Blue Bombers Transactions - September 24, 2023

[Blue In BC]

Roster should go up by one GLB AND one NAT... as we find and develop more GLB players, having the decision of which to roster - Sheahan, Mauro or Hansen gets tougher...

The point about Americans is they are easy to find, and quick to bring to game ready, so you don't need a lot of backups on the AR, you should have a few on the PR, and lots going through the PR and put on speed dial.   The GLB/NAT added to the AR gets a chance to work on teams and backup at their position, get some reps in garbage time, and actually develop in a way that they can't just on the PR. 

There is nothing stopping the league from adding two roster spots and increasing the SMS$ by 2 ELC's.  There is no doubt the league is better with more players on the AR, and just adding DI's would be a tough sell to the PA.  They could even add a DI too, getting the roster up to 48 and adding 3 ELC's to the $SMS.  I don't think the PA would object to 18 or 27 new jobs...

If the league wanted to increase the roster by any combination they could have done that years ago. Not every team is making a profit and that is essentially why they haven't done it. A larger roster would be an asset but this isn't in their plans it seems.

Sheahan could be replaced by an import tomorrow ( larger talent pool ) if the ratio was modified to add another DI instead of a forced global ratio aspect. As mentioned a global is just another type of DI because of the commissioner and his global chase. Ditto for Maruo.

I don't have the fascination with developing global players that you do. You counter adding another DI would be a tough sell but that's exactly what adding a global equates to.

[Throw Long Bannatyne]

No it wouldn't make any sense at all. A PR player might get $1K per game while an ELC player gets about $4K. A global player is just another way of having another DI ( non Canadian ). We shouldn't be in the business of putting globals on the roster just for the sake of doing it.

You even mentioned an import is more game ready and would be the same ELC cost. Why would we add a global instead of a DI?

Money and roster size aside, another global or import take away reps from a Canadian. If the roster size is not increased it actually eliminates a Canadian.

If the import is superior to the global he'd get more reps and be more effective.

So who in their right mind would support another global over an import? For that matter I'd choose another Canadian on the AR over a global.

Agree, maybe it's still too early to judge, but I'm not seeing any of the outside benefits this global program was supposed to generate, and no indication of increased interests in the CFL from International markets.  In the end with no benefit they're essentially sacrificing Natl. roster spots.

[theaardvark]

The fact that globals were limited to ELC contracts until Hansen proved they should not be is indicative of the idea of teh programme.

I think they handled the Hansen case totally wrong.  Rather than modifying the GLB pay structure, they should have modified the designation.  That, after a GLB 2 year ELC, if the player so chooses, he can elect to give up his GLB status and be considered an Import and be treated as an American would, effectively wither becoming a starter or DI.  But in giving up the GLB status, they can never resume it.

That would allow GLB players to truly develop the way the system was intended, and developed player would get out of the way of the next batch.

[Blue In BC]

The fact that globals were limited to ELC contracts until Hansen proved they should not be is indicative of the idea of teh programme.

I think they handled the Hansen case totally wrong.  Rather than modifying the GLB pay structure, they should have modified the designation.  That, after a GLB 2 year ELC, if the player so chooses, he can elect to give up his GLB status and be considered an Import and be treated as an American would, effectively wither becoming a starter or DI.  But in giving up the GLB status, they can never resume it.

That would allow GLB players to truly develop the way the system was intended, and developed player would get out of the way of the next batch.

You're just floating crap ideas for the sake of argument. It's not a real discussion IMO. Is there even another poster that thinks we should add another global to CFL rosters?

Hansen is the only global that has made an impact. Even then I'm not sure Haba wouldn't be a better choice. Hansen is a rotational player and NOT a starter full time. OTOH, Haba becomes the starter if Jeffcoat or Jefferson can't play. Haba is on an ELC.

I'm not convinced that Hansen makes the roster if his designation changed to import.

IIRC no player on an ELC can re-negotiate a new deal until it expires.

[theaardvark]

You're just floating crap ideas for the sake of argument. It's not a real discussion IMO. Is there even another poster that thinks we should add another global to CFL rosters?

Hansen is the only global that has made an impact. Even then I'm not sure Haba wouldn't be a better choice. Hansen is a rotational player and NOT a starter full time. OTOH, Haba becomes the starter if Jeffcoat or Jefferson can't play. Haba is on an ELC.

I'm not convinced that Hansen makes the roster if his designation changed to import.

IIRC no player on an ELC can re-negotiate a new deal until it expires.

If Hansen wasn't a global, he might not have developed into the player he is.  The fact that the he is on the roster being paid more than a DI is witness to his value.  I'm sure that if Walters had an option to make him a DI, he starts over Jackson and Mauro is on the roster...

[Throw Long Bannatyne]

If Hansen wasn't a global, he might not have developed into the player he is.  The fact that the he is on the roster being paid more than a DI is witness to his value.  I'm sure that if Walters had an option to make him a DI, he starts over Jackson and Mauro is on the roster...

Hansen developed to that level because the Bombers dedicated a couple of years to teaching him the game from scratch under the global program, without that investment of time he wouldn't even make the roster.  I don't think any other global player has benefitted in the same way, so he's nothing more than an exception.

[RebusRankin]

Can't see how Jackson remains in the lineup going down the stretch, with players returning from injury each roster spot becomes more valuable.  The novelty show will be ending shortly.

I bet he stays on all year. MOS seems to love him.

