Chicago and Toronto FC be warned: MLS could step into McBride allocation mess
The long and drawn-out negotiations between Toronto FC and the Chicago Fire for the rights to Brian McBride have reached a stalemate, and MLS is ready to step into the fray if it has to.
MLS commissioner Don Garber admitted on Wednesday that if the Fire and Toronto can't come to anagreement on a deal that MLS will step in to help broker a deal. Just what sort of deal remains to be seen.
"The league, at some point, has to determine whether we get involved," Garber said of the McBride allocation situation.
"We'll manage through it, like everything else with us," Garber said. "They always come down to the wire and we generally have gotten them resolved.
"The league doesn't want to get involved and our hope is that we won't get involved," Garber said. "We hope that the market and common sense prevails."
Garber called McBride's situation a "special situation" and believes that McBride should wind up with Chicago. He was clear to state that he would like to see Chicago and Toronto be reasonable in negotiations.
While it had been believed that MLS might get involved in this situation, Garber's comments on Wednesday were the first public statements made by the league on the situation.
"Hopefully both (Toronto) and Chicago will realize that it's in their mutual best interests, and the interest of our fans, to have Brian (McBride) in the league and to have Toronto get some benefit by being in the spot that they were in."
What do you think of this development? Should the league be getting involved? Should MLS stay out of it? What should Chicago give up? What should Toronto accept?
Share your thoughts below.
Ives Galarcep is an American soccer columnist for ESPNsoccernet.com and creator of SoccerByIves.net.
Have a tip, story idea or suggestion? Send it to:
Surprised it took this long to happen.
I bet they step in on Chicagos behalf which is retarded (please spare me the 'HES AN AMERICAN LEGEND, YOU OWE HIM', 'CANADIANS DONT DESERVE TO PLAY IN THIS LEAGUE" nonsense). Oh well, life goes on. Itd be beautiful to see MLS side with TFC tho simply because they wrote the rules and we are trying to play by them... Bitter but true...
Posted by: Ossington Mental Youth | July 16, 2008 at 05:05 PM
and cuz i support TFC HA!
Obviously...
Posted by: Ossington MEntal Youth | July 16, 2008 at 05:05 PM
How about we just get rid of all these allocation and discovery claim rules. A player like McBride should be able to choose the team he wants to go too and not be forced to go to a team that has the next allocation claim or whatever the ridiculous rule is.
Posted by: Randomher0723 | July 16, 2008 at 05:06 PM
He should winde up in Chicago? Whatever. But Lidier Marmol who wanted to play for Osario shouldnt?
If you are going to be a stickler on rules, shut and be a stickler on rules Garber.
Posted by: Dannyc58 | July 16, 2008 at 05:06 PM
Someone's about to get screwed....
Posted by: mikeK | July 16, 2008 at 05:08 PM
another reason why MLS needs to change things to be taken seriously. Allocations and discoveries? c'mon I'm from Toronto and think that McBride should have been a free agent. Can you imagine Ronaldhino wanting to play in Italy and being told his rights go to Messina or Lecce because they finished last and then they would have to deal with AC Milan becuase that;s where he wants to play? The league is getting better all the time, but some of the mickey mouse rules that overly promote parity need to change.
Posted by: Dontpanic | July 16, 2008 at 05:09 PM
I hope Chicago loses at least two good players to Toronto. But knowing the league and all, Chicago will have to probably part with a few draft picks and some stupid amount of allocation money.
Posted by: MANNY F | July 16, 2008 at 05:09 PM
Someone please feel free to correct me if I am wrong on this one, but isn't Toronto's claim on McBride lost after this year if they do not make an offer to him? Also, with the Olympics coming up how many games will McBride miss? It does take time for players to gel with teammates but in this case I do not think it would take too long.
Posted by: Randomher0723 | July 16, 2008 at 05:11 PM
Yes, TFC loses top allocation spot to Seattle after this season. They get nothing if they let this happen. Nothing is a lot worse than draft picks and cash, and it's not the Fire's fault no-one wants to play for their shitty team.
Posted by: anotherbodymurdered | July 16, 2008 at 05:12 PM
"He should winde up in Chicago? Whatever. But Lidier Marmol who wanted to play for Osario shouldnt?"
Nothing will change until we get rid of drafts, discovery signings, allocations, etc. All these rules don't let players go to the teams they want. Draftees don't really want to play for the teams they have drafted by. But they are just content that they have a chance to make or break. Everything in the MLS is version of a draft.
Posted by: Manny F | July 16, 2008 at 05:13 PM
Dontpanic- I totally agree with you. MLS needs to get away from these stupid rules. I can see for players you developed having a year or so to negotiate a contract with them, but not for anything else. If some other team wants a certain player and will pay that certain player more $$ than the other team who has a discover option on them it only ends up hurting the player.
Posted by: Randomher0723 | July 16, 2008 at 05:14 PM
MLS is justified in getting involved!
I'm sure BRIAN left his Fulham Captaincy only because he would end up back home in Chicago .. ..
Every effort should be made to get him > CHI with reasonable compensation for TFC .. ..
