Blue Bombers Forum

Should this policy be changed?

Someone's FIRED up! :D

Well if a $600K player with no bonus is injured in TC and lost for the season, his entire salary is exempt from the SMS.

If that same player in the same circumstance had a $300K signing bonus only the balance of $300K would be exempt under the current rule.

That makes zero sense IMO. The early money is done to create an advantage to the player via a tax savings. It isn't necessary to create a risk for the team if a long term injury occurs at some point during the season.

If one of us gets a large bonus at the end of the year, it's part of our annual income tax. Revenue Canada doesn't care what week you earned it aside from within that given tax year.

1. You won't find a $600K player without a bonus & it's likely going to be a big one. 
2. Everyone knows that bonus money isn't exempt from the SMS if a player gets injured & teams still give out bonuses.
3. If the CFL were to exempt bonus money, it would only help the rich teams.

It's a bad idea.  

Quote from: TBURGESS on June 21, 2024, 10:24:16 PM1. You won't find a $600K player without a bonus & it's likely going to be a big one.
2. Everyone knows that bonus money isn't exempt from the SMS if a player gets injured & teams still give out bonuses.
3. If the CFL were to exempt bonus money, it would only help the rich teams.

It's a bad idea. 

How would it help rich teams if the bonus rule was not exempt from the SMS? I gave a specific example, can you provide an example to clarify?

That fact every team gives out bonus's isn't really an argument IMO. It's just part of the current situation as I suggested to give an advantage to the player to end up with more money in his pocket.

Quote from: Blue In BC on June 21, 2024, 10:28:04 PMHow would it help rich teams if the bonus rule was not exempt from the SMS? I gave a specific example, can you provide an example to clarify?

You need to have the 'extra' $300K sitting around to be able to spend it.  

Quote from: TBURGESS on June 21, 2024, 10:29:18 PMYou need to have the 'extra' $300K sitting around to be able to spend it. 

Players are injured every season on every team. Every team spends to the SMS every season. Two teams over spent in 2023 including the Bombers.

A rich team may be one with a billionaire owner or one that is run well. It varies over time as to which team is a rich team.

Several teams lose money trying to be competitive. That's true of privately owned and community owned teams.

Teams that are losing tend to lose gate revenue and possibly have less advertising revenue.

A wishful goal for the CFL is for teams to make a profit. I'd say things like the SMS is intended to make them as competitive as possible.

Now how a team comes up with $300K is somewhat irrelevant. Whether it comes from an organizations deep pockets or a weekend bottle drive.

The bigger question is where and when the issue comes up. Once the season starts and free agency has passed, options are limited.

Where do you find the replacement for a lost $600K player whether he had a bonus or didn't have a bonus.

Using a more specific example: Lawler: Even if his bonus was exempt, where would we find an equal replacement with the extra cash?

You're arguing for an undetermined amount of money to be added to the SMS to replace hurt players who have bonuses. It's undetermined because you have no idea of which players are going to get hurt, so how do you plan for the expenditures? 

It does matter if the team is rich or poor. Poor teams will have trouble adding $300-500K to their SMS. Rich teams won't. 

Quote from: TBURGESS on June 21, 2024, 10:51:52 PMYou're arguing for an undetermined amount of money to be added to the SMS to replace hurt players who have bonuses. It's undetermined because you have no idea of which players are going to get hurt, so how do you plan for the expenditures?

It does matter if the team is rich or poor. Poor teams will have trouble adding $300-500K to their SMS. Rich teams won't.

It's not an undetermined amount. It's the amount of any bonus that is paid if a player is injured.

Of course you can't determine which players are injured or when. Whether the bonus is pro rated or not, the cost of the injury list can be extensive. My point is that it's an operational cost and should be an SMS cost.

I already pointed out that a 6 game IR is exempt from SMS with the mention of both with a bonus and without.

Going back to the rich team or poor team argument. I pointed out that every team spends the SMS regardless of what the cost of their yearly injury list.

Anyone know how the NFL handles this?

That's not difficult to understand IMO.

EDIT: Here's something from the NFL rules.

If a player has a legitimate long-term injury, his cap hit is still counted; however, the team is permitted to replace him with one or more players whose combined salary is equal to (or less than) that of the injured player, even if the additional players would put the team over the salary cap.

How many times do different people need to explain why it's a bad idea?

