SpeedFlex27 Posted February 4 Report Posted February 4 21 minutes ago, Jesse said: How? Even if we could double the cap, everyone’s wages go up (great for players) and you still end up against the cap and losing players. A “marquee” player is the same thing. One guy gets more money (good for him), but how does that help you keep your players? You circumvent the cap, that's how. Right now, Zach is costing us roughly 10% of the cap & with Schoen going from a rookie cap to perhaps a $300,000 deal suddenly 15% of the cap is spent on two players rather than just one. Why do you think players like Ken Lawler are restructuring their deals? There's not enough money to go around.
Jesse Posted February 4 Report Posted February 4 7 minutes ago, SpeedFlex27 said: You circumvent the cap, that's how. Right now, Zach is costing us roughly 10% of the cap & with Schoen going from a rookie cap to perhaps a $300,000 deal suddenly 15% of the cap is spent on two players rather than just one. Why do you think players like Ken Lawler are restructuring their deals? There's not enough money to go around. That happens regardless of how much the cap is though.
Booch Posted February 4 Report Posted February 4 (edited) 1 hour ago, Jesse said: How? Even if we could double the cap, everyone’s wages go up (great for players) and you still end up against the cap and losing players. A “marquee” player is the same thing. One guy gets more money (good for him), but how does that help you keep your players? How??...U and many are bemoaning right now its one of Schoen..or BO....Or cant pay Schoen in range of Lawler....but remove ZC salary as your Marquee exemption...and then it becomes a non issue and more than easily done...and no wages don't go up ...or have to....If you want to be dumb, and put yourself right back in that same situation and pay foolishly for one guy...and again cant keep a second guy...well thats your own stupidity Players can only make what they are offered, and when they realize they wont get the stars and the moon, and this is their only meal ticket...they will accept the best offer Edited February 4 by Booch Noeller, wbbfan, SpeedFlex27 and 3 others 6
SpeedFlex27 Posted February 4 Report Posted February 4 17 minutes ago, Booch said: How??...U and many are bemoaning right now its one of Schoen..or BO....Or cant pay Schoen in range of Lawler....but remove ZC saary as your Marquee exemption...and then it becomes a non issue and more than easily done...and no wages don't go up ...or have to....If you want to be dumb, and put yourself right back in that same situation and pay foolishly for one guy...and again cant keep a second guy...well thats your own stupidity Players can only make what they are offered, and when they realize they wont get the stars and the moon, and this is their only meal ticket...they will accept the best offer Well put, Booch. Nailed it. BigBlueFanatic, TrueBlue4ever, wbbfan and 2 others 3 1 1
JuranBoldenRules Posted February 4 Report Posted February 4 1 hour ago, Jesse said: How? Even if we could double the cap, everyone’s wages go up (great for players) and you still end up against the cap and losing players. A “marquee” player is the same thing. One guy gets more money (good for him), but how does that help you keep your players? I tend to agree with this. It will just shift the market IE you'll have more $200,000 receivers and a few more elite defenders making in that range. Sort of like the reality that adding more lanes to a road doesn't alleviate congestion. The CFL did have this rule with the enforced cap in the 90s and into 2000s. The BOG moved away from it in 2006. It is a soft cap. A team like the Bombers can probably budget an extra 10% for 6 game time. 48 minutes ago, Booch said: How??...U and many are bemoaning right now its one of Schoen..or BO....Or cant pay Schoen in range of Lawler....but remove ZC salary as your Marquee exemption...and then it becomes a non issue and more than easily done...and no wages don't go up ...or have to....If you want to be dumb, and put yourself right back in that same situation and pay foolishly for one guy...and again cant keep a second guy...well thats your own stupidity Players can only make what they are offered, and when they realize they wont get the stars and the moon, and this is their only meal ticket...they will accept the best offer The whole market shifts though. Agents aren't ignorant. Say someone like Jefferson. Instead of $165,000 he's setting his market at $190,000. Times that 15-20% by every spot but rookies on the roster and there goes the extra cap space from your exempt player. Jesse and JCon 2
Booch Posted February 4 Report Posted February 4 (edited) 33 minutes ago, JuranBoldenRules said: I tend to agree with this. It will just shift the market IE you'll have more $200,000 receivers and a few more elite defenders making in that range. Sort of like the reality that adding more lanes to a road doesn't alleviate congestion. The CFL did have this rule with the enforced cap in the 90s and into 2000s. The BOG moved away from it in 2006. It is a soft cap. A team like the Bombers can probably budget an extra 10% for 6 game time. The whole market shifts though. Agents aren't ignorant. Say someone like Jefferson. Instead of $165,000 he's setting his market at $190,000. Times that 15-20% by every spot but rookies on the roster and there goes the extra cap space from your exempt player. G.M's aren't dumb...or shouldnt be...U offer what works...and stay in your decided budget...and if u have a guy who wants to "reset" the market for 300k...but u can get 2 ..legit difference maker starters for that...maybe 2 and change for something else...then u do that everyday and make your team deeper...Agents don't set the market the GM's due... And as long as you don't have an idiot GM then things are just fine... Think of it as in stocks. The GMs are the market maker. They set the price... Agents are just brokers looking for bid and ask ... If the ask isn't there then they have to take the bid Edited February 4 by Booch Piggy 1 1
Stickem Posted February 4 Report Posted February 4 1 hour ago, Booch said: If you want to be dumb, and put yourself right back in that same situation and pay foolishly for one guy...and again cant keep a second guy...well thats your own stupidity Why does Chris Jones come immediately to mind with this quote......hmmmmm Booch, Piggy 1 and wbbfan 3
wbbfan Posted February 4 Report Posted February 4 3 minutes ago, Stickem said: Why does Chris Jones come immediately to mind with this quote......hmmmmm Doesn’t his contract run out this year though? His ass is grass.
