Blue Bombers Transactions - September 24, 2023

[TecnoGenius]

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.

That's the point of the discussion... if Ambrosie does +1 the GLOBs again we all know he'll do it at the expense of a NAT spot, just as he did before.  Hence the rationale behind finding more palatable solutions, like +1 AR size.

The GLOB->NAT idea was simply in response to Aard's GLOB->IMP idea.  Neither is going to happen.  But if it did, it makes more sense to change them to NATs because a couple would probably succeed (Hansen), whereas graduating them to IMPs would result in zero "graduated" GLOBs being in the league.

We're just shooting the poop on crazy ideas here.  It's Ambrosie forcing the crazy on all of us in the first place, we're just trying to cope.  The only thing "real" about any of this is that there's a non-zero chance Ambrosie will +1 the GLOB roster again in the next season or two.

[Blue In BC]

That's the point of the discussion... if Ambrosie does +1 the GLOBs again we all know he'll do it at the expense of a NAT spot, just as he did before.  Hence the rationale behind finding more palatable solutions, like +1 AR size.

The GLOB->NAT idea was simply in response to Aard's GLOB->IMP idea.  Neither is going to happen.  But if it did, it makes more sense to change them to NATs because a couple would probably succeed (Hansen), whereas graduating them to IMPs would result in zero "graduated" GLOBs being in the league.

We're just shooting the poop on crazy ideas here.  It's Ambrosie forcing the crazy on all of us in the first place, we're just trying to cope.  The only thing "real" about any of this is that there's a non-zero chance Ambrosie will +1 the GLOB roster again in the next season or two.

Even with the idea of changing a global classification to a National is not a slam dunk ( despite the insanity of that idea ). In 2024 he's due for the new contract increase. I'm not sure exactly how much that is or how it relates to a developing Canadian on his 2nd contract. Hansen is better than most rookie Canadians and we have little Canadian depth at DE so it's hard to directly compare.

IIRC Augustine was getting a little less than Oliveria but it's close to $90K in his newest contract. In effect it would be a free market situation and how it relates to the entire SMS. Some would argue that Augustine isn't worth his salary but the team needs a Canadian back up for a Canadian starter.

I'd argue we could find a better back up import RB than Augustine for less money if not for the ratio. I've already said Haba is a better DE than Hansen and costs less. Hansen is on the roster because of an arbitrary ratio aspect. I like Hansen because he fits well into that concept.

So it comes down to finding ways to dilute the Canadian participation on rosters by these strange ideas from Ambrosie or sticking with developing Canadians.

Noting that I'm anti ratio in the 1st place, I'm against these slight of hand ways Ambrosie is changing the ratio.

I'm in favour of increasing the roster size if feasible financially. That's another topic.

We've had globals since 2019. So this is the 4th actual season on rosters not counting 2020. The program has not been successful enough or financially beneficial to keep adding more.

[Blue In BC]

Here's a question. Excluding the Bombers roster and any global players that are kickers, name any global that has been successful / productive?

EDIT: I just scrolled through all the rosters on CFL.ca. While they are not always completely accurate, I saw that 4 or 5 teams choose to only have 1 global on their AR. Other teams went with the extra Canadian. Other than the kickers / punters, the " others " were unrecognizable names to me. Some teams haven't even bothered to roster 3 global players on their PR either.   So, year 4 and nearly half the teams don't have a 2nd global to even make the roster as a back up.

Go ahead and check.

[Throw Long Bannatyne]

Even with the idea of changing a global classification to a National is not a slam dunk ( despite the insanity of that idea ). In 2024 he's due for the new contract increase. I'm not sure exactly how much that is or how it relates to a developing Canadian on his 2nd contract. Hansen is better than most rookie Canadians and we have little Canadian depth at DE so it's hard to directly compare.

IIRC Augustine was getting a little less than Oliveria but it's close to $90K in his newest contract. In effect it would be a free market situation and how it relates to the entire SMS. Some would argue that Augustine isn't worth his salary but the team needs a Canadian back up for a Canadian starter.

