Erik Friberg, Malmo FF Agree To 3 Year Deal
by Dave Clark on Dec 13, 2011 8:44 AM PST
in Sounders: Trades, Transfers and Rumors
Email
Print
Malmo FF interest in now former Seattle Sounders player Erik Friberg started before recent circumstances opened his availability. After paying an undisclosed transfer fee, according to GM Adrian Hanauer, the Swedish club and Friberg agreed to a three-year deal with undisclosed payment terms. It is assumed that a substantial number of tacos are involved.
In his conversations with the team website (google translate) it is clear that Friberg enjoyed his time in Seattle;
I have really enjoyed it here in the U.S. but we are expecting a baby, Malin and me, and when we felt like we were home. We will start looking residents in early January and hope that it [is resolved]in March when we will give birth.
He and the site also note that Sounders supporters and fans are are league leaders, while the play on the field is better than typically credited. Friberg's first training date remains virtually unchanged as the Swedish league plays a similar schedule to MLS.
103 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Transfer Fee Question...
A quick search yielded nothing, so I’m going to ask here. When a player is moved out of league and a transfer fee is paid, how is that fee divided between the MLS and the team who discovered the player? If Malmo paid…say….$150k transfer…how much of that (if any) becomes available to us? Does it get lumped in as allocation money?
Seattle gets two-thirds, MLS gets one-third.
A maximum of $650,000 can be used as allocation.
by Aaron Campeau on Dec 13, 2011 9:13 AM PST up reply actions
There are different amounts for HGP and GA players
Just for clarity
I am not a Supporter | I am not a Fan | I am a Sounder
Sounder At Heart
My question on that 650,000 number.
If Montero decides to leave, and Seattle gets a transfer fee somewhere in the few millions for him, we can only use $650,000 for allocation? Where does the rest go?
I guess the greater question is can we get LA to get someone transfer out for a few mil so the league changes the rules?
The rest goes to non-roster expenses, I would guess
by Aaron Campeau on Dec 13, 2011 10:40 AM PST up reply actions
Has to be used on soccer related expenses
So TFC used their Edu money on getting grass.
I would expect Seattle to put money into the Academy or Starfire.
I am not a Supporter | I am not a Fan | I am a Sounder
Sounder At Heart
Oh, I thought yachting to the game was a soccer related expense in seattle.
At least that is what i tell my tax guy.
by MurrayD on Dec 13, 2011 10:51 AM PST up reply actions 4 recs
Thank you.
Obviously that money would help in one way or another, but it is kind of sad that we can’t use what we get for a player in getting another. At least to me.
Can use it
just in very large cases not all of it.
I am not a Supporter | I am not a Fan | I am a Sounder
Sounder At Heart
Of course
Just refering to a day that if we do see a player like Montero leave, if his value is in the few millions like AH has said, and we were to make a couple million, we couldn’t use all that, but I do see the reasons why the league would see that as competitive unbalance.
At the same time though it would be a reward for us finding and developing that talent. Especially as one of the first to pursue a young DP like Montero.
And the team can use it in paying its share of a DP salary or transfer fee
So say Montero/Alonso/Zakuani transfered out for $3M USD.
Sounders get $2M and MLS gets $1M.
Sounders can use the $2M for soccer related expenses, including paying for the DP salaries that MLS doesn’t cover. It can also then use $650,000 in allocation to buy down the cap hit on a number of players to effectively raise the salary cap.
While I’d still like to see a higher cap and fewer spending limits, I understand where the MLS is coming from (fear of collapse) and think that this is actually a fairly reasonable solution.
Oh okay that makes a lot of sense then.
Correct me if I am wrong, and keep in mind this is completely hypothetical and I hope it doesn’t happen, if we see those 3 all leave for lets say 2 mil each. That is 4 million total for the Sounders to use.
Technically, since they’re individual amounts up to almost 2 million of that could be used for allocation monies, but you could use say 1 for allocation, another 2 for transfer fees if you make a large move and split that last 1 for other non-DP players.