[J5V]

was hoping for a return specialist....Grant may not play this season....but we need help at DE for bolstering our D-Line rotation

Gosh I hope that's not the case. Ankle injuries can take a long time to heal and he may never be the same.  Does anyone have an update on Grant's injury? Does it look like he's lost a step? Is there any chance he returns this season?

[TecnoGenius]

You're just floating crap ideas for the sake of argument. It's not a real discussion IMO. Is there even another poster that thinks we should add another global to CFL rosters?

No.  There is no one that wants another GLOB, except one person: Ambrosie.  The whole reason I brought it up is because we have already been told to expect the GLOB AR to +1 again.  We're not advocating for +1 GLOB, we're trying to find better ways of doing it, and I for one would like a bigger overall roster so that neither NATs nor IMPs lose out by the extra GLOB.

Pretty sure every CFL uber fan is either neutral on / tolerant of the GLOB program, or hates it.  No one wants to see 5 GLOBS on the AR.  Except Ambrosie.

We're trying to find solutions to Ambrosie's insanity, not state our desired CFL roster panacea.

I'm not convinced that Hansen makes the roster if his designation changed to import.

Hansen 100% does not make the team if he's an IMP.  If you wanted to graduate GLOBs out of the designation, instead of changing them to IMPs, why not change them to NATs??  That would make a heck of a lot more sense.  Hansen would win a job as a NAT, and that's probably the best we can expect, on average, from GLOBs.  IMPs > NATs > GLOBs is the clear pecking order.

[TecnoGenius]

Because the SMS would be divided by 46 players instead of 45. That's about $74K even on an ELC and is enough to give 7 players a $10K raise instead using the same money. It also effectively gives more playing time to globals instead of a Canadian back up.

I thought it went without saying that if they up the AR by +1 GLOB that they would also up the SMS by the GLOB ELC salary.  Obviously that would be the case.

There is nothing stopping the league from adding two roster spots and increasing the SMS$ by 2 ELC's.  There is no doubt the league is better with more players on the AR, and just adding DI's would be a tough sell to the PA.

Exactly.

If the league wanted to increase the roster by any combination they could have done that years ago. Not every team is making a profit and that is essentially why they haven't done it. A larger roster would be an asset but this isn't in their plans it seems.

Every team can absolutely afford to increase their player salary line item by 1 GLOB ELC ($60-$70k?).  Doesn't matter how down in the dumps the team is, $70k is like 0.001% of their total revenue.  It's really a drop in the bucket compared to all of their normal expenses: completely meaningless.  And the have-nots can just get the extra $$ money from the "haves" transfer payments.

[TecnoGenius]

Oh ya, Hansen did absolutely nothing against TOR (from what I saw @IGF).  I did see him running around on ST.  I didn't see any Hansen cheetah formation.

Not the end of the world though, as they can ease him into action again.  Hopefully he'll be more noticeable next week.

[Blue In BC]

If Hansen wasn't a global, he might not have developed into the player he is.  The fact that the he is on the roster being paid more than a DI is witness to his value.  I'm sure that if Walters had an option to make him a DI, he starts over Jackson and Mauro is on the roster...

None of those is true. What most players are paid are based on the pool of competition. Hansen is better than other global players. The pool of imports is larger and import rookies make rosters as ELC players.  Canadians develop as back ups. Imports develop as back ups.

Hanson got an increase because of the supply demand situation. Schoen is still on his ELC. Are you going to suggest Hansen is better than Schoen because he earns more?

Do you understand the supply / demand and how that impacts what players can earn?

[Blue In BC]

Oh ya, Hansen did absolutely nothing against TOR (from what I saw @IGF).  I did see him running around on ST.  I didn't see any Hansen cheetah formation.

Not the end of the world though, as they can ease him into action again.  Hopefully he'll be more noticeable next week.

Yeah it was a lot to expect for his 1st game back. He'll get into game conditioning and game speed soon enough.

[TecnoGenius]

Neither of those is true. What most players are paid are based on the pool of competition. Hansen is better than other global players. The pool of imports is larger and rookies make rosters as ELC players.

Ya, B in BC is right.  You can't compare GLOB salaries to IMP salaries, just as NAT salaries have no relation to IMP salaries.  Many NATs make way more now than they would with no ratio.

[Blue In BC]

No.  There is no one that wants another GLOB, except one person: Ambrosie.  The whole reason I brought it up is because we have already been told to expect the GLOB AR to +1 again.  We're not advocating for +1 GLOB, we're trying to find better ways of doing it, and I for one would like a bigger overall roster so that neither NATs nor IMPs lose out by the extra GLOB.

Pretty sure every CFL uber fan is either neutral on / tolerant of the GLOB program, or hates it.  No one wants to see 5 GLOBS on the AR.  Except Ambrosie.

We're trying to find solutions to Ambrosie's insanity, not state our desired CFL roster panacea.

Hansen 100% does not make the team if he's an IMP.  If you wanted to graduate GLOBs out of the designation, instead of changing them to IMPs, why not change them to NATs??  That would make a heck of a lot more sense.  Hansen would win a job as a NAT, and that's probably the best we can expect, on average, from GLOBs.  IMPs > NATs > GLOBs is the clear pecking order.

If we're to expect another global AR by + 1 is it clear whether that is an actual increase to the roster size or the elimination of another Canadian.

Changing a global designation to a National amounts to an absolute fallacy and defeats the concept of the ratio to sustain Canadians.