Quote from: Blue In BC on June 21, 2024, 11:06:10 PMIt's not an undetermined amount. It's the amount of any bonus that is paid if a player is injured.

Of course you can't determine which players are injured or when. Whether the bonus is pro rated or not, the cost of the injury list can be extensive. My point is that it's an operational cost and should be an SMS cost.

I already pointed out that a 6 game IR is exempt from SMS with the mention of both with a bonus and without.

Going back to the rich team or poor team argument. I pointed out that every team spends the SMS regardless of what the cost of their yearly injury list.

Anyone know how the NFL handles this?

That's not difficult to understand IMO.

EDIT: Here's something from the NFL rules.

If a player has a legitimate long-term injury, his cap hit is still counted; however, the team is permitted to replace him with one or more players whose combined salary is equal to (or less than) that of the injured player, even if the additional players would put the team over the salary cap.

You know how many of the Bonused players will be injured? Of course not, so you can't know the amount. 

Lets try this another way. Say there are 10 players with $100K bonuses on the team. All of them get injured. You now have to come up an extra million dollars for your SMS. If only one gets injured, you have to come up with $100K. 

Quote from: Sir Blue and Gold on June 22, 2024, 05:04:17 AMHow many times do different people need to explain why it's a bad idea?

More than have. The rules are changing all the time. Will this change? Can't tell but it doesn't appear on the horizon at this point. That doesn't mean something won't happen in time.

While a 4 tie doesn't mean anything written in stone one way or the other, it does mean not everybody disagrees.

Quote from: TBURGESS on June 22, 2024, 02:15:06 PMYou know how many of the Bonused players will be injured? Of course not, so you can't know the amount.

Lets try this another way. Say there are 10 players with $100K bonuses on the team. All of them get injured. You now have to come up an extra million dollars for your SMS. If only one gets injured, you have to come up with $100K.

So 10 players sign those deals a week before free agency. The next day they are in a bus crash on the way to a hockey game and lost for the season.

You think it's fair that the team has to play with an SMS reduced by $1M? You think they won't go out in free agency and find the best player replacements as possible. Shouldn't they be allowed to do that or should they just default their season?

Obviously that's an extreme example but shows the flaw in the concept.

BTW. In your example, if those players are lost for the season or an extended amount, they know exactly how much SMS was used to pay bonus's. Whether a player is injured for 6 games or 18 games. At some point they know the number.

We've seen players lost for the season before TC or during TC. 

Regardless. Whether they know the amount or when they know the amount, it potentially limits a teams ability to compete.

Lets use Collaros as the example. I don't know his exact salary or early money. Let's say he got $300K and was lost for the season due to an injury last night. We'd gain back the other half on 6 game IR but would still lose that $300K

Shouldn't the team be allowed to " have " that money to try and trade for a quality back up to take over. The alternative, is that the SMS budget is spent and we just add in a rookie on an ELC.

Now we wouldn't find another $600K QB but money could be spent on other spots on the roster as well.

Quote from: Blue In BC on June 22, 2024, 02:58:34 PMSo 10 players sign those deals a week before free agency. The next day they are in a bus crash on the way to a hockey game and lost for the season.

You think it's fair that the team has to play with an SMS reduced by $1M? You think they won't go out in free agency and find the best player replacements as possible. Shouldn't they be allowed to do that or should they just default their season?

Obviously that's an extreme example but shows the flaw in the concept.

BTW. In your example, if those players are lost for the season or an extended amount, they know exactly how much SMS was used to pay bonus's. Whether a player is injured for 6 games or 18 games. At some point they know the number.

We've seen players lost for the season before TC or during TC. 

Regardless. Whether they know the amount or when they know the amount, it potentially limits a teams ability to compete.

Lets use Collaros as the example. I don't know his exact salary or early money. Let's say he got $300K and was lost for the season due to an injury last night. We'd gain back the other half on 6 game IR but would still lose that $300K

Shouldn't the team be allowed to " have " that money to try and trade for a quality back up to take over. The alternative, is that the SMS budget is spent and we just add in a rookie on an ELC.

Now we wouldn't find another $600K QB but money could be spent on other spots on the roster as well.

Yes I think it's fair because everyone involved knows the risk of paying out bonuses & every team has to play under the same rules. It's not a flaw. It's the way it's designed to work. 