The amounts are in aggregate
So if the Sounders had 3x players leave, each for over $1M in revenue…
The team would have 2/3 of the total tranfer fees as additional revenue towards team costs.
The team would also have $1.95M ($650k x 3) in additional allocation funds to buy down the cap hit of salaries, contracts, etc. to stay under the cap.
Wait
So lets say the team gets 1mil for a player after the league takes their cut. The team would have 1mil PLUS 650k to use for allocation? Hmm I thought it was they could use up to 650k of the money as allocation.
by Adam Waltering on Dec 13, 2011 2:08 PM PST up reply actions
I'm of a similar mindset
I think we get 650k of the 1 mil to use as allocation and the other 350k gets used on soccer related expenses.
If not thats even better, but this is MLS we are dealing with so it’s better to be a bit more realistic here.
Garber takes the rest...
…to give to someone/anyone willing to start a franchise in New York named the “Cosmos.”
Hopefully
he will be an ambassador for the Sounders in Europe and this will lead to future signings. Sorry to see him go.
Really interesting
A 3 year deal from a European club for an MLS player is kind of a big deal, isn’t it?
Feels like we are entering an era where young MLS players are routinely sold to European clubs. More to the point, we are entering an era where MLS clubs will base their strategies on the smart acquisition of young talent that can be sold for allocation dollars.
This environment could really benefit clubs like the Sounders who have the resources to do extensive scouting of international talent. This environment will also benefit clubs who can maintain relationships with top-flight European clubs who want to loan young players to the MLS for seasoning.
. Only a mattre
There's a difference between being sold back to a home nation
and being sold to a European club. Also, while Malmo is in the Europa League, it is the secondary competition. They are currently rated about 250th by UEFA’s Coeffecient.
I am not a Supporter | I am not a Fan | I am a Sounder
Sounder At Heart
You could add
that Malmö has one more game to play (thursday vs. Vienna) and is already eliminated…
http://www.soundersfc.de.to/ First German Fanpage!
Indeed
Also, based on an article posted on Malmo’s website, they had been interested in Friberg even before this. It seems plausible that they had been interested in getting him from Hacken directly, but for whatever reason Hacken refused to sell to a competitor in the same league, or Malmo did not want to give a large transfer fee to a team in the same league.
"A 3 year deal from a European club for an MLS player is kind of a big deal, isn’t it?"
Not all Euro leagues are the same. Sweden is probably worse overall than MLS, though Malmo is historically better than good MLS teams. There is an advantage in terms of exposure though, clearly.
by Aaron Campeau on Dec 13, 2011 10:03 AM PST up reply actions 1 recs
It is a Big Deal
The Sounder will really benefit from this sale in the long term. It not only allows one of their past players a chance to be successful on the European Stage, but shows they care about their players as well. Friberg wanted to move home, and the Sounders were respectful to the players wishes. Doing this will help them acquire bigger player who are not sold on playing in the MLS. Besides the money, it was a great move for the club.
by Western Conference on Dec 13, 2011 4:12 PM PST up reply actions
Ok, again, not to harp on this point but:
It not only allows one of their past players a chance to be successful on the European Stage
Friberg played in the same division he is returning to for three seasons. In terms of league quality, this is likely a step backwards. In terms of team quality, it’s probably lateral.
by Aaron Campeau on Dec 13, 2011 4:23 PM PST up reply actions
But isn't he on a better team with Malmo?
One that has a chance to make it further into European competitiion?
And playing in the MLS he probably stands a MUCH smaller chance of being successful on the European Stage.
I think you know what ‘Western Conference’ was saying though…
by soundersfcfanboy on Dec 13, 2011 6:41 PM PST up reply actions
Slightly better.
But Malmo won’t be playing in Europe at all next season and are eliminated from Europa this season. In Friberg’s last season with Hacken they finished two spots above Malmo. Malmo is a historically bigger club, but in current terms they aren’t much better than Hacken.
