Who Stays, Who Goes? A KCSJ Round Table

With the Sporting Kansas City season effectively over, with just the home finale coming up against the Houston Dynamo on 18th, most fans have both eyes towards the offseason and the rebuilding of the roster that will be done by Sporting’s new President of Soccer Operations, David Lee. Sporting has seventeen players who are out of contract, have an option, or a purchase option to decide on for the 2026 season.

With that those decisions coming, a group of writers here at the KC Soccer Journal got together to give our thoughts on those seventeen players and who we’d keep and who we’d move on from.

Let’s start with the players who have options on their contract for the 2026 season, and to keep it simple let’s just go in alphabetical order, so first up, Stephen Afrifa.

Josh Wallace: I’m conflicted, Afrifa is a bottom of the roster back-up winger with some talent but did not play much this year. At the same time, he’s a winger on a team with few wingers. Right now, I would only renew if there is not a possibility for a solid backup winger in this year’s MLS draft, of which SKC will undoubtedly have a top pick in.

Chad Smith: I too could go either way on Afrifa. I don’t think he’s played enough this year to show what he has, but he’ll be 25 by the start of next season. He’s cheap, but would this spot be better spent on a higher potential player? I imagine he’s gone, but I’ll trust David Lee’s eye.

Thad Bell: He strangely did not get a lot of chances this year. It seems he did not impress enough in training to make it on the field. He might benefit from a move.

Jough Donakowski: Keep him. He’s a cheap and athletic young forward who has shown he can score. There’s no reason to give up on him yet.

Juan Cisneros: Though I think he could be a nice piece to an offense if he continues to develop, I don’t foresee Afrifa being a focal point of a rebuild.

David Greenwald: Clearly Peter Vermes and Kerry Zavagnin didn’t want to play him. He showed flashes here and there, but the club never felt like he was so good he had to play. If I’m him, do I even want to stick around? I would move on.

Mike Kuhn: For me, I still remain unconvinced that he’s an MLS player. He had some flashes last year, but he’s been unable to get time this year on the wing as one of KC’s wings has struggled. I’m fine moving on at this point and trying to find a better use of the roster spot.

Certainly, an interesting start, with only one of us for sure wanting to keep Afrifa for another season. Next up is Zorhan Bassong.

Mike: Assuming his option keeps him on a potential supplemental roster spot I’m good with keeping Bassong. He’s been a solid, if unspectacular player on the roster. As long as he’s not expected to start half of the club’s games in 2026 as he’s done this year this is a player I want to keep around.

Chad: Completely agree, you absolutely bring Bassong back, assuming he’s not due a massive raise. He’s probably not starting quality in the midfield or at left back, but he’s good depth at both. He’s also a high effort guy and leads by example on the field. Zorhan wore the captain’s armband at times, which also shows his leadership skills.

Jough: Keep. He’s a bargain because he plays well in two different positions for the price of one cheap player.

Thad: Keep him. At times adds to offense, great value at multiple roles and is also a great “villain”. Great role player fighting for starting minutes.

Josh: Bassong showed some positional flexibility and proven to be decent MLS depth at left back and central midfield. I think his solid play this year earned him another year at SKC.

Juan: Personally, I like Bassong. I think he brings an edge to the field, but that’s about it. Both Vermes and Zavagnin played him in different positions, and he never really solidified himself in any of them. Keep for depth if you must, but not a necessary player for this team.

David: Bassong is not good enough to start regularly for a strong team. But he’s a solid squad player and would be relatively cheap depth. I would re-sign as long as the cost isn’t too high.

It didn’t take long for the first unanimous decision, and it’s actually to keep a player. Have a feeling we may go the other way with the next player, Tim Liebold.

David: I would part ways with Leibold. His legs are shot, and he offers virtually nothing going forward. It seems like empty minutes when he’s out there. We need to get younger and more athletic out wide.

Jough: Release him. He costs almost $1 million. He’s great at attacking but terrible at defending, which this team can’t afford.

Juan: The outside back positions have been revolving doors the past few years and Liebold may be another victim of them. Didn’t show enough during his time on the field to justify keeping him.

Chad: As Jough said, Leibold is making nearly $1 million to be the backup left back. It’s an example of irresponsible spending of the past regime. I don’t see a world where he is back.

Josh: Again, an aging nearly $1 million a year back up left back? Absolutely not. He was solid offensively when he played but has made costly defensive errors.