It's not a matter of being fair just because it applies to each team. The SMS is designed to create a level playing field. This hampers it. Rules need to be cumulative to achieve that goal.

I've suggested that signing bonus's not be allowed. That keeps the playing field level. If they did that would it be " fair " because that's the way it was intended to work?

Teams are allowed to use unused SMS to carry over into the next season as year end bonus money. I'm not against that and it's where some of the saving from 6 game IR get used. OTOH, I could just as easily agree that SMS shouldn't carry over to the next season. Or conversely that bonus money paid to injured players be pro rated would be used.

I wonder when the SMS rule was extended to allow it to be spent at year end?

Quote from: Blue In BC on June 22, 2024, 04:13:26 PMIt's not a matter of being fair just because it applies to each team. The SMS is designed to create a level playing field. This hampers it. Rules need to be cumulative to achieve that goal.

I've suggested that signing bonus's not be allowed. That keeps the playing field level. If they did that would it be " fair " because that's the way it was intended to work?

Teams are allowed to use unused SMS to carry over into the next season as year end bonus money. I'm not against that and it's where some of the saving from 6 game IR get used. OTOH, I could just as easily agree that SMS shouldn't carry over to the next season. Or conversely that bonus money paid to injured players be pro rated would be used.

I wonder when the SMS rule was extended to allow it to be spent at year end?

Every team has the same rules = level playing field. 

It works the way it was always intended to work. Each team decides how much risk they are willing to take with bonuses & offer contracts based on that risk assessment. 

Teams can't carry over SMS savings. They can use the saving up before year end by paying bonuses out of that years SMS. 

Quote from: TBURGESS on June 22, 2024, 04:21:36 PMEvery team has the same rules = level playing field.

It works the way it was always intended to work. Each team decides how much risk they are willing to take with bonuses & offer contracts based on that risk assessment.

Teams can't carry over SMS savings. They can use the saving up before year end by paying bonuses out of that years SMS.

That's what I said about the carry over of the SMS before year end. It's still money used from one season to the next. The season is over after the playoffs. It could be argued that any balance shouldn't be allowed to be used up. It's the current rule, so teams use it. It doesn't mean that this or other rules shouldn't be adjusted. Ratio, roster size, global designations, Nationalized Americans are all changes to the rules.

Yes, every team has the same rules and therefore it's somewhat of a level playing field. There are no absolutes to ensure that with is rule. It would be just as fair if the rule was changed to what I suggested.

It's irrelevant that each team decides their own risk. That's no different than deciding to pay a top player $250K - $600K which results in losing other players. It's all risk assessment trying to fit within the SMS whatever the rules allow or don't allow.

You spoke of " fair ".

I don't remember the exact amount of Chad Kelly's signing bonus but think it was $250K - $300K or about half of his new deal.

Also need to find when he was suspended for a minimum 9 games and possibly the entire season.

So that minimum amount of $250K would be a $125K SMS hit for 9 games. If it's the season, it's $250K+ SMS hit.

Is that fair to the Argos? In signing that deal, they had to not re-sign other top players like Pickett.

Yes it's fair to the Argos. They knew how bonus money worked when they offered it. Kelly could have been injured in TC & it would have worked out the same.

You obviously can't be convinced.  I'm done.

Quote from: TBURGESS on June 22, 2024, 06:38:47 PMYes it's fair to the Argos. They knew how bonus money worked when they offered it. Kelly could have been injured in TC & it would have worked out the same.

You obviously can't be convinced.  I'm done.

You can't be either but that's the nature of a discussion forum.  Kelly was not injured in TC so that " risk " was not one that might not have been foreseen BTW.  Other examples Durant retiring after taking a $70K advance. Lawler missing 6 games due to a legal issue. There are all sorts of exceptions.

I'd be interested to hear more from other posters, either for or against. Clearly this is not something everyone is in agreement. It's been something only the 2 of us are debating our position.

Need more votes to support either position.

Quote from: TBURGESS on June 22, 2024, 02:15:06 PMYou know how many of the Bonused players will be injured? Of course not, so you can't know the amount.

Lets try this another way. Say there are 10 players with $100K bonuses on the team. All of them get injured. You now have to come up an extra million dollars for your SMS. If only one gets injured, you have to come up with $100K.

You're saying "because you can't know" the injuries ahead of time, it opens up a "poor" team to massive extra cost.

But your argument also could be used against any 6GIR SMS relief at all!  Are you suggesting that?

