Offseason Transactions / News Thread

[paulwoods13]

While it seems self-evident that adding three more NAT starters would result in higher salaries, since they are a scarce commodity, I am not 100% sure about that. There's unquestionably a shortage of good NATs at some positions, but other position groups are starting to become pretty well populated. And to truly assess this we'd have to compare the salary paid to the three new NAT starters to the salary of the three INT starters they would be replacing. I suspect it might even out in the wash. I don't think all 10 NAT starters made big money back in the early 1980s. Many of the o-linemen did, but I bet guys like Townsend, Moen and McEachern (on the 1983 Argos) were not particularly highly paid. I'd certainly be open to this idea. At the very least, go to eight and make it 4+4 or at east 5+3, offence and defence.

[OV Argo]

While it seems self-evident that adding three more NAT starters would result in higher salaries, since they are a scarce commodity, I am not 100% sure about that. There's unquestionably a shortage of good NATs at some positions, but other position groups are starting to become pretty well populated. And to truly assess this we'd have to compare the salary paid to the three new NAT starters to the salary of the three INT starters they would be replacing. I suspect it might even out in the wash. I don't think all 10 NAT starters made big money back in the early 1980s. Many of the o-linemen did, but I bet guys like Townsend, Moen and McEachern (on the 1983 Argos) were not particularly highly paid. I'd certainly be open to this idea. At the very least, go to eight and make it 4+4 or at east 5+3, offence and defence.

The notion that Canadian talent is so scarce that hapless CFL GMs are forced to pay a lot of them huge buck$ is a CFL cliche and a total joke IMO. It has been used by GOB types of course, as some sort of conservative lover free market principle/excuse for them to get more of their guys on CFL rosters, and tough $hite for Canadian players in the pro league in their own country. Pathetic & sad IMO.

Meanwhile, Jones is paying Lawler 300K at receiver, and the highest paid players - by far - in the CFL are the starting American QBs. CFL teams spend way more of their $M$ on American players, but I guess that's A-ok to the "ratio problem" cry-babies out there.

[Shatto]

No matter how many times, I explain the CFL roster ratio rules to friends, it just seems too complex for the average fan. The present game roster is 46 but 1 doesn't play so it is really 45.

So here is a suggestion:
18 Americans
24 Canadians
Therefore game roster of 42.

The owners save the cost of 4 players. Most teams play 2 American QB's, which results in 16 starting Americans and 7 Canadians in the other positions. Any team the uses an American kicker, reduces the American starters to 15 and 8 Canadians.

This would encourage teams to look for and hopefully develop Canadian kickers and perhaps even a Canadian QB (probably at backup) This would allow teams to maximize the number of starting Americans.

So 42 on the game roster made up of 18 Americans and 24 Canadians. Think my friends could grasp that.

I realize the suggestion is pie in the sky but we can always dream.

[paulwoods13]

I'd personally go to 17+23 for a game roster of 40 (which of course will never happen). Plus one extra Global if that program continues. Key to any such move would be no "designated" INTs -- all positions can be substituted freely at all times. With 17 INTs, we would see an increase in the number of NAT starters, except for teams that employ a NAT as backup QB -- they would still likely start 17 INTs and seven NATs. In Shatto's model of 18+24, there would also be no reduction in the number of NAT starters. Both models would increase the role of Canadians on special teams and as situation subs, since there would no longer be DIs who can be used as kick returners, sixth DBs, extra DEs, etc. If you find an amazing INT returner who can't play a regular position elsewhere (like Dedmon or Gizmo), you'll need to give an extra starting job to a NAT. For teams loaded with "Canadian content" (as I think the Argos are at the moment), that would not be a huge challenge.

[AngeloV]

I'd personally go to 17+23 for a game roster of 40 (which of course will never happen). Plus one extra Global if that program continues. Key to any such move would be no "designated" INTs -- all positions can be substituted freely at all times. With 17 INTs, we would see an increase in the number of NAT starters, except for teams that employ a NAT as backup QB -- they would still likely start 17 INTs and seven NATs. In Shatto's model of 18+24, there would also be no reduction in the number of NAT starters. Both models would increase the role of Canadians on special teams and as situation subs, since there would no longer be DIs who can be used as kick returners, sixth DBs, extra DEs, etc. If you find an amazing INT returner who can't play a regular position elsewhere (like Dedmon or Gizmo), you'll need to give an extra starting job to a NAT. For teams loaded with "Canadian content" (as I think the Argos are at the moment), that would not be a huge challenge.