Thad: Better offensively than most think but is costly for a not clear starter.

Mike: As you all have said, this is an easy one to move on from. From his salary to his struggles defensively he’s not worth bringing back.

And as predicted, another unanimous decision to part with Leibold. Will we make it three in a row? Next up, Jansen Miller.

Josh: Bringing Miller back is not even a question. He’s a great value and has shown he can compete in this league as a center back.

David: Picking up Miller’s option is a no brainer. His rookie season wasn’t perfect but he’s got hunger, passion, and looks like he could be a consistent starter in the league.

Juan: I like the idea of continuing to develop a young defender. Miller has shown flashes of being a good CB, but as of right now he is not the long-term solution. But he could prove me wrong if he continues his development.

Jough: He’s young, cheap, and got playing time this year. It’s worth keeping him to see if he improves.

Thad: Keep him. Great value, great attitude, good villain and I live for the day he scores on St. Louis.

Mike: Of all the players on an option, this is the easiest one to pick up for me. Even if he’s not a starter next year, his cap hit and progress he’s shown in 2025 makes this an easy option to pick up.

Chad: Miller is probably the best CB on the team this year. He’s been an absolute hit in the draft for the first time in a long time for Sporting KC. He made his share of mistakes this year, but any rookie would, especially as a part of this team. I’m not saying he should be a starter next year, but he’s on a minimum deal and, at worst, he’s quality depth. He has the potential to be more though.

Miller is a unanimous choice to keep around in 2026. Let’s see where everyone is at on the next player, goalkeeper, John Pulskamp.

Chad: Pulskamp is another no-brainer for me. He’s entering the final year of his contract and is on a reasonable salary. He was amazing at times and terrible at others in 2025. Sporting KC absolutely need to have a veteran that can push John when things aren’t going well, but Pulskamp deserves a chance to see if he can take another step forward next season. Pulskamp has been on the roster nearly six years and is still just 24-years-old. Goalkeepers don’t hit their prime until much later and John has a chance to get a lot better still.

Jough: I’ll go the other way, release him. He lets in more goals than a goalie should. He’s a major problem for the defense.

Josh: Pulskamp was so difficult to evaluate this year. On one hand, he made some great stops. On the other hand, he was the primary goalkeeper in a team that gave up the most chances in the MLS, and many of them from corner kicks. Regardless, he’s the only viable goalkeeper Sporting have right now so he just has to come back.

Mike: I’ve been one of the biggest champions for Pulskamp this year, and for a period of time he was improving, but over the last month or so he’s seemed to regress from where he was. I think there are bigger issues to address for this team than goalkeeper, but I remain unconvinced that Pulskamp is the long-term answer for this club. Because there are bigger issues, and the fact I’m basically jettisoning most of the 17 players (spoilers for most of the rest of my picks) I guess keep him, but there needs to be actual competition brought in to push him.

Thad: Good keeper, good value. Jury’s still out on him being the keeper of the future but definitely deserves another year.

Juan: Pulskamp didn’t have the best year, obviously, but some of that could be on the fact that his back line was not very good. I agree, I don’t think the goalkeeper position is where the investment this offseason should go, so you may as well keep a guy that has been between the sticks.

David: I agree, I’d pick up Pulskamp’s option while looking for competition for him. He’s tough to evaluate because of how poor the team is, but at some point potential needs to be realized. He’s not as good of a shot stopper as peak Tim Melia and he’s not great with his feet like Ederson. But he’s also young and not crazy expensive.

There was more unity there than I thought there would be. More unity coming I think with the next player, Nemanja Radoja.

David: Radoja has to go. Too expensive. Too old. Too slow. He showed glimpses of real quality but wasn’t available enough to justify the salary. Never was an improvement on Ilie.

Juan: I just didn’t see enough to warrant keeping him. When he was good, he was fine. When he was bad, it was bad.

Jough: He makes a ton of money but often hurt and doesn’t contribute on the field.

Thad: Decline his option. Up and down performances and health.

Chad: He’s the 4th highest paid guy on the roster and he barely starts. He’ll be 33 before next season starts. Buh-bye!

Josh: The Radoja experiment just did not work out. Ultimately, he spent much of his Sporting tenure in getting fit and healthy. When he has played, he has looked solid in possession but not as strong with his defensive positioning and duels. I would not bring him back.

Mike: This is another easy move on, a player brought in for the prior regime’s style of play, Radoja doesn’t offer enough in the midfield to make him worth the TAM spot he’s taking up.

