Roster changes from 2024

[TecnoGenius]

All contracts have to be approved by the league. At some point they may consider the accumulation of contracts across the roster as part of SMS control. There is also an off season roster limit to take into account.

Aren't these periods of oversized rosters virtually unlimited?  In any event, they must be big enough that if you wanted to hog an extra 50 top FAs you could?  It seems like we bring in an extra 100 guys above our AR limit every TC.

I'd like to think teams try to work within the spirit of the rules.

Yes, that is the saving grace, as so many whisper rules are respected by the GMs.  However, as we saw with BC completely blowing the SMS and "marketing" schemes, all it takes is one unscrupulous GM/owner to blow it for everyone.

[Throw Long Bannatyne]

Interesting!  Who's the current prez / VP (etc.) of CFLPA?  They wouldn't have previously played for HAM & EDM by any chance?

Solomon Elimimian | President
Brett Lauther | 1st Vice President
Jake Thomas | 2nd Vice President
David Mackie | 3rd Vice President
Adam Bighill     |   Treasurer
Peter Dyakowski   | Interim Executive Director

[Blue In BC]

Aren't these periods of oversized rosters virtually unlimited?  In any event, they must be big enough that if you wanted to hog an extra 50 top FAs you could?  It seems like we bring in an extra 100 guys above our AR limit every TC.

Yes, that is the saving grace, as so many whisper rules are respected by the GMs.  However, as we saw with BC completely blowing the SMS and "marketing" schemes, all it takes is one unscrupulous GM/owner to blow it for everyone.

I think the off season limit is 105 players. Regardless there has to be a limit of some sort. We haven't ever seen what you suggested ( hogging an extra 50 FA's ) for example. It would destroy a given teams credibility. Whey would any player sign with a team that does that?  That's all part of fair play.

[Pete]

It makes you wonder with that many training camp attendees how they can possibly properly assess
talent especially with the limits on contact and only two preseason games one of which is likely to be against players no one has heard of.
it seems like a colossal waste of resources and time which could be spent getting ready for regular season.
Especially when you look at how few openings there are.
Why not hold a tryout camp prior to regular one, to bring down the numbers to a manageable number or do they already do that?

[Blue In BC]

It makes you wonder with that many training camp attendees how they can possibly properly assess
talent especially with the limits on contact and only two preseason games one of which is likely to be against players no one has heard of.
it seems like a colossal waste of resources and time which could be spent getting ready for regular season.
Especially when you look at how few openings there are.
Why not hold a tryout camp prior to regular one, to bring down the numbers to a manageable number or do they already do that?

They do hold a rookie mini camp before the actual TC. That results in a few deletions. The TC roster has a limit but draft choices are exempt from the limit. With the Canadian and Global draft that probably adds 12 bodies + draft choices returning from the previous year that returned from school.  Then we get a few players from the Bisons which are there for the experience before they are even drafted.

I agree it's too many players to really evaluate. The reality is that some are injured early and end up getting cut so more newbies can be added.

Between the AR, IR and PR there are about 60-65 players that end up somewhere on our rosters.

[TecnoGenius]

It makes you wonder with that many training camp attendees how they can possibly properly assess
talent especially with the limits on contact and only two preseason games one of which is likely to be against players no one has heard of.

I think they are looking for the immediate standouts.  Guys that you can't help but notice.  We get 1-2 every season.  Like Schoen.  D.Alford.  Guys that instantly stood out to Mafia, fans and press.  Guys that get special, rare praise right away.

The guys that may take a bit more work to season but might be #1 guys later will probably get lost in the shuffle and never heard from again.  Such is life.  (NATs get a bit more grace in that regard.)

You need to shine when you get your fleeting moment.  A great example is Wilson in the GC should have made more completions and/or scrambled for some 1st downs.  He didn't do badly (watch his reads and throws again).  But he didn't pop off the page and as such it's probably bye-bye Wilson in a couple of months (contrast with: TOR's Kelly).

Addtl: you can also get a sense of FIFO during a full training camp that you can't get otherwise.

[Throw Long Bannatyne]

They do hold a rookie mini camp before the actual TC. That results in a few deletions. The TC roster has a limit but draft choices are exempt from the limit. With the Canadian and Global draft that probably adds 12 bodies + draft choices returning from the previous year that returned from school.  Then we get a few players from the Bisons which are there for the experience before they are even drafted.

