2025 Free Agency (Blue Bomber Signings/News)

[Blue In BC]

It's not really as big a deal as you're making it out to be and it's bad business - that's primary why they don't do it. Allow me to explain. There isn't a substantially larger risk/reward with a bonus versus salary. Both need to be accounted for in the exact same way going into week 1.

Yes, you get SMS exemption on game cheques when a player is hurt when it's salary, but the idea behind that is it allows teams the ability to backfill injuries (game cheques) while staying onside with the SMS. There isn't a long line of highly paid backups in the CFL. When a starter goes down, it's almost certainly an ELC (or close to it) back-up replacing him.

In practice, consider there is no second Dalton Schoen on the roster or available as a Free Agent once the season starts. If Schoen makes $250,000 and he gets $100,000 up front, the full $250,000 still needs to be considered week 1 because he might play every game (all of that is money that can't be spent anymore). If he gets hurt for the season in week 5, the team has spent ~$41,665 dollars in game cheques (plus bonus) so the ~$108,500 difference exceeds the cost of his ELC replacement (but not by SO much 13 games at $70,000 is ~$50,500). There isn't another $250,000 free agent receiver to sign in August anyway so if you shelter the signing bonus also all you're doing is adding cost for all the teams who will tack those injury dollars onto extensions in December, thereby significantly increasing the actual player expenditures, which the league doesn't want to do.

To summarize, what they mostly want is for spent dollars to be spent and to count towards the cap as much as possible because the whole point of the SMS is to control player expenses under the limit set. Expensive injured starters get replaced by cheaper back-ups and the game day cheques can be somewhat similar when you factor out the bonus. The system has some flexibility for contacts for guys who get hurt (it makes sense to pay out smaller bonuses to guys often hurt players) but by in large, what I described above is how they want it to work.

There is a 1 game IR and a 6 game IR.  A highly paid player might only miss 4 games while another might miss the entire season. Situations vary as to impact.  Bombers lost some highly paid players with bonus money in 2023 as well. We only added ELC players and we went over the SMS by $24K. Will we be surprised if that happens again form the 2024 seasons? Similarly we only added ELC players and Whitehead. 

A $90K bonus for a player that misses 6 games = is $5k per game not pro rated. If you add and ELC player to the AR for 6 games, that's $4k per game = $24K of new cost.

We discussed how the marketing money could be abused since it is exempt from the SMS. The CFL is not perfect. That's another example of errors by the league.

It was just announced that the SMS went up by $400K after all the free agent frenzy. No one has said where this extra money will go. That's another example of how not " this is how they want it to work ".

I think you're giving too much credit to the league and " this is how they want it to work ".

On this we'll agree to disagree.

[Sir Blue and Gold]

Fine, but so you know, your suggestion pays the players more overall and if there is one thing the teams are all aligned on with the league, it's that. Guaranteed.

[TecnoGenius]

In practice, consider there is no second Dalton Schoen on the roster or available as a Free Agent once the season starts.

Often, but not always.  You're forgetting the NFL returnees and/or guys who sat on the couch waiting for the big payday from a desperate team.

There was a top-3 QB available mid-season last year for any team that had a season-ender for their starter... Rourke.  Also Betts.  And Mack.  In previous years didn't Henoc M. return mid-season and shop himself around aggressively?  Many such examples.  And then there's guys just sitting waiting for the big payday like Lemon.

If the bonuses were SMS exempt after a season-ender, then we could have looked at Mack to fill our roster that was missing Schoen (if we were so inclined).  (What would our GC have looked like with Mack in place of Wheatie?)

So it definitely can have a real world impact most every season, especially in ones where there are many injuries to big-name starters.

I don't want to relitigate the above, I just wanted to maybe see less/smaller front-end bonuses doled out to WPG players this year.  Once bitten, twice reduced bonuses.  Offering some of the middling guys $40-$60 signing bonuses is a bit surprising to me.  But at least they aren't $100k+ (at least not for the new FAs... what Dalton got remains to be seen).

Maybe after the horrendous '24 this will be "our year" to be lucky on the injury front.

