Argonauts release Marcus Ball to pursue NFL opportunity

[Ron]

Bruce Clark at least played 2 seasons for the Argos - and he was about 500x a better DT than Armstead; yep - those were the old CFL days with different money disparities between the 2 leagues; if you are good with the new CFL, that's swell. IMO - a CFL team could change things there by demanding at least 2 years commitment to the team for new players signed; if that is out of the question for Mr. Barker types, hey c'est la vie i guess. Varying attitudes and opinions can be held by those running sports teams.

CFL teams already sign guys to 2 year deals. Teams don't have to demand ... they can just say no to an early release. Difference here is that GM's like Barker treat their players like men and not chattel.

[OV Argo]

CFL teams already sign guys to 2 year deals. Teams don't have to demand ... they can just say no to an early release. Difference here is that GM's like Barker treat their players like men and not chattel.

Sure, you could look at it that way; and I'm all for working guys making good wages; love to see CFL salaries go up with the new TV deal and better financial health of the league.

You could also look at it as the CFL being treated like a 2nd rate, minor league stop-over for players who are just around for a cup of coffee and a temporary pay-cheque while they are looking for better stuff to do elsewhere; and tough $h*t about building a TEAM and respect for the paying customers/fans - and these CFL GMs have a duty to treat their players like men and do their best to help them seek better employment back home. Nothing wrong with that either I suppose.

[doubleblue]

It is just a fact of life now, with the minimum salary in the NFL over 400,000, that any player and especially the US guys would jump at the chance to make that kind of money. There's only so many jobs in the NFL and if you can land one even for a season you make more than 4 or 5 in the CFL. It is all about the money and who could blame them, careers are short and fleeting.
Just the same I would like to see the previous agreement where players can go in their option year with a window in December and January to do so. The thing is with the US players there is always another in line waiting to take their place. The loss of a starting Canadian really hurts though as we know they don't grow on trees.

[D-Gap-Willie]

I agree that players should not be treated like chattel, but in the head-long rush to be good guys to the players, I believe that some GM's are in turn treating the dedicated fans like chattel. The fault clearly lies with the present 1+1 contract which can be treated as nothing more than a handshake deal by some GM's and players.

Noone wants a discontented player on their roster, so it becomes imperative that the initial contract be one which both the the player and the GM have respect and concern for, BEFORE it is signed; it should be clear that the objective of the contract is not to merely set up a development period before an inevitable jump to the NFL

At the same time the contract should send a signal to NFL GM's, that they must respect the CFL contract, and not be combing the CFL rosters for 'lightning in a jar' or training camp fodder.

My initial thoughts are that the initial contract should be two years, with no option. The contract should contain a provision allowing the player to buy out his contract at any time after the first year, at a cost equal to the total value of the 2-year contract; probably the NFL team would covertly pay for this; any player exercising this provision would remain on that CFL teams negotiation list ( in a separate category) for five years. Any veteran player ( 3 or more games) cut by a CFL team, and signing with an NFL team within six months would be deemed to have been cut solely for the players benefit, and the CFL team would be fined and the value of the former player's contract would be deducted from that teams SMS until the end of that contract period.

If the players, and both the CFL GMs and the NFL GMs knew these rules going in, there would be a much more serious and business-like approach to the situation. Any thoughts on this or additions ?

[Argocister]

I am not up on the history here ..... But the CFL use to have the 1+1 contract did they not? And if they did, what was the reason for eliminating that option?

[paulwoods13]

If players think they will be effectively locked in for two years, some good ones will not come to the CFL. I suppose we could say there are thousands of players in the U.S. so what's the big deal, but I'd rather have top talent come here, especially since many of the guys who figure they are on the verge of being signed by the NFL actually aren't, and end up staying.

[D-Gap-Willie]

I am not up on the history here ..... But the CFL use to have the 1+1 contract did they not? And if they did, what was the reason for eliminating that option?

