Hours to FA

[Rammer]

Actually, I hope Murphy does not sign in the NFL, if just to give more clarity to the "mandatory 1+1" discussion. If he only signed a 1 year deal, he should be available to all CFL teams after Feb 15th.

Leading credence to his having signed a 1+1 deal is the fact that he is not included on the list of potential FA's for Feb 15th.

Then again, it still wouldn't prove that 1+1 is mandatory......just what Murphy has signed........oh, well.

I still stand by the Calgary player deal that allowed him out during the season......IMHO, it proves conclusively that you can include whatever you want in a contract, as long as both parties agree.

Here is the article on David Allen clearly outlining that it was a verbal agreement with Barker and that he was cut in order for the Stamps to hold up their end of the deal.

http://slam.canoe.ca/Slam/Columnists/Si ... 9-sun.html

Wow.......I wonder if his agent is aware of the risk he took........was his agent ignorant of the waiver rules in the CFL........especially with a 1 week window to sign in the NFL. All it would have taken is a Taman in Winnipeg (hello Kyries Hebert) claiming Allen on waivers and keeping him in limbo until that 1 week window closed.

It's really too bad that we're stuck with untrustworthy media to supply us with "facts". There's no way to know if this is accurate unless we get some "horse's mouth" verification.

After teh trade deadline, it makes more sense. I doubt that you can pick up other teams players at that point, or anyone cut on a team that doesn't make the payoffs would be available. So his only hurdle was trusting Baker as I see it.

[Hambone]

Well you are wrong......

I hope so [/quote]

It's basically impossible to sign a "1 year and you're a free agent" contract in the CFL. If you sign a 1 year deal it's a 1 + 1. If you sign a 3 year deal it's 3 + 1. The "option" has always been the club's option on the player, it's not a two way street. Reading through the CBA it appears 1 + 1 doesn't necessarily equal 2. The option year isn't necessarily automatic or guaranteed but the team doesn't have to do much to have it kick in. A lawyer I'm not but the way I read the CBA to retain the player's rights for the option year the team must tender an offer to the player by May 1. I can't find any reference in there but it seems to me I remember hearing years ago that the offer must be at least 90% of their previous salary. A team can't toss out a cheesy lowball offer to retain the rights of the player who doesn't really have a lot of options himself in the matter. If he doesn't like it the options are to try negotiating an extension, retire or hold out. Regardless of which tact he takes his CFL rights will remain with the team for the upcoming option year season once the they have made the offer. The team's options are to tender the offer or release the player. Of course they too may be interested in securing the player to an extension beyond the option year.

I'm dating myself here, but at one time going back to the early 70s there was nothing "free" about a free agent. If a team signed another player from another organization even after said player had played out their option the new team still had to compensate the player's old team. If the teams couldn't mutually agree on a suitable compensation the commissioner would impose a settlement. That changed in 1974 probably thanks to Curt Flood's successful court challenge against MLB.

[Shi Zi Mi]

Here is the article on David Allen clearly outlining that it was a verbal agreement with Barker and that he was cut in order for the Stamps to hold up their end of the deal.

http://slam.canoe.ca/Slam/Columnists/Si ... 9-sun.html

Wow.......I wonder if his agent is aware of the risk he took........was his agent ignorant of the waiver rules in the CFL........especially with a 1 week window to sign in the NFL. All it would have taken is a Taman in Winnipeg (hello Kyries Hebert) claiming Allen on waivers and keeping him in limbo until that 1 week window closed.

It's really too bad that we're stuck with untrustworthy media to supply us with "facts". There's no way to know if this is accurate unless we get some "horse's mouth" verification.

After teh trade deadline, it makes more sense. I doubt that you can pick up other teams players at that point, or anyone cut on a team that doesn't make the payoffs would be available. So his only hurdle was trusting Baker as I see it.

I disagree......I believe released players can be signed/activated at any time.

It's a trade deadline.....which prevents 2 teams collaborating to strengthen the strong team for a playoff run via the trade route.

When cutting a player, 2 teams can't collaborate, as placing him on the waiver wire makes him available first to the lowest team on the totem pole, then the 2nd lowest and so on. There's no strengthening of a strong team in that scenario.

He would still have been at risk.

[Rammer]

Wow.......I wonder if his agent is aware of the risk he took........was his agent ignorant of the waiver rules in the CFL........especially with a 1 week window to sign in the NFL. All it would have taken is a Taman in Winnipeg (hello Kyries Hebert) claiming Allen on waivers and keeping him in limbo until that 1 week window closed.

