Seattle Sounders 2015 Season Thread

[dumbrabbit]

Who might the Sounders target at CB during the transfer window if the Evans experiment doesn't work out?

 

[Sgt. Largent]

Who might the Sounders target at CB during the transfer window if the Evans experiment doesn't work out?

Who knows, but there should be plenty of players available who are out of contract with their current clubs...........which I guess is an advantage of the MLS having a March-November season.

Either way, the Sounders usually do a good job of identifying quality summer transfer window players.

 

[Uncle Si]

Who might the Sounders target at CB during the transfer window if the Evans experiment doesn't work out?

Who knows, but there should be plenty of players available who are out of contract with their current clubs...........which I guess is an advantage of the MLS having a March-November season.

Either way, the Sounders usually do a good job of identifying quality summer transfer window players.

They would be better off looking for loanees, if that's legal

So many young players in reserves and academies that could use a few months of play before Summer training starts

 

[Seahawks1983]

Anywho, back to expansion for a second:

http://www.seattletimes.com/sports/soun ... minnesota/

Biggest take away from that: "Soccer Specific Stadium." I think that is the single, and only difference between the two groups.

Bit bigger than Smurf, but thats more for the locals. The Pohlad group already has a soccer leadership group in place (the current MN United). Big question here is if that group is promoted as well, and if so, can they run an MLS club. Editing out details because these are good people, but just not sure if they are experienced for the next level.

One group was dedicated to running a soccer franchise in the city and the other was dedicated to filling dates in a billion dollar stadium. Pretty easy decision for Garber, IMO.

Yeah...thats not working for the Sounders? The billion dollar stadium is in the city by the way.

Either way, happy for the United people. Big changes in MN soccer coming

Not even close to the same thing. The Sounders rise to MLS far better matches up with the Minnesota United path than it does with the Arthur Blank path that the Vikings were attempting.

 

[Uncle Si]

I can't tell if you're being negative, or why, but whatever.

Neither "pathway" is the same as the Sounders. The origins are similar. However, the difference is in the stadium is a major one. The Sounders had the Seahawks stadium. MN United have a 2000 seat stadium 25 miles from downtown at the moment. You are ignoring that an existing small franchise was funded by a billionaire and given a ready made stadium to step into. The two paths are similar in some ways, divergent in many others.

I know people on both sides of the bids. Both were very confident. The Wilfs, like Paul Allen, had been chasing an MLS team for some time and wanted a multi-use stadium, same as Paul Allen. On the other end, you have the Twins and Wolves owners buying into the existing franchise. The motivation of either side is the same. One chose to fill an existing stadium, the other wants to build one. Both sides are funded by very wealthy people. The Pohlads and Glen Taylor's interest in Minnesota soccer is pretty new, having little impact on the franchise until very recently.

Either way, MLS soccer in Minnesota. People are excited. Still think it waters down the product, but it puts me closer to the development. The UofM is revisiting a Men's D1 team as well.

 

[Smurf]

It came out today that Brad Evans' Grandmother died shortly before the game last Saturday. He was not at training today to attend the memorial.

Perhaps a mental/emotional factor in poor play.

 

[Smurf]

Who might the Sounders target at CB during the transfer window if the Evans experiment doesn't work out?

Probably going to be a name you have never heard before. To be honest, its fairly rare that we sign a player that I have a bunch of previous knowledge of. Usually I am scrambling like a mad man to figure out who the hell we just signed.

 

[Smurf]

Sounders signed Draft Picks today:

RB Oniel Fisher - From University of New Mexico. Speedy guy.

GK Charlie Lyon - Marquette. 6'2

 

[NJSeahawk]

[tweet]https://twitter.com/SoundersFC/status/577546175953383424[/tweet]

Seahawks and Sounders forever, son! :thirishdrinkers:

 

[Sgt. Largent]

Seahawks and Sounders forever, son! :thirishdrinkers:

Not very exciting news for those of us that keep holding out for the Sounders to build a soccer specific stadium.

I get that the Sounders are making money hand over fist have a very good relationship with the Seahawks and Century Link, but IMO if they ever want to truly take the next step in the evolution of becoming a world class soccer club, they have to ditch the turf and build their own SSS.

 

[Seahawks1983]

I can't tell if you're being negative, or why, but whatever.

Neither "pathway" is the same as the Sounders. The origins are similar. However, the difference is in the stadium is a major one. The Sounders had the Seahawks stadium. MN United have a 2000 seat stadium 25 miles from downtown at the moment. You are ignoring that an existing small franchise was funded by a billionaire and given a ready made stadium to step into. The two paths are similar in some ways, divergent in many others.

I know people on both sides of the bids. Both were very confident. The Wilfs, like Paul Allen, had been chasing an MLS team for some time and wanted a multi-use stadium, same as Paul Allen. On the other end, you have the Twins and Wolves owners buying into the existing franchise. The motivation of either side is the same. One chose to fill an existing stadium, the other wants to build one. Both sides are funded by very wealthy people. The Pohlads and Glen Taylor's interest in Minnesota soccer is pretty new, having little impact on the franchise until very recently.