MLS should make it happen - They owe that much to an MLS original and for what he has done for the league & USSF!!
Posted by: Sam Nishi | July 16, 2008 at 05:15 PM
McBride wants to be in Chicago right? TFC wants Rolfe or Mapp for him and that better not happen. I love McBride as much as the next american soccer fan but he is getting old, just getting back from a bad knee injury and hasnt really played in a year or so. He might turn out to be the next Reyna. So if we get rid of Barrett for him then by all means but never Rolfe or Mapp. I wish we wouldnt have fought with NJ over Marmol. He looked slow and clumsy in the only appearence he made against the Crew. So maybe TFC wants Marmol.
Posted by: Joe | July 16, 2008 at 05:15 PM
Q. When are rules not rules?
A. When we don't want them to be rules.
Posted by: Seth|NYC | July 16, 2008 at 05:18 PM
For the record i think its a retarded rule that should be done away with but its a rule thats in place and ANY other team with any other player would have had to follow it.
I also would prefer that McBride does not play and we get nothing over being forced to take a draft and an allocation simply because the league has no right to force trades. If it does have the right then it should do so all the time. I really hope at very least the rule is revised (itll force a cap increase as well amongst other things).
As someone said, if youre going to be a stickler for the rules, be a stickler for all the rules, all the time.
Posted by: Ossington Mental Youth | July 16, 2008 at 05:19 PM
Chicago should not expect to be able to sign McBride without giving up a major value. LA, in order to get Donovan, had to give up Carlos Ruiz, who was one of the best strikers in the league at the time.
Posted by: Nicole | July 16, 2008 at 05:19 PM
The primary goal of the league is adding to the ranks of American and Canadian supporters (and, relatedly, to stay solvent). If stepping in by the league to help McBride to Chicago furthers this goal so be it, even if this arbitrarily interferes with the competitive balance.
Posted by: BFBS | July 16, 2008 at 05:21 PM
Will Toronto get first dibs at a returning Canadian international? Probably.
Posted by: Adam R. | July 16, 2008 at 05:30 PM
I suspect all of these "bendings" of the rules have more in common with MLS wanting to avoid the ongoing precipice of being a single -entity and what qualifies as anti-trust with respect to the free passage of trade among players. We don't have a "bosman" ruling in North America, I imagine because of existing regional trade pacts, but players will start suing all over the place if there's an unreasonable restraint of trade for uncontracted players.
Posted by: jloome | July 16, 2008 at 05:32 PM
Nicole-
I hope youre right.
It was forced but it was fair (imo)
Posted by: Ossington Mental Youth | July 16, 2008 at 05:33 PM
What drives me nuts about this situation: MLS will step in on this and may bend the rules a little for a special occasion. They have rules for a reason. I agree with Randomher0723, MLS needs to get rid of these ridiculous rules to begin with. If they won't get rid of these rules, then don't intervene...it just means somebody will catch the short end of the stick, and I doubt it will be TFC on this one.
Posted by: Heffe | July 16, 2008 at 05:33 PM
"The league is getting better all the time, but some of the mickey mouse rules that overly promote parity need to change."
That quote from Dontpanic sums it up for me.
Posted by: kco | July 16, 2008 at 05:35 PM
I think discoveries are the dumbest thing on earth, same with allocations.
But if they are in place, they should be followed. The league should always adhere to the rules, regardless of if its unfair.
Posted by: Dannyc58 | July 16, 2008 at 05:37 PM
Karma's a bitch (from Jersey), ain't it?
I hope Toronto work the Fire for everything they're worth.
Posted by: FF & SS | July 16, 2008 at 05:42 PM
Well said, BFBS. The goal of the allocations etc. is also to help the league stay stable and survive so that it can grow over time. So, those rules are not going away any time soon. But if there is a specific instance where the ultimate goal of league survival will be better served by bending the rules, then so be it. This usually means some league action to place a particular high-profile player where the placement is necessary in order to get the player ot agree to be in the league at all. (e.g., Beckham, Donovan, etc.) This may be one of those situations.
Posted by: arena futbol | July 16, 2008 at 05:43 PM
I think the rules are a little ridiculous, but I think bending the rules in mid-season is even more ridiculous.
Want to change the rules? Do it for next season. But you don't punish a club mid-season for playing by YOUR rules.
- Scott
Posted by: Shakes | July 16, 2008 at 05:46 PM
If Toronto doesn't get at least half of what it wants or 3/4 then please cry foul. I'm not hoping they are asking for the whole Chicago team either. In fact what are they asking and what is Chicago willing to give them?
Posted by: Juan from Seattle | July 16, 2008 at 05:48 PM
You know what's even better than the league stepping in?
Having rules that make sense! that'd be nice. Clean up your act MLS.
Posted by: alex | July 16, 2008 at 05:50 PM
The League has rules. As long as they don't bend them I see no problem in them trying to help get this settled
Posted by: George Griffin | July 16, 2008 at 05:51 PM
Full Disclosure: I'm a Fire Fan
The thing is that Rule Number 1 for the MLS is and has always been to do what it takes to grow the league. In their eyes, adding a player of McB's prestige and doing what they can to make the situation succeed is a no brainer. See exhibit A: Freddy Adu in DC and exhibit B: The Beckham Rule.