That was a quick decision on Radoja, next up, Ryan Schewe.

Jough: Keep him. He’s a cheap, young backup goalie who can develop with the second team.

Mike: My decision on Schewe is tied in with my opinion on Pulskamp, if you’re keeping him, you’re moving on from Schewe to make room for a new goalkeeper to push Pulskamp. Schewe is only a year younger than Pulskamp and his inability to get a game as Sporting has struggled basically helps confirm for me it’s time to move on here. If you’re not keeping Pulskamp I still don’t think you keep Schewe for the same reason.

Josh: While I believe Schewe could continue to develop at SKC, does Sporting need two developing goalkeepers? I don’t think so. SKC should sign a veteran goalkeeper who will push Pulskamp in training. Schewe is a no for me.

Chad: We have no idea how Schewe is progressing. He was forced to sit the bench most of the season and only appeared twice for SKC II. He hasn’t looked overly impressive, but SKC II were also terrible. He probably has to go to make room for a veteran since Jack Kortkamp isn’t going anywhere. Then again, if SKC still like him, they could loan Kortkamp to SKC II all year and Schewe can be the 3rd keeper.

Juan: Never saw the field. Do we need to invest in another backup keeper? Probably not, but if there is someone waiting in the wings that has more potential, he could be a casualty.

Thad: It’s a coinflip for me, though I lean no. Low cost but has not impressed in his outings with SKC II. Lean towards decline and sign Jacob Molinaro from SKC II.

David: Schewe I would decline. He’s never really sniffed the #1 spot, and we need to bring in real competition for Pulskamp. Schewe just hasn’t forced the team’s hand to get picked up.

Jough gets to stand alone in his decision to keep Schewe. Onto the next player with an option up, Khiry Shelton.

Juan: I have been wanting this team to cut Shelton for a while. He is not a starter in the league and despite having chance after chance to show his ability, I have been severely underwhelmed.

Jough: He is paid way too much for a player who doesn’t score or create goals anymore and doesn’t play good defense.

Thad: Have to decline at this price. IF he’s willing to come back at lower dollars then make that move. Great club guy.

Chad: $750,000 to be a below average right back? He turns 33 next year, makes too much money and the last regime should have never given him this contract. Add to that he has no real position and there is no reason to bring Khiry back.

Mike: Of him, Leibold, and Radoja, it’s hard to decide who is the easiest to move on from. He hasn’t been as bad as some people want to make you believe, but his conversion to right back has clearly not gone well. It’s time to move on and the club get a real right back.

David: Shelton’s time has finally come to an end. 3/4 of a million for his level of production is an awful use of resources in a salary capped league. Khiry is a great guy but he’s also a punching bag for the fanbase. Time for a clean split.

Josh: Khiry has been the ultimate steward for SKC. He at times catches a lot of heat from fans, but he consistently does so much dirty work for the team. Even still, with his age and late development as a right back, SKC can find younger more promising talent at his position. I think this should be his last season.

Final player with an option to make a decision on is forward, Mason Toye.

Josh: I was honestly surprised at how effective Mason Toye was at SKC this year. He does so well at holding up the ball, pressing, combining, and making runs. SKC should absolutely keep him given his play.

Mike: I’m not against bringing him back, he’s a solid option off the bench and spot start as a forward for Kansas City depending on how David Lee and the new head coach want to play. If there’s any hesitation, it’s his almost $400,000 guaranteed compensation, but that’s also my mind thinking partly in an old age of MLS. Just don’t try to convert him to outside back.

Chad: I’ve liked what we’ve seen in limited minutes from Mason Toye. He’s a nice change of pace from Dejan Joveljic and actually showed he can play well off of Dejan. His wage isn’t unreasonable for a striker and he’s probably worth bringing back, especially if Santiago Munoz doesn’t return.

Jough: He’s a good goal scorer when he’s on the field. Even though he gets hurt a lot, his talent is worth the risk for his price.

Thad: Keep him. Has really come into his own in the last part of the season. If a midfield could feed him more, he would really stretch a field.

Juan: Toye (or as I know him “El Juguete”: toy in Spanish) provided a spark on the offense. High work rate always has a place in my heart even if the numbers aren’t always there. Maybe not as a long-term starter, but he could be a good piece to have.

David: Toye was surprisingly strong in his limited minutes. He played his role as a sub perfectly. I would pick up his option because he was good depth.