I agree it's too many players to really evaluate. The reality is that some are injured early and end up getting cut so more newbies can be added.

Between the AR, IR and PR there are about 60-65 players that end up somewhere on our rosters.

Rookie camp helps out a lot with overall efficiency of TC, it provides more time for newcomers to get their feet on the ground, familiarize themselves with the CFL game and understand the team's expectations, plus it gives the coaches a chance to pre-evaluate rookie talent.  Without it the same process would take place in Camp which would waste time and reps available for evaluating.

[theaardvark]

But in theory a malicious GM could sign every single FA player to a $1M contract in FA and release them after TC and not actually spend a dime of SMS, right?  The only caveat is you have to offer a $0 signing bonus.

Again, very strange system, and very strange definition of "contract".

It's amazing the players put up with such lopsided "contract" terms.  The players are 100% bound but the teams can cut at will on all but the most vet / most $ contracts.

NHL/MLB contracts are 100% player friendly.  Sign it and you don't have to do a single thing to earn it.  The money is all yours.  Claim a soft tissue injury, or go to rehab, 100% of your contract gets paid.

NFL/CFL contracts are earned.  You sign the deal knowing that if you do not earn the money, they can cut you loose.

Novel concept, earning your contract.

Yes, A GM could offer huge no signing bonus FA contracts and then cut players loose with zero $SMS implications.  Once. 

CFL Players are well aware of the fragility of their contracts and that they have to earn them.  Hubris could have them sign a deal they know they can't earn, knowing they will likely be cut when they don't. 

But most players/agents understand the fine line between getting paid and getting overpaid.  And that they can get cut before off season bonuses are paid.  Or before the "vet cutdown day" arrives if they've stunk out the place.

The one bonus concern they don't have is getting cut before they hit a performance bonus.  You'd have to be one dumb GM to cut a guy that has outperformed his performance clause.  Plus, by then, you're past the cut down days anyways...  and any GM that sits a guy when he can hit a performance bonus without agree first to pay it is going to lose a lot of goodwill going forward...

[Sir Blue and Gold]

Only partially true, Aards, all NHL ELCs are two way and there's a big difference between NHL and AHL money. Players who sign those deals need to make the NHL team to earn the reported money.

[theaardvark]

Only partially true, Aards, all NHL ELCs are two way and there's a big difference between NHL and AHL money. Players who sign those deals need to make the NHL team to earn the reported money.

ELC's, sure... AHL money is less, and no waivers to send down. But again, you EARN your contract.  You aren't in the AHL if you play at an NHL level.  And AHL money in those deals is a lot more than CFL money on AR's.

But every NHL contract, ELC or not, is 100% player friendly.  No cuts, guaranteed money.  Buyouts for exceptionally bad play still net you money, and allow you to sign elsewhere and still get your old paycheck.

Injured players still get paid, but the team can recoup money from insurance, if they bought it.  Maybe that's an idea, make signing bonuses $SMS prorated *IF* you "buy insurance" from the league.  Say, 10% of the bonus paid from $SMS into a league fund?

CFL, you play bad, its an apple and a roadmap. No safety net, no parting gifts (other than the apple).  Good players can negotiate a signing bonus to reduce that risk, but unless you are $DD4, zero do not want to earn every penny of the rest of their deal.

It would take a very dire circumstance for any GM to cut a player who is playing to his current compensation level. 

[TecnoGenius]

Injured players still get paid, but the team can recoup money from insurance, if they bought it.  Maybe that's an idea, make signing bonuses $SMS prorated *IF* you "buy insurance" from the league.  Say, 10% of the bonus paid from $SMS into a league fund?

Ya, but then you're paying real money to the league just to get reimbursed in "play money" (the SMS).  Which seems a bit weird.

And that still has the problem of giving the "rich" (in real money) teams a leg up.

Too complicated: just make bonus money pro-rated recoverable on 6GIR, just like normal salary is.  Easy peasy simple and is "free" insurance for all teams against #1 player catastrophic season-enders.  Then the idiosyncracies of USA tax law won't impact Canadian CFL teams at all (which I think we can all support!).

