Big Clubs Are Interested In Osvaldo Alonso: A Test In Sounders Fans' Faith
Osvaldo Alonso recently suggested some Premiership teams might be interested in acquiring his services. Unsurprisingly, being as he is a professional soccer player, he is open to this possibility. None of this should really come as news.
The question is: How much concern should this cause us as Seattle Sounders fans, who clearly want our team to have as many highly talented players as is possible? That entirely depends on how much faith you put in our front office and ownership.
Let's start with a few assumptions for the sake of argument:
- If a team is interested enough in Alonso, the potential legal hurdles are not so big as to make him unattractive
- There exists a price at which the Sounders would be wiling to sell Alonso
- The league is not going to force the Sounders to sell Alonso, as there are virtually no examples of a player being sold against his team's wishes
Given these assumptions, Sounders fans are left to answer some questions that should dictate how uncomfortable this situation makes you feel:
- Do you think the Sounders would sell Alonso without getting a significant transfer fee in return? I'm sure there are those of you who see the Erik Friberg and Miguel Montano situations and start wondering if our FO is not too nice for its own good. I assure you, they are not. In both cases, the Sounders got something they needed. In the case of Montano, it was roster flexibility in order to acquire Sammy Ochoa. In Friberg's case, it was a transfer fee that essentially meant they got Friberg's services for free. There's just no way the Sounders are going to let him go just because he wants to play in Europe. I'd expect a transfer free of at least $3 million, maybe more.
- Do you think the Sounders would let that money go to waste? This is a team that has made numerous clever moves during their brief time in MLS. Admittedly, they have yet to acquire a high-profile star in his prime, but there's no reason to think that they are just hoarding profits. Based on what I know of this group, I fully expect them to take whatever money they get from a prospective Alonso sale and put that right back into soccer talent.
- Do you think the Sounders are already looking for backup options? Obviously, we know what we have in Alonso and like what we see. But we're crazy to think that he's entirely irreplaceable. Somewhere, there's a player that can fill his shoes. I'm sure the Sounders are already looking for that player. More than any other MLS team, I trust the Sounders to find that player.
Of all the issues, the final one is easily the one I expect most Sounders fans to struggle with. Plucking Alonso out of the third division must seem like an absolute stroke of luck. It wasn't. Obviously, finding talent is not a science, and the Sounders have not been perfect in this category.
But we like to think of the Sounders as class organization, maybe even a world-class one. Well, losing good players is part of the deal. Even the best teams in the world need to replace great players. Hopefully, Alonso will just be the first of many great Sounders to garner interest from overseas. We should never like losing great players, but we need to at least get used to the best teams in the world sniffing around like hungry wolves. When they stop, you'll know something has really gone wrong.
99 comments
|
3 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Given the fact
that MLS is essentially a feeder league at this point, this is just a natural progression. While it’s always hard to lose players (especially ones I’ve loved as much as the Honey Badger), it should be a point of pride that we have done our jobs well—we’ve uncovered talent and further developed it to the point that the “big leagues” are interested. I feel pretty good about that. As long as we get value from the transfer, that’s all we can really ask. Because there should be reward for the team as well as the player.
From another standpoint, the Sounders have always presented as a team that is wanting to consistently show players in our system that we’re there for them and we’ll do what is best for them, even if it isn’t necessarily what we want (Friberg as an example). Personally, I like that. Counterpoint that with a Red Bull franchise that seems determined to stand in the way of Ream going to the EPL and getting the development he sorely needs. I’ll take the Sounders way….. but leaven it with some good business sense.
I hear you
but, imo, MLS isn’t the best place for him to learn it at this point in his career.
He isn't a very good MLS defender
How is he going to play enough overseas in order to develop?
I am not a Supporter | I am not a Fan | I am a Sounder
Sounder At Heart Follow @bedirthan Dave's Twitter
by Dave Clark on Dec 16, 2011 12:06 PM PST up reply actions 2 recs
Is anyone else as annoyed as I was
that Tyrone Mathieu stole the honey badger nickname/momentum away from Alonso?