Unfortunately I can see this ending with one team getting screwed...either TFC ends up getting very little besides a feeling of injustice or the Fire end up giving up too much for a Beijing bound McBride.
Posted by: Truly Outrageous | July 16, 2008 at 05:59 PM
@Juan
"If Toronto doesn't get at least half of what it wants or 3/4 then please cry foul. I'm not hoping they are asking for the whole Chicago team either. In fact what are they asking and what is Chicago willing to give them?"
-------
From what I've HEARD (and keep in mind, this is speculation), Toronto asked for Rolfe, Mapp, or Barrett. And Chicago was unwilling to give up any of them.
Most Chicago fans cite the fact that McBride won't be in the league for more than a few years, but you need to keep in mind that he will make them a much better team while he IS around, and Toronto shouldn't be expected to immediately strengthen a division rival for nothing.
- Scott
Posted by: Shakes | July 16, 2008 at 06:01 PM
A) Donovan coming back to MLS in his early 20s does not equal McBride coming back at this point in his career. So that comparison is just stupid.
B) This was inevitable for the last 2 months so just because the league has now commented is no time to be indignant.
C) Every team in the league should want McBride playing as it raise the profile of the league, ESPECIALLY if he plays in the Olympics and the US makes a little run. MLS needs American TV dollars to grow. PERIOD!
D) I posted it yesteday if you don't get the need for allocations and the other stupid rules you're just simple minded. Without them this league is the NASL all over again so get over it!!!! Or get lost. They're going to be here for a long time.
E) McBride's coming to the Fire! McBride's coming to the Fire!
Posted by: Steve | July 16, 2008 at 06:02 PM
I don't blame Toronto for taking the stance they've taken, but my prediction is coming true. No matter what, Brian McBride WILL play for Chicago.
I still don't have a problem with what Toronto is trying to do here, but at the end of the day they need to get something done.
Posted by: kpugs | July 16, 2008 at 06:04 PM
Kind of like Tony Soprano "stepping in to broker a deal".
MLS is a joke ...
Posted by: KingSnake | July 16, 2008 at 06:06 PM
Toronto are right to demand a high price for the allocation. Like it was said above, LA had to give up Ruiz (50 goals in 72 league games) for Donovan. Yes, McBride is much older, but the basic principle is the same. Why Chicago thinks they could make that deal work without Mapp, Rolfe, Conde or Barrett is anyone's guess. If they don't want to mortgage their future that bad, then Toronto has no reason to trade.
The rules are ridiculous, but they are the rules.
If some deal goes down involving an injured Calen Carr or Brian Plotkin or something, then MLS screwed up.
The cockiness and stupidity of Toronto FC's fans annoys the hell out of, but Toronto is doing nothing wrong here. If they don't want to trade, they don't have to.
Posted by: Ted | July 16, 2008 at 06:08 PM
I guarantee TFCs compensation isn't going to be much. This is just awful that the league has "special exceptions" to their rules. It's ridiculous.
Posted by: JSquaredNY | July 16, 2008 at 06:10 PM
The League has rules. As long as they don't bend them I see no problem in them trying to help get this settled
-------
This is exactly what is going to happen. The league is going to bend the rules in order to get McBride into MLS. Whether the arbitration rule is stupid or not, altering the rules to benefit one team makes this league Mickey Mouse.
The only thing that surprises me is that the league is going to alter the rules and LA isn't even involved.
Posted by: ArteetLabore | July 16, 2008 at 06:15 PM
I can see it now...
The league will orchestrate a 3 way trade where Chicago gets McBride, New York gets Conde and Marmol, and TFC gets a combination of guys from New York, maybe a package including Seth Stammler since Edu is prbably gone by next year.
Big Brother is watching you!
Posted by: Kaiser | July 16, 2008 at 06:17 PM
TFC holds no cards in this matter, it is all lose/lose for them or they can take the freebie offered...OR good luck getting more next year
Posted by: Acme | July 16, 2008 at 06:18 PM
Why is it so hard to get rid of Conde and/or Mapp. They'll both probably be gone within the next 2 or 3 years anyway. If this isn't the case then their level of play wouldn't be that great in my opinion.
Posted by: Amit | July 16, 2008 at 06:28 PM
The rule needs to be changed.
Marmol should be a Red Bull, McBride should be a wanker, players who have played for other professional teams in other countries aren't "discovered" and "discovery claims" make us sound full of ourselves. Allocation money is a joke. The draft is pathetic. The salary cap keeps our clubs from putting together real depth and talent.
Keep it simple, stupid.
simplify, simplify.
The league doesn't need to be laced in bureaucracy to be successful. We don't need 1,000 rules.
Posted by: nicholas s. | July 16, 2008 at 06:34 PM
This is dissapointing as a new fan!