You're caught up on bonus money, which is often only 0%, 25%, or 50% of a player salary.  You're really adamant teams can't afford SMS relief on bonus money.  But you ignore that teams have massive additional expenditures by getting any SMS relief at all! 

If a team were to pay no bonuses at all, and it was all salary, the end result would be exactly the same as what BinBC (and I) are proposing!  Would it be ok then?  In that case they'd still have massive outside-the-cap "real world" OOP expenditures that cannot be predicted.  "Poor" teams may still suffer.

So it's really only a matter of degree.  And we're actually arguing over very small amounts, usually, because only the great players get sizable bonuses.  And random chance says that just as many no-bonus ELCs will get injured as high-bonus superstars.  And who are you (or I) to pick the degree that is acceptable vs unaffordable?

If the main battle cry is "poor teams cannot afford unpredictable OOP costs" then there should be no SMS relief for any injury, because by definition injuries are unpredictable.

Do you really think poor teams will be "smart" enough to try to pay the players with as much bonus money as possible, because then when injuries occur they only have to pay the replacement less?  I'm pretty sure no GM has ever thought this way.  Every last one of them wants to be able to replace an injured Kenny with a Kenny, not an Ambles.  They only cry "poor" when the CFL "profit sharing" cheques come rolling around.

Quote from: TBURGESS on June 21, 2024, 10:51:52 PMIt does matter if the team is rich or poor. Poor teams will have trouble adding $300-500K to their SMS. Rich teams won't.

Is there any proof of this?  If this was true, then the poorest of poor teams wouldn't even spend to the cap limit.  Have we ever heard of a team spending $500k less than cap?  I haven't.

Teams aren't "people".  We don't have to feel sorry for one because they are "poor".  Many of the "poorest" are owned by millionaires.

Quote from: TBURGESS on June 22, 2024, 03:45:21 PMYes I think it's fair because everyone involved knows the risk of paying out bonuses & every team has to play under the same rules. It's not a flaw. It's the way it's designed to work.

I don't think there is any intelligent design whatsoever to the issue of bonus money on 6GIR.  I think it just happened organically as USA tax laws evolved, and CFL GMs figured out a supposed advantage.

No one @CFL sat down and was like "let's (in effect) penalize bonus money for X or Y reasons".

Yes, everyone knows the risk involved, but until you're bit by it badly, maybe you never thought much about it.

You can probably build actuarial tables on CFL player injuries and effects on costs, and I'm sure the best teams have done so.  It probably stays pretty constant (except for the 2022 mystery achilles).

The problem only gets recognized when a single team has a 3-standard deviation rash of injuries, and a further 5-sigma event in that it's all their highest-paid players.

Here's my main argument in favor of getting bonus money relief:

We're letting the vagaries of USA tax law dictate the outcome on the field of our CFL game.  Since many of you are USA-haters (not me!), surely that rubs you the wrong way?  Even if you like the USA, it's really lame to support this notion.  We are an independent people and an independent league.

We literally wouldn't be having this conversation if the USA had no favorable tax status for bonus money!  Because then not a single GM would give a signing bonus, or at least not big ones!  We give them one because, from the player's perspective, $100k becomes $80k in their pocket instead of $60k (making numbers up but you get the general idea).  By giving them the bonus we are effectively paying them $20k more without any SMS hit!!

Yes, that's the way it currently works: dems da rulz.  And yes, all GMs know this.  But it doesn't have to be this way and I can see no cogent argument as to why it should be this way other than "we never really thought about it", or "that's the way it's always been".

If you are really that worried about costs, reduce the cap.  Then average 6GIR expenditures can be factored in to team budgets based on actuarial tables, and no one can cry "poor".  Or, for a novel idea, have the entire league run a 6GIR insurance fund that all teams get the "real world" OOP money from to sign other players due to 6GIR.  That would be great because whilst 1 or 2 teams may experience greater than normal injuries, the league as a whole should not, year to year (excluding 2022).  That would solve the "unpredictable extra cost" problem instantly because all teams would pay into the fund a fixed cost every season.  It would actually provide way more protection to "poor" teams than any other proposal.

I will point out that this whole idea is self-serving because now we're the team that is getting killed by the injury bug.  And that's ok, why would we think about this when it's our rivals SSK getting hosed in 2022, or TOR "getting their just deserts" with Kelly.  Easy to laugh at them.  Hard to laugh at ourselves.

