Counterattack: The Value Of Designated Players

In this week's Counterattack Goal.com's Andrea Canales of Canales Daily and the Target Man Greg Lalas square off on one of Major League Soccer's hottest debates, the merits of the designated player.

According to league rules, The Designated Player Rule allows the MLS to sign players whose salary will fall outside of the team salary budget and whose cost above the salary budget charge will be the financial responsibility of the club for which they play. Designated players who are currently with MLS clubs include Cuauhtemoc Blanco, Juan Pablo Angel, Luciano Emillio, and Freddie Ljungberg. 

 Do designated players add value to the league that equals their increased cost?

Andrea Canales: Yes, the DPs, even taking into consideration that some have been major busts, bring a lot to the league. There's intangible value in the publicity involved, and due to their considerable overseas experience, they bring a style of play and nuance that Major League Soccer often lacks. Those are the type of skills that young players need to be exposed to - both to emulate and also to figure out how to neutralize. That raises the level of play and also primes the best young prospects to better adjust to a career abroad - where they will perhaps return as new DPs to MLS one day.

Greg Lalas: I grant you that some--some!--DPs have brought a lot to the league. The intangibles, like publicity and the style and the exposure to international professionalism, are all benefits. But is it enough to justify the costs. Look at Marcelo Gallardo last year. He cost DC United millions, yet they failed to reach the playoffs. I don't think he brought enough PR or cachet to justify the costs. And in fact, his arrival led to the departure of RFK hero Christian Gomez, which hurt United--both on the field and in the eyes of their core fans. One player doesn't--and can't--make enough of a difference to justify the out-sized hit to the bank account and the salary cap.

Canales: You're putting a lot of blame on Gallardo - not on DC's shambolic goalkeeping last year, the injury to Ben Olsen, the loss of Brian Carroll - basically, the whole team was in upheaval. Gallardo wasn't good enough to save that mess, but at the same time, DC sees value in a DP like Luciano Emilio. Obviously, he was on the team when they didn't make the playoffs last year, too, so why is he spared the blame?

Frankly, the other reason I like the DP option is that it puts the onus on the teams to make the right choices and not screw up the pick. A DP can help the team, but not a single one can make the whole team. Teams that get a DP that doesn't fit in with the squad should suffer the consequences - teams that make good decisions should rise above the parity that rules the league. I think it's good that DPs can make such a difference - positively and negatively.

Lalas: I'm not blaming Gallardo alone, I just think that they didn't need to spend $1.5 million on him. Emilio became a DP--and earned DP money--only after he proved his worth. But there are fantastic players who fit in with the squad who don't need $1.5 million. Columbus's Guillermo Barros Schelotto comes to mind. Until this year, he was not a DP, yet he provided the team with the world-class skill they needed.

GBS is the perfect argument against the overpaid DP. He may not provide the PR hit that Beckham or Blanco provided, but he made up for it with his performance. Plus, the team didn't have to shell out millions, which they could then use on marketing and training staff, etc.


Canales: Aw, then we're not arguing about the value of the DPs as a whole, because you're admitting some have value, you just don't like the high dollar cost of certain ones. Nope, no pick-and-choose. I can count good-value DPs as positive proof that the category works, and heck, I think that's just another smart decision some teams should make - dangle DP salary in front of players, but give them a year to prove themselves. Hey, I'm counting Claudio Lopez as good DP value, and that's because his coming to MLS allowed him to like Kansas City and stay on at a non-DP salary this year, which helps that club.


Lalas: But the initial question was if DPs are worth the cost.

Canales: Yes, and Schelotto is.

Lalas: So, yes, I don't like the high-dollar cost of certain ones.
Schelotto is worth the cost now. But he wasn't brought in at DP-money.

Canales: No, we're talking about all the DPs as a whole. If the DP option didn't exist, Colombus couldn't keep him.
And that's as important as being able to bring him in.

Lalas: Fair enough. But at the same time, when I look at value for money, GBS raised the team and the fanbase--because the team started winning--because of his performance, proving to me that the PR and ticketing benefits are secondary to on-the-field success.

Canales: I think at this point, MLS is entering an era where teams have to play the DP game correctly or get left behind. At the start of the whole concept, most teams were clearly better off just focusing on developing what they had - witness NE Revolution and Houston Dynamo making the MLS Finals. This past year, though, showed that the teams that have figured out how to properly use the DP option have a clear advantage - both NY and Columbus had players that lifted the team to another level. Schelotto was awesome in the final game.

Lalas: And Juan Pablo Angel was awesome throughout last season. So, yes, a DP can bring value to a team. But only as a final piece of the puzzle. For me, it seems too often teams think the DP will solve all the problems.

Canales: Yes, I'll agree with that. I also think that's an error in judgment that teams should have to pay for. I'm convinced the troubles of FC Dallas right now are tied somehow to the ill-fated short-term signing of useless  Denilson. They're paying penance.

Lalas: I think that's probably true. Dallas seemed to try very hard to cater to certain constituencies (Mexican: Duilio, Jogo Bonita: Denilson) rather than build a team that could compete in MLS.
Which has been worth the cost, Blanco or Beckham?

Canales: Blanco versus Beckham is another debate. But it's arguable that both are worth the cost in different ways. I'd take what Blanco has done on the field, personally, but money people tell me that Beckham's impact has been huge.

Lalas:. Beckham's impact has been huge, but I wonder if the longer-term impact--after his expressed desire to get away, his injuries, the failed playoff bids, and all his pouting on the field--is going to be detrimental.

Canales: I had concerns about Beckham's pouting, too, and I do think that MLS is in many ways better off without him once he flounces off to AC Milan for good, but in some ways, I think that the league can recover from that as well. I mean, it's not the worst thing in the world to be known as the place where Beckham couldn't hack it. He didn't even make the MLS Starting 11 last season - for a simple reason - he didn't deserve it.


Lalas: I was thinking about that same thing just this morning.
And it's a good point. MLS is a unique league both in its structure and in its style. There is relentless pressure on the ball and the defense is very rugged and rough. So if a team brings in a DP hoping he will be a magician, he will fail. DPs have to be able to handle the style, too.

The cost of a DP, in my mind, is still too high. I'm glad it's an option, but a team has to be in the right situation for it to work. And the DP has to be a strong, competitive, and mentally tough character.

You're right about the decision-making at the team level. It must be the right fit. Maybe that's why I like the option of making a player a  DP after he proves himself, as in the case with Barros Schelotto and Emilio.

It seems, more often than not, the DP should be used to keep a player rather than bring one in.

Canales: I agree with that - but to a certain extent, the DP option rewards teams that take a chance. It's a chance with risk, because no one can promise that a player won't get injured (Beckham, at the start) or won't have the needed grit to bear with the difficulties of the league (Beckham, again) or won't really focus on club play because he has priorities elsewhere (guess who?). Yet the reward is also great, because the right fit really elevates a team. It's early, but Freddie Ljungberg is giving that good value to Seattle, and I mention that specifically because I had my doubts about the injury-prone pretty boy. So I'm still coming down on the side of the whole concept - and in fact, think it should be expanded.

Lalas: Ah, but if it's expanded, then that changes everything. If teams are allowed more than one DP, that mitigates my argument about how one player can't make a difference. Expanding the DP program, I'm all for. But fat chance that will happen anytime soon.
We can hope, though.

Counterattack runs every Thursday on Goal.com

For more on Major League Soccer visit Goal.com's MLS page.