[theaardvark]

Ya, but then you're paying real money to the league just to get reimbursed in "play money" (the SMS).  Which seems a bit weird.

And that still has the problem of giving the "rich" (in real money) teams a leg up.

Too complicated: just make bonus money pro-rated recoverable on 6GIR, just like normal salary is.  Easy peasy simple and is "free" insurance for all teams against #1 player catastrophic season-enders.  Then the idiosyncracies of USA tax law won't impact Canadian CFL teams at all (which I think we can all support!).

Then there is no risk signing players to contracts that are all signing bonus.  Which gives "rich" teams an even bigger advantage.  Because any funds recouped through prorated bonuses still have to be paid out, they just don't count against $SMS. 

If signing bonuses are to be recouped, there has to be a cap on how much of your $SMS is doled out in bonuses, both signing and performance.  Just like there is a cap on how much guaranteed money a team can commit to subsequent years on multi year resigning deals.

It is sad, but the rules sometimes are needed to protect GM's from themselves.

Do you then extend that concept to the front office $SMS?  Can teams recoup $SMS from fired coaches?  I know its not the same as injury, but its a similar idea...

 

[Blue In BC]

Then there is no risk signing players to contracts that are all signing bonus.  Which gives "rich" teams an even bigger advantage.  Because any funds recouped through prorated bonuses still have to be paid out, they just don't count against $SMS. 

If signing bonuses are to be recouped, there has to be a cap on how much of your $SMS is doled out in bonuses, both signing and performance.  Just like there is a cap on how much guaranteed money a team can commit to subsequent years on multi year resigning deals.

It is sad, but the rules sometimes are needed to protect GM's from themselves.

Do you then extend that concept to the front office $SMS?  Can teams recoup $SMS from fired coaches?  I know its not the same as injury, but its a similar idea...

 

I don't think so. For the bonus money to be recouped, players have to be placed on the 6 game IR. You can't plan on which players or how much you will apply to SMS in that event.

That's the risk in signing players with large signing bonus's in the context of your suggestion.  Teams sign those players with the expectation they will play the bulk of the games. It's the key import players that see big bonus money.

[theaardvark]

I don't think so. For the bonus money to be recouped, players have to be placed on the 6 game IR. You can't plan on which players or how much you will apply to SMS in that event.

That's the risk in signing players with large signing bonus's in the context of your suggestion.  Teams sign those players with the expectation they will play the bulk of the games. It's the key import players that see big bonus money.

Yes, "key" import players get bonuses, because in the current scheme, its a risk, and you have to be careful who you risk it on and how much you risk.

But you can sign a player for less by giving them more upfront.  Of course, you expect any player you give a bonus to to play most of the games. 

In the current scheme, should you lose players you paid high signing bonuses, you don't recoup those at all from the 6 game IR.  You may have saved $40k on the total deal, but you could lose most of the signing bonus if they go out early, like Schoen.  So giving any player a big signing bonus is a risk.

If you recoup the signing bonus, you could sign all your players with favourable residency to deals with huge signing bonuses without worry.  If I calculate correctly,  a player could net the same pay from a $240k deal with a 160k signing bonus as he would from a $300k deal with no bonus.  So you save $60k on your $SMS. 

If there is no risk, suddenly players from those tax friendly states become in more demand, and "rich" teams can sign them because they don't have to worry about eating $SMS, they just pay out non-SMS cash if the player is injured.  Teams that have actual budgets would be less likely to sign, because of the real concern they'd have to pay extra non-SMS dollars in the case of injury.

And while saving $SMS on injured players signing bonuses sounds great, it really rarely helps teams acquire replacement talent.  What it does do is give teams end of season $SMS to be used for re-signing players.  The rich get richer.

[TecnoGenius]

It is sad, but the rules sometimes are needed to protect GM's from themselves.

I strongly believe in personal responsibility.  If a GM shoots themselves in the foot, that's their problem.

Do you then extend that concept to the front office $SMS?  Can teams recoup $SMS from fired coaches?  I know its not the same as injury, but its a similar idea...

Not a great comparison.  Cutting a coach is more like cutting a player you gave $200k bonus to.  In any event, I'd ditch the entire office SMS, as it's proven to be extremely limiting and really hasn't improved anything.  Just look at how many hoops the Can Mafia has to jump through every year to keep the big 3 happy?