact that in European soccer the rich always get richer and rarely will we ever see Man Utd. or Arsenal even close to relegation. In essence by rewarding their success with the best picks and the most money you are creating a two tiered system in which the bottom of the pool is expected to fight for the scraps, not a title. At least in this system their is an attempt to help create parity in the league and to allow every team an opportunity to improve their team. Rebuilding for four years and winning titles with a core group of players is not a problem, it's just a part of the cyclical nature of sports. Players get old, and eventually you run into problems. No team is impervious to this effect, unless they buy their way out of the problem.

That being said, lets go MO!


yes, perhaps, but you forget that we have a salary cap!
If you allow a more open market for player movement and development in the league, yet still maintain a reasonable salary cap, then you will still keep the balance in the league and not end up with a MUFC/Arsenal situation.

[BFin]

to be fair...i said rarely.
I think one example would be a rare occurence.
I think as a whole North American drafting systems allow MANY MORE teams the opportunity to succeed than systems in Europe.

[BFin]

yes, perhaps, but you forget that we have a salary cap!
If you allow a more open market for player movement and development in the league, yet still maintain a reasonable salary cap, then you will still keep the balance in the league and not end up with a MUFC/Arsenal situation.
I wasn't even discussing salaries or player movement, just replying to the knocks on our drafting system. I like the salary cap, I like parity in the league, it makes games more exciting knowing that anything could happen on any given day.
I just think that suggesting relegation instead of a high draft pick is not a very well thought out argument.

[billyfly]

NO system is flawless but then again define "flawless". In other words, what does each system try to achieve? The European system has not only built a 2-tier system in the domestic leagues but also a "super tier" when it comes to inter-country competitions like the CL. Granted smaller teams do win on occasion.

[rocker]

in a country where the sport is #1 , where teams are part of the fabric of the community, promo/relegation is fine. it gives that illusion of competition and "survival of the fittest" that our culture enjoys.

but in a country where the sport is #5 or #8 or whatever, and where the teams are a "product" and not woven into the community, promo/relegation is just a reason to kill interest in the sport... sure, a relegation battle might be exciting, but the team who loses (in north america that is) wouldn't exactly gain fans because they get sent down.

NHL Hockey in Canada or the NFL in the US could do promo/relegation and it would probably work. But that's cuz people are obsessed with those sports in those countreis.

[Stryker]

If I was Mo I'd "try" to trade Harmse (and allocation if needed) to ethier New England, NY or Real Salt Lake for the 10th, 11th or 12th pick.
Whichever team is willing to bite on the deal. Save whatever pick we get in that deal for O'Brian White.

Trade the 2nd and 13th pick to Dallas for Adrian Serioux.

Keep the 4th pick for ourselves.

[Hitcho]

I think Flatpicker has made two good points. I actually found myselfg last season, once we were finally out fo the play-off hunt, hoping we'd play well but come last to ensure the highest possible draft pick. Carver and Mo must have had the same thought, because however professional you are and whatever your winning mentality the fact si these guys run the team adn must always have an eye on the future. Placing three spots lower in the league when you have nothing to lose but a significantly better draft pick to gain (from say 4th to 1st) is hard to ignore.

It's also true that the salary cap should ensure parity even without the draft pick system to back it up, so why do we still encourage teams with nothing left to play for to come as low as possible?

The one caveat to that is that if the sport continues to grow in the US as fast as it is now (and in Canada to a lesser extent) then ultimately we should see far more good young players coming through the draft system so the difference between a few places doesn't really help you that much.

One alternative is to reward the lower teams with higher draft picks, but reward the higher placed teams with something else, by say ranking allcoation money from the league for each team depending on where you finish (ie top gets most, then second, etc) or some other incentive (struggling to think of what though!).

[BFin]

One alternative is to reward the lower teams with higher draft picks, but reward the higher placed teams with something else, by say ranking allcoation money from the league for each team depending on where you finish (ie top gets most, then second, etc) or some other incentive (struggling to think of what though!).
Whoever finishes lowest has to travel to Kansas City for the first game of their season...sound fair?

[Hitcho]

in a country where the sport is #1 , where teams are part of the fabric of the community, promo/relegation is fine. it gives that illusion of competition and "survival of the fittest" that our culture enjoys.

but in a country where the sport is #5 or #8 or whatever, and where the teams are a "product" and not woven into the community, promo/relegation is just a reason to kill interest in the sport... sure, a relegation battle might be exciting, but the team who loses (in north america that is) wouldn't exactly gain fans because they get sent down.