I miss *REAL* Four Loko
by B-Lot tailgater on Dec 16, 2011 12:54 PM PST up reply actions
Apparently I did
Shame one me
I miss *REAL* Four Loko
by B-Lot tailgater on Dec 19, 2011 7:38 AM PST up reply actions
If it happens, it happens
I have complete faith in this FO to capitalize on the sale of any player to the fullest extent possible. If we could become a club that routinely finds and sells talented players to Europe while getting a few good seasons out of each player in between there’s no telling how dominant this team could be.
Recessionproof since 2009.
From a fan perspective
it’s difficult to look at this from the perfectly reasonable business perspective that you present. And just like you mention, the FO is good at finding talent but not perfect. Ljungberg ultimately did not work very well. Nkufo did his thing. There are other examples. Not nearly enough to outweigh the successes, but that seed of doubt is there.
It’s not comforting thinking about losing our MVP, having to worry about the spine, having to worry about if we lose him we really will get enough compensation to get a like-for-like player. I think you and Dave both have emotional attachments to certain players. Assuring us we’ll be compensated and the FO is competent enough to find a replacement doesn’t make the emotional hit any easier.
by chrisperry1983 on Dec 16, 2011 10:34 AM PST reply actions
I don't want to lose him either
But if he does his job, we will lose him and others. That’s just how it is
Editor/writer at Sounder at Heart, MLS editor SB Nation. Follow me on Twitter. You'll Never Yacht Alone.
by Jeremiah Oshan on Dec 16, 2011 10:52 AM PST via iPhone app up reply actions
The timing on when we lose him is a big deal, though
Even if Ozzie doesn’t stick around for a year more, as I suggest below, sticking around until the summer transfer window might be nice, given our participation in the CCL quarters and the difficulty of integrating a new CDM into the team before that tournament resumes. Also, if he goes in the summer window, he would get the benefit of training with his new team in the summer.
I really doubt he'll leave before summer
Editor/writer at Sounder at Heart, MLS editor SB Nation. Follow me on Twitter. You'll Never Yacht Alone.
by Jeremiah Oshan on Dec 16, 2011 10:57 AM PST via iPhone app up reply actions
I guess I don't see the sense of panic that these rumors seem to have sparked amongst some
Yes, losing Alonso would mean the Sounders have a big hole to fill. But the Sounders are aware that Alonso is a great player (he did win the team MVP award after all) and I’m sure they have plans in place in case they get a good enough offer for his services. If we don’t really even expect to lose him in the winter transfer window, I guess it seems like there are bigger things to worry about, if we’re inclined to worry.
I just finished Soccernomics
and it seems that the lesson for MLS squads will be to get players and sell them in a fashion that nets us positive allocation dollars. My heart says I don’t want to lose Alonso, but my head trusts math.
by sammysounder on Dec 16, 2011 10:27 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
The general lesson of Soccernomics,
is to sell the moment that you think the player is valued higher than what he is worth or more than it would cost to replace that talent level. However, these considerations get a lot more complicated in MLS than other international markets that Soccernomics is nominally referring to.
Unlike the EPL, we can’t take a large transfer fee and directly turn it around into new talent. It’s quite likely that the transfer fee for someone like Alonso could be more than the MLS team salary cap. That situation really muddles the otherwise clear cut economic argument.
Sounders 'til I die
by SounderJunkie on Dec 19, 2011 2:40 PM PST up reply actions
I do not think the article looks at the situation from a business perspective
Buying and selling players is not just business. Developing players and selling them for more than you used to acquire them is a way to be able to continue to have a competitive team. In other feeder leagues it has more to do with keeping profits high enough that you can afford the team. In MLS it has more to do with the salary cap. The system is built in such a way that at some point a it becomes impossible to keep a good team together, because in a good team salaries go up faster than the MLS salary cap. Somebody has to go at some point. Since up to $625k of the transfer may be used as allocation money, selling one player goes a long way in keeping the rest of the team together.
Hanauer has actually more than hinted at this on several occasions recently. It seems that the reality for the Sounders is that somebody needs to be sold before the start of the 2013 season. It could be Alonso. But it could also be Montero or Fernandez.. Or maybe even something that cannot be foreseen now.
by AAAA on Dec 16, 2011 11:43 AM PST up reply actions 3 recs
I guess the way I meant it
was more how Jeremiah broke it down to a methodical, factual view. Looking purely at numbers and probabilities, that sorta thing. That and also by using more anecdotal stuff to calm our fears – which is perfectly fine to do. I was just pointing out that from a fan perspective with emotions tied in and with knowing that scouting isn’t a sure-thing, that for me it does little to make me feel better about things.
by chrisperry1983 on Dec 16, 2011 12:26 PM PST up reply actions
Thank you!