That's human nature, and that's ok.

Maybe we can bring the previously-aggrieved parties (other team fans) to the table since they understand the pain and don't want to get bitten by it in the future either.  Create a value proposition for the whole league.

Remember how completely unreasonable injury rates in SSK basically took them from WDF contenders to basement dwellers?  Yes, they sucked for other reasons too, but it's clear from our current situation that no team can excel when out of SMS and getting down to their last TC cuts as cannon fodder.

Many teams are being hit by the injury bug. Lawler is the only one for us that had any significant amount of bonus money and is injured. So that's not a direct result of our problems. The reality is that even if the bonus money counted against SMS ( pro rated due to injury ), where would we spend it for find a replacement?

That wasn't really the point of my argument. I just see the rule as pointless. The fact we " know the risks " doesn't make it right and I see no benefit in how it's written.

The American players like the idea of getting more money in their pockets due to the tax rule. It should be a win win for both sides with no additional risk involved.

Football already has enough risk involved as a sport.

I know I said I was out, but I was asked a direct question:

No, I'm not suggesting the 6 game IR SMS relief should be gone. That's a strawman argument.

No, I'm not 'caught up' in bonus money. Bonus money is the whole point of the discussion.

The salary management system is to manage salaries, to give teams a good idea on what they will have to spend on salaries.  Adding an undetermined amount of money to the SMS is the antithesis of what the SMS is.

It's not just Americans who like to get bonus money. Bonus money is guaranteed, the rest of the salary could go away at any time. 

Do you think that teams will even be able to find good to great players to replace their injured players if they have extra more money to pay them? Are there any $500K QB's out there just waiting for a CFL team to call in the off season for instance? I don't think so.

What any player gets is part of his salary. Whether he gets it for reporting to TC or on a weekly basis, it's the total amount.

It's sheltered from the SMS on 6 game IR. It's not unreasonable to pro rate the contract year into an 18 game season.

No, you can't find another $500K QB that was injured that had a 50% advance before TC. At best if that happened you might have more of a balance at year end to use to re-sign players before free agency.

Quote from: Blue In BC on June 23, 2024, 04:50:44 PMWhat any player gets is part of his salary. Whether he gets it for reporting to TC or on a weekly basis, it's the total amount.

It's sheltered from the SMS on 6 game IR. It's not unreasonable to pro rate the contract year into an 18 game season.

No, you can't find another $500K QB that was injured that had a 50% advance before TC. At best if that happened you might have more of a balance at year end to use to re-sign players before free agency.

So you're actually suggesting that the CFL makes a change to reward teams with 'bonused' injured players with extra SMS space at the end of the year to increase their SMS space in the next year. 

Quote from: TBURGESS on June 23, 2024, 07:28:39 PMSo you're actually suggesting that the CFL makes a change to reward teams with 'bonused' injured players with extra SMS space at the end of the year to increase their SMS space in the next year.

The league already allows that with the balance of SMS not spent during the season if done before the end of the calendar year.

Normally that's not a huge amount and in some cases teams over spend the season SMS anyway. In 2023 there were 3 or 4 teams including the Bombers.

So as a direct answer to your question: Yes

I wouldn't think the number of players with bonus's spend significant time on the 6 game IR. In that sense I don't think it would be a large amount to take into account in that way.

Again. It's not about the amount, it's about an odd exception which I don't believe was intended.

Maybe someone with the history of the 2023 Bomber injuries measured against the 6 game IR can calculate the number of bonus as the variant. Even if it's a guesstimate.

Noting that any team can over spend the SMS by $99,999 with only a $1 per $1 fine. I seriously doubt any bonus SMS savings would approach that number.

OTOH, you suggest because that is ok because it is how the system works. However you also suggest things like this only benefit the rich teams.

Then why doesn't every team overspend the SMS by that amount? They don't because some teams are already losing money and because it's not in the spirit of fair competition.

As I've pointed out, most teams don't even spend the entire SMS they have at year end. Giving them extra relief potentially just means there is more left.

Using Lawler as an example again. Guesstimate his bonus was $90K. That's $5K per game for 18 games. If he misses 6 games on IR the SMS value is worth $30K. That's just slightly more than the Bombers over spent on the 2023 SMS.

