As we reported yesterday, a deal in principle was in place to send Cooper to Montreal. The forward was not in Seattle’s plans and Montreal is in need of a striker now that Cameron Porter is out for the year with a blown knee.
However, the Impact allowed Cooper to have the final say on the move. We don’t know why Cooper turned Montreal down. We won’t likely ever know. However, the Impact deserve credit for working with the player. They could have forced a move, but it would have been toxic to all involved. It’s better to move on and find someone who wants to be in Montreal.
Once Cooper turned the move down, Seattle was in a tough place. With a cap hit of about $275,000, Cooper is not a player you want training with the reserves.
This is where things get MLS gray.
Under previous rules – rules that had not publicly been changed – Cooper, by virtue of having a guaranteed contract, could not be removed from Seattle’s salary budget unless he was traded to another team. The Sounders could part ways, but the salary would remain on their cap.
There was an exemption permitted to every team to buy out one guaranteed contract per year so long as the buyout happened prior to the roster compliance deadline. That was three weeks ago.
So, under the rules as they were understood, Seattle was stuck with Cooper unless another team wanted him.
It was a surprise, then, when Seattle announced this afternoon that they had bought Cooper out. It was also confusing in that they used the terms “bought out” and “waived” interchangeably and the two are very different from a rules stand point. Eventually, however, Garth Lagerway clarified that Cooper’s salary was indeed “off the books.”
How that was possible when the rules as understood prevented it was never made clear.
Again, the rules were clear. Guaranteed contract after roster compliance date? You’re on the hook for whole salary. Non-guaranteed contracts can be bought out at any time prior to mid-season and only the prorated portion of the contract paid out would count against cap, but not guaranteed contracts.
It was black and white. Except nothing ever is in MLS.
Clearly the league has once again changed its roster rules without informing anyone that covers or follows it. Talk of improving transparency is once again exposed as nothing more than rhetoric.
What’s infuriating is that a rule like this doesn't need to be a secret. So long as the rule is the same for everyone, no one is going to care. The problem is, when MLS isn't upfront about the rule changes it creates the perception that it makes things up on the fly. And, that’s the charitable conclusion. Less charitably it makes the league look like it plays favourites with certain clubs.
It isn't helping the optics that it’s Seattle that just got $275,000 of cap space.
It’s likely that Seattle isn't getting special treatment here. However, we can’t definitively demonstrate they aren't because MLS fails to give us the evidence to do so.
Fans shouldn't have to hope that the rules are the same for everyone. It shouldn't even be a question that they are.
Yet, not only are fans uncertain of that, there is a growing number convinced that the rules aren't the same—that MLS manipulates rules as it sees fit.
How is that healthy? How is that a sign of a mature league?