Jump to content

Chad Barrett Traded


yomurphy1

Recommended Posts

While true, you would have been better off releasing him in November and not picking up his option instead of paying part of his salary so that he can play on another team.

There has been no confirmation (outside of Ives) that TFC is covering any part of Chad's salary with LA so to assume that this is happening might just be jumping the gun somewhat.

If we assume (for the sake of discussion) that this is not happening, it all makes sense. By not picking up his option, you get nothing back in return. I don't like just dropping players that may in fact have some value on the market. If I want to let a player go, I'd like something back in return.

In this case future considerations although I've also heard the figure of allocation funds of $125k.

Right now, our new management needs funds to rebuild with. I'm quite willing to go along with their decisions at this point in time. They've been hired to do a job so let's let them do it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

While true, you would have been better off releasing him in November and not picking up his option instead of paying part of his salary so that he can play on another team.

From everything I've read from the club, they're not picking up part of his salary and that was a mistake by Ives. Paul B's twitter said the details [released by Ives] of the trade were wrong

Link to comment
Share on other sites

MLS would be better served by releasing full details of these trades. However, they are probably loathe to continuously highlight that a lot of these players being shopped around aren't making too much coin.

Was there any indication this was an "option" year in Barrett's contract? To the best of my understanding Mojo guaranteed him straight through to the end, otherwise no way in hell TFC extends the guy at 300k.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I find it hard to believe that LA fully takes on Barrett's alleged $300,000 per year salary AND gives TFC $125,000 in allocation.

Ives is pretty reliable.

The statement Paul Beirne made on twitter is not definitive at all. For all we know Beirne simply has a different opinion of what is 'a large chunk' (paraphrasing Ives' words). And Beirne is from an organization with a history of lying. His statement appears to try to muddy the facts. It is not an outright denial that TFC is taking on some of Barrett's salary.

So I think its safe to speculate that TFC is paying some of Barrett's salary. And as I've stated previously, I'd rather just keep Barrett than pay to have him play on another MLS team.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd rather just keep Barrett than pay to have him play on another MLS team.
Why, if he's to be nothing more than a benchwarmer occupying a roster spot under the new regime? Be much better to cut your losses and free up a roster spot for a productive replacement and save at least some of his salary.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

^ TFC can well afford to pay a portion of Barrett's salary to not play for them, they have that financial advantage over many other MLS clubs. Where they don't have an advantage in is salary cap, everybody is equal on that account.

Better to take a little hit in the wallet that you can afford than a bigger hit in the salary cap which you can't afford for what was looking to be a bench player.

I think Barrett is useful. Agree with most of the criticisms but he dose have pace and an eye towards goal which is useful in every set up (in some circumstances), just on the balance of things in a salary capped league this is probably the right move both for the player and TFC.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why, if he's to be nothing more than a benchwarmer occupying a roster spot under the new regime? Be much better to cut your losses and free up a roster spot for a productive replacement and save at least some of his salary.

Why would he be a benchwarmer? He definitely won't be on LA, a much better team than TFC.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"We made this trade to give us more flexibility in building our squad for the new season," said Winter in a news release. "This creates more cap space, which will help us create a team capable of playing the style of soccer we are looking for."

Plain and simple. I have no problem with this transaction.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why would he be a benchwarmer? He definitely won't be on LA, a much better team than TFC.

Well, if TFC's track record with former American players is any indication, he'll probably do well there. The question is with regards to how he'll be used. I liked how he improved and showed some knack for playmaking, but though he scored some key goals last season I never felt comfortable with him as a finisher. Also, I felt he'd made some pretty poor decisions that undermined the team's attacking play, often because he would try to do too much to make something happen (not unlike DeRo or JDG when things weren't clicking for the team). I really appreciated his contributions to the team, but on his pay packet he'd have been a logical guy to get the boot. I'd rather see the dough originally earmarked for him going to some other international prospects: let's see what Winter/Mariner can generate with it and hopefully a few of these guys will stick and contribute and not be "one year and out of the league" like so many of the previous regime's signings.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...