The Designated Player - MLS needs more

What happens when clubs get gutted by signing DP’s that get hurt and then eventually decide they don’t want to play here. Case in Point Gallardo at DCU last season? Total bust and it didn’t leave much room for improvement in the summer transfer window. While clubs like Columbus and Seattle have reaped the benefits other clubs have gotten screwed.

dadryan, the second link discusses some of the concepts that the Board of Governors are likely discussing. All ideas put forward are to reduce the risk and cap hit of the DP.

But any player can get injured or decide they don’t like the league. Being a DP doesn’t guaruntee anything.

It seems to me like having a second DP could help mitigate Gallardo problems by at least giving the team a second chance at getting a success.
That being said, there’s no rule in the world that will keep people from making stupid signings.

I would love to see both a higher cap and a second DP. I am a fan of salary caps, but the MLS has a rediculously low cap. The owners have been comfortable with the status quo for too long. If the cap was raised, maybe it would force some owners to really market their product like Toronto and Seattle have done.

Just reading the comments from other teams bloggers, the Seattle management is light years ahead of some teams as far as how the business end is run.

Same thing goes with DP players. We don’t want the same situation that lead to the ruin of the NASL, but there has to be a middle ground somewhere.

I would love to see all teams allowed three DP’s, with a cap hit of 100,000 or so. Teams don’t have to use all three. So it wouldn’t ruin teams that can’t afford. Just because a team like Seattle will most likely use all three, that doesn’t garantee they won’t get hurt or leave. Teams still would have to make prudent decisions. Allowing three would also, open up the possibilities of smaller clubs signing guys in the 5-800,000 area, injecting not only aging superstars, but quality that is better than the current middle to higher end player in the MLS. Right now teams have one chance to make a splash. Opening up more slots allows for more flexability on who to bring in.

As an aside, I think it’s kind of funny to hear Ljungberg talk about how the DP thing has worked so well in Seattle. It true that is has, but the “I’m so awesome” aspect of it is a little funny, especially since Ljungberg is not at all a conceited guy.

Anyway, as we all know, the twin concerns are financial stability and parity. In a completely unregulated league, teams that are taking money in hand over fist (Seattle, Toronto, … ?) could become neo-Cosmos and drive the league to extinction by forcing the rest of the teams to either spend more money than they have or face guaranteed defeat on the field as they face super-squads packed full of superior talent.

I think a combination of three things would do the job: raising the cap, a slight increase in roster size, and a luxury tax. First, because of the awesomeness of Adrian Hanauer, we’re getting the talents of Jhon Kennedy Hurtado for a ridiculously low price, but given that he’s proving himself to be a star in this league, we can’t expect to keep paying him fast food wages and keep him around, especially now that he has a new baby. At some point, he’s got to do what’s right for his family and that means earning as much as he can in the short time frame of most athletic careers. An increased salary cap would allow us to increase pay overall, and keep JKH and players like him around longer. Second, a modest increase in roster size will allow teams competing in multiple competitions to field a competitve squad for every match. I’m not talking that much of an increase, maybe to a total of 30 players overall. Third, a luxury tax that would force a team exceeding the cap would allow the league to subsidize the markets that aren’t good earners, but still allow ambitious, well-earning teams to build good squads. Parity will suffer somewhat, but I don’t think it’s a horrible thing to have an elite group separate itself a little bit from the crowd. Since MLS is a league with playoffs, the elite aren’t necessarily just passing the championship back and forth among one another. They’ll be in the playoffs consistently, but playoffs being playoffs, a team outside the elite can have a good run and win a championship.

I’m huge on the luxury tax concept.

As for rosters, I think 24 Senior roster slots and an “Academy/Reserve” team of 15 that are U-23s (this would mean they could play in ProPDL), and treated as developmental players are now would be ideal, but there are teams that don’t fly their injured players out for matches in order to save costs. So I don’t think the rosters can expand much yet.

And yes, Playoffs do help clubs that aren’t in the haves.

Both you and CarlosT make good points. There is that old saying that you have to “Spend money to make money.” MLS does need to invest money into a development program, as in the long run it saves money.

Dave, you know this from baseball, you can’t constantly go out and sign free agents, as it can get expensive.

I do like the luxury tax concept and I like being able to go over the cap (within reason) to try to keep your own free agents, like basketball does.

Anyway, keep up the outstanding work. Thanks

Dave, I think the luxury tax could fund the roster expansion. So, if the Seattles fo the league are putting money in by building a more expensive roster, then the Dallases of the league would be able to use that money to fill out their rosters. Seattle and teams like it would still be at a competitive advantage, but at least the other teams would have somewhat of a shot.

Chickens/Eggs really.

At some point the haves are going to have to increase their funding of the nots. I think the luxury tax would be a better way than adding DP slots, or reducing the salary cap impact of te DPs.

CarlosT…don’t know where you came up with the luxury tax idea, but I think it is brilliant!