I'd argue we could find a better back up import RB than Augustine for less money if not for the ratio. I've already said Haba is a better DE than Hansen and costs less. Hansen is on the roster because of an arbitrary ratio aspect. I like Hansen because he fits well into that concept.

So it comes down to finding ways to dilute the Canadian participation on rosters by these strange ideas from Ambrosie or sticking with developing Canadians.

Noting that I'm anti ratio in the 1st place, I'm against these slight of hand ways Ambrosie is changing the ratio.

I'm in favour of increasing the roster size if feasible financially. That's another topic.

We've had globals since 2019. So this is the 4th actual season on rosters not counting 2020. The program has not been successful enough or financially beneficial to keep adding more.

Originally the most a global player could make was $54,000 per year ? more than $10,000 less than the league minimum for rookies, the latests CBA brought their min. up to that of rookies with the ability to negotiate for more.  Hansen played his first 2 seasons for $54k, this season I believe he is making league min. and next he will make in the range of $95k.

[Blue In BC]

Originally the most a global player could make was $54,000 per year ? more than $10,000 less than the league minimum for rookies, the latests CBA brought their min. up to that of rookies with the ability to negotiate for more.  Hansen played his first 2 seasons for $54k, this season I believe he is making league min. and next he will make in the range of $95k.

That's about $20K more than the league min in 2024. In that sense it's not a horrible amount for the team to play. OTOH, is someone like Maruo equal in value to an import rookie or even Hansen if not for the requirement for a global player? Hard to say. It does mean that all 1st year global players are on equal footing with American rookies. Equity for league min sure, but based on performance?

Going into 2024 Haba would still be earning the league min on an ELC. Will Hansen's performance and pay justify a choice between him and Haba as an example?

We need a separate thread to continue the conversation if there is a mood for it.

[theaardvark]

Hasn't the dressed AR grown since the GLB initiative?

Other than Hansen, there haven't been many Globals that would stick without the status, but there have been some interesting GLB players, especially with the punters.  With kickers being primarily NAT spots, replacing a NAT P with a GLB P isn't a huge football tradeoff.. and the GLB P have been making some very interesting plays/games.  As they learn more things like trick plays and not just trick kicks, it will get better.

I still think that the GLB min wage be re-instated, and any GLB (like Hansen) should be allowed to opt out of the status to allow them to make more.  If they are worth it, and have developed though the GLB system, they need to get out of the way for the next one.

[Blue In BC]

Hasn't the dressed AR grown since the GLB initiative?

Other than Hansen, there haven't been many Globals that would stick without the status, but there have been some interesting GLB players, especially with the punters.  With kickers being primarily NAT spots, replacing a NAT P with a GLB P isn't a huge football tradeoff.. and the GLB P have been making some very interesting plays/games.  As they learn more things like trick plays and not just trick kicks, it will get better.

I still think that the GLB min wage be re-instated, and any GLB (like Hansen) should be allowed to opt out of the status to allow them to make more.  If they are worth it, and have developed though the GLB system, they need to get out of the way for the next one.

Nope. Roster used to be 46 players with one being inactive game time but paid full salary. There was a brief departure from 3 QB's on AR but I can't remember whether that was to get the 1st global on the AR. Also can't remember whether that was a 45 or 46 man roster. I think it was at the expense of a 3rd QB and 46 man roster in 1st season.

I don't get what you want with Hansen to opt out of his status. Without his status he doesn't make the roster as a DI. Don't really care if they go back to the previous global minimum but that would be more proof of failure.

Therefore I propose a new roster category: Sumo wrestler. Add 2 additional spots for 550 lb Japanese Sumo's as DT and see who run by them standing side by side?

[theaardvark]

Nope. Roster used to be 46 players with one being inactive game time but paid full salary. There was a brief departure from 3 QB's on AR but I can't remember whether that was to get the 1st global on the AR. Also can't remember whether that was a 45 or 46 man roster. I think it was at the expense of a 3rd QB and 46 man roster in 1st season.

