Blue Bombers Transactions - October 5

[Throw Long Bannatyne]

We don't know how much he's being paid. The practice roster salary that is usually quoted is the minimum allowed. It all counts against cap. Theoretically, he could be making his full salary.

Yah, I think that trick is used more often than suspected when shuffling the deck, paying full salary is a way to keep vet. players content when they're not playing.  Ultimately it means Lawrence has reached low man on the totem pole status and may not be invited back next season.  I guess we're seeing why Hammy gave up on him and Darby.

[Blue In BC]

We don't know how much he's being paid. The practice roster salary that is usually quoted is the minimum allowed. It all counts against cap. Theoretically, he could be making his full salary.

That wasn't quite the point. The point is that if you cut a veteran after that certain point, you have to pay him full salary. I was questioning whether that only applies if said veteran plays a certain number of games before that point in time.

To move a player to the PR, you have to release him and then add him to the PR. I'm not opposed to paying his full salary if that is what is happening. I just thought they'd move him to either the 1 game IR or leave him on the 6 game IR. At least on the 6 game IR his salary is sheltered against the SMS.

It would have left an additional spot on the PR which would have added a cost on the PR for a different player potentially. If they did that and put Lawrence on the 1 game IR then it would add cost for that different player on the PR and more in total against SMS. If they put him on the 6 game IR, then potentially less against SMS?

I wasn't really looking at it as an SMS issue, more of roster management as to what was more beneficial for the rest of the season. That's not to suggest it was a bad decision.

Just looking at our past and current IR and PR. The Bombers have not had nearly as many players on IR as most teams. Very few man games lost on 1 game IR. Those on 6 game are obviously SMS exempt. Chances we get any of them back in 2024 is quite slim.

So our depth is slim and several on the PR are very new. Keeping one extra player on the PR won't be of great consequence in all probability. I just found it a bit of a surprise that Lawrence was moved to PR and that it was within the rules which I thought excluded that move. Apparently it is allowed I suppose based on number of games NOT played.

Overall I don't quite understand the logic of paying a player full salary on the PR ( if that happens ) instead of moving him to 1 game IR with the same SMS hit. Yes, a player has to accept being moved to IR but he also has to accept a PR spot after being released.

A player can practice on the 1 game IR so there is no disadvantage to the player. There is no disadvantage to the team if the player does get full salary.

Realistically even though a team is able to pay full or closer to full salary on the PR, I wonder how often that does happen.

I might have been inclined to retain Agudosi on the PR for the rest of the season, just in case we have injuries. At least he's been here for 2 seasons. McCrae has moved ahead of him on the overall depth chart but they fill different needs.

Just thinking Lawrence on the 1 game IR for 3 more games wouldn't be a big SMS hit if they choose to retain 1 more player on the PR. I also doubt he has a high salary to begin with regardless of what they are paying him on the PR. Other players have moved from 6 game IR to 1 game IR ( Rose and Wilson ) earlier, so that transaction is possible and used at times. That was even mentioned that Grant might be moved to 1 game IR if not to the AR this week.

IDK, maybe it means they expect a few of our 6 game IR players to be healthy after this bye? Gauthier, Darby, Beeksma. Houston should be ok after the bye, so space will need to be made elsewhere across the roster. Of course we may have new injuries this week so it's a moving target.

So in summary. I hope we have no new injuries this week. I hope we get some of our 6 game IR players back to give us different options whether they are moved to 1 game IR, AR or to PR. At least the 6 game IR players have more playing experience than many on PR.

[Throw Long Bannatyne]

That wasn't quite the point. The point is that if you cut a veteran after that certain point, you have to pay him full salary. I was questioning whether that only applies if said veteran plays a certain number of games before that point in time.

To move a player to the PR, you have to release him and then add him to the PR. I'm not opposed to paying his full salary if that is what is happening. I just thought they'd move him to either the 1 game IR or leave him on the 6 game IR. At least on the 6 game IR his salary is sheltered against the SMS.

It would have left an additional spot on the PR which would have added a cost on the PR for a different player potentially. If they did that and put Lawrence on the 1 game IR then it would add cost for that different player on the PR and more in total against SMS. If they put him on the 6 game IR, then potentially less against SMS?

I wasn't really looking at it as an SMS issue, more of roster management as to what was more beneficial for the rest of the season. That's not to suggest it was a bad decision.

Just looking at our past and current IR and PR. The Bombers have not had nearly as many players on IR as most teams. Very few man games lost on 1 game IR. Those on 6 game are obviously SMS exempt. Chances we get any of them back in 2024 is quite slim.

So our depth is slim and several on the PR are very new. Keeping one extra player on the PR won't be of great consequence in all probability. I just found it a bit of a surprise that Lawrence was moved to PR and that it was within the rules which I thought excluded that move. Apparently it is allowed I suppose based on number of games NOT played.