I have heard the Mickey Mouse comments before and resisted them with passion
B U T
This is a clear sign that rules don't mean a thing!
What a poor lesson to teach to children and a great encouragement to anarchist!
In twenty years MLS honchos will be complaining about those same kid's lustful and unruly ways (DUI, Gambling, Prostitutes, drugs, etc.)
How does it start?
Disrespect, Disdain and DISREGARD for rules!
G R E A T E X A M P L E *M*L*S*
Posted by: Nic D "The Texas 2 Stepper" | July 16, 2008 at 06:38 PM
Anyone else scratching their heads as to why Chicago didn't just give up Barrett in the first place?
Then all of this nonsense wouldn't even be happening right now.
Posted by: Dominghosa | July 16, 2008 at 06:39 PM
Chicago should give up a combo of Conde/Carr/Barret, Ralston/Carr or Mapp/Carr!
This is almost Fair!
Posted by: Nic D "The Texas 2 Stepper" | July 16, 2008 at 06:43 PM
The league will step in for anything, just ask Pat Noonan how he feels about the league and them sticking their nose where it doesn't belong when the Crew and NE had reached an agreement so he could join the Crew after not having the best of luck overseas. The league put a quick halt to that.
Posted by: fid | July 16, 2008 at 06:44 PM
Steve you are pretty misinformed. Stop the NASL chicken little routine..its stale and shows your very limited education in the matter.
Second, this idea "all fans should want McBride in the league" is crap. I dont care if he plays here in MLS or not, what is most important to me is league credibility. Stepping in and bending rules or forcing deals damages MLS's profile more than it helps. MLS owes McBride nothing, McBride owes MLS nothing. Lets just get this silly idea out of people's heads.
These "returning USA internationals" are almost always a massive disapointment. I cant remeber the last USA international to return that was any good. (maybe Earnie Stewart).
Posted by: onionsack | July 16, 2008 at 06:47 PM
Steve says: "I posted it yesteday if you don't get the need for allocations and the other stupid rules you're just simple minded. Without them this league is the NASL all over again so get over it!!!! Or get lost. They're going to be here for a long time."
---------
Well, then I'm simple-minded. As far as I know, the NASL went belly-up because a few major-market teams (mostly the Cosmos) spent way too much on salaries even though a) the rest of the teams couldn't do so and b) nobody was spending enough on building the necessary infrastructure (audience, TV contracts, appropriate stadiums, academies, etc.) needed for long-term stability. But the salary cap should take care of that.
With the salary cap in place, allocations and discoveries are unnecessary for keeping wages down and counterproductive for everything else. Teams that do a better job scouting and recruiting should be rewarded, not punished. And the McBride case is a particularly good example of league rules punishing a team for being both good and lucky in recruitment.
Unless the Fire was planning to trade another DP slot to bring in McBride, he was taking a big pay cut to come to MLS, which he was willing to do only because he wanted to be close to family in Chicago. So the MLS was getting a player below market value (good for the league) and somebody beloved by US soccer fans (good for the league), but now arcane and outdated allocation rules are threatening to screw that up (bad for the league).
Posted by: Jon E | July 16, 2008 at 06:51 PM
If the league wants to broker the deal for McBride, fine by me. But they should ensure that one of the 3 Chicago players TFC want end up at TFC. It shouldn't just be Toronto getting screwed to get McBride to Chicago, Chicago should have to pay as well.
Posted by: Anonymous | July 16, 2008 at 06:51 PM
the fire excuse of "he's getting older and we don't want to fumble with the young core" excuse is wearing thin. look if the fire want him they have no choice but to take there chances... and not only that I could imagine one of the fire players saying they don't want to play in Toronto. Toronto is going to end up losing out unjustly cause Garber is a tard
Posted by: duthie | July 16, 2008 at 06:52 PM
Why are so many people up in arms about this since the players sign with the league, not with the team? Since that is the case, who is going to tell the league what and what not to do with a particular player?
Also like others have said, Toronto should count themselves lucky that they have a chance to make some ends off this deal, much more stalling and they could end up with zilch.
Posted by: theoryofworld | July 16, 2008 at 06:52 PM
Because theoretically, theoryofworld, MLS likes to maintain the illusion of competition, like pro wrestling. Theoretically.
Posted by: KingSnake | July 16, 2008 at 06:57 PM
If nothing happens in this situation and Seattle gets his rights the same thing will happen. Seattle will ask for the world too. Toronto needs a striker and Chicago has plenty. Just give one up.
The cockiness and stupidity of Chicago's fans annoys the hell out of me.
Posted by: fred flinstone | July 16, 2008 at 06:58 PM
So who's to say that the league doesn't come in and arbitrate that Mapp or Rolfe or whoever is a fair trade? Would that be unjust?
Posted by: anotherbodymurdered | July 16, 2008 at 06:59 PM
The discovery rule is a joke. Why don't we all just put "discovery" claims on anyone and everyone who is currently playing in europe while we are at it, so once they turn 40 and decide to play in the US for one season, we can demand exhorbinant settlements from the teams they want to actually play for? I'll admit that I'm a Fire fan, so how bout this, give them Osorio so he can be their problem and not ours any longer, and we give up some cash so they can afford to sign Sukur? This Chicago/TFC is one of the few things thats a bigger joke than MLS not wanting to pay transfer fees to outside leagues...