I don't get what you want with Hansen to opt out of his status. Without his status he doesn't make the roster as a DI. Don't really care if they go back to the previous global minimum but that would be more proof of failure.

Therefore I propose a new roster category: Sumo wrestler. Add 2 additional spots for 550 lb Japanese Sumo's as DT and see who run by them standing side by side?

Hansen makes the roster without GLB status.  We are paying him a lot more than a DI to get him on our roster.  I am sure if they had made the adjust ment I suggested rather than open up the salary level for GLB, Hansen is still on out roster.

Giving Globals 2 years at ELC with protected status to develop into Imports and abandon the GLB protection to make more money, or remain at min wage past two years with GLB designation achieves what this initiative was designed for.  Just like NATs, GLBs are at a disadvantage developmentally through geography.  This levels the playing field, and it can't hurt in marketing growing the brand internationally...

[Pete]

I think Hansen is more valuable than Jackson

[Blue In BC]

Hansen makes the roster without GLB status.  We are paying him a lot more than a DI to get him on our roster.  I am sure if they had made the adjust ment I suggested rather than open up the salary level for GLB, Hansen is still on out roster.

Giving Globals 2 years at ELC with protected status to develop into Imports and abandon the GLB protection to make more money, or remain at min wage past two years with GLB designation achieves what this initiative was designed for.  Just like NATs, GLBs are at a disadvantage developmentally through geography.  This levels the playing field, and it can't hurt in marketing growing the brand internationally...

I doubt that and I explained why he gets more as a factor of supply and demand in a small pool.

[theaardvark]

I doubt that and I explained why he gets more as a factor of supply and demand in a small pool.

You seriously think Hansen would not get the contract he is earning right now without his GLB status?  he is a high chaacter, high motor ST demon that can take reps at DE. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oD9EnlbhnY0

[J5V]

You seriously think Hansen would not get the contract he is earning right now without his GLB status?  he is a high chaacter, high motor ST demon that can take reps at DE. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oD9EnlbhnY0

Heard that hit all the way back in Germany!  LOL!

[TecnoGenius]

EDIT: I just scrolled through all the rosters on CFL.ca. While they are not always completely accurate, I saw that 4 or 5 teams choose to only have 1 global on their AR. Other teams went with the extra Canadian. Other than the kickers / punters, the " others " were unrecognizable names to me. Some teams haven't even bothered to roster 3 global players on their PR either.   So, year 4 and nearly half the teams don't have a 2nd global to even make the roster as a back up.

I thought the GLOB count on the AR and PR were mandated by the league.  If they weren't who would AR and PR them??  No, you must be missing something.  There must be a minimum (and maybe maximum).  Someone needs to dig up the rules.  I don't think it's in the rulebook, so I don't know where to find this info.  CFL always makes it so hard.

I thought it was mandated 2 dressed, with an extra on PR.  I'm nearly positive you can't just say you'll only dress 1 GLOB and then dress a NAT in the other spot.  That can't possibly be true as who wouldn't take an extra ELC/DP NAT over a GLOB??

[TecnoGenius]

We need a separate thread to continue the conversation if there is a mood for it.

It's fine discussing it here.  Those who don't care left the thread ages ago    Or make a new thread, it's all good, I'll be in every one.

[TecnoGenius]

I still think that the GLB min wage be re-instated, and any GLB (like Hansen) should be allowed to opt out of the status to allow them to make more.  If they are worth it, and have developed though the GLB system, they need to get out of the way for the next one.

The mandated GLOB min wage needs to be in place, just like ELC for IMPs / DPs, because otherwise it would be counterproductive to the goal of having the teams be "affordable" and making money.

I don't see a problem with guys like Hansen asking for more after X years, let the market decide.  So far I believe he's the only one league-wide that might get more money.  Now if every 3rd year GLOB starts asking for $100k then there's a problem...