My point is that playing in Europe does not mean playing in a better league than Seattle, nor does having the opportunity to play in European competition make for greater prestige. For example, would you consider moving from a top-4 Brazilian club to, say, Shamrock Rovers a step up? Or from a top-4 Mexican club to Maccabi Tel Aviv? There are a whole lot of teams worse than the Sounders playing in Europa and even the Champions League.
That’s not a knock against Malmo at all, and it’s certainly not a knock against Friberg’s decision to return home. I’m just irked by the inference that moving to a European club is a step up without any an acknowledgment of the context. MLS has a long way to go, but it’s come a lot further than people sometimes give it credit for.
by Aaron Campeau on Dec 13, 2011 7:01 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
I think the point was that you won't even get the possibility of playing in European cups in MLS.
Regardless of how good Malmo is/isn’t. Club World Cup is the only path to competitive exposure to European leagues. Correct me if I’m wrong.
by soundersfcfanboy on Dec 13, 2011 8:54 PM PST up reply actions
European leagues have scouts and routinely buy players from non-European leagues.
by Aaron Campeau on Dec 13, 2011 8:56 PM PST up reply actions
Westerns point above...
“It not only allows one of their past players a chance to be successful on the European Stage,”
Friberg has a 0% chance of being successful on the European Stage while playing in MLS.
Now that he was bought, he has a greater than 0% chance of being on the European Stage, especially after signing a 3 year contract.
by soundersfcfanboy on Dec 13, 2011 9:45 PM PST up reply actions
My impression was that the Scandinavian leagues were well-respected
on essentially the second tier after the big 5. Top 10 in the world probably, on par maybe with France.
Am I wrong? Are they more like the Greek league, with one or two teams that might make noise in Europe and, well, everyone else?
The Danish league is probably closest to the Greek league of all the Scandinavian leagues
The Swedish and Norwegian leagues are even weaker. I would not list them in the top 20 leagues in Europe.
Sweden does not have any particularly strong clubs right now. In fact, there has not been a Swedish team in the Champions League group stage since the 2000-01 season when Helsingborg made it (and finished last in their group with 5 points).
The only Scandinavian club that has been in the group stage fairly regularly in the past 10 years is Rosenborg of Norway, but they have never qualified from their group to the knock-out stages. FC Copenhagen of Denmark have made it there twice, and even got to the round of 16 in their second attempt. I think that pretty much covers Scandinavian success in the champions league in the 2000s.
Forgot to ask
Who do you think the top 5 are? England, Germany, Spain, and Italy are the obvious top 4, but I would have listed France as the fifth, but clearly you don’t? Which is your fifth? Portugal? Russia? Netherlands? Ukraine?
Netherlands
But you have significantly more knowledge of this kind of thing than I do.
It is extremely difficult to compare leagues
But I’d say France has more depth in the league than the Netherlands. In other words, a larger number of big clubs. And recently the French clubs have been doing better in Europe than the Dutch ones. Of course Lyon and Ajax were pretty much as even as it gets this year in their group.
France also has more clubs enter the Champions League than the Netherlands. However, that is based on the UEFA Coefficient, which is not an indicator of the overall quality of a league.
Glad that there was a transfer involved for the money and allocation going back to the Sounders
But now he’ll have to go through allocation if he ever wants to come back to MLS, correct?
Yes
Since a fee was paid Seattle has no rights.
I am not a Supporter | I am not a Fan | I am a Sounder
Sounder At Heart
Allocation for a non USMNT?
I’m not sure that’s correct, I thought allocation was only used on USMNT players?
Yes. This is the roster rule (emphasis mine):
]The allocation ranking is the mechanism used to determine which MLS club has first priority to acquire a U.S. National Team player who signs with MLS after playing abroad, or a former MLS player who returns to the League after having gone to a club abroad for a transfer fee.
http://www.mlssoccer.com/2011-mls-roster-rules
Doesn't sound like Seattle netted much.
Too bad—I had a feeling he was going to make a Flaco-type step up in year two with the team.
Think of each dollar of allocation
as two dollars of salary cap.
