Argonauts release Marcus Ball to pursue NFL opportunity

[Argo57]

Toronto Argonauts release Marcus Ball today to pursue NFL opportunities.
Pretty much no one left from our championship defence!

TSN.ca Staff
2/17/2014 4:44:54 PM
Marcus Ball is no longer a Toronto Argonaut.

The 26-year-old linebacker was released by the club on Monday.

The University of Memphis product has spent the last two seasons with the Argonauts where he was a part of the 2012 Grey Cup champion squad and returned interceptions for touchdowns in each season.

Last November following the Argos' loss to the Hamilton Tiger-Cats in the East final, there was some speculation that Ball would seek to sign with an NFL team, something he referred to as a "dream." Ball tweeted late on Sunday night "Bout to get/take my shot... Yall pray for me... Here we go #GETBALL" potentially referring to a move south.

Ball's release comes on the heels of the team signing of All-Star linebacker Shea Emry from the Montreal Alouettes last week.

[bigzee19]

Not to sound like a damn broken record..... But um you had to get McCune back NOW..... I know I know I should shut up about him but come on........ It's not like Shea is going to be able to do everything himself..... Good luck Marcus.

[argotom]

Not to sound like a damn broken record..... But um you had to get McCune back NOW..... I know I know I should shut up about him but come on........ It's not like Shea is going to be able to do everything himself..... Good luck Marcus.


I agree with you.
Even at 35 McCune still has a lot in the tank and could have been slotted in the middle with Shea beside on either side.

[ArgoGabe22]

I don't think Emry signed with the Argos to play OLB.

[Argocister]

Good luck to Marcus .... for selfish reasons I'd like you back ..... but lets hope Barker , Burke and company can get this defense rolling. That is one big set of shoes to fill.

[paulwoods13]

McCune is gone. He can only play MLB, and while Emry can play OLB, he is way more effective as a true MLB. McCune had an excellent season but Emry was every bit as good in 2012 and is younger and a non-import, plus McCune was a Jones guy. So it's a pretty easy decision to let him go.

I'm not at all convinced Marcus will make it in the NFL -- would not be surprised if he's back by Labour Day. Other than as a special teamer, I don't think he has a natural position in 11-man football.

[ArgoGabe22]

He's not a LB in the NFL. I don't know what they're thinking in doing with him because to me he can only be a safety there.

[Argo57]

McCune is gone. He can only play MLB, and while Emry can play OLB, he is way more effective as a true MLB. McCune had an excellent season but Emry was every bit as good in 2012 and is younger and a non-import, plus McCune was a Jones guy. So it's a pretty easy decision to let him go.

I'm not at all convinced Marcus will make it in the NFL -- would not be surprised if he's back by Labour Day. Other than as a special teamer, I don't think he has a natural position in 11-man football.

That's how I see it as well Paul, once again a "goodwill" gesture by the Argonauts, might as well let him get his NFL aspirations out of the way once and for all. I feel the McCune ship has sailed as well, no choice but to get younger on defence and start fresh with the new DC.
Sucks to see some good players leave but it does keep it interesting for sure.

[Wobbler]

We definitely have some recruitment work to do at OLB. After Horton we have a long list of DB/LB hybrids who are useful guys but not all-star candidates IMHO.

[Invader]

I guess Marcus Ball had another year on his contract. He's now a free agent and could sign with the Ticats tomorrow, like Collaros did when he was released early and Watkins who signed with the Esks and Kuale who signed in Montreal, etc. You would hope these players appreciate the gesture by the Argos to release them from their contracts. Most CFL teams make players wait until they're free agents to tryout in the NFL...or to sign in Hamilton or Edm.

[Argo57]

I guess Marcus Ball had another year on his contract. He's now a free agent and could sign with the Ticats tomorrow, like Collaros did when he was released early and Watkins who signed with the Esks and Kuale who signed in Montreal, etc. You would hope these players appreciate the gesture by the Argos to release them from their contracts. Most CFL teams make players wait until they're free agents to tryout in the NFL...or to sign in Hamilton or Edm.