Wanna-B-Fanboy Posted February 4 Report Posted February 4 11 minutes ago, Stickem said: Why does Chris Jones come immediately to mind with this quote......hmmmmm I dont know about that- no one mentioned Corky and the Juice Pigs.
SpeedFlex27 Posted February 4 Report Posted February 4 52 minutes ago, JuranBoldenRules said: I tend to agree with this. It will just shift the market IE you'll have more $200,000 receivers and a few more elite defenders making in that range. Sort of like the reality that adding more lanes to a road doesn't alleviate congestion. The CFL did have this rule with the enforced cap in the 90s and into 2000s. The BOG moved away from it in 2006. It is a soft cap. A team like the Bombers can probably budget an extra 10% for 6 game time. The whole market shifts though. Agents aren't ignorant. Say someone like Jefferson. Instead of $165,000 he's setting his market at $190,000. Times that 15-20% by every spot but rookies on the roster and there goes the extra cap space from your exempt player. I don't get how you're equating a Marquis Player Rule to inflating an already tight salary cap. The MPR is outside the salary cap so it's a separate entity. One has nothing to do with the other. The salary cap can remain the same from one year to the next but adding the MPR suddenly opens up over $500,000 for the Bombers in the case of Zach Collaros. It won't inflate the salary cap per se but it gives teams that have what they consider an elite player more wiggle room to sign players inside the cap.
JCon Posted February 4 Report Posted February 4 There's a salary cap. The market will correct itself, people. Don't make me tap the sign. BBlink, bearpants and Noeller 3
Jesse Posted February 5 Report Posted February 5 8 minutes ago, SpeedFlex27 said: I don't get how you're equating a Marquis Player Rule to inflating an already tight salary cap. The MPR is outside the salary cap so it's a separate entity. One has nothing to do with the other. The salary cap can remain the same from one year to the next but adding the MPR suddenly opens up over $500,000 for the Bombers in the case of Zach Collaros. It won't inflate the salary cap per se but it gives teams that have what they consider an elite player more wiggle room to sign players inside the cap. The first thing you mentioned (and have brought up many times) is that the salary cap isn't high enough. But if all of this is to figure out a way we should be able to keep Schoen; neither the salary cap or your proposed Marquis player rule have anything to with Dalton Schoen. JCon 1
JCon Posted February 5 Report Posted February 5 We could cut the cap in half and have exactly the same issues. Ignore thr dollars and pay attention to the percentage of the salary cap. Goalie, Fatty Liver, Jesse and 2 others 2 3
Booch Posted February 5 Report Posted February 5 39 minutes ago, Jesse said: The first thing you mentioned (and have brought up many times) is that the salary cap isn't high enough. But if all of this is to figure out a way we should be able to keep Schoen; neither the salary cap or your proposed Marquis player rule have anything to with Dalton Schoen. Adds 600k extra ...or puts 600k back into the sms....600k that can be spread all over for contracts...how u not getting that? 28 minutes ago, JCon said: We could cut the cap in half and have exactly the same issues. Ignore thr dollars and pay attention to the percentage of the salary cap. Yup...bang for buck....where u allocate...and what positions require a higher price point
WBBFanWest Posted February 5 Report Posted February 5 Love the idea of a Marquee Player idea. No way that's going to cause any issues on a team at all. And it would be yet another bone the league could throw the Argos because they're they only team that could maintain a high end salary like that indefinitely. It would financially dry up a team like the Bombers over the course of a few seasons. I like the cap. Same rule, same problem for everyone.