Enough with this unreasonable confidence about him staying due to his Cuban citizenship. Seattle fans have every right to be concerned about this.
by Samuelson on Dec 16, 2011 10:44 AM PST reply actions 3 recs
We weren't the first ones in MLS to discover Alonso if I recall
But the first ones to offer Alonso a fair contract. Didn’t Chivas or something make him an offer, but he chose to stay in USL?
-Ben R.
He turned down the chivas offer and explored USL-1 instead
It came down to Seattle or Charleston at that time.
I am not a Supporter | I am not a Fan | I am a Sounder
Sounder At Heart Follow @bedirthan Dave's Twitter
It seems like it'd be good for the Sounders and for Alonso if he stuck around at least one more year
Sure, the Sounders could find someone in Europe who would want Alonso, but IMO, MLS is a good enough league now where not only should the Sounders be looking for top dollar in a transfer fee, but Alonso should be picky about where he lands. Just as folks worry about whether or not, say, Altidore transferred out of MLS too early, Alonso (and his agent, of course) should be looking for a situation where he can get good wages and regular playing time, so that he has the opportunity to continue increasing his wages. If he stays in MLS, there is plenty for him to accomplish. He has yet to win MLS Cup, CCL championship, or the SS, and individual awards like MLS MVP or MLS Best XI might be nice, too.
Clearly by living in the US, he’s comfortable enough in an English-speaking country, but it could be his preference to transfer to, say, La Liga rather than the EPL. And while his wages would certainly be higher in Europe, so would his taxes, so again, it might make sense to wait a year to try to boost his value so he can earn more when he does move.
The problem with part of this is
Alonso doesn’t exactly have all the time in the world to be patient. If he wants to go to Europe there’s no time like the present. If he signs a 2 year deal now by the time that deal is done he wil be starting the downswing of his career. The longer he waits the less valuable he is.
by Adam Waltering on Dec 16, 2011 11:03 AM PST up reply actions
All the more reason to be picky about where he plays
If he transfers to a team that doesn’t really have minutes for him, then he could spend his peak years on the bench, which wouldn’t be good for his bottom line in the long run, either. I also wouldn’t be surprised if Ozzie ages a bit better than some of his peers, since he’s only had 16 international games.
I suppose
it all depends on whether he’d like to make a nice chunk of change before he retires. It’s not like he has an affordable homeland to return to. He’ll have to retire probably either here or in Europe so money likely is an issue.
by Adam Waltering on Dec 16, 2011 11:24 AM PST up reply actions
One more thought.
Seattle should absolutely be looking to upgrade in the middle. And at forward. And in the back. As we’ve seen this offseason, there are no guarantees about any players staying, and ‘positional logjams’ should not be a concern to AH—especially given the number of competitions this club competes in.
If that’s the problem this club is dealing with, then that’s a happy consequence of a deep squad. Load up, everywhere.
Money
It is always about the money.
I think that the salary cap on the teams means that teams like Seattle could and should care LESS about the transfer fee.
Ownership is making a ton of dough already. So unless getting dollars out of the deal is their MAIN objective ( aka Mariners 10 years ago…btw that didn’t work very well long term ), they will need to hold onto players, over selling them for cash.
Now there are allocation dollars that can help there, but they are tempered by only getting a portion of the money in allocation and by the fact that anyone desired is probably willing to move because they make MORE money ( again it is always about the money )…..so replacing will cost more.
Not saying the Sounders shouldn’t move guys, even Alonso. Just saying it makes it a lot more difficult to add up.
I was bummed by this news. Reading this comment reminded me to be thankful that Bill Bavasi no longer has any control over Seattle sports teams.
Also, could the Sounders get anything BUT cash by transferring Ozzie?
by yuniform on Dec 16, 2011 11:23 AM PST via mobile up reply actions
Bavasi. Ugh. The Ms are still digging their way out of the hole he excavated
Did you ever read the comment threads at USS Mariner when Bavasi was still Mariners GM?