[TecnoGenius]

Fine, but so you know, your suggestion pays the players more overall and if there is one thing the teams are all aligned on with the league, it's that. Guaranteed.

Ya, but any team that suffers outlandish injuries to high-end players (WPG 2024) is going to be weaker as a result.  The whole team (and fan base) suffers.

Ask KW if he would like to have been gifted the $150-$200k SMS space we "lost" (due to 6GIR signing bonus losses) for some late-season pickups... I'm sure he'd have jumped at that instead of starting 3 rookie RECs in the GC.

[Sir Blue and Gold]

Often, but not always.  You're forgetting the NFL returnees and/or guys who sat on the couch waiting for the big payday from a desperate team.

There was a top-3 QB available mid-season last year for any team that had a season-ender for their starter... Rourke.  Also Betts.  And Mack.  In previous years didn't Henoc M. return mid-season and shop himself around aggressively?  Many such examples.  And then there's guys just sitting waiting for the big payday like Lemon.

If the bonuses were SMS exempt after a season-ender, then we could have looked at Mack to fill our roster that was missing Schoen (if we were so inclined).  (What would our GC have looked like with Mack in place of Wheatie?)

So it definitely can have a real world impact most every season, especially in ones where there are many injuries to big-name starters.

I don't want to relitigate the above, I just wanted to maybe see less/smaller front-end bonuses doled out to WPG players this year.  Once bitten, twice reduced bonuses.  Offering some of the middling guys $40-$60 signing bonuses is a bit surprising to me.  But at least they aren't $100k+ (at least not for the new FAs... what Dalton got remains to be seen).

Maybe after the horrendous '24 this will be "our year" to be lucky on the injury front.

Yes and even in those cases you're going to pay a guy a pro rated $220,000 for 5-6 regular season games left. So ~$61,000 ish. You're not paying out big signing bonuses in September.

[BlueFire]

Can these small receivers that have signed be an option to return kicks ?

[Blue In BC]

Often, but not always.  You're forgetting the NFL returnees and/or guys who sat on the couch waiting for the big payday from a desperate team.

There was a top-3 QB available mid-season last year for any team that had a season-ender for their starter... Rourke.  Also Betts.  And Mack.  In previous years didn't Henoc M. return mid-season and shop himself around aggressively?  Many such examples.  And then there's guys just sitting waiting for the big payday like Lemon.

If the bonuses were SMS exempt after a season-ender, then we could have looked at Mack to fill our roster that was missing Schoen (if we were so inclined).  (What would our GC have looked like with Mack in place of Wheatie?)

So it definitely can have a real world impact most every season, especially in ones where there are many injuries to big-name starters.

I don't want to relitigate the above, I just wanted to maybe see less/smaller front-end bonuses doled out to WPG players this year.  Once bitten, twice reduced bonuses.  Offering some of the middling guys $40-$60 signing bonuses is a bit surprising to me.  But at least they aren't $100k+ (at least not for the new FAs... what Dalton got remains to be seen).

Maybe after the horrendous '24 this will be "our year" to be lucky on the injury front.

Mack was still under contract with the Als. His contract was renegotiated / extended but he was just going into his 2nd year.

[Blue In BC]

Can these small receivers that have signed be an option to return kicks ?

Possibly but Logan will be doing that. Probably someone that ends up on the PR will back up if he's injured. In game, there will be another player on the AR that will be the depth. Could be a receiver or DB on the roster.

I'm not sure if Sterns makes the AR coming out of TC unless we have an injury. No knock on him but it's a ratio issue. We'll only start 3 import receivers.

Mitchell did some return work in Edmonton. Preferably we don't use a starting receiver to do that except as an in game injury to the primary returner.

[blue_gold_84]

Henoc Muamba??? Really? Are you kidding?

[theaardvark]

That's not really true. It's the result of an American tax break for import players. It's only a risk because of the current rule or whatever it's called. If the US eliminated that tax break, it would disappear. There is nothing stopping the league from changing this rule.

It potentially can result in an uneven playing field if a high paid player with a bonus is injured for an extended time.

Example: A QB gets a contract worth $600K which includes $200K signing bonus and is lost for the season in TC. Now they are restricted from both a talent and a financial issue trying to replace that talent ( via trade ) etc.