Now I don't know how many games Lawler will actually be gone. He could come off early or he could be gone longer. The rule about coming off 6 game early is confusing with whether the time spent is counted or not counted but that's just another odd rule.

Going back to Lawler in 2023 when he was suspended for 6 games. It was his 1st year back and I assume he might have had a similar bonus. In theory is the salary of a player suspended counted against the SMS. He's not getting paid. Does the team recover some or all of early money due to an ethics clause?

So in effect his suspension bonus penalty was about the same as the Bombers over spent. Odd coincidence

My original thought was never about how this applied to the Bombers specifically.

I didn't expect Lawler and Schoen to be out extended time either. I don't know the exact bonus or contract amounts of either player.

Regardless, we probably gain some SMS relief on the 6 game IR just from the game checks alone.

It's going to be difficult to find talent to step in and replace those players even if there is some extra cash available.

It's going to be rookies on ELC deals. Somewhat ironic that we spent money on two receivers now injured and decided to not re-sign Bailey. He'd be our # 1 target if he was still here.

Quote from: TBURGESS on June 23, 2024, 02:47:26 PMThe salary management system is to manage salaries, to give teams a good idea on what they will have to spend on salaries.  Adding an undetermined amount of money to the SMS is the antithesis of what the SMS is.

If you want to think of bonus money being added to the 6GIR cap space being refunded to be re-spent on replacements is "adding an undetermined amount of money to the SMS" then by definition you must also believe that refunding just the 6GIR excluding bonus must also be "adding an undetermined amount of money to the SMS".  Because it is!  The bonuses are no more or less "undetermined" than the players' base salary!

It's not a straw man, it's simply pointing out that every argument you have offered against B in BC's thesis also directly applies against the existing 6GIR SMS relief framework!  You haven't offered anything unique to the bonus money situation other than, as B in BC noted, that "it's always been done this way".

Quote from: TBURGESS on June 23, 2024, 02:47:26 PMDo you think that teams will even be able to find good to great players to replace their injured players if they have extra more money to pay them? Are there any $500K QB's out there just waiting for a CFL team to call in the off season for instance? I don't think so.

Now who's doing straw man.  Besides Kelly, who wouldn't even qualify anyhow because he's not on IR, no one is talking about QBs.  Our direct concrete situation right now, and that on other teams, is the bonus money paid to star Rs and DLs and DBs.  Sure, QBs would/should qualify under any 6GIR/bonus changes, but they aren't the focus in the here and now.

So QBs aside, yes, there are a ton of vet Rs, DLs and DBs "out there just waiting for a CFL team".  A ton.  There are every year.  It's the guys with a few years under their belt that get cut and no team picks up, often around 10 per team, every year.  On the "couch sitters" thread I literally listed like 50 that would fit into our immediate needs.

Quote from: Blue In BC on June 23, 2024, 08:40:08 PMI wouldn't think the number of players with bonus's spend significant time on the 6 game IR. In that sense I don't think it would be a large amount to take into account in that way.

True.  It would be a great exercise if someone with a good grasp of Bomber salaries could list all the IR people right now along with our best guess as to what each one's bonus was.  We always see the huge stars getting bonuses, but do the middling or 3rd year guys ever get one too?

For instance, does a guy like Lawson get a signing bonus?  Lofton?

Quote from: Blue In BC on June 23, 2024, 08:40:08 PMAgain. It's not about the amount, it's about an odd exception which I don't believe was intended.

100%!  It evolved organically as players/teams worked out what was best for their players/teams.  No one at league HQ woke up one day and said "hey let's screw teams out of their bonus money on the SMS savings on 6GIR".

Quote from: Blue In BC on June 23, 2024, 08:40:08 PMAs I've pointed out, most teams don't even spend the entire SMS they have at year end. Giving them extra relief potentially just means there is more left.

I see no proof of this, or even chatter about it.  Until I see otherwise, I'll believe every team spends close to the cap.  Sure, they may leave $0-$100k in the pot for late-season last-minute pickups or injury coverage, but that isn't "we're poor", that's prudent planning for a GC run.  See: MTL 2023.

Quote from: Blue In BC on June 23, 2024, 08:40:08 PMUsing Lawler as an example again. Guesstimate his bonus was $90K. That's $5K per game for 18 games. If he misses 6 games on IR the SMS value is worth $30K. That's just slightly more than the Bombers over spent on the 2023 SMS.