What you hope is that they show some honour to Mr Barker and the organization for treating them respectfully!!!

[ArgoGabe22]

1) Watkins was not released.
2) They knew Collaros was going to sign with another team, it was not an NFL tryout release
3) Kuale was going to become a FA and was released early to go to the NFL. After that didn't work out, he signed with MTL weeks after Free Agency had begun so we didn't lose him. He was a FA.

I have no problem with what the Barker has done in the past.

Now, with all this talent the Argos are finding, they should get some sort of compensation from the NFL perhaps a transfer fee like in soccer. That would make the franchise some money. Just an idea.

[OV Argo]

1) Watkins was not released.
2) They knew Collaros was going to sign with another team, it was not an NFL tryout release
3) Kuale was going to become a FA and was released early to go to the NFL. After that didn't work out, he signed with MTL weeks after Free Agency had begun so we didn't lose him. He was a FA.

I have no problem with what the Barker has done in the past.

Now, with all this talent the Argos are finding, they should get some sort of compensation from the NFL perhaps a transfer fee like in soccer. That would make the franchise some money. Just an idea.


The NFL ain't gonna go for that idea (i highly doubt). But - i mentioned this before - Barker/Argos could ask for a fee from the player to be released early from his Argo contract - pay back a bit of the salary you earned from the Argos, or give up some NFL money (signing bonus / contract money if you make it) -as appreciation for being let out of your valid CFL contract; even 20 grand or so - which go towards signing a free agent to help replace the guy being let go.

Like to see Horton get a shot at Ball's OLB spot - not sure he is near as good, but seemed to be a solid defensive play-maker last season as a rookie; then - need another OLB (recent signing of NFL vet Matt Ware could be that guy?); and why couldn't McCune be retained - as a vet presence on D who could play some MLB OR DE in certain packages ?

[Antwon]

With this I would have liked them to make an offer to Jamal Johnson.
His best years were at OLB. last year he was shifted to MLB.

[Argo57]

Perhaps with our abundance of quality O-Linemen a trade could be in the offing down the road for some proven defensive help.

[gilthethrill]

There was once a time when a player was released because he was not talented enough to make a team. Now they are released because they seem to be too talented. This is getting repetitive.

[AngeloV]

Hate to see him go, but have no problem with what the Argos did. If they were to hold him back he would be unhappy, and you don't want an unhappy player in camp. Big opportunity for Horton here. I didn't see Horton and Ball both starting anyway as they are both more WILL style LB's than SAM LB's. I don't see either of them being able to line-up against a slot back in man coverage.

Basically, it's a blow to the depth at the position at the point.

[paulwoods13]

He's not a LB in the NFL. I don't know what they're thinking in doing with him because to me he can only be a safety there.

The thing is, there are actually two quite different positions down there -- free safety and strong safety. I don't think he's fast enough to play free, or big enough to play strong. I guess he could be a good nickel back in addition to playing special teams.

[bluto]

could be a SS in the NFL... i think he's plenty big enough for that role.

[doubleblue]

Yes I think Ball's position in the NFL would have to be strong safety and special teams. Major Culbert didn't look out of place the last game of the season at OLB, so he will probably be in the mix as a replacement.
I would like to see the CFL go back to previous agreement they had with the NFL, where players could go down there in their option year and then had to come back to their CFL team if cut. Releasing players just doesn't look good in print IMO. Obviously the Argos weren't in favour of changing the rule and doesn't look like there is much unity at the owner level on this. They should be 100% one way or the other.

[Argocister]

I guess Marcus Ball had another year on his contract. He's now a free agent and could sign with the Ticats tomorrow, l........