I am not a Supporter | I am not a Fan | I am a Sounder
Sounder At Heart
Just a perspective on their value
50k in cap room isn’t a big deal, it’s basically a replacement level player.
50k in allocation turns that player into an above average MLS starter.
I am not a Supporter | I am not a Fan | I am a Sounder
Sounder At Heart
No, not really.
If you have $50k in cap room and $50k in allocation, you can afford a $100k player.
by Aaron Campeau on Dec 13, 2011 3:39 PM PST up reply actions
Obviously
But it was implied that each allocation dollar increases the cap by two dollars. That is the screwy part.
It was a value statement, not math
since there is much less allocation money out there than salary cap money, combined with how it can be used, it is about twice as valuable as a dollar of cap money
I am not a Supporter | I am not a Fan | I am a Sounder
Sounder At Heart
I understand allocation money.
But I think they could have gotten more if he wasn’t moving with his family, esp. given what he showed last year. The team was at a bit of a loss—what were they going to do, stop him from moving? They probably got what they could given the circumstances.
Now, if you’re trying to make the point that his move will give Seattle a decent amount of cap flexibility, I would say I disagree.
It will help with cap flexibility,
We dont nessesaily have to replace Friberg so that frees up his salary. Because our Midfield is so stacked we can use his salary to help us reinforce the defence. The allocation money for the transfer fee is just extra flexibilty even if it not a huge ammount.
Bottom line – we have more cap room now than we did before the transfer.
I think you're underselling how good the whole Friberg deal has been for the team when you step back and look at it all
The Sounders:
Got a year of solid play from Erik
Helped him go back to his homeland so he could start a family with a strong support network
Got a transfer fee of some amount and a non-zero amount of accompanying allocation money
Have a story they can tell about how spending time in the MLS doesn’t hurt a player in the eyes of the mid-tier European leagues
Have an ex-player in Europe who can tell other players how great a city Seattle was to play in and live in
"Now, if you’re trying to make the point that his move will give Seattle a decent amount of cap flexibility, I would say I disagree."
On what grounds? They have more cap room and more allocation money than they did before he moved. This is factual. That doesn’t mean they’re in a better position overall, but given Friberg’s cap number I don’t see how you could possibly argue that the team doesn’t have more flexibility than they did yesterday.
by Aaron Campeau on Dec 13, 2011 11:44 AM PST up reply actions 1 recs
That's a bit of a straw man.
I said ‘a decent amount of cap flexibility’, not merely “more cap room and more allocation money.”
When you compare it to what the team expected of him when he joined, or what he could have gotten given different transfer circumstances, you can’t think it was a significant move.
If you bought a foreclosed fixer-upper a year ago in an amazing location, did a little bit of work on it, and then had to sell it for a just a little bit more because you were taking a bath in some other investments, would you say it was a decent transaction? Maybe. But it wasn’t great and if you had more time to work on it, you would have sold for a lot more.
I was simply rebutting Dave’s inference that the deal was a good one. I don’t think it was given the promise he showed, but the team was hamstrung.
I’m curious where you’re coming from though. How can you think that the Friberg situation is a good/great move for the team? It is what it is, and if you look at it from what he showed last year, it’s a disappointment. They had to move him because of family reasons.
That's not at all a strawman.
The difference is in how we’re defining “decent amount” I suppose.
by Aaron Campeau on Dec 13, 2011 12:59 PM PST up reply actions
Well, no.
You were implying that I was arguing that they didn’t end up with at least 1 dollar more in cap room and 1 dollar more in allocation money this year vs. last year. I wasn’t. They’re getting a little bit of allocation and lose the 90-some thousand dollar cap hit (can’t remember specifically) that he represented on the books.
Seattle will likely be able to replace him with someone of equal or greater value if they want to; all I’m saying is, I think he had the potential to make a Flaco-like leap next year and now they have to find someone to replace him with.
Make no mistake—Adrian Hanauer has a bit of work to do now.
That isn't at all what I was implying.