I wouldn't look at it in terms of overage, as I don't think it's helpful to the argument.  I look at how the issue harms the on-field product and "show" in the here and now: and that is directly observable by the fact that right now we don't get that $30k-ish to spend on a quality vet R like we would if bonus was afforded SMS relief.  That means we field a <insert noname here> instead of <insert vet like Ellingson's name here>.

That is immediate, real world, and real impact that every fan can understand.  That is where the strength of the argument lies.

One of the talking points regarding this topic is the question of whether WPG is harder hit by 6GIR's this year than other teams.  Or, perhaps, harder hit compared to previous, "normal" years.

I've seen people arguing both sides here and on other threads.

I think now, after week 3, that WPG is hurting on the 6GIR more than every team, especially when you factor in talent level lost.  Our situation now that Schoen is out is like if Hollins and McInnis and Berryhill were all knocked out by week 3.  Actually, even that isn't close to our pain because McInnins is not a $225+ R like Lawler/Schoen are.

It's more like if EDM lost 2 Eugene Lewises.  We're talking league-top-5 paid Rs here.

We've been spoiled for so long with massive luck on the injury front.  Maybe other teams have been dealing with this rotten luck for years and we just didn't notice that much.  Looks like it's all catching up with us in 2024.

There certainly is no argument, though, that 2024 is certainly the worst injury year for WPG in a decade.

Quote from: TecnoGenius on June 26, 2024, 04:50:45 AMTrue.  It would be a great exercise if someone with a good grasp of Bomber salaries could list all the IR people right now along with our best guess as to what each one's bonus was.  We always see the huge stars getting bonuses, but do the middling or 3rd year guys ever get one too?

For instance, does a guy like Lawson get a signing bonus?  Lofton?

100%!  It evolved organically as players/teams worked out what was best for their players/teams.  No one at league HQ woke up one day and said "hey let's screw teams out of their bonus money on the SMS savings on 6GIR".

I see no proof of this, or even chatter about it.  Until I see otherwise, I'll believe every team spends close to the cap.  Sure, they may leave $0-$100k in the pot for late-season last-minute pickups or injury coverage, but that isn't "we're poor", that's prudent planning for a GC run.  See: MTL 2023.

I wouldn't look at it in terms of overage, as I don't think it's helpful to the argument.  I look at how the issue harms the on-field product and "show" in the here and now: and that is directly observable by the fact that right now we don't get that $30k-ish to spend on a quality vet R like we would if bonus was afforded SMS relief.  That means we field a <insert noname here> instead of <insert vet like Ellingson's name here>.

That is immediate, real world, and real impact that every fan can understand.  That is where the strength of the argument lies.

I only meant that whatever money isn't spent during the season, teams use to re-sign their potential free agents before year end. Since only a few teams ever go over the SMS, then there is some nominal money left.

Bombers went over by $25K more or less but I suspect that was due to some of those bonus money's paid.

I doubt any team had significant SMS left since there would be no advantage in doing so. There is an advantage of using up whatever is left.

Picking up a veteran is difficult even if one exists. If you bring one in you may not be able to release him due to veteran cut down date.

If we brought in a veteran this week and Lawler didn't come off IR for another 6 weeks we'd be into that range. If Schoen is done for the season, that changes the math but it can be an issue.

To some degree it was part of the reason we didn't bring in Sankey in 2023 as depth. You still need to fit in the extra players into the SMS.

Does the league limit bonuses?  If you pay out too much bonus, you can actually be in a negative position when it comes to replacing the player with an ELC contract.

If there is not already, they should make it so that bonuses cannot exceed the contract - the current ELC, that way, any 6 game time is $SMS neutral with an ELC replacement...

Quote from: theaardvark on June 26, 2024, 07:26:53 PMDoes the league limit bonuses?  If you pay out too much bonus, you can actually be in a negative position when it comes to replacing the player with an ELC contract.

If there is not already, they should make it so that bonuses cannot exceed the contract - the current ELC, that way, any 6 game time is $SMS neutral with an ELC replacement...

I don't think there is a limit. Most veterans re-signing get some up front money. An ELC coming off his 1st deal might not get a significant raise and just gets $5K-$10K. Others like Schoen get a large raise and more up front guaranteed money.

An interesting question whether anyone gets more that leaves less to earn than the ELC.