Through the years the emotions expressed there went from confusion to concern to alarm to anger to fury to panic and then, finally, acceptance. Watching him make moves was like watching your best friend decide to take up meth because it seemed like the right thing to do at the time.
The other thing that blew my mind back then was how much cheerleading the mainstream media (Seattle Times, KJR, etc.) did for Bavasi. If not cheerleading then at least supporting his moves.
The upside to having the Sounders be largely ignored by the local media is that the Sounders don’t get hummers from the Times Sports page on a regular basis. (Geoff Baker, over there, still thinks trading the Ms farm system for Bedard was a good idea.)
Sounder at Heart is the main source of media feedback that the Sounders are getting in this town. The upside to that is that the editors of this site and the commenters here would quickly sound the alarm if Hanauer started making Bavasi-level moves.
by Choskasoft on Dec 16, 2011 11:43 AM PST up reply actions 1 recs
Baker sort of has a point
Of all the prospects in the deal, Jones is the only one doing anything positive, and that was after struggling for four years.
I hate Bavasi as much as the next guy, but the Bedard deal wasn’t his worst move; just his highest-profile.
Salary cap probably cuts in favor of transferring for cash
IIRC, the team is allowed to keep 2/3rds of the deal in allocation money, up to $650k. If the writers on this site are right, Ozzie’s transfer fee will pretty easily net us the 650k allocation. It’s something like a 20% increase in effective spending the club can fit under the cap for a single year. It could completely buy down the cap hit from a designated player for two straight years.
Actually, the salary cap means the teams should care MORE about transfer fees
As mentioned several times already, the team gets to keep 2/3 of the transfer fee and use up to $650,000 of it in allocation. That’s extremely useful in raising the overall quality of the team. The rest of the transfer fee the team gets can be used in paying “soccer related expenses”, whatever that is. So getting good transfer fees for your players can make a huge difference, allowing you to spend a lot more under the cap than a team that does get those fees.
by CarlosT on Dec 16, 2011 12:04 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
One of the expenses we can spend on is DP salaries or DP transfer fees
A big transfer like Ozzie’s 3 million could give us both the means to pay for a franchise DP AND buy out his cap hit for two years. Pretty nice deal, even if Ozzie’s the one person we’d really, really rather not lose.
Imagine 650k in allocation
and then a 2.65 Million dollar expansion of Starfire (soccer related expense)
I am not a Supporter | I am not a Fan | I am a Sounder
Sounder At Heart Follow @bedirthan Dave's Twitter
So the way the transfer fee would work is...
We can only use 2/3 (up to 650k) of it for allocation, doesnt the league get the rest? So wouldnt a transfer fee of more than 975k do nothing for us? So a transfer of 3 million, lets say, we would only get 650k for allocation. and the rest….
Team gets 2/3 of the fee, no matter what
Up to 650k (or the 2/3, whichever is higher) can be used to buy down allocation. The team keeps the rest for “soccer related expenses.”
thanks
But arent players “soccer related expenses” haha. So the league gets nothing out of the deal then?
Ture, but that does not mean they should care MORE about the transfer fees
It is more that the salary cap makes it necessary to sell players every once in a while, because the allocation money you get from transfers is the only way to be able to keep fielding a competitive team.
However, primarily the salary cap still means that in huge transfer fees you get to spend only a small fraction of the fee on new players. Therefore it matter far less than elsewhere whether you sell the player for $1 million or $10 million.
They should care more because allocation dollars are extremely valuable and hard to come by
It’s on of the primary mechanisms teams in MLS can gain a competitive edge over one another. You still need to make good personnel decisions (that’s a given for all teams in all leagues) but allocation money allows you to have good quality players not only in the first team, but in depth positions as well.