It's really too bad that we're stuck with untrustworthy media to supply us with "facts". There's no way to know if this is accurate unless we get some "horse's mouth" verification.

After teh trade deadline, it makes more sense. I doubt that you can pick up other teams players at that point, or anyone cut on a team that doesn't make the payoffs would be available. So his only hurdle was trusting Baker as I see it.

I disagree......I believe released players can be signed/activated at any time.

It's a trade deadline.....which prevents 2 teams collaborating to strengthen the strong team for a playoff run via the trade route.

When cutting a player, 2 teams can't collaborate, as placing him on the waiver wire makes him available first to the lowest team on the totem pole, then the 2nd lowest and so on. There's no strengthening of a strong team in that scenario.

He would still have been at risk.

I disagree that two teams can't colaborate on a cut player, happens all the time, while it may cost another compensation of sorts to have a team bypass that player, it is routinely done in baseball after the trade deadline.

[Shi Zi Mi]

I still don't understand the "It's basically impossible to sign a "1 year and you're a free agent" contract in the CFL".

If the contract terms are for 1 year and both parties agree......then why wouldn't it be possible?

I understand that the STANDARD contract has an option year that is strictly the club's option to pick up (although, I wasn't aware of an additional offer requirement.......always thought that all those details were in the original contract and the team had the option of picking it up or not).

With no guaranteed contracts, the whole "option" year thing seems kind of moot to me. I see no difference between a 3 year deal and a 2 + option when the team has the right to keep the player or release him without compensation after 2 years in either case.

Anyway.......I still haven't seen where it's written that an option year is mandatory.

[Shi Zi Mi]

After teh trade deadline, it makes more sense. I doubt that you can pick up other teams players at that point, or anyone cut on a team that doesn't make the payoffs would be available. So his only hurdle was trusting Baker as I see it.

I disagree......I believe released players can be signed/activated at any time.

It's a trade deadline.....which prevents 2 teams collaborating to strengthen the strong team for a playoff run via the trade route.

When cutting a player, 2 teams can't collaborate, as placing him on the waiver wire makes him available first to the lowest team on the totem pole, then the 2nd lowest and so on. There's no strengthening of a strong team in that scenario.

He would still have been at risk.

I disagree that two teams can't colaborate on a cut player, happens all the time, while it may cost another compensation of sorts to have a team bypass that player, it is routinely done in baseball after the trade deadline.

Well I'm not sure how MLB does their waiver system so I can't speak to that........but in the CFL there is a pecking order.

All of these players that went to the AFL in years gone by.......how did they clear waivers without anyone grabbing them? There's only one answer.......there's a clause in their contract that allows it.......option year or no option year.

[Rammer]

The more I think about these AFL deals, there is no need to clear waivers, as the league doesn't recognize CFL contracts anyways.

MLB has the same system for selection, worst gets first shot at the player on waivers until the player ends up on the team that wanted him. If someone is trying to block it, they may get a draft selection down the road. Just think about Cavillo being out of the playoffs, and the Als having nothing to hold him down, knowing that his contract is up and that he is returning to Hamilton for his next contract, why not just cut him at the seasons end and allow Cavillo pick up with a playoff team that just lost their starting QB........lets put it this way, the Eskimos haven't done it, so it must not be able to be done.....

[Shi Zi Mi]

The more I think about these AFL deals, there is no need to clear waivers, as the league doesn't recognize CFL contracts anyways.

MLB has the same system for selection, worst gets first shot at the player on waivers until the player ends up on the team that wanted him. If someone is trying to block it, they may get a draft selection down the road. Just think about Cavillo being out of the playoffs, and the Als having nothing to hold him down, knowing that his contract is up and that he is returning to Hamilton for his next contract, why not just cut him at the seasons end and allow Cavillo pick up with a playoff team that just lost their starting QB........lets put it this way, the Eskimos haven't done it, so it must not be able to be done.....

If the player has value, then the team wanting him is going to have to "compensate" ALL the teams that pick before them......sorry, just can't see that happening.

[Shi Zi Mi]

I see what you're saying about the AFL........if the AFL signs players still under contract to CFL......and the CFL has no intention of doing anything about it..........then the CFL team never has to release the player and just waits for him to return after the AFL season.

Methinks there's something rotten in the state of Denmark.......or at least in the halls of the CFL head office.

There's too many shady things happening that we, the public, are not privy.....the media gets a few scraps of info, makes up a bunch of crap to fill in the holes and feeds it to us, the ill-informed fans. :no:

[Hambone]

I still don't understand the "It's basically impossible to sign a "1 year and you're a free agent" contract in the CFL".

