Our Free Agent's Signings Are in Limbo Until Brady & Dalton Make Their Moves

Started by Lincoln Locomotive, January 11, 2024, 08:14:10 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

Throw Long Bannatyne

Quote from: Jesse on January 15, 2024, 04:45:45 PM
In terms of not every team being interested, I think more teams will than wont. Calgary tends not to over spend in FA. Edmonton has Geno, so same position as us with Kenny. As far as I'm concerned, every other team is in serious play.

The Argos just re-signed their top receiver DaVaris Daniels for around $200k, they also pay Kurleigh Gittens $200k which are fairly sensible numbers, don't think they'll have extra money for Schoen after they pay Chad Kelly.

theaardvark

SMS cap - 5.5million.  Roster 53 men.  So, average about $100k per player (a little less, really, when you take into account AR and PR costs).

QB at $500k?  That means 11 players at league min to afford that.  $600k?  14 players.

For every player you sign for $300k, you need 5 players at league min.

For every player at $135K, you need one at league min.

So, if you have a $600k QB, a $300k WR, 4 $150k linemen (O and D), you now need fully half your roster at min salary. The other 21 you can play with averaging $100k each...

Its not impossible, but as each player comes off an ELC and deserves any kind of raise, it gets harder.  We have to have a certain number of Nats, which actually helps this, as many in suporting/ST roles are able to play for less, and many are willing to play for less, even after their ELC's.  

There are not a lot of teams that can afford $300k for a player, or even $200k.   Getting value out of your top players is very, very important.  And, when you factor in post season money, that can he a huge incentive for players to sign with a consistent playoff contender, for many players, the GC winner bonus is like getting a 50% raise.
Unabashed positron.  Blue koolaid in my fridge.  I wear my blue sunglasses at night.  Homer, d'oh.

theaardvark

Quote from: Lincoln Locomotive on January 15, 2024, 05:23:39 PM
Pretty sure they aren't letting him go as he was having a good season up until his injury.....I believe he has another year on his renegotiated contract from last season.    I was hoping he would retire after winning a Cup.....however that wasn't in the cards.    He'd be good coaching material after he retired....

Bighill is on a team friendly contract, and I'm not sure if coaching is in his future, he has a fairly good non football career already started.
Unabashed positron.  Blue koolaid in my fridge.  I wear my blue sunglasses at night.  Homer, d'oh.

Sir Blue and Gold

Quote from: theaardvark on January 15, 2024, 05:46:27 PM
Bighill is on a team friendly contract, and I'm not sure if coaching is in his future, he has a fairly good non football career already started.

He made $165,000 last year which made him the third highest paid linebacker in the CFL. I'd hate to see what your version of "not team friendly" looks like.

blue_gold_84

I doubt it happens any time soon - if ever - but I'd sincerely look forward to the day CFL contract details of all players are made public.
#forthew
лава Україні!
Don't be a Rich.

Waffler

Quote from: theaardvark on January 15, 2024, 05:46:27 PM
Bighill is on a team friendly contract, and I'm not sure if coaching is in his future, he has a fairly good non football career already started.

Pretty sure he has guaranteed money THIS year if he plays or not. I think I read 100k a while ago.
Buried in the essentially random digits of pi, you can find your eight-digit birthdate. (Is that a wink from God or just a lot of digits?) - David G. Myers
__________________________________________________
Everything seems stupid when it fails.  - Fyodor Dostoevsky

Jesse

Quote from: Sir Blue and Gold on January 15, 2024, 05:48:45 PM
He made $165,000 last year which made him the third highest paid linebacker in the CFL. I'd hate to see what your version of "not team friendly" looks like.

It's not "team-friendly" at this point in his career, but LBs also don't make QB?WR money, so it's not really hurting either.

You cut Bighill and bring in a rookie, you're saving less than 100k. It's not enough to sign Schoen (assuming these 1=1 mental exercises you guys do mean anything).
My wife is amazing!

Sir Blue and Gold

Quote from: Jesse on January 15, 2024, 06:31:39 PM
It's not "team-friendly" at this point in his career, but LBs also don't make QB?WR money, so it's not really hurting either.

You cut Bighill and bring in a rookie, you're saving less than 100k. It's not enough to sign Schoen (assuming these 1=1 mental exercises you guys do mean anything).

You're saving $95,000. Schoen likely made the league minimum of $70,000 last year so you're now at $165,000. It's not a 1:1 but those are the types of decisions you have to make if you want to keep him. Stanley Bryant made $190,000. He's probably worth that but on the other hand you could save another ~$120,000 if you replace him you're at $285,000 which is certainly realistic. 

