Started by theaardvark, May 06, 2022, 02:56:55 PM
Quote from: theaardvark on May 13, 2022, 06:07:51 PMYes, top to bottom, salaries in any league make no sense. It has come back a little in QB's in the CFL, although Lawler's contact last year shows the position players moving up a bit into that range.Minimum salaries in the NFL change, PR eligibility changes... it cycles through players that are working their way into a lineup, vs. the fringe players that just hang on.. once you start having to pay them "veteran's" salary, they become a lot less interesting than younger players with potential. Do we end up with ELC/min salary and min vet salary at different levels? Do we have to have a matrix of PR + IR + AR games = Min Vet Salary, and if that is less than 24 any contract can be at ELC rate?
Quote from: Blue In BC on May 13, 2022, 05:44:01 PMYou pay. I pay for the beer.
Quote from: blue_gold_84 on May 13, 2022, 07:55:10 PMWhat, no invite for the rest of us? I like beer.
Quote from: Blue In BC on May 13, 2022, 06:50:06 PMTo some degree it's simple math regardless of how high the SMS is set.If you increase the bottom minimum, then either there are less at the top or those at the top have lower ceilings. Like any job it's a question of how good do you want your benefits to be and how much less salary are you willing to give up for better salary? That's a common discussion in new negotiations. It becomes a trade off money versus benefits. Benefits are a direct cost to employers and a benefit to employees. I'd say younger people in general live more in the now and benefits are less important to some. That's not necessarily the best idea but the reality of youth. It needs to be a fair mix of those two factors.Bombers lost Lawler, Desjarlais, M. Jones and a few others coming off of their ELC's to much better salaries on new teams. It's not like the real world where many workers might be lucky to get a 2% annual raise. As mentioned a player coming off an ELC that is at the bottom skill set on the roster could easily be replaced by a new player getting an ELC deal.There is no perfect formula. Where a player's earning curve is unpredictable in year 1. Turnover happens for many reasons.If a team has 10 players on ELC's raising the minimum to $70K is only a $70K increase in the spend on their salaries against the SMS. That seems almost inconsequential in the big picture of total SMS spend.OTOH giving M. Reilly an increase from about $450K to $700K in 2019 is incomprehensible. Or Lawler going from $63K to $300K as examples.There was a report that many teams had spent close to current SMS by the time free agency was over. So if there is no or very little increase to the new SMS, any increase to the ELC will be very difficult. They go hand in hand.That makes the suggestion of negotiating much earlier ( prior to free agency ) have more weight.You mentioned scaled vet salaries at different levels. I don't think that works because free agency market decides how the 3rd year player will be valued somewhere in free agency. OTOH, do we want to give a 3rd or 4th year player and increase he may not have deserved by mandate in the CBA? If he didn't earn it, chances are he gets replaced by the new ELC player.If there is an increase to the 2022 SMS I think that money is spent late in the season renewing contracts ( prior to free agency ) as we've seen in the past. Or for players returning from NFL for example. Current players already have contracts in place. I don't imagine an increase would be retroactive towards ELC's for example.Each off season we see higher priced players displaced in order to pay other that deserve to get more. I've worked in unions and I've worked in management. Paying someone based on time or job classification has both pros and cons. OTOH the CFL is both a union and a free market environment with free agency.
Quote from: Blue In BC on May 13, 2022, 11:27:14 PMThe other half needing better health care is a problem for the population of the USA. It's not something the CFL can resolve, even for just those players. Not sure the CFL can or should be responsible and doing more for jusI think part of the idea of option out clauses for players to get an NFL offer had some merit when 1st year players stand out.
Quote from: DM83 on May 14, 2022, 05:44:10 AMHey Blue,Have you met any of the players at least with the Bombers?They may have played at a University, but I think many of the guys I have met, are not the sharpest stick in the drawer.It actually scared me. As a condition of playing at the U of M, or maybe even to stay in a Faculty, you had to have a certain grade point average. Everyone must have heard of past Great junior players who play out their junior eligibility, then go to university. Finally a few years ago then CIS placed an age restriction in it. That was Canada. I met and practiced against super American athletes, who were either going to, or had just played pro and didn?t make the team for one reason or another.( I couldn?t believe they didn?t make it, they were great) but they didn?t have anything of substance to fall back on, and seeing that was scary. Football was their ticket , and then it was gone. Some guys stayed in Winnipeg and have become entrepreneurs, that was the good. However as an educator myself, I would like to think some guys without education might benefit like a program like junior hockey provides. Not sure if guys who were cut could access it, but certainly, younger guys making the team, with the only priority for a young man is playing, partying and having fun, Is awesome in your early to mid twenties, but after that, you need to plan on the post playing days. Some sort of tuition paid for for just an example first year of a program, could a return to working at McDs.So, I disagree with your comment about all the guys being university educated??? I would be dubious of the accuracy of that. Our Canadian guys are better suited to post playing days, because at least for the Bisons you had to have a passing grade in at least three courses, to continue. Hence my comment that it would be nice to take care of the guys afterward.to a certain degree. On my wish list! Lol!
Quote from: theaardvark on May 14, 2022, 04:44:28 PMWe can't solve the US health care issues, but we can take care of our players after they leave the league. Its not that expensive, and it is the right thing to do. Extending health care removes the issue we saw with Hefney.As to DM83's comment about players not being the sharpest stick in the drawer, most drafted players have completed a university programme. Some are glorified basket weaving courses designed to keep grade point eligibility for sports, while others get legit degrees that they use the rest of their lives. Some even become doctors... But not all finish their education, or get one that serves them post career. Hence the opportunity to finish or redo their schooling will have a very positive outcome for many players. Again, like healthcare, not all will benefit, but those that need it, it could be a vital support mechanism post career. If the USFL can put together such a programme, I am sure the CFL can find a way, I'm sure, if negotiated correctly, the cross promotion opportunity could make it almost cost neutral.I forgot about NFL windows in my original CBA. There should be a NFL opt out window for *every player* between Jan 1 and Jan 21 each year. That give everyone a chance to get a look, and teams a chance to re-sign players aftger the NFL window and before FA starts
Quote from: Blue In BC on May 13, 2022, 06:50:06 PMOTOH giving M. Reilly an increase from about $450K to $700K in 2019 is incomprehensible. Or Lawler going from $63K to $300K as examples.
Quote from: TecnoGenius on May 14, 2022, 05:54:16 PMThat escapade did serve a very useful purpose: it demonstrated to the league and the players that pay like that will kill a team. Never again will you see a team overpay by that percentage for a QB. The repercussions for those involved were quite severe. Lions had a horrifically bad 2 years. Claybrooks will probably never HC again. Hervey lost his job. Fans were unhappy. Everyone suffered, even M.Reilly; taking a huge number of sacks.Maybe you need an episode like that once in a generation to remind people why it's a bad idea.