They still have the 1+1 contract in the form of a one year contract plus a one year team option for the second year. The contract is really a joke, in that it is a one year obligation by the team, and a 2-year obligation by the player, and most GMs and players view it as a one year plus a handshake. I don't know if it is the CFLPA which wants to have a one year contract, but if they aren't demanding it, I say make all CFL rookie contracts two year.

If players think they will be effectively locked in for two years, some good ones will not come to the CFL. I suppose we could say there are thousands of players in the U.S. so what's the big deal, but I'd rather have top talent come here, especially since many of the guys who figure they are on the verge of being signed by the NFL actually aren't, and end up staying.

I disagree that "some good ones will not come" as long as you offer them a CFL rookie contract which is standard for all, which contains a tough but realistic opt-out after one year - no side deals - no handshakes - no 'understandings' - just a straightforward standard contract. A very few might not come, but not many would pass up the chance to showcase their skills and develop.

[Invader]

It is just a fact of life now, with the minimum salary in the NFL over 400,000, that any player and especially the US guys would jump at the chance to make that kind of money. There's only so many jobs in the NFL and if you can land one even for a season you make more than 4 or 5 in the CFL. It is all about the money and who could blame them, careers are short and fleeting.
Just the same I would like to see the previous agreement where players can go in their option year with a window in December and January to do so. The thing is with the US players there is always another in line waiting to take their place. The loss of a starting Canadian really hurts though as we know they don't grow on trees.

If it's all about the money, why shouldn't players be able to leave for the NFL during the CFL season? When Barker was Personelle Director of the Stamps they signed returner David Allen to such a contract. He turned out to be an excellent KR (in the CFL) and KC Chiefs "called him up" in Oct. and the Stamps had to release him. The Stamps were fighting for their playoff lives and lost their game-breaking kick returner. Obviously this type of contract didn't work out for the Stamps...but it allowed them to sign Allen, a player who might otherwise skip the CFL. In this case, the Stamps might have been better off signing the 2nd best guy who they could count on for 2 years.

I know Wally Buono is all for the Option year NFL tryouts for many of the same reasons PaulWoods outlined above. It allows teams to sign the very best prospects who wouldn't sign if they had to stay for two years. More often than not, the player doesn't leave for the NFL, gets to like playing in the CFL and signs another contract here.

That being said I still support the current 2-year minimum contracts. The CFL can still attract excellent prospects who need the 2-years of training to become great CFL players...and better NFL prospects if they get a shot.

[doubleblue]

I agree that players should not be treated like chattel, but in the head-long rush to be good guys to the players, I believe that some GM's are in turn treating the dedicated fans like chattel. The fault clearly lies with the present 1+1 contract which can be treated as nothing more than a handshake deal by some GM's and players.

Noone wants a discontented player on their roster, so it becomes imperative that the initial contract be one which both the the player and the GM have respect and concern for, BEFORE it is signed; it should be clear that the objective of the contract is not to merely set up a development period before an inevitable jump to the NFL

At the same time the contract should send a signal to NFL GM's, that they must respect the CFL contract, and not be combing the CFL rosters for 'lightning in a jar' or training camp fodder.

My initial thoughts are that the initial contract should be two years, with no option. The contract should contain a provision allowing the player to buy out his contract at any time after the first year, at a cost equal to the total value of the 2-year contract; probably the NFL team would covertly pay for this; any player exercising this provision would remain on that CFL teams negotiation list ( in a separate category) for five years. Any veteran player ( 3 or more games) cut by a CFL team, and signing with an NFL team within six months would be deemed to have been cut solely for the players benefit, and the CFL team would be fined and the value of the former player's contract would be deducted from that teams SMS until the end of that contract period.

If the players, and both the CFL GMs and the NFL GMs knew these rules going in, there would be a much more serious and business-like approach to the situation. Any thoughts on this or additions ?

Some good thoughts for sure. I don't know about buying out the cost of a two year contract if they were on a 1+1 deal. Maybe if the CFL player made the NFL club then the transfer of the cost of his option year would go into affect. I believe the CFL tried to get some kind of a deal with the NFL back when the option year clause was cancelled, but the NFL wouldn't go for it apparently. Maybe they were afraid it would open up a can of worms where the US Colleges would start demanding compensation for the players they develop.

