MLS Draft warnings, caveats and context: Looking at those 2010 top selections


Denizens of the American sports scene recognize the imprecise nature of drafting college talent. Clearly it’s more art than science – otherwise, we would not have the notorious Jordan Oversight to consider:

Michael Jordan was selected No. 3 in the 1984 draft, but went on to more or less rule the kingdom with Chicago, claiming six NBA championships and 10 scoring titles as perhaps the game’s all-time all-timer. Ahem … No. 3.

So if elements as studied, filtered and fretted over as the NBA draft or the NFL draft cannot be folded into something more predictable, does the lesser known world of domestic soccer draft eligibles really stand a chance?

We don’t have to go much further than 2010, exactly three years ago, to see the imperfection at work. (Today is the exact anniversary of the 2010 MLS draft, so it seemed handy to start here.)

The top three picks were Danny Mwanga (pictured),Tony Tchani and Ike Opara. If you built a team around those three today – a forward, a midfielder and a defender now ostensibly be growing into their veteran leadership years – you might have something that looked like Toronto FC last year.

Note, if you will, that Toronto FC is picking first in 2013. There’s a reason: TFC was awful in 2012.

This is not to pick on Mwanga, Tchani and Opara, each of whom has struggled for reasons not entirely of their own creation. None of them are bad players – but they are walking, talking illustrations of the difficulty inherent in this process. Because they simply have not been what we might have reasonably expected of the top draft trio; shouldn’t one of the top three draft picks be strutting into star territory?

Rather, the trio’s combined average starts over three MLS seasons stands at an underwhelming 12.

Tchani launched his pro career in New York before moving to Toronto and then Columbus; all totaled he has 45 starts in three seasons.

New York was a tough place to start, as then-manager Hans Backe quickly assessed that products of the American system “are just missing something,” he once told me, unable to place exactly what, but probably referring to that extra little sixth sense of the game. It is probably the same something that Jurgen Klinsmann famously assessed was missing when Ghana dismissed the United States from World Cup 2010.

(MORE: a quickie MLS draft primer)

Backe once, somewhat infamously, I suppose, imposed a temporary rule in practice demanding that Tchani passed balls forward rather than backward or laterally. Clearly, the manager was something this side of impressed.

Tchani was traded to Toronto, where almost no one succeeds. Since then he’s moved to Columbus, where the central midfielder is a polarizing figure for fans around Crew Stadium. Again, he’s not a bad player – he’s just not storming the castles of success, either.

Opara has started even few games over three years (22), although some of that is down to injury misfortune. Either way, San Jose just let him go, and Opara – once seen as a shoe-in as the next great U.S. center back – now hopes to provide depth along Sporting Kansas City’s back line.

The circumstances around Mwanga, who has 42 starts, are even more muddy and tangled.  He was the Union’s original draft pick, taken No. 1 by the expansion club that day in Philadelphia – coincidentally, the draft was held right there in Philly. And he looked like a “can’t miss” type.

Well, he missed. Or the system missed. Or his deteriorating relationship with former Union manager Peter Nowak missed. Or something.

Bottom line here:  when a “can’t miss” No. 1 overall draft pick moves to Portland for Jorge Perlaza and allocation money, something has gone badly wrong.

Or, maybe we just say it again: it’s all more art than science.

By the way, the Nos. 4 and 5 draft picks that day in 2010, Teal Bunbury and Zach Loyd, have combined for seven full international appearances. That’s seven more than the combined number for the three men chosen above them with far greater acclaim on draft day exactly three years ago.

Peter Nowak’s case against the Union is heating up (slowly)


With both sides digging in for a long fight, this might be the first of many salacious details we hear from former Philadelphia Union coach Peter Nowak’s lawsuit against the club. Whether this allegation has any merit, well, that’s an entirely different issue. The point here is that the salvos are flying.

At least, that’s what we can gather from Jonathan Tannenwald’s latest offering at He has the unenviable task of sifting through the miles of legal minutia, though it this case, it uncovered an email exchange between lawyers from both sides where it was alleged Nowak inappropriately profited from the signing of South American players.

What does that mean? Unfortunately, the emails don’t elaborate. The best we get are from Tannenwald’s snippets from three emails.

From Nowak’s lawyers to the Union’s, on July 18:

In order to advise my client properly, I need to know the specifics of “criminal and fraudulent” acts you told me your client had uncovered regarding Piotr Nowak. Despite the incendiary nature of the claim, we need to know precisely what your client says our client did.

You have alluded to some involvement on Piotr’s part in negotiating contracts for players in South America. I have no idea what is “criminal” or “fraudulent” about that.

The response, one day later:

With regard to the potentially fraudulent activity referenced in your email, investigation continues. The Company has reason to believe that Mr. Nowak may have improperly profited from player transactions over the past 12-18 months.

The Company is continuing to gather evidence on the extent and import of this conduct …

There is also the insinuation that the Union’s accusation is part of a bigger negotiating scheme. From Nowak’s lawyers:

The allegations of criminal conduct – and I note you leave out of you (sic) e-mail that word we specifically made to me and were used in conjunction with having Piotr sign your proposed settlement agreement. I was further told those allegations would somehow disappear if Piotr signed the agreement.

So it’s: Hey! Your guy did something really bad. Oh, what, you ask? Well, we’re still looking into it, but you may want to reconsider this settlement offer.

At least, that’s one reading of it. You’ll want to check it out for yourself.

Unless that settlement agreement is signed, we’re likely to hear more from Nowak v. Philadelphia Union. That’s assuming the case even ends up in court (a judge still has to decide). The former boss seems intent on doing some damage, so even if case fizzles out, we’re likely to hear … “leaks.”