I specifically mentioned his cap hit, which is significant, and we know they received allocation. Unless you think he was transferred for less than ~$25K (which I would be shocked to find out was true) then the amount of allocation they have has gotten a significant bump.
by Aaron Campeau on Dec 13, 2011 1:26 PM PST up reply actions
Maybe
But I still think we would have been better of if we had been able to keep Friberg. It is not easy to sign somebody of his caliber, and I’m pretty sure he would have had better seasons than last season with the Sounders had he stayed here for a few more. I really think 2012 could have been a major breakthrough for him, being more familiar with the team and the league.
I don’t blame the Sounders, they essentially had no choice. But it is too bad it had to happen like this.
Also, as no point did I say it was "a good/great move for the team."
I’d rather have Friberg than not, but that doesn’t mean there can’t be some upside.
by Aaron Campeau on Dec 13, 2011 1:00 PM PST up reply actions
I'm not sure anyone is spinning this is a good/great move
But the Sounders have somewhere north of $100k in cap space to fiddle with now. The only way you can judge this move is by seeing what they do with the cap space. I’d say $100-160k is a decent amount of added flexibility, though.
Editor/writer at Sounder at Heart, MLS editor SB Nation. Follow me on Twitter. You'll Never Yacht Alone.
by Jeremiah Oshan on Dec 13, 2011 1:05 PM PST up reply actions
Agreed.
If Seattle is able to find a cheap replacement and use Friberg’s $ to get the DPs that Adrian was looking at over the summer, and said DP puts Seattle at or above the Galaxy, we could point to this as a reason.
Cheap replacement....or...?
The money could be used on a cheaper replacement, a same price replacement (110k), or a more expensive one that eats up the allocation he brought us….There’s so much more flexibility with more money. This could allow us to bring in someone else around the same cap hit, then put this allocation money towards beefing up the defense…
No reason to add another central mid IMHO
We starting caliber center mids for the more advanced position in Fernandez and Evans. We also have Seamon as a capable backup. He was lost a bit last season due to injuries and a crowded midfield, but he had a pretty good rookie season. Not too mention we finally have D-mid depth in Carrasco and Sanyang that we can use in a pinch.
It might be worthwhile to spend a draft pick on a C-mid if someone catches their eye in the combines. Otherwise the cap space is probably better used on the defense.
Disagree
I think that if we got a “better Brad Evans,” someone who has his defensive abilities, can pass a bit better, and is good at free kicks, then I think that would help the team a bunch. I like what Evans brings to the team, but CM seems like such an important part of the game that I feel there is still a lot of room to improve there. It would probably take a DP-level acquisition to make a real impact, though, and I’m not sure that fits under the cap with Mauro.
Also, the team and/or Flaco seems to prefer Flaco out wide. How that is handled next year with Zak coming back remains to be seen.
As much potential as we see in Alvaro as a CM
We have to assume he can’t play there every game until he proves otherwise. So far, he’s played a handful of games there and while it looks promising, I don’t think the FO is closing any doors on finding a more reliably dynamic force to play that position.
Personally, I’m a fan of Evans, but even I’ll admit that his inability to stay healthy makes relying on him a dicey proposition.
Editor/writer at Sounder at Heart, MLS editor SB Nation. Follow me on Twitter. You'll Never Yacht Alone.
by Jeremiah Oshan on Dec 13, 2011 1:58 PM PST up reply actions
I actually agree with you Jeremiah
I have just have a different idea on how to use that limited cap space. I expect Evans to man the CM position for the most part with Alvaro moving from the wing to the center if Evans gets injured. Seamon can handle the early Open Cup games, reserve games and some MLS games.
In other words, I don’t really see Alvaro manning the center every game. When he does move centrally, I don’t see a real drop off in quality. I would love to see an upgrade to the CM spot like ubelmann, but it would probably take more than $100,000 in cap space to get someone better than either Evans or Alvaro.
So, rather than spend that cap space on journey backup, I’d rather see them sign some better defenders for the fullback position (which it looks like they’re trying to do at RB). Or pool all that spare cap space and try to get a youngish DP target man like they tried to do over the summer window.