Posted by: lostinwisconsin | July 16, 2008 at 07:00 PM
Butt out Garber! The MARKET is working just fine without your intervention!
Posted by: jdawg | July 16, 2008 at 07:01 PM
It's a stupid rule - break it. (I'm not a fan of the Fire or TFC) Toronto can go after whomever Chicago waives to make room for McBride. Toronto needs to learn to grow grass up there. If they do that, they can probably atract some big time free agents. (which what McBride should be classified as if MLS ever wakes up) The fanbase is appealing to players, but I'm sure artificial surface kills the desire of most quality players wanting to play for TFC.
Posted by: MM | July 16, 2008 at 07:02 PM
mcbride would be, to most mls sides, instantly their best forward. this would be the case in both toronto and chicago for sure. if the league is going to prevent toronto from getting quality players like justin mapp, chris rolfe, or chad barrett from this they are off their rocker. the league made the rules and should stick by them - toronto fc should not have to settle for less to accommodate mcbride, he knew the rules, he knew it would be this way, he's still choosing to come to mls. in reality, we all know mcbride and other players out of contract should be able to choose their clubs, but mls is set up the way it is, and it should stay that way.
basically - mcbride is class, and chicago has to be willing to sacrifice quality to get him.
Posted by: ben vw | July 16, 2008 at 07:05 PM
calvinball. toronto is gonna get hosed.
Posted by: joel | July 16, 2008 at 07:06 PM
TFC has every right to demand a high price for McBride. Doesn't mean they're going to get it. The longer the negotiations go, the more bargaining position TFC loses. They are going to be faced with a take something or get nothing proposal. Everybody knew the league was going to step in and make them like, it was just a matter of when.
Posted by: guillemo | July 16, 2008 at 07:09 PM
Why can't Chicago make a deal? Mapp, Rolfe, Marmol, Conde, Barrett & $500,000 Cash for McBride. What's the problem?
Posted by: Smith | July 16, 2008 at 07:22 PM
Mo Johnston said on GOLTV Canada that he's willing to just let the allocation claim go to Seattle and get nothing from Chicago.
People talk about how if he refuses, TFC gets "nothing". But in the end, they spoil a team that they are competing against, so they win. And if they get very little from Chicago, then suddenly Chicago gets significantly better than Toronto, which is essentially a loss for TFC. TFC should either get 1 good player, like Mapp or Conde, or get nothing. The middle option sucks.
Posted by: satan | July 16, 2008 at 07:23 PM
I'd like to hear what Sepp "Frederick Douglass" Blatter has to say on the matter.
Posted by: mike | July 16, 2008 at 07:23 PM
I don't see why it's not within Chicago's rights to encourage McBride to enjoy the Olympics, rest up, tell Toronto to pound sand, and then deal with Seattle next year who will have a clean slate and take far more reasonable compensation.
If Toronto wants more value for the allocation, go recruit an allocation worthy player that wants to play for them.
Posted by: dabes2 | July 16, 2008 at 07:33 PM
To Satan -- I think that besides just focussing on Chicago, Toronto also needs to compete with NE, DC and Columbus. They might be so worried about helping Chicago, pass on improving their team, and end up watching the playoffs on tv. I personally think that push comes to shove, Toronto should be willing to take something short of Mapp, Rolfe, Conde if they think they can help compete with the rest of the east. Maybe someone like Marmol, Nyarko (if they like him), Robinson, Barrett.
Posted by: dabes2 | July 16, 2008 at 07:39 PM
To compare this situation to Landon Donovan means you can't perform basic mathematical equations. Landon was a child, McBride is in the twilight of his career; I am not suggesting that he will not produce. To use Marmol situation also is not vaild. Marmol is new to US soccer, Brian has given his life to it. The comm makes valid point this is "special" situation and special consideration needs to be given.
Posted by: Toronto or Bust | July 16, 2008 at 07:43 PM
Ok, I love BMB as much as anybody else here, he is a legend. However, I can't for the life of me grasp the notion that BMB is some sort of superstar and that sacreficing league credibility (by forcing a trade between TFC and Chi) is worth the suppossed "marketability" BMB would bring to mls? Anyone else remember another glorified US player that came in to the league and who had little to no effect on the "marketability" end of things? Remember Claudio Reyna, people? The parallels are uncanny: He came straight from the EPL where he had a great career, and had an amazing career with the nats as well. If anything, Reyna's accomplishments outweight BMB's. Reyna played for a midtable team, while BMB and fulham have crawled from the bottom three for the last two years straight. Reyna was THE captain america, earning best XI honors at WC 02. And with all those accomplishments, tell me how did his coming to mls help the league? The buzz when reyna came was nice, but minimal. He didn't increase the "visibility" of the league by much, if at all, and had little to no effect on attendance numbers or viewer numbers. And all that was BEFORE we found out he would be so disappointing on the field! Now, I'm not comparing the "quality" of these two guys... I definitely think BMB is still a top forward who can contribute 1-2 more years of playing, while reyna's coming was very questionable from the get-go. I'm just comparing the things that the league will use to "sell" BMB to the public, and how he will be any different than reyna in that respect ONLY. Why will BMB be more "sellable" than reyna? If you think, like me, that from a marketing point of view, both reyna and BMB are pretty much even, and you though reyna's initial introduction to mls as not very well received by in large, then why will anything be different for BMB? And thus is why I question the whole "he must be here for the good of the league" idea... Unless one of BMB's B's stand for "beckham", he will not be much more visable than reyna was. No doubt it is better to have an mls with BMB than without him, but bending the rules to get him signed while using the "he will be good for the league" idea seems flat to me. Which is a shame because I love the guy, but I would love a credible league much more so.