Just a guess but I don't see teams doing that regardless of the contract level. IE: a contract worth $100K is not getting $80K up front. It would be bad business and a disincentive IMO.

Quote from: Blue In BC on June 26, 2024, 07:58:47 PMI don't think there is a limit. Most veterans re-signing get some up front money. An ELC coming off his 1st deal might not get a significant raise and just gets $5K-$10K. Others like Schoen get a large raise and more up front guaranteed money.

An interesting question whether anyone gets more that leaves less to earn than the ELC.

Just a guess but I don't see teams doing that regardless of the contract level. IE: a contract worth $100K is not getting $80K up front. It would be bad business and a disincentive IMO.

But someone restructuring from $200k to $165k with a $110k bonus (which would net the same after tax in many states) would leave only $55k of $SMS.  Saves us $35k on the $SMS, but puts us negative should they get injured, even with an ELC replacing him.

Quote from: theaardvark on June 26, 2024, 08:02:03 PMBut someone restructuring from $200k to $165k with a $110k bonus (which would net the same after tax in many states) would leave only $55k of $SMS.  Saves us $35k on the $SMS, but puts us negative should they get injured, even with an ELC replacing him.

I get the math, I just don't think a team would do that. The other part of that would be the total time of the injury, to make that more of a factor I suppose.

Quote from: theaardvark on June 26, 2024, 07:26:53 PMDoes the league limit bonuses?  If you pay out too much bonus, you can actually be in a negative position when it comes to replacing the player with an ELC contract.

Good question.  My hunch is the middling players often don't get a signing bonus at all, or just a tiny one.  And the top-$ players earn so much they can do $100-$150k bonus and still be earning a greater-than-ELC salary.

I have a question for you: can a player coming off ELC earn less than ELC?  Or is there some sort of league "minimum wage"?  I guess there has to be, or many ST NATs would have to play for $30k.

Quote from: theaardvark on June 26, 2024, 07:26:53 PMIf there is not already, they should make it so that bonuses cannot exceed the contract - the current ELC, that way, any 6 game time is $SMS neutral with an ELC replacement...

Sounds great, but doesn't help one bit when you have your top 2 players making a combined $550k get injured in the same timespan.  Isn't that a full 1/10th of the cap?  Yes, it ensures you can replace Kenny & Schoen with ELCs... but ELCs do not replace Kenny & Schoen!  They take up space and lead to lost games.  That's doesn't help our on-field product or competitiveness.  Hence this entire thread...

Quote from: TecnoGenius on June 27, 2024, 03:00:59 AMGood question.  My hunch is the middling players often don't get a signing bonus at all, or just a tiny one.  And the top-$ players earn so much they can do $100-$150k bonus and still be earning a greater-than-ELC salary.

I have a question for you: can a player coming off ELC earn less than ELC?  Or is there some sort of league "minimum wage"?  I guess there has to be, or many ST NATs would have to play for $30k.

Sounds great, but doesn't help one bit when you have your top 2 players making a combined $550k get injured in the same timespan.  Isn't that a full 1/10th of the cap?  Yes, it ensures you can replace Kenny & Schoen with ELCs... but ELCs do not replace Kenny & Schoen!  They take up space and lead to lost games.  That's doesn't help our on-field product or competitiveness.  Hence this entire thread...

My point about bonuses not being greater than contract - ELC is not a competitive issue, but a cap issue, ensuing the body on the ar you are replacing a star with has a minimum cap space available.  Now, if you decide to "cheat" the $SMS by utilizing the tax break on bonuses, you run the risk of not having the $SMS to replace an injured layer with someone of equivalent value. 

We rolled the dice this year, and it looks like we lost big time.

Quote from: theaardvark on June 28, 2024, 04:01:26 PMMy point about bonuses not being greater than contract - ELC is not a competitive issue, but a cap issue, ensuing the body on the ar you are replacing a star with has a minimum cap space available.  Now, if you decide to "cheat" the $SMS by utilizing the tax break on bonuses, you run the risk of not having the $SMS to replace an injured layer with someone of equivalent value. 

We rolled the dice this year, and it looks like we lost big time.

Hard to say. If the balance of Schoen's deal was $100K, we'd gain $25K of SMS for the season. It's just guesstimate math at the moment. OTOH it means we lost $130K of SMS relief on the advance money if that's the breakdown.

Those are the breaks. Could we have believed we'd lose him for the season in game # 2? Yikes!!