NHL Hockey in Canada or the NFL in the US could do promo/relegation and it would probably work. But that's cuz people are obsessed with those sports in those countreis.

you can have promo-relegation without the draconian effects it normally has though. see other threads where Flatpicker and I have put forward the idea of a two tiered MLS, each with its own champion/promo spots and relegation spots, but if you come last in the lower tier you still stay within MLS. Draft pick system stays the same, as does salary cap, so that parity remains and lower teams get better draft players/trades. That should make it fluid to move between the two leagues. Add in a knock-out FA Cup style comp every season and you should see all MLS teams playing each other regularly, with most teams going up and down at some stage. BUT, you get the kudos of real league champions (x2), plus a promo battle to get up, a releagtion battle to avoid going down, an underdog-takes-all chance in the MLS Cup competition and the ignominy of coming last overall in a unified two tier league (with a wooden spoon awarded) to ensure teams fight not to come last (despite the first voerall draft pick you get).

Now that's a system that should work even in America, because you get all the excitment and battles but no-one disappears into oblivion for doing poorly for a couple of years and no one team can run away become a power monger a la manure or chavski in the EPL.

[Beach_Red]

It's also true that the salary cap should ensure parity even without the draft pick system to back it up, so why do we still encourage teams with nothing left to play for to come as low as possible?


That's a huge asumption and there's really nothing that shows "fear of relegation," has any more effect on teams' strategy than "fear of missing the playoffs."

Not many coaches or GMs survive missing the playoffs more than once (and more teams miss the playoffs than get relegated, even in MLS). We expect steady growth, a team can finish out of the playoffs for a year or two, but then the management is usually changed.

Of course, there are exceptions, but they have more to do with the personalities involved than with the system. Some teams accept mediocrity more than others - the Leafs miss the playoffs a lot, but the Red Wings don't and they play in the same system.

[Oldtimer]

That's a huge asumption and there's really nothing that shows "fear of relegation," has any more effect on teams' strategy than "fear of missing the playoffs."

Not many coaches or GMs survive missing the playoffs more than once (and more teams miss the playoffs than get relegated, even in MLS). We expect steady growth, a team can finish out of the playoffs for a year or two, but then the management is usually changed.

Of course, there are exceptions, but they have more to do with the personalities involved than with the system. Some teams accept mediocrity more than others - the Leafs miss the playoffs a lot, but the Red Wings don't and they play in the same system.

Which is a good point that many people miss. Frankly, I found that the playoff battle is as exciting as any relegation battle, with many of the same factors coming into play.

[CretanBull]

If I was Mo I'd "try" to trade Harmse (and allocation if needed) to ethier New England, NY or Real Salt Lake for the 10th, 11th or 12th pick.
Whichever team is willing to bite on the deal. Save whatever pick we get in that deal for O'Brian White.

Trade the 2nd and 13th pick to Dallas for Adrian Serioux.

Keep the 4th pick for ourselves.

Harmse came to us for a 4th round pick, I don't think adding allocation money will turn his value into a 1st rounder.

I don't think Serioux is worth the 2nd pick straight up, never mind also adding the 13th pick.

[Beach_Red]

Which is a good point that many people miss. Frankly, I found that the playoff battle is as exciting as any relegation battle, with many of the same factors coming into play.

I realize this is all very :deadhorse: but I like the playoffs. I like the idea that a team has to win the last 3-4 games they play in order to be champions and those games are head to head against the other top teams, no final game against a last place or mediocre team. The final is a one game, "winner take all," but to get to it requires a few other wins in a row so it isn't really a one-off. Sometimes the final game can be a little one-sided, but you can be sure that some of the playoffs games leaading up to it have been the best games of the season.

And, I really want to go to playoff games at BMO because they'll be wild.

[Stryker]

I don't think Serioux is worth the 2nd pick straight up, never mind also adding the 13th pick.

Really? He started 25 games last year. I think the fact that he's a proven solid starter makes him worth it. With his 30th birthday approaching he should be coming into his prime this season as well.
I could be dismissing the quality of MLS draft picks though because I don't think there are any sure deals this year.

[I_AM_CANADIAN]

Nigel makes a good point about the draft. I've always felt the system of the worst team getting the best player only offers teams an incentive to suck, which isn't the idea of competitive sports.

[T_Mizz]

I feel it keeps the league competitive year to year which is the idea of competitive sports

[T_Mizz]

One alternative is to reward the lower teams with higher draft picks, but reward the higher placed teams with something else, by say ranking allcoation money from the league for each team depending on where you finish (ie top gets most, then second, etc) or some other incentive (struggling to think of what though!).

I think the league already does this but again I think it may be the other way around with the worst teams getting the largest allocations

[Flipityflu]

i don't actaully buy the whole team tanking for draft picks thing. players know its in their best interest to play hard simply due to contract consideration. if players don't look like they play, how can they get the juicy contract?

[flatpicker]

^ coaches and management can certainly make decisions knowing full well that it is not in the best interest of the team at that time and thus costs games. It's not just players that lose games.

[Beach_Red]

^ coaches and management can certainly make decisions knowing full well that it is not in the best interest of the team at that time and thus costs games. It's not just players that lose games.

Well they'd have to have the owners completely on board ahead of time. Some owners might go for it, others might prefer the revenue from even one home playoff game instead of a higher draft pick.