Yah, I don't know about this, what you're saying kind of makes the PR obsolete after vet. cutdown date and I don't think that's the case.  I believe they will be able to shuffle players on and off the PR regardless of their status right till the end of the playoffs.  By season's end I expect to see Jackson sitting on the PR.

[Blue In BC]

Yah, I don't know about this, what you're saying kind of makes the PR obsolete after vet. cutdown date and I don't think that's the case.  I believe they will be able to shuffle players on and off the PR regardless of their status right till the end of the playoffs.  By season's end I expect to see Jackson sitting on the PR.

I was still adding to my post. Players coming off the PR is never the issue. Veteran cut down has a value and is based in time, otherwise what's the point of the rule?

If Bryant has a bad game they can't cut him without paying him out. I'm not suggesting they should cut him, just making a point.

OTOH if we really don't expect anybody on our 6 game IR back this season, we're down to those left on the PR. It's too bad teams can't keep the extra 5 PR spots longer than 30 days. I suppose the problem is that there is no practice time left for them if you go into the play offs healthy. So it's a quick look and then gone.

[Throw Long Bannatyne]

I was still adding to my post. Players coming off the PR is never the issue. Veteran cut down has a value and is based in time, otherwise what's the point of the rule?

If Bryant has a bad game they can't cut him without paying him out. I'm not suggesting they should cut him, just making a point.

OTOH if we really don't expect anybody on our 6 game IR back this season, we're down to those left on the PR. It's too bad teams can't keep the extra 5 PR spots longer than 30 days. I suppose the problem is that there is no practice time left for them if you go into the play offs healthy. So it's a quick look and then gone.

In the old days PR management used to be much clearer, a player had to be cut (contract void) put on waivers so other teams could pickup if wanted, then signed to a PR contract.  Maybe it's still that way, but it  seems much more fluid and you never hear anyone mention "waivers" anymore.

[Blue In BC]

In the old days PR management used to be much clearer, a player had to be cut (contract void) put on waivers so other teams could pickup if wanted, then signed to a PR contract.  Maybe it's still that way, but it  seems much more fluid and you never hear anyone mention "waivers" anymore.

IDK either. My comments were in general and not really about Lawrence other than I didn't know they could make that move to the PR. Some of the rules may have changed or we aren't totally aware of which rules apply in this particular circumstance. As I suggested it's possible that they could do this because of a very limited number of games played in 2023.

No big deal from my perspective. Just tying it in with releasing 2 PR players that have been around for awhile. Also no big deal technically, just the timing surprised me. I had high hopes for Agudosi and he fell through the cracks.   I would have been less surprised if they made those releases after game 9 than after game 15. Que sera sera. It's not a complaint.  More of a " huh"?

There might be new rookie players added to the PR next week, either from the IR or a reshuffling across the rosters. We never know who is close to a possible return. The way they spoke about Grant we weren't even sure he'd be back healthy anytime soon. And yet, he's been made active and we're happy.

I'm still trying to understand why Givhan showed as added to AR when he isn't even on the PR. If the roster is to be believed we have 1 space open on the PR. It's not mandatory to fill it so we'll see how things go.

[TecnoGenius]

Overall I don't quite understand the logic of paying a player full salary on the PR ( if that happens ) instead of moving him to 1 game IR with the same SMS hit. Yes, a player has to accept being moved to IR but he also has to accept a PR spot after being released.

Maybe because we're honest?  Teams abuse the IR to "hide" and "park" players, but we all know it's often a lie.  It's a glorified PR, and no one can prove anything and so it's allowed.

We "fake" 1 GIR players waaaay less than other teams do.  Ours are almost always truly injured.  Can you think of 1 player we "faked" on the IR this year?

Look at TOR this week... Hendrix and Barlow to the IR, and magically Oakman and McManis are suddenly healthy and put on the AR.  Haha, ya right.  Their IR is just a place to stow and protect players.

There's a reason many teams have 15- and 20- man IRs.

[TecnoGenius]

By season's end I expect to see Jackson sitting on the PR.

Want to place a little wager on that?

[TecnoGenius]

I'm pretty sure vet status and cutdown rules have nothing to do with games played.  I see no reason why you can't park a decent vet on the PR.

I'm nearly positive in past years we went into the post-season with some very good vets on the PR.  Players either accept it, or they don't (Gaitor).  I can't think of an actual name at the moment, but if I pulled up the charts I'm sure you'd see 1 noticeable one each season since 2019.

I think if a vet made a hard $$ deal they get that $$ no matter what AR/IR/PR they are on.

