Blue Bombers add three to roster - April 2, 2024

[ModAdmin]

Blue Bombers add three to roster - April 2, 2024

WINNIPEG, MB., April 2, 2024 - The Winnipeg Blue Bombers today announce the club has signed three Americans -- offensive lineman Khalil Keith, linebacker Juan Lua and defensive back Montrae Braswell.

Keith (6-5, 314; Baylor; born: September 12, 1998, in Alpine, AL) joins the Blue Bombers after playing two games in 2023 with the Philadelphia Stars of the USFL and following a mini-camp look by the New York Giants last year. Keith played in 47 games during his college days at Baylor (2017-22) with 20 of them starts, seeing action at both left guard and right tackle.

Lua (6-0, 190; Massachusetts; born: August 15, 2001 in  Indio, CA) played safety with the Minutemen last year, registering 23 tackles, two interceptions and seven pass breakups in 12 games. He began his collegiate career at College of the Desert in 2019 and then transferred to Saddleback College in 2021 and then to UMass in 2022.

Braswell (6-0, 190, Missouri State; born: December 6, 1998 in Avon Park, FL) was a standout cornerback and kick returner for Missouri State. In 29 career games he recorded six interceptions, 25 passes defensed, two forced fumbles and 125 tackles, while as a returner he averaged 30.0 yards per return in three seasons, including touchdowns of 100, 96 and 98 yards. He signed with Kansas City following the 2023 NFL Draft, and later spent brief time with the Seahawks during training camp last season.

[Blueforlife]

Braswell sounds like one to watch

[kkc60]

Braswell looks very interesting, Lua looks like a halfback and Keith should bring some more nice competition for the RT position

[theaardvark]

How many of these signings will actually attend training camp will be interesting to see.  There are a lot of interesting prospects, for sure.  How many will survive rookie camp or even the first few weeks, and how many will end up having both enough interest in the CFL and enough interest from our staff to stick on the PR will say a lot for the coming seasons. 

Our recruiting has been a huge strength of the team, narrowly followed by our coaches ability to refine diamonds in the rough.  Can you imagine if we were allowed to keep all our developed players, even for one more year.

Darned SMS.

Maybe its time to expand the "cheating" zone a little more.  Instead of a hard cap at $300k over, double it.  Up to $200k, dollar match penalty, up to $400k, double match.  $600k, triple.  Send those funds to the "poorer" teams, as long as they spend to within 5% of the cap.  Maybe even link it to draft picks... so teams that trade away draft picks give up some of their shared SMS.  Make the draft more important and draft picks even more valuable.

[TecnoGenius]

Maybe its time to expand the "cheating" zone a little more.  Instead of a hard cap at $300k over, double it.  Up to $200k, dollar match penalty, up to $400k, double match.  $600k, triple.  Send those funds to the "poorer" teams, as long as they spend to within 5% of the cap.  Maybe even link it to draft picks... so teams that trade away draft picks give up some of their shared SMS.  Make the draft more important and draft picks even more valuable.

As much as I'd love it as it would help mostly WPG, it probably wouldn't be good for the league.  Even if the money goes to poorer teams, if it doesn't raise their SMS also, it doesn't help to make their teams better, just their rich owners lose less money.

I think our other ideas, about tying extra-SMS space to other goals of the league/CFLPA, are the real winning possibilities.  Like the graduated 10% per-year-above-3-years-with-same-team outside-the-SMS bonus money.  Better same-team player retention, better aging-vet protection (a lot of their $ could be outside the SMS).  But that's for another thread...

[theaardvark]

As much as I'd love it as it would help mostly WPG, it probably wouldn't be good for the league.  Even if the money goes to poorer teams, if it doesn't raise their SMS also, it doesn't help to make their teams better, just their rich owners lose less money.

I think our other ideas, about tying extra-SMS space to other goals of the league/CFLPA, are the real winning possibilities.  Like the graduated 10% per-year-above-3-years-with-same-team outside-the-SMS bonus money.  Better same-team player retention, better aging-vet protection (a lot of their $ could be outside the SMS).  But that's for another thread...

Yes, player retention outside the $SMS that is capped at an ampount per player and per team is the absolute best scenario, as well as an RFA offer sheet match option for players coming off ELC's.  A little more paperwork, but a lot better continuity.  We might have kept players like Houston if that was in place.
 