I'm thinking if Ball comes back to the CFL, it would be to follow Jones to Edmonton. :(

[OV Argo]

I'm thinking if Ball comes back to the CFL, it would be to follow Jones to Edmonton. :(

Sure - makes sense; very nice of Mr. Barker to let him go to pursue whatever is ever best for him. Wouldn't want to have any unhappy players on the roster who think they have to honor their Argo contract.

[Argo57]

Sure - makes sense; very nice of Mr. Barker to let him go to pursue whatever is ever best for him. Wouldn't want to have any unhappy players on the roster who think they have to honor their Argo contract.

Would be a total a-hole move on Ball's part (if he even cares) to pull a stunt like that OV, but you never know with some guys!!

[ArgoRavi]

I guess that the bottom line is that there really isn't such a thing as a multi-year contract for the Argos. If someone wants out of their contract to try to secure an NFL job, they will be let out of that contract. We can't assume that anyone will be around for more than a year as it stands now.

[ArgoGabe22]

I don't think anyone who was released to pursue the NFL had then signed with another club except for Kuale but he was going to be a FA anyways and signed after FA begun. Some FA's who then tried out for the NFL did sign with other teams but I think most re-signed with their original CFL team. Ricky Foley is one who chose to sign for Toronto instead of BC after his NFL shot but guys like Arceneaux and Vega signed with their respected club. I hope guys like Ball, Inman, Thorpe do recognize that the Argos did them a favour.

[Neely2005]

I'm thinking if Ball comes back to the CFL, it would be to follow Jones to Edmonton. :(

I guess we just have to hope that doesn't happen but you certainly raise a legitimate concern.

[shayman]

We are big Marcus Ball fans in the band. Right after the 100th Grey Cup, the band managed to sneak onto the field in the middle of the celebration and I was fumbling around with my phone trying to take a picture. He actually came up to me and said "Here, give me your camera, you go get in the picture, I'll take it."

I'm still in awe of the kindness of that gesture! Here's a pro athlete who one minute earlier had just won the championship, and he came over to help a group of goofball band members celebrate.

Marcus, thank you for taking this picture for us: http://t.co/2BarYCMnYU

[Neely2005]

We are big Marcus Ball fans in the band. Right after the 100th Grey Cup, the band managed to sneak onto the field in the middle of the celebration and I was fumbling around with my phone trying to take a picture. He actually came up to me and said "Here, give me your camera, you go get in the picture, I'll take it."

I'm still in awe of the kindness of that gesture! Here's a pro athlete who one minute earlier had just won the championship, and he came over to help a group of goofball band members celebrate.

Marcus, thank you for taking this picture for us: http://t.co/2BarYCMnYU

That's awesome! Just another reason why the CFL is so great.

[AngeloV]

I guess that the bottom line is that there really isn't such a thing as a multi-year contract for the Argos. If someone wants out of their contract to try to secure an NFL job, they will be let out of that contract. We can't assume that anyone will be around for more than a year as it stands now.

I think the big issue here is the option year. I personally think the league should lose this clause altogether. The CFL is the only pro sports league where a player can't technically sign a 1 year contract.

[Invader]

I think the big issue here is the option year. I personally think the league should lose this clause altogether. The CFL is the only pro sports league where a player can't technically sign a 1 year contract.
The league brought in the option year because they wanted minimum two-year contracts but were legally obligated to offer one-year deals. So now teams can offer a one-year contract but with a team option for a another year.

There are very good reasons why the CFL wants minimum 2-year contracts. It takes time for American players to learn the game, normally the lights don't go on fully until their 3rd season. For example Jerrell Freeman spent three years in Sask. The first year he stayed on the practice roster learning the Canadian game. His 2nd year he was the backup and in his 3rd year he became the starter, playing great and contributing to the team's success. Freeman went on to the NFL and praised the way the Riders developed him. He needed that time to learn the Canadian game and the pro game.

Having an import player for only 1 season is a loser's game -- both for the team and player. Both parties are much better off with a 2 or 3 year relationship, IMHO.