Also, the “soccer related expenses” is nothing to sneeze at either, now that Dave has explained it to me. The difference between $1 million and $10 million is paying down two DP contracts and paying down two DP contracts and adding 2,500 seats to Starfire. Or paying down two DP contracts and a decent chunk of a new FieldTurf installation.
by CarlosT on Dec 16, 2011 12:43 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
I did not say that there's no difference between $1 million and $10 million
I said that the salary cap makes the difference smaller than it would be if there weren’t restrictions on how the money can be spent.
not accurate
What u can spend on allocation is not the same as what u can spend in transfers. For instance a $3m transfer fee could count as $650k toward allocation AND $2.35m on transfer fees
Editor/writer at Sounder at Heart, MLS editor SB Nation. Follow me on Twitter. You'll Never Yacht Alone.
by Jeremiah Oshan on Dec 16, 2011 12:45 PM PST via iPhone app up reply actions
Transfer fees being a soccer related expense
I am not a Supporter | I am not a Fan | I am a Sounder
Sounder At Heart Follow @bedirthan Dave's Twitter
Transfer fees count against the salary cap
That is the reason why MLS teams rarely buy players, and instead mostly get them on free transfers.
Not if that fee is for a DP
I am not a Supporter | I am not a Fan | I am a Sounder
Sounder At Heart Follow @bedirthan Dave's Twitter
I thought Fernandez is a DP because his transfer fee counts against the cap
His salary is listed at $300k, below the DP threshold.
Right
But they could pay that transfer fee out of dollars they receive from an earlier transfer.
I am not a Supporter | I am not a Fan | I am a Sounder
Sounder At Heart Follow @bedirthan Dave's Twitter
But you were talkin about usig $2.35m on transfer fees in a league that has a salary cap under $3m
Even if the transfer fee’s cap hit is divided to the duration of the contract, not a lot of money can be used on transfer fees without having problems with the cap.
transfer fees
Nothing would stop a team from spending that $2.35m on one transfer tho, only $335k of which could count against the cap
Editor/writer at Sounder at Heart, MLS editor SB Nation. Follow me on Twitter. You'll Never Yacht Alone.
by Jeremiah Oshan on Dec 17, 2011 8:36 AM PST via iPhone app up reply actions 1 recs
Alonso is as close to an irreplaceable player as the Sounders have
His injury in 2010 really showed how much the Sounders rely on him to make Sigi’s system run. In my opinion he’s more valuable to this team than any other DP on this roster (or perhaps on any roster in MLS). He’s a perfect fit for the Sigi arrow and has a very reasonable contract for such a valuable player.
I expect the Sounders to have some good options in the mixer should Alonso move on to Europe. I would expect anyone they sign to replace him to be either a downgrade or making significantly more than Alonso currently makes (possible low DP wages).
The Sounders should seriously consider any good offers and I expect them to use any transfer fee wisely. I don’t expect to the team to suddenly fall to the back half of the league over losing one player even one as important as Alonso, but at the same time, we can’t expect them to be able to replace Alonso without taking a step backward at the CDM spot.
The Sounders are the best in MLS at scouting talent, but they’re not miracle workers.
In Adrian, Sigi and Henderson I trust. Schmetz too.
All of them. This organization has proven to me that its motivated, focused, intelligent, and at times even ruthless. All the things I want in a team. I love Honey Badger (though he don’t care) but if he has options that will also open up options for Sounders FC. We want to be a world club. As Portland and Van continue to flail about looking every bit like first or second year clubs, I am watching Sounders FC lead the way towards MLS being a true world league. Now if we only could have relegation and promotion (no chance of that happening under the current system though).
Sounders being on the radar in Europe helps MLS and definitely helps the Sounders FC. We all, every one of us, help that when we show up and go mental, prove that we’re the true Soccer City USA, and prove support that is so above and beyond anywhere else in the USA.
I’m proud, like a proud parent, if we lose players to Europe, because I know that means we’re developing talent. Closer and closer to the goal of being a primary destination as a team, and as a league. If we can get the salaries where they need to be, Seattle’s getting there so fast already.
by luckystriker on Dec 16, 2011 11:30 AM PST reply actions 1 recs
I'm really sick of the pro/reg debate at this point
There’s just no way that’s happening in America unless soccer takes a huge leap in popularity at some point. We can’t support lower-level soccer teams enough for the MLS owners to be comfortable with it.
I met a possum.
by s0merand0mdude on Dec 16, 2011 10:18 PM PST up reply actions 2 recs
Selling a player like Ozzie is like seeing your stud college player declare for the draft early
It’s painful in the short term, but it’s part of doing business and will really help the program in the long run.
This is where the salary cap gets annoying.