[Blue In BC]

Yes, player retention outside the $SMS that is capped at an ampount per player and per team is the absolute best scenario, as well as an RFA offer sheet match option for players coming off ELC's.  A little more paperwork, but a lot better continuity.  We might have kept players like Houston if that was in place.
 

I disagree. The SMS could be $10M and we'd still be saying the same thing. You can't find bend around the rules to circumvent the SMS. Whether that is a " franchise player" designation or some other version of creating exceptions to the normal SMS, makes no sense.

A team that is very cash rich can still use that to their advantage. That's the opposite of an SMS trying to create an equal playing field.

[TecnoGenius]

A team that is very cash rich can still use that to their advantage. That's the opposite of an SMS trying to create an equal playing field.

I think the teams cry "poor" but if they have extra SMS or special retention carve-outs I can guarantee they'd all spend to the limit.  ("Receivership"-style teams like MTL a few years ago excluded.)

And remember, the poor teams get the transfer payments from the rich teams as of a couple of seasons ago.

No current team would balk at or cry if we instituted an outside-the-SMS retention bonus scheme that cost them another $250k say.

Many players would still be here if we had such a thing I envisioned.  Add Jeffcoat to that list.  We could pay him ELC in the SMS and give him a $30k non-SMS retention bonus for 6-3=3 years above 3 years @ $10k each.  Or maybe make it $15k x3 = $45k would sound a bit juicier.  They wouldn't automatically earn it, nor would it have to be the max $ allowed, it would just be an option teams could use/spend to retain good, fan-favorite, but aging/IR-prone, talent.

And it only applies to same-team players (not just any vets, and especially not team-hopping Muambas).

What that would do is incentivize vet longevity (a stated CFLPA goal), and boost retention (i.e. reduce churn, another stated goal) by give retaining-teams an unfair advantage over steal-away teams (allowing us to keep more players after GC appearances).  In concrete terms, such a thing would possibly have allowed us, this FA, to keep Jeffcoat, Gray, Bailey.  And allow nice bonuses for guys like Biggie if we wanted to do the players a solid.  Wouldn't have helped with Houston or Walker as they each have only 3 years with us.

Just a thought... I still haven't seen a better answer, and none of the things the CFL has come up with to date have done squat for either longevity nor same-team retention.

I would also like to see the ability to put starters/stars on the PR (or a brand new roster) where they can earn their negotiated salary while on it, and be protected from sniping.  It's really lame teams have to fake stuff sometimes to hide those guys on the IR(s).  I envision kind of like a "we like you but this new TC guy might be better so we want to test drive him for 5 weeks but we need you here as the backup (but not dressed) in case this rookie is a dud".  There would be no SMS relief while the player is on it.

[Blue In BC]

I think the teams cry "poor" but if they have extra SMS or special retention carve-outs I can guarantee they'd all spend to the limit.  ("Receivership"-style teams like MTL a few years ago excluded.)

And remember, the poor teams get the transfer payments from the rich teams as of a couple of seasons ago.

No current team would balk at or cry if we instituted an outside-the-SMS retention bonus scheme that cost them another $250k say.

Many players would still be here if we had such a thing I envisioned.  Add Jeffcoat to that list.  We could pay him ELC in the SMS and give him a $30k non-SMS retention bonus for 6-3=3 years above 3 years @ $10k each.  Or maybe make it $15k x3 = $45k would sound a bit juicier.  They wouldn't automatically earn it, nor would it have to be the max $ allowed, it would just be an option teams could use/spend to retain good, fan-favorite, but aging/IR-prone, talent.

And it only applies to same-team players (not just any vets, and especially not team-hopping Muambas).

What that would do is incentivize vet longevity (a stated CFLPA goal), and boost retention (i.e. reduce churn, another stated goal) by give retaining-teams an unfair advantage over steal-away teams (allowing us to keep more players after GC appearances).  In concrete terms, such a thing would possibly have allowed us, this FA, to keep Jeffcoat, Gray, Bailey.  And allow nice bonuses for guys like Biggie if we wanted to do the players a solid.  Wouldn't have helped with Houston or Walker as they each have only 3 years with us.