The Argos seem to have a different philosophy but I'd rather sign a player who is prepared to commit to the CFL for 2 or 3 years, rather than a player who wants to leave after one season regardless of his contract status.

The problem with one-year contracts is some players will want to leave after every season, like P.K. Sam and Kelly Campbell in Edm. They sign a 1+1 with a few games left in the season. Leave in their option year for a NFL tryout, come back with 4 games left and sign a 1-yr extension, leave the next season for the NFL, then come back play a couple games, and so on. Campbell did this 3 years in a row, which made a mockery of the league by my estimation.

I like minimum 2-year contracts with no option year tryouts. Teams which abuse this rule should be penalized by the league.

It didn't hurt Jerrell Freeman's chances to make the NFL by spending 3 years in the CFL or Cam Wake's 2 years or Brandon Browner's 4 years. They came in wet behind the ears and left as accomplished players who excelled in the CFL and NFL.

[Ron]

I guess that the bottom line is that there really isn't such a thing as a multi-year contract for the Argos. If someone wants out of their contract to try to secure an NFL job, they will be let out of that contract. We can't assume that anyone will be around for more than a year as it stands now.

It would be better if the Argos didn't recruit guys good enough to get an NFL shot. Problem solved and all Argo fans would be happier.

[OV Argo]

It would be better if the Argos didn't recruit guys good enough to get an NFL shot. Problem solved and all Argo fans would be happier.

No, not this Argo fan - it would be better if the Argos built a TEAM by having players committed to playing for them and honoring their contracts.

All sorts of guys can get NFL try-outs, and good for them if they make the big bucks and prestige there. And the Argos have done just fine with players who stuck around the team for many seasons: D-linemen like Jim Corrigall or Rodney Harding who played many seasons for the Argos; as opposed to a guy like Armond Armstead - who couldn't hold either of the above mentioned' jock straps in terms of D-line talent, but who did get let go to be an NFL bench warmer - and good for him and good for Mr. Barker - hip hip hooray / 3 cheers !

[paulwoods13]

Corrigall and Harding are all-timers, for sure, but I am not prepared to declare Armstead way out of their league based on one season. Lots of stars were not dominant in their first seasons. It's not Armstead's fault that an NFL team was prepared to sign him to a contract that likely paid 5-10 times what he would have made in 2012. Just as it's not Corrigall's fault that when he was playing (and clearly capable of playing in the NFL), the Argos were actually paying more than NFL money to several players.

As for the other point ("it would be better if the Argos built a TEAM by having players committed to playing for them and honoring their contracts"), who could argue that point? But I continue to believe that the number of CFL players who would NOT go to the NFL if offered a contract there could be counted on less than my 10 fingers -- most of the starting QBs, who would not believe they'd get a legit shot at PT, plus Jon Cornish.

[ArgoZ]

Corrigall and Harding are all-timers, for sure, but I am not prepared to declare Armstead way out of their league based on one season. Lots of stars were not dominant in their first seasons. It's not Armstead's fault that an NFL team was prepared to sign him to a contract that likely paid 5-10 times what he would have made in 2012. Just as it's not Corrigall's fault that when he was playing (and clearly capable of playing in the NFL), the Argos were actually paying more than NFL money to several players.

As for the other point ("it would be better if the Argos built a TEAM by having players committed to playing for them and honoring their contracts"), who could argue that point? But I continue to believe that the number of CFL players who would NOT go to the NFL if offered a contract there could be counted on less than my 10 fingers -- most of the starting QBs, who would not believe they'd get a legit shot at PT, plus Jon Cornish.

I've said it a few times before; you can not fault any player trying to better themselves or their family's life by trying out the NFL. Most of us have changed jobs for a few dollars an hour. Making the NFL is tens/hundreds of thousands more a year than your average CFL salary. It would be hypocritical, for most people who would have problem with this.

