2 DP's in MLS is fine with me, as long as everyone plays by the same rules

To my knowledge LA doesn’t have two DP slots. It was my understanding that Donovan was “grandfathered” in because he was a high priced player from before the DP rule existed. Beckham is their only official DP.

I am sure LA would love that to continue to be the case, but as the rules should be enforced LA does have two players making over the league cap of $415,000 so technically they do have two DP’s, but they have been allowed to get away with it for years. Heck at one point they had 3 (Beckham, Landon, and Ruiz), but the rules very often are not enforced equally by MLS on all teams. That is why the main point of my post is if they go with the 2 DP’s per team, then everyone should be forced to play by the same set of rules. Landon signed a new contract, one that exists after the DP rules have been set up and LA should be forced to play by the same rules as everyone else.

I think you’re skewing the facts to make it look like teams that don’t use the DP rule (like RSL) are not being treated fairly. I think the “grandfathering” of players under contracts written with different league rules is legitimate. What if they get rid of the DP rule as part of the CBA agreements this year (as SounderAtHeart is suggesting)? Will you consider it a further injustice that Seattle gets to keep the contract it has with Ljungberg as long as he’s with the team. I assume that’s what would happen. He would be “grandfathered” into whatever the new rules end up being.

Teams that have DPs have taken risks. LA took a risk on Donovan before there was a DP rule at all. To suggest that these teams should be further penalized for taking such risks in the name of “fairness” with teams who won’t (or think they can’t) take such risks is flawed thinking IMHO.

Its easy for you to say now that Donovan wasn’t a risk when they decided to spend money and tallent in order to get him. Here is a link to a USAToday article detailing the moves LA had to make (including dumping “high-scoring Carlos Ruiz”) in order to acquire Landon. Yes, I would certainly call these moves risky at the time. Furthermore, while Donovan was clearly not a risk in your mind, can you at least admit that most teams how go out and get a DP are taking a risk. I think that much is obvious given how few of them have actually panned out in terms of team success. Juan Pablo Angel comes to mind for example.

If the league didn’t have a policy of “grandfathering” in players that were acquired under older rules, the consequence would be that no teams or quality players would want to take any risks under current rules because if they ever changed, they’d be forced back out of the league once their contract was up. Personally, I think what MLS is doing is the only thing they can do without alienating the risk takers in this leage. Sadly RSL cannot count themselves among said risk takers. While that obviously angers you, I don’t think you can make a sound argument that the league is being unfair.

I wasn’t trying to blame RBNY’s failures on Angel. I’m just saying that the risks some teams take on DPs don’t turn into the team’s success on the field. The point I was trying to make is that every team who signs a DP (or Donovan before there was a DP rule) is taking a risk. Underperformance and injuries are the things they’re betting against when they sign a high cost DP. You’re right that Angel has been successful, but his success has not translated into team success.

Likewise, all DPs who come to MLS are also taking a bit of a risk. They’re coming to a young league and are surrounded by lower cost/quality players. True, a key motivator is the money, but if the league changes rules every 2-3 years and doesn’t “grandfather” in these risk takers (both the teams and the players) who have already taken risks under older rules, then good luck enticing anyone else to take a risk in the future.

That’s my main point. Maybe Angel wasn’t the best example.

No team has won MLS Cup with one. Again the move to get Landon from San Jose wasn’t a risk, dumping the locker room menace Ruiz, wasn’t a risk (bringing him back was). I agree that taking a DP is a huge risk, but by your own admission Landon isn’t a DP.

Landon hasn’t in the last 4 years translated to success, neither has Beckham (he only played 11 matches during the regular season). I am simply saying that teams should be forced to play by the same rules. LA was given an exception when they signed Landon, as were the other 2 teams that had players over the top pay mark, I think that was wrong. If some teams get to break the rules and others don’t it creates an unfair system. Interesting that all 3 teams with exceptions were owned by original MLS investors.

When the DP rule came along, every player whose contract was outside of the new rules should have counted as a DP. Why wouldn’t they? They already were outside the MLS rules, the rules were being adjusted to allow more teams to do what those teams had already done, so why were those teams again granted another exception to the rules?

In the league today a team can chose to have a DP or not. Some have chosen wisely, others have not, and others have felt that they can succeed without a DP. I would say if Houston could get their money back from Landin they would and I bet they would today offer it to Holden, but they won two MLS Cups without a DP.

I believe every team takes a risk when they sign a player, RSL did so with Javier Morales, they did it when they brought Nat Borchers back to MLS. Hell they took a huge risk in signing Nick Rimando who had been written off by many teams. RSL simply did it without putting huge dollars at risk, because they simply didn’t have them. So should a team with a multi-billion dollar company behind them like LA and New York, or several billionaire owners like Seattle, be allowed to play by a different set of rules because they can risk more money? God I hope not.

Every team takes a risk with each player move, when TFC signed Jeff Cunningham, who underperformed for them, but FC Dallas took a risk on him and he paid off for them. RIsk isn’t about the size of the checks and when the league has set rules about a salary cap, teams should manage their risk within those limits.

I stick with my original point, I am fine with teams getting 2 DP slots. If each DP spot counts the full $415,000 against the cap (or if a new number is reached). Now that no player is under a contract before the DP rule was established, they should all have to follow the rule. So if LA wants to keep two players outside of the salary limits of the league, then they should be allowed (if every other team can have two players outside of the limits). I do not think LA should be allowed to have two when others are only allowed one, that is unfair.