We end the list of players with options with a unanimous decision to bring back Toye. Onto the players who are out of contract, starting with Andrew Brody.

Mike: He can’t beat out Shelton for the right back spot, and my position on Shelton has already been stated. Combine that with the fact KC would cover his entire contract if they re-signed him, this is a pass.

Thad: Could not be the regular right back over two converts in Shelton and Jake Davis. Move on.

David: He can go. Brody was never even league average.

Juan: His signing felt like a need in the moment due to injury, so I don’t see him as someone worth bringing back if we can find someone younger and faster.

Jough: He’s older, gets hurt a lot, and doesn’t play well enough for what he’s paid.

Josh: Never really locked down a starter or backup role at right back and was consistently picked on by opposing teams. Gonna be a no for me.

Chad: Mike stole a lot of my thunder; Brody couldn’t stay healthy and couldn’t unseat an out of position forward at right back. Real Salt Lake subsidized his salary this year, but he hasn’t shown enough to get a new deal.

Sorry Chad, something, something great minds. Anyway, onto the next player on the list, Joaquin Fernandez.

Chad: He started off with such promise, playing well against Olivier Giroud in his debut last year. Then he scored an own goal in his second game, and he never lived up to being the highest paid defender on the team. Not to mention he absolutely couldn’t stay healthy. It’s time to move on.

Thad: TOO inconsistent. Expected to be a leader and organizer but did not deliver for the cost.

Josh: Like Radoja, Fernandez could never stay on the field, and at times contributed to SKC’s defensive woes when he was on it. And get this, he is tied for 11th as the highest-paid defender in the MLS. I don’t think SKC should sign him to a new deal.

David: Fernandez can go; he started with a wet fart and ended with one too. A guy with his pedigree could never lock down a starting role and was part of a god awful defense.

Juan: I had high hopes, but honestly it’s been sort of meh. If he’s cheap, keep him for depth, but he is not the answer to the back line woes.

Jough: He is paid over $1 million and is just not worth it.

Mike: The best thing I can say about Fernandez’s time in KC is that unlike KC’s history with other expensive, injury prone CBs, his deal was only a year and a half and KC can move on.

Two for two with unanimously wanting to move on from players out of contract. Next up is Logan Ndenbe.

Mike: I know there are a lot of people that want him back, but it’s a no for me. He doesn’t offer enough defensively as a left back. Combine that with the fact that even with his history of injuries, he’s entering the prime of his career and isn’t, presumably, going to take a club friendly deal. Graduating the U22 program, continue the remaking of the defense and move on here.

Josh: I’m truly conflicted with Ndenbe. His play can be wildly inconsistent at times. On top of that his greatest strengths can be one of his biggest flaws. He’s in the 98 percentile for progressive carries in the MLS, but he has trouble tracking back at times. Still though, good starting left-backs in any league can be hard to find. I would keep him, but only at his current salary or lower.

Thad: I’m conflicted too, though I lean no on Ndenbe, he was inconsistent up until he had a couple great games in playoffs. Never seemed to get that back.

Chad: This is one of the tougher decisions on this list. For the most part, I’ve liked Ndenbe. He’s a legend for playing on a torn ACL against St. Louis City in the playoffs. He provides a lot going forward and he’s a really good one v one defender. However, he’s not quite been healthy since his major injury, consistently missing time. He also lacks effort to get back defensively all too often. He made $530,000 last year and will probably want a raise. He turns 26 before the 2026 season. You can’t replace the whole roster though, so I’m good if Ndenbe comes back, but I won’t be heartbroken if he leaves. I feel like he won’t be back.

Jough: He’s a great athlete but gets hurt a lot. Because of the injuries, the team can probably sign him to a cheaper deal. I’d say keep him.

Juan: I was high on Ndenbe ever since he was signed and though his first year and a half left a lot to be desired, he has improved over time. He is young and has some good athleticism. His injury may have set him back a bit, but he provides some good wing play in my position. One of our better outside backs. I wouldn’t mind seeing him as part of a rebuild. Would also hate to see him walk for free. I believe he has some strong qualities that teams may pay a premium for.

David: I would re-sign Ndenbe. His play is too streaky for my taste, but I’m already ditching most of the defense some continuity isn’t bad. At his best, Logan is a good LB. We aren’t getting his best often enough. As long as it doesn’t break the bank, I’d offer him a new 3-year deal.

Thad and I the only ones standing on the side of being ready to move on from Ndenbe. Next up is Memo Rodriguez.