Either way, MLS soccer in Minnesota. People are excited. Still think it waters down the product, but it puts me closer to the development. The UofM is revisiting a Men's D1 team as well.

I'm not being negative about anything. I am simply stating that I think the United group is far more dedicated to running a soccer organization than the Vikings group is.

Paul Allen never chased soccer until he needed votes for the stadium. His interest in the Sounders is minimal at best, as he is a silent partner. His relationship with the team provides a world class stadium, but I don't think he would really care if the Sounders didn't exist.

 

[Seahawks1983]

Seahawks and Sounders forever, son! :thirishdrinkers:

Not very exciting news for those of us that keep holding out for the Sounders to build a soccer specific stadium.

I get that the Sounders are making money hand over fist have a very good relationship with the Seahawks and Century Link, but IMO if they ever want to truly take the next step in the evolution of becoming a world class soccer club, they have to ditch the turf and build their own SSS.

Or they could just put grass in the Clink like the voters were promised. Forget building a new stadium for either team.

The other thing they could do to take that next step is actually win MLS Cup.

 

[Sgt. Largent]

Seahawks and Sounders forever, son! :thirishdrinkers:

Not very exciting news for those of us that keep holding out for the Sounders to build a soccer specific stadium.

I get that the Sounders are making money hand over fist have a very good relationship with the Seahawks and Century Link, but IMO if they ever want to truly take the next step in the evolution of becoming a world class soccer club, they have to ditch the turf and build their own SSS.

Or they could just put grass in the Clink like the voters were promised. Forget building a new stadium for either team.

The other thing they could do to take that next step is actually win MLS Cup.

As a Sounders fan I'd love to see grass at the Clink, but as a Hawk fan I never want to see grass. This is the NW, football played on grass where we live would be the worst field conditions in the entire league, just a big muddy mess.

Now there are some new really cool hybrid fields using both grass and synthetic turf, maybe that's an option down the road. But the Hawks rule Century Link, as long as they want fake grass.........there will be fake grass.

 

[Uncle Si]

I can't tell if you're being negative, or why, but whatever.

Neither "pathway" is the same as the Sounders. The origins are similar. However, the difference is in the stadium is a major one. The Sounders had the Seahawks stadium. MN United have a 2000 seat stadium 25 miles from downtown at the moment. You are ignoring that an existing small franchise was funded by a billionaire and given a ready made stadium to step into. The two paths are similar in some ways, divergent in many others.

I know people on both sides of the bids. Both were very confident. The Wilfs, like Paul Allen, had been chasing an MLS team for some time and wanted a multi-use stadium, same as Paul Allen. On the other end, you have the Twins and Wolves owners buying into the existing franchise. The motivation of either side is the same. One chose to fill an existing stadium, the other wants to build one. Both sides are funded by very wealthy people. The Pohlads and Glen Taylor's interest in Minnesota soccer is pretty new, having little impact on the franchise until very recently.

Either way, MLS soccer in Minnesota. People are excited. Still think it waters down the product, but it puts me closer to the development. The UofM is revisiting a Men's D1 team as well.

I'm not being negative about anything. I am simply stating that I think the United group is far more dedicated to running a soccer organization than the Vikings group is.

Paul Allen never chased soccer until he needed votes for the stadium. His interest in the Sounders is minimal at best, as he is a silent partner. His relationship with the team provides a world class stadium, but I don't think he would really care if the Sounders didn't exist.

I looked at Paul Allen differently, especially with the design of Seahawks stadium to better attract soccer (specifically World Cup qualifiers, potential World Cup games and world class friendlies.

The United group was far more dedicated in the sense that the primary owner is currently running a soccer team. Taylor and the Pohlads probably have as much vested interest going in as the Wilfs.

It seems the difference was the stadium. More specifically, the MLS wanted an outdoor stadium or a retractable roof (a contention that the tax payers had made when the initial plans for the Vikings stadium was built).

 

[Seahawks1983]

Seahawks and Sounders forever, son! :thirishdrinkers:

Not very exciting news for those of us that keep holding out for the Sounders to build a soccer specific stadium.

I get that the Sounders are making money hand over fist have a very good relationship with the Seahawks and Century Link, but IMO if they ever want to truly take the next step in the evolution of becoming a world class soccer club, they have to ditch the turf and build their own SSS.

Or they could just put grass in the Clink like the voters were promised. Forget building a new stadium for either team.

The other thing they could do to take that next step is actually win MLS Cup.

As a Sounders fan I'd love to see grass at the Clink, but as a Hawk fan I never want to see grass. This is the NW, football played on grass where we live would be the worst field conditions in the entire league, just a big muddy mess.

Now there are some new really cool hybrid fields using both grass and synthetic turf, maybe that's an option down the road. But the Hawks rule Century Link, as long as they want fake grass.........there will be fake grass.

I really don't think a properly managed field with good drainage systems would be a muddy mess. Grass in the northwest gets saturated because few lawns and parks are designed to drain properly. This isn't your neighborhood park we are talking about.

Football and soccer are both meant to be played on real grass, IMO. Field Turf sucks.