Just a thought... I still haven't seen a better answer, and none of the things the CFL has come up with to date have done squat for either longevity nor same-team retention.

I would also like to see the ability to put starters/stars on the PR (or a brand new roster) where they can earn their negotiated salary while on it, and be protected from sniping.  It's really lame teams have to fake stuff sometimes to hide those guys on the IR(s).  I envision kind of like a "we like you but this new TC guy might be better so we want to test drive him for 5 weeks but we need you here as the backup (but not dressed) in case this rookie is a dud".  There would be no SMS relief while the player is on it.

I think it's a silly argument and a version of one you always promote. Some work around. The total is the total. If you save some SMS / use this extra differently, then every team has that advantage.

Not every veteran changes teams but some high cost players will still leave.

You're examples:

Jeffcoat wasn't picked up by any other team. Injury history and age came into play as well as SMS.

Gray essentially retired

Bailey left for a chance of a bigger role as well as money. He wasn't going to be a # 1 to # 3 target in Winnipeg because of our starters.

EDIT: If we're going to " new " ways to spend more then pick one or more of the following:

1. Increase the SMS
2. Increase the roster size ( 4 ) would be my suggestion. 2 Canadians and 2 imports.
3. Add some sort of restricted free agency via draft choices or neg list based on years spent with a given team and nationality.

Noting that every professional sports team loses veteran players regardless of how high their SMS is set. IIRC, the NFL has a $255M usd cap and they are making the same choices about players that are aging, have injury history or price themselves off a given roster.

Rosters are dynamic everywhere.

[theaardvark]

The key to these propositions is not that they increase the $SMS, just increasing the $SMS would not change player retention at all, and it would just get spent and raise salaries across the board.

Player retention non-$SMS budget serves the exact same purpose as RFA in the NHL, or the max contract clause in the NBA.  It gives teams the ability to retain players by having an advantage in bidding for them. 

All teams would have the same outside the $SMS budget, the amount any team can offer one player would be limited to a % of the base contract, it would be considered a "Bonus" from a tax / game cheque perspective, and there would be a maximum total they can use.

This is, in effect, an $SMS increase, but with an intention to allow teams/players to incentivize loyalty.  It would not stop a team from vastly overpaying to "buy"  a player from another team, but it would allow an "all things equal" situation to sway to the player staying.

They have already started in this direction, allowing multiyear contract renewals to include guaranteed money in the subsequent year.. this just takes that a little further, without the risk of guaranteeing money to a player that might get injured or even retire.

[Blue In BC]

The key to these propositions is not that they increase the $SMS, just increasing the $SMS would not change player retention at all, and it would just get spent and raise salaries across the board.

Player retention non-$SMS budget serves the exact same purpose as RFA in the NHL, or the max contract clause in the NBA.  It gives teams the ability to retain players by having an advantage in bidding for them. 

All teams would have the same outside the $SMS budget, the amount any team can offer one player would be limited to a % of the base contract, it would be considered a "Bonus" from a tax / game cheque perspective, and there would be a maximum total they can use.

This is, in effect, an $SMS increase, but with an intention to allow teams/players to incentivize loyalty.  It would not stop a team from vastly overpaying to "buy"  a player from another team, but it would allow an "all things equal" situation to sway to the player staying.

They have already started in this direction, allowing multiyear contract renewals to include guaranteed money in the subsequent year.. this just takes that a little further, without the risk of guaranteeing money to a player that might get injured or even retire.

Nope, nope and nope. Even a player with guaranteed money can be traded to another team willing to accept that guarantee.

Want player retention? Eliminate NFL option and 1 year contracts for veterans. Both made player retention more difficult. We understand why players want that but it's also the reason we so many potential free agents each off season. Going into 2024 there were 300 more or less potential free agents.

Somebody can do a count ( if they want ) of how many of those were veterans on 1 year deals and / or how many changed teams.

These concepts work against each other. The benefits of either can be debated.

[Throw Long Bannatyne]

I think the teams cry "poor" but if they have extra SMS or special retention carve-outs I can guarantee they'd all spend to the limit.  ("Receivership"-style teams like MTL a few years ago excluded.)

And remember, the poor teams get the transfer payments from the rich teams as of a couple of seasons ago.