If Seattle comes a place where we can sell players to high leagues as we grow and make good money, it may be tough to fill the spots left with other top notch players. I know there is ways around it in some cases, but is it possible this becomes a problem?
On Ozzie, as a business decision he’s got to like it, and I think we should too. I hate to lose a player like him but like others have said, in the long run this could help us out more than him staying. He is a beast for us and dominates in the MLS, he deserves a shot in a better place and the way I see it is “Once a Sounder, always a Sounder,” I’ll root for him wherever he goes.
With revenue sharing...
…the more players who get sold for lots of money, the more money the league will have, and the higher the salary cap will go. It’s just not going to happen overnight, and remaining at the top of the league will be harder than it would be in a non-capped league. Are the Sounders up to the task?
Thats the thing.
I wish we were not set up with revenue sharing. Because Seattle’s FO, attendance, support etc would make it able to become a true world club. But now, we have MLS kind of dragging us down, where every great move we make in scouting or player dev winds up benefitting … the known deadweight in the league, that do neither, and who draw 1/5 attendance what we draw. It does stink. Its what we have, but I wish so much we weren’t held back by it.
by luckystriker on Dec 16, 2011 12:00 PM PST up reply actions
That's right, the Sounders could be like the NY Cosmos
Oh wait a minute!
by Coug1990 on Dec 16, 2011 12:06 PM PST up reply actions 2 recs
The rest of the league is not dragging us down
Without the rest of MLS, there is no Fredy Montero, no Oswaldo Alonso, no 36K/game at Qwest, and at best we’d be a good 2nd division team playing at Starfire. We need the league to succeed because you can’t be a “true world club” (whatever that means) without a domestic league. That means we need to keep helping out soccer in other parts of the country until those teams gain in popularity.
by ubelmann on Dec 16, 2011 12:52 PM PST up reply actions 5 recs
Well, yeah, revenue sharing sucks when you're the team on top...
But I’d much rather support a team in the NFL than the MLB or EPL, simply because I know my team has a reasonable chance regardless of its owner’s wealth. Also, if I follow a wealthy team (like the Sounders) I know there will still be competition, and winning a championship isn’t a guarantee.
Imagine how complacent you get when your beating your kid cousin at basketball (or whatever sport your family plays) every time you play him, then imagine how much more excited you get when he’s grown up and provides a sizable competition for you. Without a chance of failure, there’s no excitement when you achieve success. If you’re putting a much better product out on the field than other teams year after year, you get complacent. That’s why I’m more excited over the MLS Cup or the CCL than I am about winning another USOC. It’s almost a disappointment now if we don’t win it.
I met a possum.
by s0merand0mdude on Dec 16, 2011 10:26 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
MLS has close to the right mix for me
The clubs are fairly even with the current cap rules. However, there is enough wiggle room that smart FOs can get a competitive edge and reward fans.
by Dizzo on Dec 17, 2011 9:52 AM PST up reply actions 1 recs
not for $3million
The club shouldn’t even consider an offer at $3million. His value to the Sounder’s far exceeds that number.
I think it is a bit silly that the article in that Miami newspaper has sparked this much concern
There really was not anything of substance in that article. We knew before that article came out that English clubs are keeping an eye on Alonso. Best piece of evidence of that was his trial with Everton in the offseason last year.
There is no rumor about an Alonso transfer to England. There is just speculation that a club in England might be interested in getting Alonso. The only thing that speculation is based on is that English clubs have been looking at him, a fact that we have known all along.
So getting alarmed because of the recent speculation is silly. Still, anything is possible. We could hear about a transfer later today, or Alonso might end up spending the rest of his career with the Sounders. Something in between those two extremes is of course the most likely. Personally I’m not ruling out the possibility of getting to keep him for a few more years. Time will tell.
by AAAA on Dec 16, 2011 12:01 PM PST reply actions 1 recs
I personally don't think that the Article is what brought this up.
As you have said, we have seen his performance, we realize that others must too and that others probably have an eye on him. That being said this is the first time that we have seen it mentioned that someone may actually be interested enough to bring him over, thus we start looking at what it would mean to the club as well.
Its not that we are freaking out over the possibility, but rather this is the most opportune time to talk about the positive and negative effects a star player of ours would have if he were to leave.