Jough: He’s one of the best playmakers on the team but is paid like a backup. He is a huge bargain and a must-keep.

Juan: Credit where credit is due, Memo works hard and I love me some work rate. However, he has left some to be desired. With Manu Garcia manning the attacking midfield role, I don’t see a spot for Memo anywhere else in the midfield.

David: Memo is a weird one for me. I feel like he’s one of those MLS squad guys who hangs around forever and is just pesky. If he’s a really low cap hit, I’d bring him back to be depth. If it costs more than $150k, I’d be willing to walk away.

Thad: I say no, but I want to say yes. In 2024 he was a good midfield option as a sub and spot starter. In 2025 most performances were mediocre. For the price that is still not a bad deal. In the end it’s no though.

Chad: Memo looked pretty good last year and was one of the surprises of the 2024 season. He’s gotten a step slower this season and turns 30 this December. While he’s been a bargain on a league minimum deal, he hasn’t shown enough to even bring him back on those wages. He’s probably destined for the USL Championship.

Mike: He’s a veteran presence on a supplemental deal, in theory keeping him isn’t the worst idea. Not that he’s been bad overall for KC, but I’d rather see those minutes and development go to a younger player.

Josh: Memo had some great games at SKC but just doesn’t have the defensive bite in the midfield that the team desperately needs. I think it’s time to move on.

It was a little more divisive there when it came to Memo. Let’s see what we get with the next player, Erik Thommy.

Josh: Another great steward for SKC, Thommy has just been a jack of all trades, master of none type player. He never really thrived on the wing and seemed mostly solid in the central midfield. At his salary, SKC can find a younger, just as dynamic winger who can push Daniel Salloi and Shapi Suleymanov.

David: I would not re-sign Thommy unless he takes a pay cut. He’s very professional and driven, which is a great example for younger players. But his cap hit is too high for his age and performance. This doesn’t hurt as bad as JFR, but I’m very fond of the way Erik carried himself and wish he could have found more glory in KC.

Juan: Selfishly keep, but probably free him. I’ve been on record calling Thommy SKC’s best player. 2025 was rough for that take. Even before the injury, he was not playing at his best. His work rate is off the charts and though the criticism of him shooting too much is fair, someone has to shoot. Before Joveljic showed up, chance creation for this team was abysmal and at least he would charge forward. Taking on defenders 1-on-1 is also something the team needs if we plan to evolve as an offense. But it would not shock me if he returned to a lower European league, maybe even back to Germany.

Thad: Can play multiple spots but always wants to do too much. Great chaos agent, great skill when he does not have to be the hero. Age and recent injuries would be a concern at this price. Less money and less minutes? Yes… Same money and locked in starter? No.

Jough: Keep, but give him a new, cheaper contract that makes sense for his age and injury risk.

Mike: I thought I might frustrate some people here, but it actually looks like I’m in the majority, I’m okay moving on. I assume he wouldn’t get a similar deal to what he has now, which is $1.6 million in guaranteed compensation, but for much of 2026 the question has been, “where does Thommy play?” He’s grown into the wing position, but with Manu Garcia under contract, his best position is already filled. With the holes KC has in their roster, using Thommy’s TAM money elsewhere is a better use in my opinion.

Chad: Thommy is one of the better players on the team, but he makes about $1.6 million in wages and feels like a guy without a position. He’s not a #10 and he’s not a winger. This is really going to depend on how Lee wants the team to play. I personally think the money can be spent better elsewhere and Thommy can find a team better equipped to take advantage of his skill set. Thommy just turned 31 this summer, so giving a long-term contract to an aging vet is probably not a good way to spend your money.

The final player out of contract is the club’s other graduating U22 player, Robert Voloder.

Juan: Voloder has a lot of good qualities that are worth developing for the right price. You can never have too many center backs and if he can put it all together, he is worth keeping in the rotation.

David: Voloder can go. He came in with a strange background under the U22 banner and never hit. He was ok at times and he was awful at times. He outlasted Marinos Tzionis. But this was a missed U22 signing and we’re better off looking for a new CB rather than recycling a player we know doesn’t work.

Josh: Similar to Ndenbe, left-footed center backs just don’t grow on trees. However, I just haven’t seen the leap from year to year with Voloder. I think it’s time he had a fresh start away from SKC. SKC can bring in someone new and/or really push Ian James to compete at left center back.