Making decisions that go against the best interest of the team would likely also affect the ability sign free agents - something which is probably more important than draft picks.

[flatpicker]

well, I'm not saying I can read the minds of players and management... but sometimes things just appear to be a certain way when you observe from the outside looking in. Maybe teams don't try to intentionally suck more than they ought to. But the incentive is still there.

[Yohan]

not always the case.

Look at ManCity for an opposing example; they are a very rich team because of their owners, and yet they're just hovering a few points out of the relegation zone. For the most part, you are correct that a rich team will stay high on the table just because they can afford top quality players, but sometimes all money in the world can't buy a win when you really need it.

Hell... look at the Leafs.
Man City is a bad example. Their new owners had only half a season to buy their team. Give it a few years and ManCity will be spending their way to the top like Chelsea

[Hitcho]

I realize this is all very :deadhorse: but I like the playoffs. I like the idea that a team has to win the last 3-4 games they play in order to be champions and those games are head to head against the other top teams, no final game against a last place or mediocre team. The final is a one game, "winner take all," but to get to it requires a few other wins in a row so it isn't really a one-off. Sometimes the final game can be a little one-sided, but you can be sure that some of the playoffs games leaading up to it have been the best games of the season.

And, I really want to go to playoff games at BMO because they'll be wild.

I think it's fair to say that whatever views people hold on the whole single table vs play offs format debate, EVERYONE is gagging for the first play off game at BMO Field. I know I certainly am, and I am firmly in the "dump the play offs" camp!

Ultimately the issue will come down to this - does the MLS want to wed itself to the North American culture or wed itself to the sport internationally? Right now they are treading a middle ground, but the longer the play offs stay in place, the longer the league has conferences and the longer the league gives bigger prizes/incentives to teams the lower they place, the longer it will struggle to establish a respectable name for itself on the world stage and be able to attarct better players from overseas. Now, if you want to keep it an American league (bar us!) focussed on American players and the American public, then they're doing the right thing. If they want to gain more credence and become a recognised league and sport outside of the US, then they're going to have to change. So - wed yourself to US culture or wed yourself to the sport? MLS will have to decide which path serves it best.

[Beach_Red]

^ Do you really think that's what's holding MLS back on "the world stage?"

With the exception of a few Canadian teams, America leagues are ust that, American - they really have very little experience with club teams playing teams from other leagues. I think this is important because when the Champions League becomes a bigger deal, it will possibly fulfill the US desire for a knock-out style tournament and a Championship Game.

Fans like championship games and TV networks and sponsors love championship games. I don't know for sure, but my guess is the worldwide TV ratings for the European Champions League final last year were huge.

So, as long as some kind of championship game can be offered, then league play can certainly change.

[rocker]

money is holding back MLS on the world stage, not any tweaked rules or structures. most people in the world know very little about MLS... even Johan Smith and Ricketts did not know about the expansion draft, and they play in the league! I imagine foreigners know even less about specifics.

but if we had $50 million salary budgets they'd be over here playing as soon as they could. money is key...

no matter how much we emulate europe, if we have 2 million dollar per team salary budgets, it's always gonna be small time compared to euro leagues. but MLS takes it slow financially for a reason.

[scooter]

unfortuately i am sure i am not telling anyone anything they dont already know
this mls is a business first sport second
we are passionate about football as fans
mls talks about return on investment and a salary cap is to keep teams even but
it also to keep the owners exposure limited

THIS WILL BE GOOD FOR TFC

because if the boys behind the scenes are paying attention this is a make it or break
it year for tfc -- put a quality winning side on the pitch this season or risk the always
fickle toronto fans loosing interest

as always its a huge gamble to start a sports team in toronto but tfc has really caught on due to football fanatics like me and you ( i have no delusions that this is
great football ) but its a great atmosphere and fun

i have met many new freinds through tfc and absolutely love game day,red patch and our team but for our team to grow and to improve the guality of football on the pitch mls has to raise the salary cap and let us bring in more talent

who am i kidding i will support tfc through thick and thin but shite i dont want another maple leafs where the seats are all sold so lets not spend too much money

omg it must be the off season ranting---CANNY WAIT FER OPENING DAY

[Stencils]

^Heh, well put scooter.

The MLS brass need to stop worrying about one or two teams (or three or four) becoming dominant influences. If handled appropriately, it'll probably help the game. Look at the Yankees or the Patriots or whatever other example of a dominant sports team in the states. They generate interest...and revenue.

Notice how they'll charge more for the LA Galaxy game and not include it in packages and call it a 'premium' game or whatever? It's frankly a bit hypocritical to do that and then profess a commitment to equality across the league.

I think a closely managed variable cap would be the best thing for the MLS. Let teams that have the revenue and the opportunity expand their clubs within a monitored increase scheduled over a period term. So they're rewarded for doing well as a side and allowed to use that capital.