Should the overpaid stars restructure?

[Blue In BC]

Never going to happen for exactly the reason you described. That IS the system working effectively. The SMS is designed to control costs and keep all player salary expenditures even. The league doesn't want teams to be pressured into major SMS expenses based on how many injuries they get. It's already expensive enough.

There is no way any team can determine how much player time will be lost to 6 game IR and therefore SMS.

So by definition it doesn't keep player expenditures even. That is not the system working within your explanation.

[TecnoGenius]

There is no way any team can determine how much player time will be lost to 6 game IR and therefore SMS.

So by definition it doesn't keep player expenditures even. That is not the system working within your explanation.

Yes.  We have to be very careful that when we talk cost/pay that we qualify it as "SMS" or "out-of-pocket" (OOP; the "real world" cost).  The cap is supposed to keep OOP down so real owners spending real money don't go real broke.

Anything and everything in the "SMS" world is just make believe and artificial -- just arbitrary rules and regulations to attempt to affect the actually-important OOP costs.

WPG fans are in a unique position where our team makes the most $$ in the CFL, so to us OOP is meaningless and ignored: only SMS matters to us, and greatly hampers us.

So whenever we say "cost" or money amounts, we have to be clear we mean SMS or OOP.

[TecnoGenius]

Walters mentioned quite awhile ago, he doesn't like paying bonuses for achievements and was was trying to avoid including them in contracts.  The reason being it can alter the game plan if players are trying to pad numbers instead of win football games.  Makes sense.

Why not do like F1 does: fastest lap gets an extra point, but only if they are in the top 10.  The equivalent here would be: extra money for stats, but only if you win the game!  That would solve that problem!

[Sir Blue and Gold]

There is no way any team can determine how much player time will be lost to 6 game IR and therefore SMS.

So by definition it doesn't keep player expenditures even. That is not the system working within your explanation.

Let me try again:

Players like bonuses because it's taxed differently (better). If there was no financial risk to providing them for teams, most (better off teams, for sure) would structure most contracts like that because it would be an advantage in signing and retaining talent. That would mean teams would pay the vast majority of their SMS prior to the season but all of that money may or may not be SMS exempt based on luck. This would inevitably lead to far greater swings of total salary expenses which is exactly what the SMS tries to limit.

A real world example:

Quarterback A gets paid $600,000 and $300,000 is a bonus.
Quarterback A tears ACL in week 1.

Now: Teams spend up to $266,667 additional dollars
You propose: Teams spend up to $566,667 additional dollars

Basically, for the salary cap to work, dollars paid to healthy players need to count.

[Blue In BC]

Let me try again:

Players like bonuses because it's taxed differently (better). If there was no financial risk to providing them for teams, most (better off teams, for sure) would structure most contracts like that because it would be an advantage in signing and retaining talent. That would mean teams would pay the vast majority of their SMS prior to the season but all of that money may or may not be SMS exempt based on luck. This would inevitably lead to far greater swings of total salary expenses which is exactly what the SMS tries to limit.

A real world example:

Quarterback A gets paid $600,000 and $300,000 is a bonus.
Quarterback A tears ACL in week 1.

Now: Teams spend up to $266,667 additional dollars
You propose: Teams spend up to $566,667 additional dollars

Basically, for the salary cap to work, dollars paid to healthy players need to count.

Someone has already pointed out the difference between SMS and Operating expense spent. We've each made our points and we disagree with each others point of view.

I believe the current rule is a disadvantage and in some cases an extreme disadvantage. Your example would be the one you suggested as an extreme problem. In fact that could happen in TC.  I see no point in allowing that to impact a team's ability to roster a competitive team.

[Sir Blue and Gold]

Someone has already pointed out the difference between SMS and Operating expense spent. We've each made our points and we disagree with each others point of view.

I believe the current rule is a disadvantage and in some cases an extreme disadvantage. Your example would be the one you suggested as an extreme problem. In fact that could happen in TC.  I see no point in allowing that to impact a team's ability to roster a competitive team.

You can "disagree with the point of view" if you want what but what you a proposing without a doubt would make running teams more expensive. That's an undeniable truth and is exactly the opposite of what a functioning SMS is supposed to do. If you want a better product, increase the SMS overall, reduce the required nationals, etc.