The List is Life, Part IV

So much for my theories. The official list of protected players for United is out and makes for some interesting reading, particularly in light of some extra info from the Goffmeister. Some highlights . . .
  • We didn't protect any keepers. With Keller already on Seattle's books, that's not surprising, though I wonder if Wells might prove a temptation as a decent, cheap backup. Not that any in United-ville will mourn his loss if he does go.
  • Of our five Sudamericanos signed last winter, two have been let go, and the three remaining (Gallardo, Peralta, and Martinez) have all been left unprotected. Goff says that Martinez is as good as gone and Peralta will have to take a salary reduction if we're to keep him. The core of the protected list? United (and MLS, in Guerrero's case) vets and . . .
  • Both of our Riverhounds were protected. Janicki and Khumalo both showed well down the stretch, but protecting both? I had Janicki on my list, but I don't see Khumalo being at all attractive to Seattle, not like . . .
  • Vide and Doe are exposed. If we lose anybody, it's likely to be one of these two, though Wells may also be tempting as a reasonably priced backup to Keller.
  • Looking around the league at what the other clubs left exposed, I wonder if we might not escape this one unscathed. There's some really tempting stuff left on the table, particularly from Houston and Columbus.
So now we play the waiting game until Wednesday afternoon. Who are you surprised to see on the list? Who do you think United will lose? Are we going to build around Gallardo for next season or are we trying to get rid of him? I wouldn't read too much into his unprotected status. Seattle's FO would have to be insane to either float him as trade bait or try and swap for a second DP spot in order to acquire an injury-prone, high salary player. Thoughts?



  2. Care to clarify, C-L? Somebody who was protected? Somebody left exposed? Not that I disagree, I'm just wondering . . .

  3. Crayton, Vide and Doe exposed but Burch, Namoff (whose contract is dubious) and McTavish protected? I don't know. A little odd to me. (The Keller thing means nothing--Crayton could be traded, etc. through some deal to profit Seattle and suddenly we have no keeper. Which worked so well last time.)

    I dunno. A little odd to me.

  4. I think Crayton's big guaranteed contract would scare off most clubs, but I agree about Vide and Doe. If we're going to lose anybody, it's them. I still can't understand why we're protecting Khumalo. I would have protected both Doe and Vide ahead of him.

  5. Ah, I didn't even think of Crayton's contract. You're right about that.

    Personally, I would have exposed Burch and Khumalo but protected Vide and Doe. I know it would seem like we protected our whole offense and ignored our defense, but then again, our defense basically sucked.

    I'm going to miss Martinez though. I know nobody else likes him, but I thought the guy really had talent.

  6. Well, we survived intact, I suppose.

    I was a big fan of Martinez' as well. You know, before that metric ass-load of suck landed on his noggin late in the summer.