Also, Sir Alex called out Alonso by name after the MAN United friendly
Said he was a player to watch out for, or something along those lines.
Well, it's the silly season
We pursue everything because we want stuff to talk about.
I met a possum.
by s0merand0mdude on Dec 16, 2011 10:28 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
There appears to be much ado about relatively nothing.
Let’s be honest, Ozzie is damn good but far from a finished product and wouldnt make an immediate impact for a club that is ‘desperate’ for a MF. The first leg in RSL made that much clear. Historically, MLS players have taken a whille to crack the starting lineup (if ever) and as Dave has pointed out, there would be a lot of red tape/headaches associated with signing him and getting him a permit. I have no doubt that Ozzie wil be leaving us down the road for greener pastures but I really doubt it will be in 2012, IMO.
There’s no sense in getting too worked up over this. I really like my job but if I got an offer to something similar for a larger/more prestigious company I would obviously consider it, as would most people. I’ll give Ozzie credit for being honest but I have a hard time seeing how he would be plucked from us over Alvaro/Montero.
Go banana!
The difference between you and Alonso
is that you are absolutely replaceable at what you do. He is not. It would take a lot of work, scouting, etc to find a similarly skilled replacement. You though, along with myself and I would guess 99.9% of the people on this site, could be replaced easily. That’s what makes this scary.
by chrisperry1983 on Dec 16, 2011 12:21 PM PST up reply actions
I wouldn't say Alonso is 'irreplaceable' per se
I understand your concern and your point however I feel that we would be able to attract a suitable replacement, as we have shown to do. However at the end of the day he’s just one guy. Ozzie is great for what he does, but there are other areas of his game that could be improved before he becomes on par with EPL talent.
I just dont see the need to get in a tizzy over something that was (for me anyway) in the back of our minds.
Go banana!
by Disco_Stew on Dec 16, 2011 1:10 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
Thinking from Alonso's perspective
this would have to be huge. To grow up in Cuba, fear for your life by defecting, and playing well enough in the US to even be looked at by EPL clubs has to be an honor. Being asked to go would probably feel like winning the lottery.
I like him and I’d hate to see him go, but I’d get a kick out of seeing him achieve a dream. Besides, 4 years at Everton or Villa then he can come back and finish his career here!
If it happens
All we can hope for really is that we get something good in return, that Ozzie lands somewhere he’s happy, makes an impact, plays a lot, wins a title, and is showered with gobs of money.
C’est la vie, and there’s no way to not feel happy for him. BUT HE WAS OUR HONEY BADGER FIRST.
What is the time limit for when allocation has to be spent?
If Alonso is sold for $3 million let’s say, and the Sounders get to use $650K allocation towards the cap, does that mean it has to all be spent in one year? When the Sounders started MLS play in 2009, as an expansion team they were allotted a certain amount of allocation dollars that could be spent over 2 years. I thought it was around 1 million, but don’t know for sure.
Can you buy down non-DP contracts? Gspurning’s let’s say? Let’s say like he signed for $220K a year for 3 years. With $650 allocation, could all that go towards his salary over the three years, effectively raising the cap by $220 for three years? Or does spreading allocation out across multiple years only apply to DP’s, which means allocation is extra valuable towards DP’s.
Along with most folks, I really wish there was a lot more transparency around how the financial side of player movement is done. Outside of "raise the salary cap", these financial pieces of MLS don’t seem to get much conversation. Who can have an intelligent conversation about it though? Ugh…
by soundersfcfanboy on Dec 16, 2011 1:52 PM PST reply actions
Per the description of the allocation rule
Each year the MLS Competition Committee determines the allocation amount to be made available to each club. Allocation money can be traded by clubs. Allocation money does not count against a club’s salary budget and can be used:
•To sign players new to MLS (that is, a player who did not play in MLS during the previous season).
•To re-sign an existing MLS player, subject to League approval.
•To "buy-down" a player’s salary budget charge below the League maximum of $335,000.
•In connection with the exercise of an option to purchase a player’s rights or the extension of a player’s contract for the second year provided the player was new to MLS in the immediately prior year.
I am not a Supporter | I am not a Fan | I am a Sounder
Sounder At Heart Follow @bedirthan Dave's Twitter
So...
That would seem to say no, you can’t pay down non-DP contracts. Is that your reading as well?