Given my druthers...
If the sounders are going to pool money for someone, I’d rather it be spent on a dynamic CM who can help us retain possession, rather than a striker who can add to our league-leading goal total. I think adding either is a long shot, but that’s the direction I’d go if given the two options.
Editor/writer at Sounder at Heart, MLS editor SB Nation. Follow me on Twitter. You'll Never Yacht Alone.
by Jeremiah Oshan on Dec 13, 2011 3:12 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
If your option is Scott at RB + that dynamic CM
Or Evans/Fernandez at CM plus a dynamic RB, which would you prefer?
Probably a dynamic RB
Editor/writer at Sounder at Heart, MLS editor SB Nation. Follow me on Twitter. You'll Never Yacht Alone.
by Jeremiah Oshan on Dec 13, 2011 6:40 PM PST up reply actions
I think it was a pretty good deal....
You pick up a free agent, you play him for a year and get good use out of him, you sell him for $$….where’s the downside in having him here for a year? The only downside is that he may be worth more than the money we got for him, but I’m sure happy we got the money for him and the use of him for a year and he’s leaving on good terms rather than us keeping him, his moral being low and him talking trash about our league….
I don't think anyways is saying it was a necessarily a bad deal
just not ideal. It probably wasn’t the best because we were trying to move him relatively quick. For the situation I think it was a good deal.
I think the club would have much rather have kept him around next year, but like you said it’s better for him to be leaving on good terms, than forcing him to stay.
Of course there no downside as such in having a good player for a year and the selling them for money. The downside is in the unused potential he had to be a good player for the Sounders for a few more years. I for one had high expectations of Friberg for 2012, and it is too bad that it wont happen.
Obviously it would have been a bad idea to force him to stay in Seattle.
transfer fee
This site claims it was a free transfer: http://www.transfermarkt.co.uk/en/malmoe-ff/transfers/verein_496.html
Any reason to believe they are wrong on this?
That depends
Do you trust that site more than me?
Editor/writer at Sounder at Heart, MLS editor SB Nation. Follow me on Twitter. You'll Never Yacht Alone.
by Jeremiah Oshan on Dec 13, 2011 1:03 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
no, that would be nothing
Editor/writer at Sounder at Heart, MLS editor SB Nation. Follow me on Twitter. You'll Never Yacht Alone.
by Jeremiah Oshan on Dec 13, 2011 1:20 PM PST up reply actions
nothing is a small amount
even relative to 1 taco
you being serious?
Nothing is not an amount, actually.
Editor/writer at Sounder at Heart, MLS editor SB Nation. Follow me on Twitter. You'll Never Yacht Alone.
by Jeremiah Oshan on Dec 13, 2011 1:28 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
sure it is
I could invoice you $0 for the privilege of reading my brilliant comments, that doesn’t make it not an invoice.
Personally, I’d take the taco.
You win
I assure you that the team did not send Friberg on a free transfer.
Editor/writer at Sounder at Heart, MLS editor SB Nation. Follow me on Twitter. You'll Never Yacht Alone.
by Jeremiah Oshan on Dec 13, 2011 1:38 PM PST up reply actions
The more insignificant the point...
the sweeter the victory!
Thanks for the assurance, seriously I’m with you.
In your case PeterJH
We got what we paid for.
Nos audietis in somniis, Nos audietis in altum: You will hear us!
Ok double, Peter! But that's my final offer!!
Nos audietis in somniis, Nos audietis in altum: You will hear us!
Now I feel buyer's remorse. ;-)
Nos audietis in somniis, Nos audietis in altum: You will hear us!
by chrisso on Dec 13, 2011 3:52 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
More accurately...