If the contract terms are for 1 year and both parties agree......then why wouldn't it be possible?.

Think about it Lloyd. As long as the option year is part of the standard contract no GM in their right mind would agree at the time of signing to relinquish the player's rights after 1 year without getting some sort of compensation. Football is a business and players, draft picks and neg list names are all assets. Teams will protect those assets for as long as the CBA and league rules allow them or until, in the case of players under contract, said player no longer fits in their plans. The team really has nothing to gain by such an arrangement because they can always release the player if they so desire. From the players standpoint he doesn't need such a mutual agreement to retire or land an NFL gig under the option year clause. The only viable reason for the player needing such an agreement in place is if he foresees wanting to play for another CFL team after that one year is up. At least now a team can trade his rights for another asset if he wants to play elsewhere.

The David Allen case muddies the whole option year thing up somewhat, but it was a very unusual set of circumstances. Allen signed in Calgary in October and as per their mutual agreement was released at the end of the regular season. Allen never would've been offered that sort of special arrangement had it not been so late in the season. The Stamps were desparate for a kick returner and the best one available. Given Allen knew there still was NFL interest in him he would never have signed that late in the CFL year if he couldn't get out of it in the event the phone rang. He certainly didn't go to Calgary for the money for 4 CFL games. So the Stamps said "look, we need you, here's what we can do" and then gambled Allen's phone wouldn't ring. Unfortunately for the Stamps it rang.

Unless the option year of the contract is negotiated out of the CBA the one year/no option contract will never exist unless for unusual situations like Allen's. I'm sure Tom Wright's phone line was jammed as it was after the Stamps little charade. It wouldn't have been due to them getting Allen, but rather for the very dangerous can of worms the Stamps were opening up. If a team starts giving that sort of "special deal" to one player when negotiating contracts in the offseason then every agent will start demanding that for just about every contract.

[Shi Zi Mi]

I still don't understand the "It's basically impossible to sign a "1 year and you're a free agent" contract in the CFL".

If the contract terms are for 1 year and both parties agree......then why wouldn't it be possible?.

Think about it Lloyd. As long as the option year is part of the standard contract no GM in their right mind would agree at the time of signing to relinquish the player's rights after 1 year without getting some sort of compensation. Football is a business and players, draft picks and neg list names are all assets. Teams will protect those assets for as long as the CBA and league rules allow them or until, in the case of players under contract, said player no longer fits in their plans. The team really has nothing to gain by such an arrangement because they can always release the player if they so desire. From the players standpoint he doesn't need such a mutual agreement to retire or land an NFL gig under the option year clause. The only viable reason for the player needing such an agreement in place is if he foresees wanting to play for another CFL team after that one year is up. At least now a team can trade his rights for another asset if he wants to play elsewhere.

The David Allen case muddies the whole option year thing up somewhat, but it was a very unusual set of circumstances. Allen signed in Calgary in October and as per their mutual agreement was released at the end of the regular season. Allen never would've been offered that sort of special arrangement had it not been so late in the season. The Stamps were desparate for a kick returner and the best one available. Given Allen knew there still was NFL interest in him he would never have signed that late in the CFL year if he couldn't get out of it in the event the phone rang. He certainly didn't go to Calgary for the money for 4 CFL games. So the Stamps said "look, we need you, here's what we can do" and then gambled Allen's phone wouldn't ring. Unfortunately for the Stamps it rang.

Unless the option year of the contract is negotiated out of the CBA the one year/no option contract will never exist unless for unusual situations like Allen's. I'm sure Tom Wright's phone line was jammed as it was after the Stamps little charade. It wouldn't have been due to them getting Allen, but rather for the very dangerous can of worms the Stamps were opening up. If a team starts giving that sort of "special deal" to one player when negotiating contracts in the offseason then every agent will start demanding that for just about every contract.

I think you've pretty well proven my point.........if a team wants a player bad enough, they'll include whatever is necessary in the contract to get him to sign.....and that includes no option year if the player demands it.

For an import player who believes he may be able to catch on with an NFL team after the CFL season (or even during), but doesn't want to restrict himself to post-Jan 1st, he demands a 1 year only contract or he's not coming up. The team then has to decide.......Calgary's decision is obvious........and the resulting "can of worms" that came with that decision.

For the most part, GM's would never agree to it........but in rare instances with the stars aligning just right......well, *poop* happens.

[Hambone]

I think you've pretty well proven my point.........if a team wants a player bad enough, they'll include whatever is necessary in the contract to get him to sign.....and that includes no option year if the player demands it.

