2025 Free Agency (Blue Bomber Signings/News)

[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.

[Pete]

It seems simple to me by paying bonuses it gives the player more security, and they get taxed less. As a result the team can pay less and the player still gets the same. (security in that if a player signs and then the team finds a better option it becomes expensive for them to be cut as the bonus still counts to the cap)
the risk to the team is that you don't get injury relief on the bonus amount.
So its a gamble on the teams part. It is significant really only on the big bonus contracts. its significant to the team in $'s and in not being able to afford to cut a player that is underperforming)

[J5V]

LMAO!    

[BomberFan73]

LMAO!    

Ya, I feel the same.
I'm a football fan, not a bloody accountant!

[dd]

LMAO!    

Couldn't have said it better myself!!

[TecnoGenius]

Henoc Muamba??? Really? Are you kidding?

Sigh.  Reading comprehension.

I was countering the theory that there are zero options for high-end players mid/late season.  I listed some clear examples of players that suddenly became available mid/late season: Rourke, Betts, etc.  (There's many every year, think up your own.)

I also recall Henoc coming back to the CFL mid-season, however I may be mistaken and it may have been in FA.  If my initial memory is correct, Henoc would make literally the perfect example of a high-priced high-talent player coming back and doing the big team-shopping tour.  If you don't like the Henoc example ("muh too long ago derp derp") then feel free to insert your own more recent example.

Bottom line for the challenged: Signing-bonus SMS relief on a week 3 season-ender on your #1 REC would provide the money needed to sign & start another #1 later in the season instead of starting Wheatfall in the GC.

[TecnoGenius]

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.

The flaw in your reasoning is that teams should be satisfied being forced to start a Pokey or Wheatie in place of the intended Lawler and Schoen!  Just because Pokey turned out to be a lucky gem on ELC doesn't mean that will always be the case.

Everywhere you want to insert Pokey as your example instead insert "Wheatfall" and then reread it to see if it makes sense.

Let's say there was a late-season couch-sitter / NFL-returnee #1 REC available in 2024.  If bonus money was SMS-sheltered we probably could have afforded him, because so much bonus was "lost" because of Schoen/Kenny injuries.  As it stood we went into a GC starting (near-)rookies Clercius, Wheatfall, and (yes, lucky find) Pokey.

Yes, I realize that in 2024 there probably wasn't a #1 REC available late (if Mack was returning to his ELC contract), but that doesn't negate the argument.  There's usually some guys available in at least some/most of the positions.

[Throw Long Bannatyne]

Bomber Winter Special on CJOB tonight.

[TecnoGenius]

Bomber Winter Special on CJOB tonight.

Oooh, thanks!

https://globalnews.ca/pages/audio-vault-cjob/

Feb 25, 7pm

it's already up for a late listen

(P.S. DT, it's a soaker not a booter!)

[DM83]

E.L.C.?
I thought that was an NHL term.?
The CFL doesn't really abide by those do they?