 

[Uncle Si]

Drainage is not the major issue. It is the impact of the contact on the grass. coaching on a shared grass field I can tell you that within 3 weeks of football games being on there, the field is completely different shape. Its just not the "rough patches" of which there are many. it is the divots, pock marks and shredded "lanes" from contact. Also, football players tend to spend much of there team in one part of the field (the middle) and thus wear that area down far quicker and more unevenly than the rest.

Even with the best care and groundskeeping people in the business, you are constantly playing catch up once both sports are active on the surface at the same time.

Having played (and coached) competitively on both grass and field turf, the new "era" of simulated grass isnt that much of a difference than real grass. They can weave it to be thicker, thinner, faster, slower, taller, etc. Obviously there is a certain feel that cannot be replicated, but play itself isnt altered. Its a little tougher to tackle on, but the bounces and rolls are truer. Most of my players "complaints" are more about the pace of grass and how difficult the footing can be.

 

[Seahawks1983]

Drainage is not the major issue. It is the impact of the contact on the grass. coaching on a shared grass field I can tell you that within 3 weeks of football games being on there, the field is completely different shape. Its just not the "rough patches" of which there are many. it is the divots, pock marks and shredded "lanes" from contact. Also, football players tend to spend much of there team in one part of the field (the middle) and thus wear that area down far quicker and more unevenly than the rest.

Even with the best care and groundskeeping people in the business, you are constantly playing catch up once both sports are active on the surface at the same time.

Having played (and coached) competitively on both grass and field turf, the new "era" of simulated grass isnt that much of a difference than real grass. They can weave it to be thicker, thinner, faster, slower, taller, etc. Obviously there is a certain feel that cannot be replicated, but play itself isnt altered. Its a little tougher to tackle on, but the bounces and rolls are truer. Most of my players "complaints" are more about the pace of grass and how difficult the footing can be.

I can live with field turf as long as they replace it every two years and don't flatten it out with dirt bike racing and concerts, but none of those things will ever happen. The current state of the field is far closer to astroturf than it is top of the line fieldturf.

 

[Uncle Si]

Drainage is not the major issue. It is the impact of the contact on the grass. coaching on a shared grass field I can tell you that within 3 weeks of football games being on there, the field is completely different shape. Its just not the "rough patches" of which there are many. it is the divots, pock marks and shredded "lanes" from contact. Also, football players tend to spend much of there team in one part of the field (the middle) and thus wear that area down far quicker and more unevenly than the rest.

Even with the best care and groundskeeping people in the business, you are constantly playing catch up once both sports are active on the surface at the same time.

Having played (and coached) competitively on both grass and field turf, the new "era" of simulated grass isnt that much of a difference than real grass. They can weave it to be thicker, thinner, faster, slower, taller, etc. Obviously there is a certain feel that cannot be replicated, but play itself isnt altered. Its a little tougher to tackle on, but the bounces and rolls are truer. Most of my players "complaints" are more about the pace of grass and how difficult the footing can be.

I can live with field turf as long as they replace it every two years and don't flatten it out with dirt bike racing and concerts, but none of those things will ever happen. The current state of the field is far closer to astroturf than it is top of the line fieldturf.

It did look slick when I watched the game the other night.

Not hard to replace either.

 

[Smurf]

Part of the new lease deal is that the turf will be replaced after a maximum of 4 years. That is a pretty significant difference in this lease vs the last lease (where there was no guarantee regarding the turf).

Grass is not something that will happen in the near future, unfortunately. If we had a dedicated stadium, it might, but that is at least 15 years off. The club has committed itself to building its academies and has been spending quite a bit in that program as of late, especially with large renovations to Starfire supposedly in the works (they have replaced sections of seating already, with rumors of larger changes coming).

The current turf will be replaced in the offseason.

 

[Seahawks1983]

Drainage is not the major issue. It is the impact of the contact on the grass. coaching on a shared grass field I can tell you that within 3 weeks of football games being on there, the field is completely different shape. Its just not the "rough patches" of which there are many. it is the divots, pock marks and shredded "lanes" from contact. Also, football players tend to spend much of there team in one part of the field (the middle) and thus wear that area down far quicker and more unevenly than the rest.

Even with the best care and groundskeeping people in the business, you are constantly playing catch up once both sports are active on the surface at the same time.

Having played (and coached) competitively on both grass and field turf, the new "era" of simulated grass isnt that much of a difference than real grass. They can weave it to be thicker, thinner, faster, slower, taller, etc. Obviously there is a certain feel that cannot be replicated, but play itself isnt altered. Its a little tougher to tackle on, but the bounces and rolls are truer. Most of my players "complaints" are more about the pace of grass and how difficult the footing can be.

I can live with field turf as long as they replace it every two years and don't flatten it out with dirt bike racing and concerts, but none of those things will ever happen. The current state of the field is far closer to astroturf than it is top of the line fieldturf.

It did look slick when I watched the game the other night.

Not hard to replace either.

I was down on the field before a Seahawks game late in the 2014 season, I was blown away by how flat the turf was. I didn't see a single blade sticking up.