We know teams accept the current risk, but that doesn't mean we need to continue creating a risk situation.

The player benefits from the early money. The team benefits from lower overall salaries. There is no benefit to the league to create the risk aspect. That's a very simple argument.

The team gets an advantage by taking a risk.  The player accepts a lower total compesation for a better tax advantage.  Win/win.

What does the league have to do with any of it?  The player is under contract in the league.  More players end up in the league because the teams have "more" $SMS to play with due to the tax advantage.

If anything it favours the league.

If a player with significant upfront money goes down and needs to be replaced by an new player, I am sure the $SMS savings from the 6 game IR for a star player (lets say Vaughters with his $160k deal with $45 signing), that $115k in SMS should more than cover his replacement. 

I see this loophole as a way teams can take advantage of a risk for a reward, especially if they have depth.  And it actually benefits the league in allowing teams to spend less overall for more talent.

Dumb GM's will give upfront money to injury prone players and have no depth behind them and be up the creek *when* they get injured.

[Blue In BC]

The team gets an advantage by taking a risk.  The player accepts a lower total compesation for a better tax advantage.  Win/win.

What does the league have to do with any of it?  The player is under contract in the league.  More players end up in the league because the teams have "more" $SMS to play with due to the tax advantage.

If anything it favours the league.

If a player with significant upfront money goes down and needs to be replaced by an new player, I am sure the $SMS savings from the 6 game IR for a star player (lets say Vaughters with his $160k deal with $45 signing), that $115k in SMS should more than cover his replacement. 

I see this loophole as a way teams can take advantage of a risk for a reward, especially if they have depth.  And it actually benefits the league in allowing teams to spend less overall for more talent.

Dumb GM's will give upfront money to injury prone players and have no depth behind them and be up the creek *when* they get injured.

It's pretty simple math. The advance money is spent. If the advance money is pro rated ( it's already spent against operational costs ), then that pro rated money becomes available again against the SMS.

In your example, that $45K wouldn't be pro rated against all 18 games and covered in the SMS.

Therefore, in my explanation, there would be additionally $45K more available than the cost of the player going on IR. The replacement may or may not be on an ELC. If the injury happens in TC, you might find a player that is still un-signed and is more expensive.

It doesn't matter. It's money that could get spent on a better player ( if available ) or spent at year end in re-signing bonus money.

Ultimately the pot is bigger and gets spent on players.

Schoen only played in 3 games in 2024. How much of his $235K was early money that wasn't sheltered in the SMS? Same question for Lawler but he only missed 6 games. However, IIRC his early money was $90K-$100K, which equals $5K per game and $30K not covered by SMS in pro rated weekly money.

If the goal is to have as much money as possible going to the players, then this would add to pot.

Note that teams don't spend less on talent. They spend the SMS whether the have large advance money or not.

[theaardvark]

It's pretty simple math. The advance money is spent. If the advance money is pro rated ( it's already spent against operational costs ), then that pro rated money becomes available again against the SMS.

In your example, that $45K wouldn't be pro rated against all 18 games and covered in the SMS.

Therefore, in my explanation, there would be additionally $45K more available than the cost of the player going on IR. The replacement may or may not be on an ELC. If the injury happens in TC, you might find a player that is still un-signed and is more expensive.

It doesn't matter. It's money that could get spent on a better player ( if available ) or spent at year end in re-signing bonus money.

Ultimately the pot is bigger and gets spent on players.

Schoen only played in 3 games in 2024. How much of his $235K was early money that wasn't sheltered in the SMS? Same question for Lawler but he only missed 6 games. However, IIRC his early money was $90K-$100K, which equals $5K per game and $30K not covered by SMS in pro rated weekly money.

If the goal is to have as much money as possible going to the players, then this would add to pot.

Note that teams don't spend less on talent. They spend the SMS whether the have large advance money or not.

You miss the point entirely.  If Schoen's money was even 1/2 upfront (it wasn't even close to that, if any at all), but say it was, then we would have recouped $100k in non-upfront money, which is more than we paid Wilson to replace him.