Do you trust that site more than Adrian
Editor/writer at Sounder at Heart, MLS editor SB Nation. Follow me on Twitter. You'll Never Yacht Alone.
by Jeremiah Oshan on Dec 13, 2011 1:08 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
What does the GM know about his own team
That a website based in Germany doesn’t already know
I am not a Supporter | I am not a Fan | I am a Sounder
Sounder At Heart
by Dave Clark on Dec 13, 2011 1:13 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
The fact that they are wrong about the fees paid for Ashley Young, Stewart Downing and James Milner is a pretty decent reason
by Aaron Campeau on Dec 13, 2011 1:08 PM PST up reply actions
I would say that in general that site is a ~decent resource for the market value of players in the bigger leagues.
It’s also probably reasonably accurate for very high profile players in second-tier leagues.
Outside of that, I wouldn’t put much stock in it.
by Aaron Campeau on Dec 13, 2011 1:12 PM PST up reply actions
Probably because...
The transfer free isn’t disclosed, so they just posted it as free.
Most transfer fees are not disclosed
And they just guesstimate a number based on rumors and “sources close to the team”.
by AAAA on Dec 13, 2011 3:42 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
Cap Room
I assessed the cap space the Sounders have remaining by applying the 5% raises and the increase in the cap. With some guestimation of Mauro @ about 300k and Birch @55k. I figured our remaining cap space @ about $230k. We also have 2 roster slots in the 21-25 slots that don’t count toward the cap for draftees. This leaves that 230k plus whatever allocation we can muster for the remaining 5 roster slots. With 300k in allocation, we could sign a DP and 2 100k-ish players. Should be a tight fit, but we could have 3 major signings left (based solely on my anal retentive assessment of salary cap rules).
by Iam333 on Dec 13, 2011 4:48 PM PST via mobile reply actions
reply to myself
Any remaining signings are probably enabled by the Friberg transfer. I like him a lot, but his transfer could land us in a good spot.
by Iam333 on Dec 13, 2011 4:50 PM PST via mobile up reply actions
The thing is, I keep waiting for another shoe to drop...
…as I doubt (although I’d like to be wrong) that we’ll make it through the off-season without losing one of our big names to Europe. I wouldn’t be the least surprised to find, come January 31st, that either Montero or Fernandez has moved on…and maybe even both, although I’d say that’s a long-shot. (I’d personally have expected Honey Badger to be gone by now, too — maybe even as the first to go — but I take it his asylum status here could cause problems with him getting residency to play in a country with ties to Cuba.)
The thing is, we’ve lost a lot of players over the past two weeks (although we at least filled the GK hole), and I think the assumption among Sounders fans is “now we can move on to picking up talent instead,” but I’m not convinced the losses are over — not by a long shot.
Re: Loss of Fernandez
Would losing him be so awful? As good as he has been and as much as I like him, I have to imagine we could really do something with that 300k in cap space and his DP spot along with the presumed allocation that would come our way.
Editor/writer at Sounder at Heart, MLS editor SB Nation. Follow me on Twitter. You'll Never Yacht Alone.
by Jeremiah Oshan on Dec 13, 2011 6:43 PM PST up reply actions
I didn't like what you were saying with...
“I have to imagine we could really do something with that 300k in cap space and his DP spot”
until you said
“along with the presumed allocation that would come our way.”
I like Fenandez a lot. But there are only a few ways around the salary cap and from what I know of it, allocation dollars are one of those really good ways. Good teams always look for ways to make themselves better.
by soundersfcfanboy on Dec 13, 2011 6:54 PM PST up reply actions
Losing Flaco
Couldn’t agree more. The allocation money is the key because you gain more than what you had before you acquired Flaco. If the Sounders could put themselves in a position where they’re routinely selling a player every few years for a decent transfer fee and then turning around and grabbing up another good and/or young talent with varying combinations of youth DP slots and allocation money, I believe this is the key to being a consistent, dominant force in MLS and CONCACAF in general. You look at a team like FC Porto that buys up players from Brazil and other countries for modest transfer fees and ends up selling them to Spain and England for giant transfer fees. Ambitious I know, but I think this FO is pretty damn ambitious.
Recessionproof since 2009.
by 253Sounder on Dec 14, 2011 9:15 AM PST up reply actions 1 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Sounder At Heart
Related FanShots on Sounder At Heart
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