Jesse

Quote from: Sir Blue and Gold on January 15, 2024, 06:54:06 PM
You're saving $95,000. Schoen likely made the league minimum of $70,000 last year so you're now at $165,000. It's not a 1:1 but those are the types of decisions you have to make if you want to keep him. Stanley Bryant made $190,000. He's probably worth that but on the other hand you could save another ~$120,000 if you replace him you're at $285,000 which is certainly realistic. 

I'd rather keep Bryant than replace him with a rookie, lol.

It's possible Bryant eventual retirement costs us money if we go out and sign a top free agent to replace him.
My wife is amazing!

Throw Long Bannatyne

Quote from: Jesse on January 15, 2024, 07:08:17 PM
I'd rather keep Bryant than replace him with a rookie, lol.

It's possible Bryant eventual retirement costs us money if we go out and sign a top free agent to replace him.

I'm hoping they can pay Bryant less this year and spell him with Dru Richmond to work him into the mix, he's been hanging around 4 years on the PR waiting for his opportunity.  But I wouldn't be surprised if your prediction comes true and they just kept Richmond around as an emergency replacement.  Another plan would be moving Gray to OG and backfill with Dobson, further reducing the need for a Natl. RB.

theaardvark

Quote from: Throw Long Bannatyne on January 15, 2024, 07:21:10 PM
I'm hoping they can pay Bryant less this year and spell him with Dru Richmond to work him into the mix, he's been hanging around 4 years on the PR waiting for his opportunity.  But I wouldn't be surprised if your prediction comes true and they just kept Richmond around as an emergency replacement.  Another plan would be moving Gray to OG and backfill with Dobson, further reducing the need for a Natl. RB.

Not sure Gray can play OT, or he would have already.  In a pinch, game time injury, he might be your guy, but not full time.

If Richmond could replace Bryant, I think we'd do it.  But Oline don't "spell" or rotate in... and American OT's don't often make the AR unless they are starting.

Unabashed positron.  Blue koolaid in my fridge.  I wear my blue sunglasses at night.  Homer, d'oh.

Sir Blue and Gold

Quote from: Jesse on January 15, 2024, 07:08:17 PM
I'd rather keep Bryant than replace him with a rookie, lol.

It's possible Bryant eventual retirement costs us money if we go out and sign a top free agent to replace him.

You're possibly right but these are the types of tradeoffs you need to consider if you're trying to add another big contract in Schoen. You've got someone like Bighill who will be 36, Stanley Bryant who will be 38 and Schoen who will be 28.

Throw Long Bannatyne

Quote from: theaardvark on January 15, 2024, 07:23:38 PM
Not sure Gray can play OT, or he would have already.  In a pinch, game time injury, he might be your guy, but not full time.

If Richmond could replace Bryant, I think we'd do it.  But Oline don't "spell" or rotate in... and American OT's don't often make the AR unless they are starting.

Gray has filled in for Bryant multiple games and never given up a sack in those games. It's an option they could consider.

theaardvark

Quote from: Throw Long Bannatyne on January 15, 2024, 08:22:49 PM
Gray has filled in for Bryant multiple games and never given up a sack in those games. It's an option they could consider.

So, you think he can play at the level of a consistent all star, on a regular basis, with other teams game planning against him?   Not giving up a sack filling in is different than not giving up a sack starting.

We definitely have enough interior NAT talent to spare Gray if he can play OT, and that ratio advantage make BO20 and Woli/Orange a little more redundant in case we lose any of them.

When he first came here, i thought that was the plan for him, not sure whether it was the talent aspect, or just not being able to supplant Bryant/Hardrick.  Now might be his time.
Unabashed positron.  Blue koolaid in my fridge.  I wear my blue sunglasses at night.  Homer, d'oh.

Pigskin

Quote from: theaardvark on January 15, 2024, 09:07:28 PM
So, you think he can play at the level of a consistent all star, on a regular basis, with other teams game planning against him?   Not giving up a sack filling in is different than not giving up a sack starting.

We definitely have enough interior NAT talent to spare Gray if he can play OT, and that ratio advantage make BO22 and Woli/Orange a little more redundant in case we lose any of them.

When he first came here, i thought that was the plan for him, not sure whether it was the talent aspect, or just not being able to supplant Bryant/Hardrick.  Now might be his time.

BO20.
Don't go through life looking in the rearview mirror.