I'm just chock (not chalk) full of questions today. This one popped because of a mention of Torres and his place in the US squad at ESPN's US Men's National Team blog (subscription required, sorry).

The post essentially states that Torres needs to prove himself a little more before we can expect Bob Bradley to throw him into another big US game (remember his last appearance, at Saprissa?). I'm a fan of Torres, and there have been spots this year where I had hope Bradley would use him, but perhaps it is a little too early. The kid is only twenty-one, and it's might be a little presumptuous of us to assume he's truly ready to contribute on the international stage.

But that's not why I'm here.

Instead, the question of Torres' place in the squad actually has me pondering another question: Does Bob Bradley, or US Soccer for that matter, owe something to Jose Francisco Torres?

I should probably frame the question better. When I ask if Bradley/US Soccer owes something to Torres, I'm specifically referring to the player's decision to don the Red, White and Blue (or white and a slightly different white, I suppose) of the US over the green of El Tri. Getting Torres, a young player full of potential, to commit his international career to the United States was no small feat; the initial impulse, at least on the part of many fans, is to want to reward him for that decision. That desire is absolutely amplified by the fact that his other option was our most hated rivals, of course, and we were rightfully thankful for his decision.

But Torres' decision was only possible due to a matter of circumstance; just because he threw in his lot with the nation of his birth rather than that of his father doesn't mean he should automatically walk into the team. Torres' talent is undeniable, and I'm sure he'll get his chance to show it in a big US match at some point in the future; but for now, while we're thankful for his loyalty, we should realize that it might just not be his time.

The issue of dual-nationality and choosing a side is a sticky one, especially when it comes down to the Yanks and El Tri. The passion here doesn't measure up to that of Mexico, and so young players often feel more pressure from the southern side than they do the northern. For that reason, Torres' decision is groundbreaking, and should be seen as such, no matter his contributions to the US on any meaningful level.

It's possible that my efforts to separate the player's skill from the question at hand have failed, and that I'm confusing the issue even more. I really just wanted to throw it out there to you, to see if there might be a consensus. If Torres was ready-for-prime-time right now, none of this would have even come up; but because he is just on the periphery, still growing and maturing but not yet a solid contributor, we have to ask the question.

Bob Bradley's job is to win games. I have no doubts, no matter the concerns over his competence, that he does everything he can to put the United States in a position to win each and every time they take the field. If Jose Francisco Torres is not a player to be relied upon quite yet, or is one whose inclusion in place of someone else would make the team weaker, than Bradley is doing the right thing no matter the sense of debt we as fans might have.

The bottom line is that playing time should not be a reward for choosing to declare for the United States.

Maybe I've gone off in the wrong direction, and so I'll end with this: Do you think, if you are one of the people who has been calling for Torres to play, that part of your feeling is based on that aforementioned sense of debt? It's possible that some haven't even examined our feelings enough to have realized that it might be a factor.