[AngeloV]

The problem with one-year contracts is some players will want to leave after every season, like P.K. Sam and Kelly Campbell in Edm. They sign a 1+1 with a few games left in the season. Leave in their option year for a NFL tryout, come back with 4 games left and sign a 1-yr extension, leave the next season for the NFL, then come back play a couple games, and so on. Campbell did this 3 years in a row, which made a mockery of the league by my estimation.



Once again, I disagree. If a team is worried that a player may leave after 1 year in the league, then they have the option to say "no, we will not sign you to a one year contract". An option year clause that is only a team option is ridiculous. That is why no other pro league has this clause.

[OV Argo]

Corrigall and Harding are all-timers, for sure, but I am not prepared to declare Armstead way out of their league based on one season. Lots of stars were not dominant in their first seasons. It's not Armstead's fault that an NFL team was prepared to sign him to a contract that likely paid 5-10 times what he would have made in 2012. Just as it's not Corrigall's fault that when he was playing (and clearly capable of playing in the NFL), the Argos were actually paying more than NFL money to several players.

As for the other point ("it would be better if the Argos built a TEAM by having players committed to playing for them and honoring their contracts"), who could argue that point? But I continue to believe that the number of CFL players who would NOT go to the NFL if offered a contract there could be counted on less than my 10 fingers -- most of the starting QBs, who would not believe they'd get a legit shot at PT, plus Jon Cornish.


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.

[jerrym]

I understand the reasoning behind allowing Ball to tryout for the NFL, but I hate to lose him and his competitive edge. It also makes me nervous to see so many defensive bodies starting to disappear once again this year. It could lead to a repeat of the lack of coordination problems we saw last year with the Argos defence.

[Argo57]

I understand the reasoning behind allowing Ball to tryout for the NFL, but I hate to lose him and his competitive edge. It also makes me nervous to see so many defensive bodies starting to disappear once again this year. It could lead to a repeat of the lack of coordination problems we saw last year with the Argos defence.

I don't ever recall seeing a championship team lose their entire defence (for various reasons) in just over a year, pretty bizarre actually.

[Invader]

Once again, I disagree. If a team is worried that a player may leave after 1 year in the league, then they have the option to say "no, we will not sign you to a one year contract". An option year clause that is only a team option is ridiculous. That is why no other pro league has this clause.
Well, no other pro league has the majority of its players coming from a foreign country who've never played the game before. That's why the CFL prefers 2-year contracts.

[AngeloV]

Well, no other pro league has the majority of its players coming from a foreign country who've never played the game before. That's why the CFL prefers 2-year contracts.

Keep trying to justify this. I'm still not buying what you are trying to sell.

[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).

[ArgoRavi]

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).

You aren't the only one. What some, like Paul and Angelo, say about this issue makes logical sense but there is a part of me that feels like OV on this too.

[D-Gap-Willie]

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.

I'm sorry Angelo but I just can't go along with your thinking about guaranteed contracts. I recognize that it may be difficult for a player to accept a 2 year commitment at a certain salary level, if he plays to a level that is worth more or if he wants to go elsewhere for more money, however he signed and if he has any integrity, he will gut it out. At the same time, the team commits to pay that player for EVERY game he plays or is injured, no matter what his level of performance. If he can't perform to the required level, he is cut ( fired) - simple as that.
Your thinking seems to be along the lines of the day to day employment market, and does not deal with the realities of a sports team. The only way to meet your ideal contract/commitment conditions would be for all players to be on one game contracts. My heart is with the players and you Angelo, but my mind/logic says we need the reality of a two year contract, for the sake of the team, and especially the fans. Nobody forces a player to sign - he can always decide to sit and be forgotten.

[AngeloV]

Your thinking seems to be along the lines of the day to day employment market, and does not deal with the realities of a sports team. .