For an import player who believes he may be able to catch on with an NFL team after the CFL season (or even during), but doesn't want to restrict himself to post-Jan 1st, he demands a 1 year only contract or he's not coming up. The team then has to decide.......Calgary's decision is obvious........and the resulting "can of worms" that came with that decision.

For the most part, GM's would never agree to it........but in rare instances with the stars aligning just right......well, *poop* happens.

In the case of Allen and the Stamps I have a hunch Higgins and Barker were told not to do that again. They rolled the dice and lost and in hindsight likely regreted doing it. Allen gave them good productivity in his 4 games but lo and behold on the eve of the playoff game the Stampeders had to insert another back up running back and kick returner.

There is an inherent danger with starting down that slippery slope. If you start offering those sort of contracts to one player then you better be prepared for every import coming north in the airlift to demand the same thing. If you thought the CFL had too much player movement now, wait and see what would happen with a bunch of 1 + 0 contracts. Late NFL cuts wouldn't have to commit to anything other than to finish off the season. They'd come up, maybe play well enough to find a spot in the hearts of the fans, then go back home and wait until next August in hopes of landing another NFL gig. If they can't then they might come back north part way through the season and of course they'd be a free agent. In the meantime to take on that rent-a-player for half a season you had to cut someone else.

It's a Catch 22 and high gain/high risk proposition. If a guy is good enough to make a GM desperate enough to succumb to a condition like that then that player is likely to be an important part of the team and the GM has left himself open to potentially losing that player at the most critical part of the season. Can you imagine the screaming if Buono had agreed to that sort of opt out clause with Joe Smith and on the eve of the Grey Cup he knocked on Wally's door and handed him their playbook? "Sorry coach. NFL called. I gotta go." And then to add injury to insult he signed with Edmonton in the offseason.

[lion24]

thanks so much hambone, that bit about smith signing with the eskimos will leave me in a cold sweat for a few nights!!!

[Shi Zi Mi]

I think you've pretty well proven my point.........if a team wants a player bad enough, they'll include whatever is necessary in the contract to get him to sign.....and that includes no option year if the player demands it.

For an import player who believes he may be able to catch on with an NFL team after the CFL season (or even during), but doesn't want to restrict himself to post-Jan 1st, he demands a 1 year only contract or he's not coming up. The team then has to decide.......Calgary's decision is obvious........and the resulting "can of worms" that came with that decision.

For the most part, GM's would never agree to it........but in rare instances with the stars aligning just right......well, *poop* happens.

In the case of Allen and the Stamps I have a hunch Higgins and Barker were told not to do that again. They rolled the dice and lost and in hindsight likely regreted doing it. Allen gave them good productivity in his 4 games but lo and behold on the eve of the playoff game the Stampeders had to insert another back up running back and kick returner.

There is an inherent danger with starting down that slippery slope. If you start offering those sort of contracts to one player then you better be prepared for every import coming north in the airlift to demand the same thing. If you thought the CFL had too much player movement now, wait and see what would happen with a bunch of 1 + 0 contracts. Late NFL cuts wouldn't have to commit to anything other than to finish off the season. They'd come up, maybe play well enough to find a spot in the hearts of the fans, then go back home and wait until next August in hopes of landing another NFL gig. If they can't then they might come back north part way through the season and of course they'd be a free agent. In the meantime to take on that rent-a-player for half a season you had to cut someone else.

It's a Catch 22 and high gain/high risk proposition. If a guy is good enough to make a GM desperate enough to succumb to a condition like that then that player is likely to be an important part of the team and the GM has left himself open to potentially losing that player at the most critical part of the season. Can you imagine the screaming if Buono had agreed to that sort of opt out clause with Joe Smith and on the eve of the Grey Cup he knocked on Wally's door and handed him their playbook? "Sorry coach. NFL called. I gotta go." And then to add injury to insult he signed with Edmonton in the offseason.

Agreed.......it's dangerous territory.

My guess with Allan.........when the Stamps went to register the contract, the league office rubber stamped "Approved" across it without reading the fineprint..........doubt that will happen again.

The practise of the AFL and the CFL having the same player under contract at the same time is also a slippery slope that the league needs to get fixed ASAP.

[Hambone]

Agreed.......it's dangerous territory.

My guess with Allan.........when the Stamps went to register the contract, the league office rubber stamped "Approved" across it without reading the fineprint..........doubt that will happen again.

The practise of the AFL and the CFL having the same player under contract at the same time is also a slippery slope that the league needs to get fixed ASAP.

In Allen's case I doubt there was any fineprint. I think it was a simple gentlemen's handshake agreement.