I would 100% be on board with that. 17 seems to be the correct number of Americans on rosters.

[OV Argo]

I'd personally go to 17+23 for a game roster of 40 (which of course will never happen). Plus one extra Global if that program continues. Key to any such move would be no "designated" INTs -- all positions can be substituted freely at all times. With 17 INTs, we would see an increase in the number of NAT starters, except for teams that employ a NAT as backup QB -- they would still likely start 17 INTs and seven NATs. In Shatto's model of 18+24, there would also be no reduction in the number of NAT starters. Both models would increase the role of Canadians on special teams and as situation subs, since there would no longer be DIs who can be used as kick returners, sixth DBs, extra DEs, etc. If you find an amazing INT returner who can't play a regular position elsewhere (like Dedmon or Gizmo), you'll need to give an extra starting job to a NAT. For teams loaded with "Canadian content" (as I think the Argos are at the moment), that would not be a huge challenge.

I'd be totally on board with that idea;

Not going to happen of course with the way the CFL has trended for decades. Would take several radical thinking owners and a Commish with guts and vision that values the integrity of Canadian football - who are able to over-rule the current clique of Americans first types running the league.

And 17 imports on a roster - would mean - in theory - fully two thirds of starters, plus a specialist (returner, FG kicker, punter - all key spots) could be American players; but I guess that is not American enough for some leaders & supporters of the "radical" CFL.

[paulwoods13]

Jamal Campbell released, allegedly ahead of a roster bonus. I hope this a precursor to re-structuring and re-signing with us. He's not all-star calibre, but is a solid, experienced vet (and a great guy in the community). I would really hate to see him signed as CVZ's eventual replacement in Hamilton.

[Will]

Jamal Campbell released, allegedly ahead of a roster bonus. I hope this a precursor to re-structuring and re-signing with us. He's not all-star calibre, but is a solid, experienced vet (and a great guy in the community). I would really hate to see him signed as CVZ's eventual replacement in Hamilton.

I'm not really sold on anyone else we have in camp to replace him though.

[OV Argo]

Jamal Campbell released, allegedly ahead of a roster bonus. I hope this a precursor to re-structuring and re-signing with us. He's not all-star calibre, but is a solid, experienced vet (and a great guy in the community). I would really hate to see him signed as CVZ's eventual replacement in Hamilton.

IF that was the intention - to just re-sign him to a re-structured contract - then why just not go about doing it quietly? Why the need for a press release with Pinball saying gushing things about the guy? Or is that how they have to do it, contractually ?


Wouldn't be at all surprised though that it is a pencilled-in thing for 2 imports at OT (they'll have to do without a "ratio breaker" at OT - Hodge and his buddies at 3 Down continue to trot out the good ole cliche); the Argos easily have 7 plus other potential NI starters.

[paulwoods13]

We don't yet know what Churchill or Richards will develop into. I would venture that both guys might be a bit ahead of where Jamal was at the same stage of his career, but is either a potential starter at RT? Let's hope. There's also Sage Doxtator, if we sign him, and we might draft an OT like Zerr. If I had to bet, though, I'd say we will start either Richards or an INT at RT this year. We have enough NAT talent that we could easily start two INTs. It would be great if we were to recruit a stud INT or two -- haven't really done so since SirVincent Rogers (whose stud status didn't develop until after he left).

[paulwoods13]

IF that was the intention - to just re-sign him to a re-structured contract - then why just not go about doing it quietly? Why the need for a press release with Pinball saying gushing things about the guy? Or is that how they have to do it, contractually ?


Wouldn't be at all surprised though that it is a pencilled-in thing for 2 imports at OT (they'll have to do without a "ratio breaker" at OT - Hodge and his buddies at 3 Down continue to trot out the good ole cliche); the Argos easily have 7 plus other potential NI starters.

I hadn't seen the release when I wrote that. Wishful thinking, sadly. Pretty clear that they are not looking to restructure.

[Shatto]

Is Campbell not one of the highest paid players on the Argo OL? This appears to be a cost cutting move. In the same way CVZ's release was a cost cutting exercise. It would appear to be a bit of a gamble to count on Churchill or Richard to man the right OT position. In time perhaps, but I suspect we will be seeing an American at that position at the start of the season.