Posted by: jman81 | July 16, 2008 at 07:44 PM
I think CHICAGO SHOULD STOP BEING GREEDY and let other teams, conference competitors or not get some players. This whole situation is bad karma to Chicago for having screwed over Conde and Marmol, neither of whom wanted to be there.
I think if the league steps in, they should pressure Chicago to give up comparable value for McBride (or some semblence of comparable value), rather than force Toronto to make Chicago much stronger without having gained anything in the process.
Why won't Chicago give up Justin Mapp or Chris Rolfe? I think anyone would be hard pressed to say that having McBride wouldn't be more valuable to a team than having Mapp or Rolfe.
Posted by: Eugene | July 16, 2008 at 07:47 PM
So who's to say that the league doesn't come in and arbitrate that Mapp or Rolfe or whoever is a fair trade? Would that be unjust?
Posted by: anotherbodymurdered | July 16, 2008 at 06:59 PM
--------------------------------------------
Shhhhhhhhhhhh .... Shitcago fans don't want to hear that. Everyone assumes that the league stepping in means that the Fire will get their way ..... would not be surprised to see them forced to give up one of TFC's targeted players. And to everyone who wants to say that the Donovan situation does not compare to McBride due to age ... lets remember that Landon ran home crying from Europe because he could not hack it .... McBride is returning as a bonefide European-calibre striker.
Posted by: MLS Fan | July 16, 2008 at 08:03 PM
The conspiracy theorist in me thinks that all these Canadian players making the all-star team is actually part of the deal that Garber & Co. have already brokered between TFC and The Fire. Of course, if the league announced the deal and then placed all the TFC and other Canadian players on the team, it would all look shady.
Posted by: John | July 16, 2008 at 08:19 PM
There is no reason for Chicago to make any deal at all until McBride is ready to join the team. Let the mud settle and let Mo howl until mid August. Then ask him if the allocation is starting to smell like last weeks prawns. What is one month and a couple/few playoff games of a guy worth? Anyway, BMB could get hurt in China. Id wait.
Posted by: HerthaBerwyn | July 16, 2008 at 08:44 PM
Where is everyone getting this "rules are going to be broken" attitude from? Garber says that they don't want to get involved, but if it comes to that, they will help broker a deal. That doesn't mean they are going to let the Fire have him for nothing. And the Ruiz example does not hold water. Landon at the time was a young emerging superstar.McHead is coming in on the downside of his career, and won't even be making DP money.
Posted by: SonicDeathMonkey | July 16, 2008 at 08:59 PM
LostinWisconsin, what does the Discovery rule have to do with this subject? I'll tell you.......ZERO!
Posted by: SonicDeathMonkey | July 16, 2008 at 09:02 PM
@John
"The conspiracy theorist in me thinks that all these Canadian players making the all-star team is actually part of the deal that Garber & Co. have already brokered between TFC and The Fire. Of course, if the league announced the deal and then placed all the TFC and other Canadian players on the team, it would all look shady."
---------------
Perhaps I'm just thick, but what exactly does Toronto FC have to gain by having non-TFC Canadian players in the ASG?
Toronto FC isn't owned by the Canadian Soccer Association, and they don't benefit by having players like DeRo in the ASG.
- Scott
Posted by: Shakes | July 16, 2008 at 09:06 PM
I'd also like to mention something that was said by other commenters
Some folks keep saying "oh, if Toronto waits, they get nothing". That couldn't be further from the truth.
If no deal is made, and the rights go to Seattle, Toronto FC successfully prevented a division rival (in Chicago) from gaining a world-class striker (in McBride) for the entire season.
From TFC's perspective, it's perfectly reasonable - either you get a quality striker and we get a quality player in return, or we get nothing and you get nothing. Either way, Toronto FC is no worse off.
You're an idiot of you slag a team for doing what is best for their team, in accordance with league rules. Don't think Seattle won't do the same, if it comes to that. The idea that they won't because they are American, and "they understand" the importance of McBride to the league, is folly.
- Scott
Posted by: Shakes | July 16, 2008 at 09:12 PM
Seriously? So MLS will step in and deliver Chicago the player they want at a price that Toronto wouldn't otherwise find acceptable? What a joke.
