I don’t think you can take that as a given. Looking at the 2009 season, LA clearly performed much better once Beckam came back in the second half. Ljungberg for the Sounders — while not the leading scorer — was one of the most impactful playmakers on the team. There were numerous inteviews with other Sounders this year in which they commented on his impact to the team as a guy who made an impact as a mentor and as a playmaker. Chicago certainly benefited on the filed from Blanco’s performance.

Of course, those may be just subjective observations on my part, and other observers may see things very differently. How should we measure the impact of the DPs on the field? I would say you can’t make a faie argument against the DP rule wit a base assumtion that they aren’t adding much on the field becaue whie that may be a valid opinion, it’s certainly not a given. Designated Players are one way to improve the quality of play on the field, abetter question than the one asked here is "Are there smarter ways to get the same level of quality improvement we’re loking for with the DP rule. In the end, as a “consumer” of soccer and a paying fan of the Sounders, I’m counting on the League to find ways to keep improving the quality of play. The DP rule seems to be working to my eyes, but there could be a better way.

Interesting stuff. Clearly you have it in for the DP rules and I do think that your luxury tax idea is intriguing but you seem to keep distracting from your own case. To its detriment, I think.

This isn’t a financial analysis, you know it isn’t a financial analysis, but you call it one anyway. Seems like the bold, extra huge font size title should be attendance analysis. Unless you are trying to make it seem like a larger indictment that it is.

The lack of impact on the pitch isn’t due to the DP rule, it is due to bad player decisions. Switching to a luxury tax isn’t going to make scouting departments better or lessen the allure of signing a “name” to make the front office/marketing department happy over the protests of your coaching staff.

Your big advantages over the DP rule are that profit sharing through a luxury tax would provide money for small market teams to sign higher $ players. The money could be spread out to get several solid players rather than one “gee whiz” player and careful provisioning would keep teams from being overly punished by bad (Vin Baker like) signings.

Just seems to me that these are lost in a manufactured “DP BAD” smokescreen.

I think you are missing the point. The DP rule is flawed, because of the fact that you can only have one or two. The idea that they don’t make a difference is short sited. You didn’t use the impact of Ljundberg on an expansion team that made the playoffs, and you don’t take into account value of the player toward a slightly interested soccer public. How many fans of soccer are looking at the MLS for something they can be proud of? The DP player gives them something they can recognize. It gives them the prospect that the league is heading in the right direction. I believe the league should allow three or four DP’s and if the teams want to spend, then they can. If they want to build a team through good scouting, then they can. Still, I think the DP is a step in the right direction. Why it is a step that takes getting the Dictators to give up a little control and not a no-brainer, I cannot get!