This is true but it's also logical. Most of those went:

1) Cheap, young player signs with club
2) Player grows to be an integral part of the team with high upside
3) Foreign interest
4) Club turns down, replacement cost is higher than value of sale
5) Player loses form

1/ https://twitter.com/MattDoyle76/status/1194654569747365888

6) Value drops, interest gone.

Scally and Richards don't break this because they were sold before they were really in the roster at all. Progress, something DC wishes they did with Durkin, but not breaking the model.

Let's use Murillo as an example of the model.

2/

Murillo had an All-Star year and was a top back on one of the best teams in the league. He's also on a $60k contract.

There's interest in Europe in the $2m range.

If RBNY sold, after MLS takes their cut, RBNY would get $750k GAM and a few hundred more in cash.

3/

In order to replace, they'd likely have to pay a team a sizeable fee say $1m (Adnan for Van was $3m). So all of your surplus on sale is gone.

Also the new player is going to make more than Murillo's $60k, so you're going to have to use your TAM resources to buy down.

Or you can roll the dice and trust your number 2 to step in - Duncan. It's a risk, especially in a year where trophies are possible. So RBNY doesn't sell (logical).

Murillo gets disgruntled (also logical) and form drops. Duncan takes his spot.

Murillo likely to leave w/o fee.

So how does this change? The rules have to change in order for clubs to feel the value they get is greater than the replacement fee.

1) end MLS cuts of sales

2) give clubs option to turn cash into GAM up to $5m (up from $750k)

$5m in GAM would give a club a huuuge competitive advantage. It would mean you could turn your #4 and #5 roster spots to DP level players.

But without the rule change, I don't think we'll see a massive shift in behavior.