Actually, my thinking goes along with that of every other pro sport other than football. Contracts in baseball, basketball and hockey are guaranteed to the duration. Only football is different. I'm sorry, but I will never support owners and management having all the leverage. If one side needs to honour a countract, than both sides need to honour that contract. I don't get how everybody can cheer these players while they are playing and then take the side of ownership when it comes to honouring agreements. I guess everybody on here is self employed.

[Neely2005]

Actually, my thinking goes along with that of every other pro sport other than football. Contracts in baseball, basketball and hockey are guaranteed to the duration. Only football is different. I'm sorry, but I will never support owners and management having all the leverage. If one side needs to honour a countract, than both sides need to honour that contract. I don't get how everybody can cheer these players while they are playing and then take the side of ownership when it comes to honouring agreements. I guess everybody on here is self employed.

I agree with you in regards to guaranteed contracts in sports. I like that teams have to be accountable for a bad contract. However football is closer to the real world in that most employees can be laid off with little or no notice.

[AngeloV]

I agree with you in regards to guaranteed contracts in sports. I like that teams have to be accountable for a bad contract. However football is closer to the real world in that most employees can be laid off with little or no notice.

True, but in the real world, if a consultant has a 2 year contract that the firm wants to terminate, they must buy him out. The employees being laid off that you speak of, really have no term of employment in writing, and thus don't have the same type of agreement.

[Neely2005]

True, but in the real world, if a consultant has a 2 year contract that the firm wants to terminate, they must buy him out. The employees being laid off that you speak of, really have no term of employment in writing, and thus don't have the same type of agreement.

Sure but most employees don't have a term of agreement so the vast majority of employees can be terminated with no notice. The only employees that do would be contract workers, union workers and executives.

[OV Argo]

True, but in the real world, if a consultant has a 2 year contract that the firm wants to terminate, they must buy him out. The employees being laid off that you speak of, really have no term of employment in writing, and thus don't have the same type of agreement.

So, if a football team signs a player to a 2 year contract, and in the 2nd year of the deal, the guy shows up for TC over-weight and out of shape, has forgotten the play-book and is more interested in drinking & smoking and chasing cheerleaders, then the football team should have to honor his contract ???

And the "real world"? - what the **** is that ?

Pro sports teams having to buy-out / pay-off aging, has-been sub-par or mediocre players who some moron of a GM signed to a ludicrous over-paid long-term deal = close to as stupid as it gets in the "real world".

[AngeloV]

Sure but most employees don't have a term of agreement so the vast majority of employees can be terminated with no notice. The only employees that do would be contract workers, union workers and executives.

The reason I used consultants as an example is because they are specialists in their field and independent contractors, as are pro athletes. We're not talking about general labour personnel here where someone with no experience can walk in off the street and be trained for the job.




So, if a football team signs a player to a 2 year contract, and in the 2nd year of the deal, the guy shows up for TC over-weight and out of shape, has forgotten the play-book and is more interested in drinking & smoking and chasing cheerleaders, then the football team should have to honor his contract ???

And the "real world"? - what the **** is that ?

Pro sports teams having to buy-out / pay-off aging, has-been sub-par or mediocre players who some moron of a GM signed to a ludicrous over-paid long-term deal = close to as stupid as it gets in the "real world".


I'm sorry...did you say something?

[OV Argo]

The reason I used consultants as an example is because they are specialists in their field and independent contractors, as are pro athletes. We're not talking about general labour personnel here where someone with no experience can walk in off the street and be trained for the job.



I'm sorry...did you say something?

Don't worry pal - nothing you need to hear about in your real world. ;o)

[argolio]

So, if a football team signs a player to a 2 year contract, and in the 2nd year of the deal, the guy shows up for TC over-weight and out of shape, has forgotten the play-book and is more interested in drinking & smoking and chasing cheerleaders, then the football team should have to honor his contract ??? How often does that happen?

And if that were to ever become a big issue, put some training camp weight clause into the contract.