Jpan85 Posted February 5 Report Posted February 5 Marquee player would just be your starting QB Jesse, TBURGESS and Fatty Liver 1 2
Jesse Posted February 5 Report Posted February 5 22 minutes ago, Booch said: Adds 600k extra ...or puts 600k back into the sms....600k that can be spread all over for contracts...how u not getting that? Because every team gets the same benefit. It benefits the player in question, who probably would get a pay bump in that scenario. It may benefit the league by perhaps getting players who may not otherwise come up north without the aforementioned pay bump. But in the case of a player who has massively outperformed his rookie deal and needs a significant bump, it doesn’t help. Especially when we have two players who have done so. We could sign Schoen if we wanted - we’re choosing not to right now, because it would be too much invested in one position group. 25 minutes ago, Jpan85 said: Marquee player would just be your starting QB The concept would never be considered by the league.
Brandon Posted February 5 Report Posted February 5 4 hours ago, Wanna-B-Fanboy said: I dont know about that- no one mentioned Corky and the Juice Pigs. I don't believe Jones is the only Gay Eskimo in his tribe...
JuranBoldenRules Posted February 5 Report Posted February 5 3 hours ago, SpeedFlex27 said: I don't get how you're equating a Marquis Player Rule to inflating an already tight salary cap. The MPR is outside the salary cap so it's a separate entity. One has nothing to do with the other. The salary cap can remain the same from one year to the next but adding the MPR suddenly opens up over $500,000 for the Bombers in the case of Zach Collaros. It won't inflate the salary cap per se but it gives teams that have what they consider an elite player more wiggle room to sign players inside the cap. The more money they have to offer the more money players expect to get paid. I gave you an example of how that money goes away. You have 20 other guys who expect 20-25,000 more on every team as it opens up. That's exactly what happened when the CFL had the QB exemption in the 90s and early 2000s and why the BOG went to this salary system that counts the QB. 2 hours ago, Jpan85 said: Marquee player would just be your starting QB They had this in the 90s and early 2000s. The league almost went under.
SpeedFlex27 Posted February 5 Report Posted February 5 14 minutes ago, JuranBoldenRules said: The more money they have to offer the more money players expect to get paid. I gave you an example of how that money goes away. You have 20 other guys who expect 20-25,000 more on every team as it opens up. That's exactly what happened when the CFL had the QB exemption in the 90s and early 2000s and why the BOG went to this salary system that counts the QB. They had this in the 90s and early 2000s. The league almost went under. The league is almost under now. Nothing has changed.
SpeedFlex27 Posted February 5 Report Posted February 5 18 minutes ago, JuranBoldenRules said: The more money they have to offer the more money players expect to get paid. I gave you an example of how that money goes away. You have 20 other guys who expect 20-25,000 more on every team as it opens up. That's exactly what happened when the CFL had the QB exemption in the 90s and early 2000s and why the BOG went to this salary system that counts the QB. They had this in the 90s and early 2000s. The league almost went under. If the salary cap goes up $100,000 a year & you have one player per team who is a Marquis player geting paid outside the cap how is that going to make everyone want $25,000 more as per your example? The salary cap isn't drastically going up but money is being circumvented to help create financial flexibility on the roster. To retain top end players like Dalton Schoen while paying one elite player like a Zach Collaros on every team not included in the cap.
SpeedFlex27 Posted February 5 Report Posted February 5 4 minutes ago, Geebrr said: Outside of Alberta the league is stable. No, it's not. You can think that but it's not true. Montreal even with a new owner is still not making money. Ottawa is losing money as they can't even get 17000 to a agme anymore. Hamilton is lucky to break even. Toronto is not making money. Regina has never recovered from the pandemic. Edmonto is broke & seriously considering private ownership. Calgary claims to have 13,000 season tickets but I went to a number of games last season & if there was 10,000 fans at McMahon Stadium that was a good day. Vancouver is still in trouble & can't fill the stadium more than 25,000. If Doman gets tired of losing money then the team is in trouble. Geebrr 1
Geebrr Posted February 5 Report Posted February 5 It’s the best group of ownership probably in my lifetime. Jesse, 17to85 and Noeller 3
JCon Posted February 5 Report Posted February 5 BC is stable today. But, if this owner gets bored, or becomes frustrated, they're back in trouble. Everyone is, but Saskatchewan and Winnipeg, if they don't have seen winning seasons. I'll put Hamilton in the same category but if Caretaker Bob leaves and Stelco sells, they could be in trouble. Montréal, same story, Toronto, Ottawa, etc. Edmonton is a good market, they've just been kicked in gonads for so long. And, they won' the GC in 2015! 2 minutes ago, Geebrr said: It’s the best group of ownership probably in my lifetime. And, still, it feels fragile.
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now