[Blue In BC]

I'm pretty sure vet status and cutdown rules have nothing to do with games played.  I see no reason why you can't park a decent vet on the PR.

I'm nearly positive in past years we went into the post-season with some very good vets on the PR.  Players either accept it, or they don't (Gaitor).  I can't think of an actual name at the moment, but if I pulled up the charts I'm sure you'd see 1 noticeable one each season since 2019.

I think if a vet made a hard $$ deal they get that $$ no matter what AR/IR/PR they are on.

Obviously it means something or that term wouldn't exist. It's a question of timing and is there in order to protect veterans.

See what you can find looking at depth charts. Maybe stats junkie can find the specific rule for us.

[theaardvark]

I'm pretty sure vet status and cutdown rules have nothing to do with games played.  I see no reason why you can't park a decent vet on the PR.

I'm nearly positive in past years we went into the post-season with some very good vets on the PR.  Players either accept it, or they don't (Gaitor).  I can't think of an actual name at the moment, but if I pulled up the charts I'm sure you'd see 1 noticeable one each season since 2019.

I think if a vet made a hard $$ deal they get that $$ no matter what AR/IR/PR they are on.

Unless it contains teh new "guaranteed money", no.  Moving to the PR means current contract is ripped up.  COming back on the AR from the PR, a new deal must be signed.  Can be for more, less or the same as the deal ripped up for the PR stint.

On the PR a player can be paid any amount above the PR min, which I think is $750/game + minimal expenses.  You can pay a guy $20k per game on the PR if you like, but every one of those dollars is $SMS.  If you want to maintain a vet players contract, you just need them to agree to go on the IR.  "Turf Toe" or something.  They are hidden, paid and protected.  Putting them on the PR exposes them, and says we like them, but aren't 100% committed today.

[TecnoGenius]

Unless it contains teh new "guaranteed money", no.  Moving to the PR means current contract is ripped up.  COming back on the AR from the PR, a new deal must be signed.  Can be for more, less or the same as the deal ripped up for the PR stint.

So whatever we gave Lawrence on his contract was just negated and ripped up?  So if Parker or whoever is injured and we suddenly need Lawrence we have to make a new deal?  But in that case the team would be desperate and he could then ask for the world?  I don't buy it.  Certainly it cannot work like that.  Otherwise no one would ever PR a good and/or vet player, they'd all lie and just use the IR.

[Throw Long Bannatyne]

So whatever we gave Lawrence on his contract was just negated and ripped up?  So if Parker or whoever is injured and we suddenly need Lawrence we have to make a new deal?  But in that case the team would be desperate and he could then ask for the world?  I don't buy it.  Certainly it cannot work like that.  Otherwise no one would ever PR a good and/or vet player, they'd all lie and just use the IR.

I don't think they renegotiate the contract if they bring a player back off the PR but they may have to sign an amended document.  The amount paid is probably agreed upon initial signing and would work similar to a 2-way contract in hockey.  You stay up you get paid X amount, you get demoted to the minors you get paid Y amount.

[theaardvark]

Anyone being demoted to the PR has the opportunity to seek employment elsewhere, if they need to be activated off the PR, they aren't going to be demanding top dollars all of a sudden.  Either they are happy getting their previous salary re-instated, or they are welcome to go... no one is "asking for the world" getting off the PR.  If they were "asking fo the world" good, they'd be on another AR, or still on ours...

[TecnoGenius]

Anyone being demoted to the PR has the opportunity to seek employment elsewhere, if they need to be activated off the PR, they aren't going to be demanding top dollars all of a sudden.  Either they are happy getting their previous salary re-instated, or they are welcome to go... no one is "asking for the world" getting off the PR.  If they were "asking fo the world" good, they'd be on another AR, or still on ours...

Picture this, Houston, Parker and Nichols all get season-enders in week 18.  Trade deadline has past.  If Lawrence and ADS have the ability to negotiate a new contract rather than have to be forced into re-upping the old contract, are you telling me a savvy PR guy wouldn't hold the team hostage for all he thinks he could reasonably get?

They know the system, they are decent to good replacements, they're already here.  Sure, that would be seen as being a holes, but if a player didn't feel a huge loyalty to the team, was expecting to be cut in FA, and was bitter about being PR'd to begin with, what's to keep them from looking out for #1?  Even if you were the nicest guy, you'd wink at KW and say you need a little bump.

Again, trades aren't possible, so it's the PR guys or you're looking at couch guys who may not have played all season, or some never-played-CFL raw recruit from the USA.  None of those will help you win you a playoff.

That's why I can't believe the existing contract doesn't come into play to limit the options of the PR player in this scenario.  We all know all the CFL contracts are structured to heavily favor the teams, not the players.  Why would the team owners / GMs leave this little vulnerability in there?  Makes no sense.