[ArgoRavi]

If it's all about the money, why shouldn't players be able to leave for the NFL during the CFL season? When Barker was Personelle Director of the Stamps they signed returner David Allen to such a contract. He turned out to be an excellent KR (in the CFL) and KC Chiefs "called him up" in Oct. and the Stamps had to release him. The Stamps were fighting for their playoff lives and lost their game-breaking kick returner. Obviously this type of contract didn't work out for the Stamps...but it allowed them to sign Allen, a player who might otherwise skip the CFL. In this case, the Stamps might have been better off signing the 2nd best guy who they could count on for 2 years.

That David Allen case did not do the Stamps or the CFL any favours but, fortunately, we have never seen a repeat of that. The Stamps IIRC were getting ready to play the Esks in the '05 West Semi-Final when they cut Allen in the week prior to that game so that he could head to the NFL (the Rams, I think). One of the interesting things about the timing of that move is that as the CFL regular season had ended no CFL team would have claimed Allen because he would have been unable to play in the playoffs. Anyway, the move did nothing for the Stamps as they lost that playoff game and Allen did play a bit for the Rams but I believe was injured not long after and never heard from again.

[gilthethrill]

I am not against holding anyone back from trying to better their career, but if the NFL can afford to pay Goodell $44 million in salary, then I see no reason why if an NFL team signs a CFL player who is still under contract, that NFL team should financially compensate that CFL team. It does cost CFL teams money to unearth these guys.

[Ron]

I am not against holding anyone back from trying to better their career, but if the NFL can afford to pay Goodell $44 million in salary, then I see no reason why if an NFL team signs a CFL player who is still under contract, that NFL team should financially compensate that CFL team. It does cost CFL teams money to unearth these guys.

The NFL has no reason to do so. That was always a "CFL centric" idea. The NFL never signs anyone under contract. Those players get released first and thus are free agents. (Not counting the NFL option deal that was forged when the NFL kept our league alive so we can even watch it today)

As for the cost to CFL teams to unearth these guys? Costs them no more that the cost to unearth all those players they cut from training camp each season.

[Ron]

I know Wally Buono is all for the Option year NFL tryouts for many of the same reasons PaulWoods outlined above. It allows teams to sign the very best prospects who wouldn't sign if they had to stay for two years. More often than not, the player doesn't leave for the NFL, gets to like playing in the CFL and signs another contract here.

That being said I still support the current 2-year minimum contracts. The CFL can still attract excellent prospects who need the 2-years of training to become great CFL players...and better NFL prospects if they get a shot.

Agreed.

Let's say that CFL teams sign 10 players who only give the CFL a try because they have NFL aspirations. Fans tend to focus solely on the 2 or 3 that leave and try to get into the NFL ... and take for granted the 7 to 8 that decide to stay up here and become stars. And of those 2-3 that leave ... usually just one of the three even make it. Then the other two come back.

Living with a CFL slant on things ... one forgets that every American player grew up dreaming of being in the NFL. Today we're seeing more and more Canadians growing up with that dream as #1 because Canadians have gotten much better over the years.

So if the Argos may have signed Ball with an honour agreement that they'd let him go to take a shot. It's still the teams option to do so. Sometimes having that one guy play even for one season can be the difference between hoisting the Cup or not. Barker got us a GC, so he gets the benefit of the doubt on that.

[gilthethrill]

The NFL has no reason to do so. That was always a "CFL centric" idea. The NFL never signs anyone under contract. Those players get released first and thus are free agents. (Not counting the NFL option deal that was forged when the NFL kept our league alive so we can even watch it today)

As for the cost to CFL teams to unearth these guys? Costs them no more that the cost to unearth all those players they cut from training camp each season.

I was under the impression US players went through a series of tryouts and FA camps down south. To send player personel to run them, rent a faculty etc, that has to add up, no?