These are the league's idiotic rules, and if they don't like the result it's time to scrap them equally for all players and teams, not create a Galaxy-esque special dispensation. Great job, Don.
Posted by: Max J. | July 16, 2008 at 09:34 PM
As for McBride's quality show me one other player who will join MLS this summer that is wanted by a Premiership team.
Mo saying that he will let McBride rot and the allocation go to Seattle is him just pandering to the TFC fan base and they're all buying it.
Why?
Because if all of us could see the league stepping in months ago then surely he could too. Or he is as stupid as he looked when he was employed by the Metros.
Its a big game of chicken with both sides thinking they will get the better half of the deal when MLS arbitrates or at the very least be able to pacify components of their fan bases.
If TFC gets a bad deal Mo can blame MLS for not getting Mapp or Rolfe and if the Fire have to give one of them up they can tell those in their fan base in the don't mortgage the future camp that they tried not to.
Posted by: Steve | July 16, 2008 at 09:55 PM
Why is this even an issue? Toronto FC did not even exist when McBride left to play overseas. I suggest that all players that return after 3 years are considered free agents. McBride does not deserve this kind of saga.
Posted by: Ben L | July 16, 2008 at 10:00 PM
I don't think it's unreasonable that MLS would broker a deal...a bit like sending a player's deal to arbitration in England.
Sure, they don't always get what they think they deserve, but someone has to make the call of what is fair. MLS, as the single-entity controlling pretty much everything, but not least ownership of contracts, seems to be the logical party.
The whole allocation and discovery process is garbage, and needs to be removed.
If it stays, I would welcome more league mediated arbitrations for disputes such as this, Marmol, Matt Jansen, and even ones that resolved themselves, like Huckerby and future cases like George Welcome....
Posted by: Aljarov | July 16, 2008 at 10:21 PM
Please MLS...just finish this so that we can stop talking about it and watch him play.
Posted by: Mike | July 16, 2008 at 11:28 PM
Ives:
We have heard a lot about what TFC wants for McBride but can you tell me what Chicago is willing to give up? It is hard to say who is being unreasonable in these talks when we only hear about one side. I doubt that Chicago is doing McBride a favor by taking him. They want him becasue they think he can make an impact now and next year.
Posted by: pmc | July 17, 2008 at 12:19 AM
"Will Toronto get first dibs at a returning Canadian international? Probably."
Actually, San Jose had filed a discovery signing on Ali Gerba and had first crack at him.
Posted by: Scott Ferguson | July 17, 2008 at 12:58 AM
But, of course, Gerba is not a "returning" player, having never been in MLS...
Can anyone name a returning Canadian international? Will Johnson (rights retained by Fire)? Felix Brillant?
Posted by: oxbrain | July 17, 2008 at 01:27 AM
Garber can't resist the opportunity to remind us why the management of this league is an absolute, utter, complete joke.
Posted by: Bootsy | July 17, 2008 at 04:45 AM
@Posted by: Ossington Mental Youth | July 16, 2008 at 05:05 PM
Of course they'll step in on Chicago's behalf. Mo is asking for Rolfe AND Mapp AND cash. That's a ludicrous premium for a 36 year old player coming to take a retirement tour.
I'm willing to bet you'll get Mapp and a pick OR cash which is more than fair value (and still seems a bit steepish)
@Posted by: Dannyc58 | July 16, 2008 at 05:06 PM
If you can't see why the two situations aren't 100% analogous let me be the first to congratulate you on the lobotomy.
I do agree though that drafts and allocations should be done away with since we'd have McBride by now and not have to give up a damn thing for him. Oh and you can have Marmol, he sucks and can't even crack the dress 18 for us. He's basically a $150K waste of space if his 'performance' against Columbus was any indication.
Posted by: papa bear | July 17, 2008 at 06:47 AM
@Posted by: Shakes | July 16, 2008 at 09:12 PM
You don't see how tossing away something that could add hundreds of thousands of dollars and or picks and players to your club for a player who would never play for your club anyway is a stupid thing?
If giving Chicago McBride for say $150K in allocation cash isn't a way to improve their team (pssst Emilio was signed for $150K) then Mo needs to pack it up because he has no eye for talent.
Posted by: papa bear | July 17, 2008 at 06:51 AM
Yeah, we get to have the same conversation for like the 80th time!
Posted by: Skinn | July 17, 2008 at 07:45 AM
Why are so many of you whining about something that has NOT happened, at least yet? TFC has not been stuck and Chicago has not been forced to give more than it wants. If either of these do happen, and I mean from a reasonably objective veiwpoint, THEN complain. Meanwhile, try to show a bit of patience and see what happens.
Posted by: Strider | July 17, 2008 at 08:21 AM
Eugene: "Why won't Chicago give up Justin Mapp or Chris Rolfe? I think anyone would be hard pressed to say that having McBride wouldn't be more valuable to a team than having Mapp or Rolfe."
has to be the dumbest thing ive read on these 2 pages of posts.... are you serious?? why wont the fire give up 2 young talented players??