[paulwoods13]

Is Campbell not one of the highest paid players on the Argo OL? This appears to be a cost cutting move. In the same way CVZ's release was a cost cutting exercise. It would appear to be a bit of a gamble to count on Churchill or Richard to man the right OT position. In time perhaps, but I suspect we will be seeing an American at that position at the start of the season.

There is little doubt it's cost-cutting. He was reported to be making around $200k, big coin for a guy who has been a decent starter for a couple of years but not an all-star. I assume they asked him to take a pay cut, and the magnitude of what they needed would have been large. I can't blame him for refusing (if that is in fact the way it all went down). It's not his fault they game him such a contract to begin with. Someone is going to pick him up (I'm looking at you, Hamilton) -- he won't get same size deal as he had here, but he'll be comfortably employed. Guys his size and character don't grow on trees, sadly. I will always have fond memories of his receiving TD in 2019.

[ArgoGabe22]

Campbell's departure, to me, is a bigger blow than Darby's. He is literally a byproduct of the Huddle Up/Stop the Violence Program or whichever one brought football back to schools with no team/equipment (CW Jefferies).

[OV Argo]

There is little doubt it's cost-cutting. He was reported to be making around $200k, big coin for a guy who has been a decent starter for a couple of years but not an all-star. I assume they asked him to take a pay cut, and the magnitude of what they needed would have been large. I can't blame him for refusing (if that is in fact the way it all went down). It's not his fault they game him such a contract to begin with. Someone is going to pick him up (I'm looking at you, Hamilton) -- he won't get same size deal as he had here, but he'll be comfortably employed. Guys his size and character don't grow on trees, sadly. I will always have fond memories of his receiving TD in 2019.

Didn't the report say he was due a contract bonus payment soon? - that's often a death knell.

Fortunately, the Argos have some other NI OT prospects; wonder if there will be news soon on a possible signing of last year's draft pick Doxtator - now there is a massive O-Lineman; have not seen him anywhere in NFL 2022 draft prospect rankings = good sign for the Argos.

[AngeloV]

Someone is going to pick him up (I'm looking at you, Hamilton) -- he won't get same size deal as he had here, but he'll be comfortably employed.

I don't see him going to Hamilton with CVZ already the incumbent at RT. I expect Ottawa or BC to big the big players on him. I hate that they cut him.

[AngeloV]

Didn't the report say he was due a contract bonus payment soon? - that's often a death knell.

Fortunately, the Argos have some other NI OT prospects; wonder if there will be news soon on a possible signing of last year's draft pick Doxtator - now there is a massive O-Lineman; have not seen him anywhere in NFL 2022 draft prospect rankings = good sign for the Argos.

It was only $7,500 according to reports. I don't think that was a factor as much as his entire salary.

[Shatto]

OV Argo makes a good point, Doxtator might well be available, as it appears unlikely he is going to be drafted by the NFL. The thinking may be Doxtator has a good upside and in a year or two might be playing at a level above Campbell's potential. As a rookie he will be earning a lot less than Campbell was slated to earn. The next few weeks will probably tell us where the team's thinking in on Campbell's replacement.

[OV Argo]

OV Argo makes a good point, Doxtator might well be available, as it appears unlikely he is going to be drafted by the NFL. The thinking may be Doxtator has a good upside and in a year or two might be playing at a level above Campbell's potential. As a rookie he will be earning a lot less than Campbell was slated to earn. The next few weeks will probably tell us where the team's thinking in on Campbell's replacement.

Yeah, but still won't be surprised to see Doxtator draw some sort of NFL look, even if undrafted - that massive size and multi-year starter at a Div I program will draw some notice; and even if he only goes to an NFL rookie camp, it could be a foot in the door - meaning no CFL show this coming season ?

IF Doxtator is a no-show, and with Campbell gone, maybe the Argos look to O-line with their 1st rounder ?

[paulwoods13]

I don't see him going to Hamilton with CVZ already the incumbent at RT. I expect Ottawa or BC to big the big players on him. I hate that they cut him.

Hamilton definitely needs to find a long-term replacement for CVZ. If JC is willing to bide his time (and accept a backup-type salary), he could take the job over next year. And there's also a possibility (albeit extremely slim) that Hamilton decides to move on now from CVZ, who must also be high-salaried, and put that money into someone who can be there for a few years.