[paulwoods13]

I disagree that "some good ones will not come" as long as you offer them a CFL rookie contract which is standard for all, which contains a tough but realistic opt-out after one year - no side deals - no handshakes - no 'understandings' - just a straightforward standard contract. A very few might not come, but not many would pass up the chance to showcase their skills and develop.

Making them buy out the contract for its full value -- something in the order of $100,000 to $150,000 for most rookie imports over two years -- is not close to a "realistic" opt-out clause, IMO. Neither NFL teams nor players will be prepared to pay that kind of ransom. That's why I think some guys who believe they are close to NFL-calibre will decline to come to Canada.

In any case, I don't see this changing any time soon. I sure don't see the CFLPA demanding what amounts to a minimum two-year commitment by players.

[OV Argo]

I get the sentiment, but IMO the CFL would not be hurting in the slightest, "talent" wise by insisting on players sign / commit for a minimum 2 years. The few guys who would not come up here cause they were afraid to commit are easily replaceable - by doing better scouting and finding players just as good - who are available as free agents, or who could be promoted to playing more from current CFL rosters or PRs. And the difference between these supposed one year superstar players that the CFL could in theory attract, and other guys who could be on the game roster, is negligible or nothing, IMO. There are tons of good football players out there - the import talent pool is huge - good players who were over-looked by the NFL out of college ball, or yearly NFL cuts - the CFL has not had any trouble finding good players from this source for decades; AND - the NI talent pool is larger / better than ever and VASTLY under-rated or under-respected.

There are plenty of good football players available to the CFL - takes some good scouting and keen evaluation though. Smart GMs might concern themselves with molding a good TEAM with committed players/ IF I was a CFL owner I'd insist on my GM finding football players who understand the commitment and have plenty of respect for the CFL, and when their contract is up, they are free to go to the NFL or wherever the hell else they like. But, maybe such a team would be in grave danger or being totally unable to compete with the CFL teams who are attracting all these superstar one year saviors and treating their roster like a mickey mouse holiday. And if the player is such a superstar "talent" to begin with and can only spare one year to the CFL, maybe you shoulda stuck down south sniffing around NFL PRs instead of wasting your time on the lowly CFL.

[Argo]

Continuity is scarce in today's CFL, and it negatively affects my level of interest in the league. Perhaps others feel the same. A two year contract should be a two year contract. If a player doesn't want to commit and play - instead of watching football while growing older and being forgotten sooner - then don't bother flirting with the CFL.

[Ron]

I was under the impression US players went through a series of tryouts and FA camps down south. To send player personel to run them, rent a faculty etc, that has to add up, no?

yes it does. And most of the guys they get from those are cut in CFL training camp. What I am saying is that it doesn't cost the CFL any more to recruit a player with NFL aspirations than it does to bring the "next big star" up here and cut him after the first preseason game.

[AngeloV]

A two year contract should be a two year contract. If a player doesn't want to commit and play - instead of watching football while growing older and being forgotten sooner - then don't bother flirting with the CFL.

I get the contract is a contract thing. One reason I don't like the option year/2 year commitment is because of the fact that contracts aren't guaranteed. If you want to guarantee that the player is going to get paid throughout the term of the contract (assuming he makes the team from the start of his contract), then by all means, make the players commit to 2 years. But IMO, it's unfair for a player to have to make that commitment, yet the team can break that commitment whenever they see fit. As long as a player can be cut thus voiding his contract, I don't believe a 2 year commitment should be mandatory.

[Argo]

I get the contract is a contract thing. One reason I don't like the option year/2 year commitment is because of the fact that contracts aren't guaranteed. If you want to guarantee that the player is going to get paid throughout the term of the contract (assuming he makes the team from the start of his contract), then by all means, make the players commit to 2 years. But IMO, it's unfair for a player to have to make that commitment, yet the team can break that commitment whenever they see fit. As long as a player can be cut thus voiding his contract, I don't believe a 2 year commitment should be mandatory.

Good point. I find it easy to flip-flop on this issue, actually. Sometimes, however, the turnstile syndrome just becomes a bit too tedious (from a fan's point of view).