No current team would balk at or cry if we instituted an outside-the-SMS retention bonus scheme that cost them another $250k say.

Many players would still be here if we had such a thing I envisioned.  Add Jeffcoat to that list.  We could pay him ELC in the SMS and give him a $30k non-SMS retention bonus for 6-3=3 years above 3 years @ $10k each.  Or maybe make it $15k x3 = $45k would sound a bit juicier.  They wouldn't automatically earn it, nor would it have to be the max $ allowed, it would just be an option teams could use/spend to retain good, fan-favorite, but aging/IR-prone, talent.

And it only applies to same-team players (not just any vets, and especially not team-hopping Muambas).

What that would do is incentivize vet longevity (a stated CFLPA goal), and boost retention (i.e. reduce churn, another stated goal) by give retaining-teams an unfair advantage over steal-away teams (allowing us to keep more players after GC appearances).  In concrete terms, such a thing would possibly have allowed us, this FA, to keep Jeffcoat, Gray, Bailey.  And allow nice bonuses for guys like Biggie if we wanted to do the players a solid.  Wouldn't have helped with Houston or Walker as they each have only 3 years with us.

Just a thought... I still haven't seen a better answer, and none of the things the CFL has come up with to date have done squat for either longevity nor same-team retention.

I would also like to see the ability to put starters/stars on the PR (or a brand new roster) where they can earn their negotiated salary while on it, and be protected from sniping.  It's really lame teams have to fake stuff sometimes to hide those guys on the IR(s).  I envision kind of like a "we like you but this new TC guy might be better so we want to test drive him for 5 weeks but we need you here as the backup (but not dressed) in case this rookie is a dud".  There would be no SMS relief while the player is on it.

I could be mistaken, but I believe the only teams currently making a profit are the Bombers and the Riders, so this wouldn't be a good time to make adjustments to the salary cap rules.  Maybe if some of the recent initiatives into gambling and expanded broadcasting rights pay future dividends the CFL will finally attain some level of stability and can stop worrying about teams folding.  Wouldn't that be a nice turn of events.

[Blue In BC]

Roster is filling out but we've also got mini camps at the end of the month. I'd guess we'll still be adding another 12 rookies or so before TC. The question is how many of the rookies now signed get released before TC or decide to not show up. There are always a few of those in each city.

Then there are the 10 Canadian draft choices and 2 global draft choices to be made.

A few rookies currently signed sound like good candidates and there are some roster openings.

I don't know if a guy like Braswell will make the roster. However a DB that can return and be on the AR as a DI saves a DI spot. That's if he's good enough to fill both roles above average.

That said, I'm still hoping we get Grant back but that's a TBD at the moment. Whether we have a specific player as a returner or one that is a back up at DB or receiver is just a question and / or possibility.

 

[Throw Long Bannatyne]

Roster is filling out but we've also got mini camps at the end of the month. I'd guess we'll still be adding another 12 rookies or so before TC. The question is how many of the rookies now signed get released before TC or decide to not show up. There are always a few of those in each city.

Then there are the 10 Canadian draft choices and 2 global draft choices to be made.

A few rookies currently signed sound like good candidates and there are some roster openings.

I don't know if a guy like Braswell will make the roster. However a DB that can return and be on the AR as a DI saves a DI spot. That's if he's good enough to fill both roles above average.

That said, I'm still hoping we get Grant back but that's a TBD at the moment. Whether we have a specific player as a returner or one that is a back up at DB or receiver is just a question and / or possibility.

 

I think Walters really intended to re-sign Grant, but this has gone on far too long to feel comfortable with, they need to get this done pronto. Won't be good if they have to rely on a mediocre returner, it puts them in a field position disadvantage any time the other team has a better returner.  Saw that enough last season.

[kkc60]

I think Walters really intended to re-sign Grant, but this has gone on far too long to feel comfortable with, they need to get this done pronto. Won't be good if they have to rely on a mediocre returner, it puts them in a field position disadvantage any time the other team has a better returner.  Saw that enough last season.

Well I would hope better guys have been brought in this time around for the KR/PR role. A few guys look like they could be good. Last season the Bombers were caught with absolutely no backup plan for Grant. This year that does not appear to be the case