Yeah, very vague....
I believe the link is http://www.mlssoccer.com/2011-mls-roster-rules from what you posted above.
From "To “buy-down” a player’s salary budget charge below the League maximum of $335,000.", instead of buying down Mauro’s contract, why not buy down Fernandez since that should involve a LOT less money? AH let it be known they were exploring buying down Mauro’s contract to below DP level.
There also isn’t any mention a time limit on allocation dollars. I’m starting to guess there isn’t any outside of what an expansion team can use, which makes sense and makes me much happier about the allocation money process.
by soundersfcfanboy on Dec 16, 2011 2:44 PM PST up reply actions
about Fernandez vs. Mauro...
I don’t think Mauro is going to get a LOT more money, but enough that if you had a choice, it probably makes sense to pay down Fernandez vs. Mauro’s contract if you were trying to free up a DP spot.
by soundersfcfanboy on Dec 16, 2011 2:46 PM PST up reply actions
It looks like you can pay down non-DP contracts
If you’re signing a new player or signing an old player to a new contract. AFAICT, the allocation money spent in such a way wouldn’t count against the salary cap.
So it looks like in order to spend allocation dollars in order to reduce cap hit, you have to have enough to pay for one player’s entire salary. Odd.
Just to beat a dead horse.
Does the 1/3 of the transfer fee the League receives go towards Garber’s yacht maintenance?
by DaveValleDrinkNight on Dec 16, 2011 2:15 PM PST reply actions
Is that code for...
… Robert Kraft’s pockets?
by Kenneth Jung on Dec 16, 2011 3:21 PM PST up reply actions
Pretty much
Also, Chivas and their 800 season ticket holders (not a joke, that was the real number, at least a few years ago).
The Chivas USA concept just seems so flawed in so many ways...
…I’m surprised that they haven’t found someone to take that team in a different direction. Having two teams in LA isn’t such a bad idea, but it sure seems like they could do better.
Ho about FC Hollywood?
Just to piss off Bayern!
by sammysounder on Dec 17, 2011 8:52 AM PST up reply actions
I love Alonso, and would help him bury a body...
We don’t want to hold players ‘hostage’. As much as we love them, if they want to move on, we need to let them, and even encourage them. The Sounders are already a destination that many players would love or even dream to play, but we can and should encourage them to dream ‘bigger’ – at least until we are the biggest that they can dream of. That might take a couple of more years. :p
by Steve Kowalsky on Dec 16, 2011 6:27 PM PST reply actions 2 recs
Allocation Money
If we got anything over a million for Friberg, we are already $650 to the good on the cap. The boys here seem to think we got north of $3M. I will trust their intuition and be happy – that is a huge chunk of change to rebuild this roster with. A(nother) good bit of business of AH.
by @Thomas513 on Dec 16, 2011 7:36 PM PST via mobile reply actions
assuming u mean alonso
Editor/writer at Sounder at Heart, MLS editor SB Nation. Follow me on Twitter. You'll Never Yacht Alone.
by Jeremiah Oshan on Dec 16, 2011 10:40 PM PST via iPhone app up reply actions
friberg transfer
We got closer to his salary last season
Editor/writer at Sounder at Heart, MLS editor SB Nation. Follow me on Twitter. You'll Never Yacht Alone.
by Jeremiah Oshan on Dec 17, 2011 8:34 AM PST via iPhone app up reply actions
I hate how they don't tel us info
about allocation. It would provide some good discussion fodder. If we got 50K I’d say we came out short, but if we got 200 then I think that’s a nice bit of business we did.
by sammysounder on Dec 17, 2011 8:54 AM PST up reply actions
50k of allocation is pretty useful
It can take the cap room for a MLS reserve league journeyman (around $50,000) into the cap room for a MLS quality starter or rotational player (around $100,000). In other words, it’s the difference between a Pete Vagenas and a Jeff Parke.
by Dizzo on Dec 17, 2011 10:05 AM PST up reply actions 1 recs
How is Carrasco progressing?
I know he’s young but he does have the ability to play a CDM role. Is he someone who could step in and grow into a solid player for us at that position if Ozzie were to leave?
Life's what happens while you're making other plans

by 


