Mike: For me it’s similar to Ndenbe, but a different way. The issue here is the fact that Voloder is entering the prime of his career and is graduating from the club friendly U22 contract. With that in mind again I’m okay moving on here. He’s been fine on a team that’s near the bottom of the league, and with someone like Miller and Ian James to build around defensively, I’m not sure there’s a spot for Voloder next year.

Jough: Move on. He’s paid a lot but a defensive liability.

Chad: I actually think Voloder has come a long way this year. He’s in a similar boat to Ndenbe as he’s coming off his U-22 Initiative designation and his $577,860 salary (and he may want a raise) will fully hit the salary budget this year. I feel like Voloder may move on, but I’d be completely fine with a CB room of him, Miller, James and a new top line starter that Lee brings in (plus at least one more guy).

Thad: I lean yes on Voloder because of work rate and effort that made up for a lot of miscues in the midfield.

The final decisions we have to make are on KC’s two players currently on loan, Alan Montes and Santiago Munoz.

Chad: Starting with Montes, we don’t fully know his wages yet, but Montes’ loan makes him a Targeted Allocation Money player. That means he’s probably at least the 2nd highest paid CB on the roster. He hasn’t shown enough to trigger his loan option.

Thad: Montes is hard to judge. He has shown some good ball movement but has also looked out of place. Only having a few games to impress after coming to team at end of summer window is not easy. Comes down to cost. As a TAM CB you would want him to start or at least be third option. Can’t teach height though… I end up arguing with myself again… I lean no though.

Josh: In his limited minutes, Montes did not impress. I would not bring him back.

Mike: After seven games, four of them being starts, I’m not convinced that it’s worth picking up the purchase option on Montes. Especially as a TAM player, which he was listed as in the roster profiles the league put out a few weeks ago.

Juan: Don’t think we’ve seen enough of him to warrant any strong opinion on whether he should stay or go. He provides an attacking threat on set pieces which is always nice, so if he stays I’m fine with it.

David: Can’t say I saw enough to make a good decision on him. If he’s not expensive, take a flier and make the loan permanent. It depends entirely on the cost.

Jough: Montes is a keep for me.

Finishing the night with another one that I think will divide us, Munoz.

Jough: He’s a keep for me too, relatively young, relatively cheap, we should definitely try to hold on to him moving forward.

Chad: Months ago, triggering Santi’s option seemed simple. If his purchase option isn’t too high, he was contributing at a rate well above any other time in his career. He just turned 23, so there is a ton of time to go to even get to his prime. It really comes down to two things. What is his purchase option? If it’s relatively small and he can be sub-TAM or a low TAM player, that feels reasonable. He absolutely can’t be a high TAM or DP on this roster. The second thing is how Lee wants his SKC team to play. Does he see a need for Munoz? It’s unclear what his best position is. If it’s as a backup striker, there is room for Dejan, Toye and Munoz, particularly if we see more two striker setups. It feels increasingly likely that Munoz doesn’t stick around.

Mike: Like Chad, if you’d have asked me a few months ago it would’ve been a resounding yes, but as the league has seen more of him and gotten more tape on him, his effectiveness has waned. If the purchase option for Munoz takes him into the TAM range it’s a resounding no for me, he’s not a TAM player.

Thad: Santi looked like he was ready to start early on. Recently he has played more wide and further back and was not as effective. Can be a good contributor and has some skill. I lean yes, depending on the cost.

Josh: Munoz had some exciting moments, but like Erik Thommy, he’s a man without a position. Is he a winger? A number 10? a Striker? Even in positionally flexible teams it’s so hard to see where Munoz fits. Still, he always seems to pick up the ball in dangerous areas and finds ways to create chances. I would sign him at his current salary, any higher would be pushing it.

Juan: I think Santi showed enough in his time on the field to warrant consideration for staying. He plays well with the other attacking players on the field and knowns how to create his own shot as well. A little more time with Dejan and Manu, and they could build something that could work.

David: Santi Munoz was a rare bright spot in a bad season. He and Joveljic were a blast to watch. I’d pick up his loan with an eye on flipping him for a profit as soon as possible to finance the rest of the rebuild.

So there you have it, our opinions on all seventeen of the players who could be gone at the end of the season. If you want a TL;DR version a chart below shows all choices. We range from me only wanting four of the seventeen back to Jough who has ten of the seventeen on his list. Where do you fall? Closer to me? Closer to Jough? Are we being too harsh? Too lenient? Comment below.