Rolfe and Mapp are not stellar players... they probably wont ever play their trade in europe... the Fire pretty much have Franchise players in them... they'll be in the MLS for the rest of their careers (most likely).... and they are established MLS players... why would the fire trade them is a better question...
Posted by: brett | July 17, 2008 at 08:46 AM
Papa, not sure where in the world you read that but Toronto FC is not asking for Rolfe AND Mapp and cash. That's dumb.
Also, the whole "Let poor Brian McBride do what he wants, he's old and wants to come home" line is bit is weak. McBride will be one of the league's top forwards the moment he sets foot on the field so for Chicago to land him without giving up anything that really impacts their roster when the Fire wasn't the next in line in the allocation order would be highly questionable.
Posted by: Ives | July 17, 2008 at 08:48 AM
fire standpoint:
Mapp and Rolfe- out of bounds... these guys are franchise players and will continue to don a fire jersey...
Conde, Marmol, Barrett- all these players are trade bait..... Conde b/c he'll be either leaving the league or at least the team in Jan.... Marmol may be bait, b/c at the moment he doesnt seem to be fitting into our playstyle.... and Barrett is bait b/c despite being the leading scorer for the Fire, he's so off an on that the league may see that as a reasonable player in the offer
what i think will happen: if the league jumps into this situation, then we'll probably see 1 player (barrett/conde/marmol), either $$$ or allocation, and a relatively low draft pick (or possibly a couple medium d.picks)...
as steve pointed out, BMB's return is not like LD's return... LD was early 20's, BMB is late 30's... i would definately trade Mapp if i knew we wold get an mid 20's BMB, but trading a youthful talent for a player we may only see for 1 SEASON is folly
Posted by: brett | July 17, 2008 at 08:50 AM
As a MLS fan but not a fan of either club,
Toronto should get Conde, Marmol and either Mapp or Rolfe for the rights to Brian McBride or Brian should just join Toronto FC
Posted by: Tim F. | July 17, 2008 at 12:12 PM
Tim F- honestly.... conde marmol and map/rolfe?? are you reading what you are typing... that is way to much for BMB... sorry... you expect us to give up 2 starters (3 starters given Marmol gets his go)...???
Conde and Marmol would be fine, but your addition of Mapp or Rolfe at the end is farce...
"or Brian should just join Toronto FC"
wow, that was worse then the first part... Brian doesnt HAVE to sign with anyone... what you seem to be missing is BMB doesnt need the MLS, the MLS needs BMB... if Chicago isnt an option, its early retirement... plain n' simple
Posted by: brett | July 17, 2008 at 01:07 PM
not to mention TFC is limiting themselves on intl' roster spots and Cap space.... with the addition of Dichov (sp??) i think they MIGHT have 2 intl spots left and i have no idea what their cap space is looking like...
but Mapp is pulling i think 80-100k currently... Conde is 150k+ and Marmol is also at 150k.... i dont think Mo wants his remaining cap space used in such a way... he'll push for Mapp or Rolfe, but i dont know if the fire will let it happen or if the league would even enforce it....
Conde to TFC to NYRB still sounds like an interesting trade... but we'll see... JCO is brining in an entire new and foriegn squad... we'll see if they even need Conde at that point...
Posted by: brett | July 17, 2008 at 01:11 PM
I simply can't believe that the Fire will not give up Chad Barett for McHead. If that is really the case then Frank Klopas is much dumber than he looks. I'm thinking that TFC started way too high thinking that they struck gold with this allocation thing. Like many have pointed out the Fire have all the cards.
1) McBride is unsigned and has stated that he either plays for the Fire or retires.
2) TFC has the right to sign him only through the end of the season, at which point the slot falls to Seattle, a team that would love some allocation money and is not in the eastern conference.
3) McBride is going to the olympics so at the earliest he would join the Fire in September. (that's 2 months and the playoffs)
The Fire CAN wait to make a move until the price is right, while Toronto can wait and get nothing. Worst case senario for the Fire they get McBride for next season. Worst case for Toronto, they get squat for their allocation lottery strike, while watching a conference rival they didn't want to strengthen make a run in the playoffs from home. If TFC can live with that so be it, but you better believe the Fire can live with a fresh McHead for next season.
Frankie, just give them Chad "I can do everything a striker can but finish" Barett and a bit of money and let's bring Brian home. If TFC doesn't want the deal, then I'm sure Seattle would.
Posted by: Fumar | July 17, 2008 at 02:02 PM
I don't blame Chicago for stonewalling. McBride is old and is going to play in the Olympics this year. The risk is high with delayed short term benefits and no long term benefits. Nobody (including Toronto) would be gutting their team for this guy.
Posted by: stickfigure | July 17, 2008 at 02:45 PM
I don't blame Chicago for stonewalling. McBride is old and is going to play in the Olympics this year. The risk is high with delayed short term benefits and no long term benefits. Nobody (including Toronto) would be gutting their team for this guy.
Posted by: stickfigure | July 17, 2008 at 02:46 PM