If upfront money was $SMS protected, *EVERY* GM would bust the bank signing players from tax friendly states with upfront money.  Knowing you CAN use it as an advantage to sign a player for less overall cap hit by taking the chance he gets injured HAS to be a risk.

The way it stands, teams may take a moderate stance in giving some upfront money to eligible players to increase the net offer to the player while decreasing the $SMS cap hit.

This adds a dynamic to the negotiating process that lets more adept GM's out manoeuvre lesser GM's in landing certain free agents, and make lesser GM's make terrible mistakes with injury prone players. 

You have to think Lawlers deal has zero upfront, if Goveia gave him upfront as well as that ridiculous number, he's nuts.  And we know there can't be guaranteed 2nd year money because that's just for players re-signing with a current team to a multi year deal.

[Blue In BC]

You miss the point entirely.  If Schoen's money was even 1/2 upfront (it wasn't even close to that, if any at all), but say it was, then we would have recouped $100k in non-upfront money, which is more than we paid Wilson to replace him.

If upfront money was $SMS protected, *EVERY* GM would bust the bank signing players from tax friendly states with upfront money.  Knowing you CAN use it as an advantage to sign a player for less overall cap hit by taking the chance he gets injured HAS to be a risk.

The way it stands, teams may take a moderate stance in giving some upfront money to eligible players to increase the net offer to the player while decreasing the $SMS cap hit.

This adds a dynamic to the negotiating process that lets more adept GM's out manoeuvre lesser GM's in landing certain free agents, and make lesser GM's make terrible mistakes with injury prone players. 

You have to think Lawlers deal has zero upfront, if Goveia gave him upfront as well as that ridiculous number, he's nuts.  And we know there can't be guaranteed 2nd year money because that's just for players re-signing with a current team to a multi year deal.

Did you even read what I said? I'm not the one missing the point. It's not about whether we then activate a player for a lesser amount than the sheltered amount of SMS on 6 game IR.

[theaardvark]

Your contention is that it is in the leagues best interest to prorate signing bonuses.  That somehow it makes the league better if a team can use tax loopholes to cheat the $SMS without consequence.  That recovering $SMS to respend on replacement players is somehow a good thing.

If bonuses were $SMS recoverable in case of injury, it would actually encourage GM's to overpay oft injured players, diluting the $SMS available for all players.

I'm saying that used properly, the loophole can let a smart GM get more talent onto his team under the cap by investing in low risk for injury players.  Which is an actual benefit.

[Blue In BC]

Your contention is that it is in the leagues best interest to prorate signing bonuses.  That somehow it makes the league better if a team can use tax loopholes to cheat the $SMS without consequence.  That recovering $SMS to respend on replacement players is somehow a good thing.

If bonuses were $SMS recoverable in case of injury, it would actually encourage GM's to overpay oft injured players, diluting the $SMS available for all players.

I'm saying that used properly, the loophole can let a smart GM get more talent onto his team under the cap by investing in low risk for injury players.  Which is an actual benefit.

That's my contention and yes I'm saying you're wrong. You can't predict injury and any GM that did what you suggest would be an idiot. There is more risk in doing that.

The CFL didn't create the US tax benefit. On a given team, there might be 3 or 4 players have have a large early money payment. It's unusual that even 2 on a given team are injured for an extended time.

In the case of the Bombers, those players were Lawler and Schoen where their significant bonus comes into play.  If both had been lost for the season  in TC, my suggestion would have added perhaps $150K of bonus money to be spent in addition to the balance of their salaries if pro rated.

I don't know if I can even name another player lost for the season that had a large bonus, on any team in any season. Schoen was the closest that comes to mind.  For their actual season injuries ( duration ), we might have gained $30K for Lawler missing 6 games and $40K for Schoen missing 15.

This year we have Vaughters and Mitchell getting about $100K between the two of them. The next highest is down to $15K. That's for the free agents. Not sure how much any of the other imports that were re-signed got.

Feel free to list the players on our roster that will or won't get injured in 2025. Nobody can do that, so suggesting signing low risk players is absurd. A GM certainly isn't going to " bank " on a bunch of those players to get injured long term and see that as an advantage.