Logan Offered 2 year Contract

[Rammer]

http://www.tsn.ca/cfl/story/?id=262290& ... dlines_cfl

If Logan isn't re-signed, this off season is going South in hurry, and while good for the players, not very good for the Lion fans. Logan has to be a priority 1 signing, as he was that good in his short season.

[lion24]

http://www.tsn.ca/cfl/story/?id=262290& ... dlines_cfl

If Logan isn't re-signed, this off season is going South in hurry, and while good for the players, not very good for the Lion fans. Logan has to be a priority 1 signing, as he was that good in his short season.

I agree, while many people believe running backs are a "dime a dozen" this does not refer to how special a player Logan was this season and could possibly be in the future. There will be many changes for the Lions next season but hopefully not Logan .......starts to make me wonder though if NFL teams will notice the play of Sproles in San Diego and be more willing to take a chance on a smaller back?

[Wakesbetterthanyou]

Yea, logan going south would really really blow. I guess the only bright spot for this offseason is that with the AFL folding there will be a lot of other players ready to look the cfl way, and there are some very talented players in the AFL, despite how poor the product is.

[TheLionKing]

Heard that Logan is interested in trying the NFL first.

[Hambone]

You guys worry far too much about Logan. The odds of him going to the NFL are at best slim, if not none. Size would be a factor, but IMHO that perhaps isn't as important as another key factor when NFL teams are scouting players. Sure Darren Sproles looks like he can change the thought process re: size. Even if NFL teams opted to overlook Logan's lack of size I doubt any would overlook his age. Logan will turn 28 during the 2009 training camp. He'd be 29 by the time he entered any prospective 2010 NFL camp. By the time a RB starts pushing that age NFL teams are looking to replace them. Most NFL RBs careers are over by 30. Bring in a 5'6" 180# 29 year old former CFL RB?!?!?!?!? Not very likely.

[Hambone]

The option year clause isn't going anywhere. The CFLPA is all for it and the fact is most, if not all, GMs and coaches are also in favour of it. They believe the rewards outweigh the risks. Players are more willing to give the CFL a shot with the potential to still try the NFL the following year than if they were to be tied up for a minimum of two years. CFL brass believes and I think rightfully so, that the option year window allows them to attract a higher level of talent than if the player was obligated to stay for a minimum of two years. NFL opportunities are fleeting and each extra year in Canada reduces the chances to pursue the NFL dream.

The only way that clause gets eliminated is if the CFL drops the option year from the standard contract making a 1 year contract just that, 1 year, not 1 + 1. Without the option year clause the CFL would be the only North American pro sports league where the team controls the player's rights for a minimum of 2 years. Players cannot sign a 1 year deal. It's archaic in that regard.

The way I look at it the clause really works in favour of the CFL and the fans. Sure you might lose a player now and then. But think of the usual scenarios:

1 + 1 without option clause:
If the player has NFL aspirations he will play out his option and see if he can get a deal. If he gets an NFL deal he goes. If he makes it good for him. If he doesn't he comes back as a CFL free agent eligible to sign with anybody. Because he left as a free agent in both leagues Wally can't plan on the player returning and must move on. If the player does come back to the CFL he could just as easily end up with the Evil Empire as with BC.

1 + 1 w/option clause:
1) Player gets NFL contract after 1 year, goes down and makes it. We get one year and that's it. How often does that happen?
2) Player gets NFL contract after 1 year, goes down and doesn't make it. BC still holds his rights and usually Wally welcomes him back with a multi-year contract extension. Instead of the player possibly moving onto haunt us in green and gold or green and white we now have him for another 3 years.

I like the clause. We may lose a player a year earlier, but if it turns out to be temporary we might get that player back for several years. Without the clause we might keep the player one more year then only see him again in BC Place in the colours of the opposition.

NOTE: The option year clause is written into the CFL CBA Section 36. So it cannot be arbitrarily eliminated by the CFL. It would have to be negotiated out the next time the CFL and CFLPA sit down to work out a new CBA.

[No Ordinary Joe]

Here's hoping he signs on the dotted line.

[Lion King]

I agree with Hambone on the option year comments. It is not often that we lose talent that way. The option year provides that little enticement to the player coming up here.

Also, it is nice to see that the priority is to sign Logan. With this signing - a key to the offense is still here.

[Bleddyn]

You know I couldn't help but wonder over the past couple weeks if the play of Sproles would have an effect on Logan's NFL ambitions. Sure there are some arguments against it here, and some good ones, but Sproles at only 3 years younger just set the 3rd highest playoff yardage, and his immediate popularity (and demands to re-sign him from fans and players) is enormous.

vs the Broncos, I stopped by the local CVS (think London Drugs) in Scripps Ranch, San Diego to get my beer etc for the night. A good 75% of people you see on those nights are wearing some kind of Chargers gear, and if it had a name + number it was invariably Tomlinson and Rivers. Fast forward 6 days and I was in the grocery store next door before the Colts game, I saw no less then 4 brand new Sproles jerseys.. I wonder how many were being worn at the stadium.

Hype sells in the NFL, at least in the short term. Logan will assuredly be looked at (if not signed) as "another Sproles" whether that is correct to do or not.

...speaking of.. I was wondering if I should get a 43 jersey in dark blue or white... not a fan of the powder blues.....

[zark]

Ask quentin kieth as well. He would have done better sticking around and become a mainstay. Although he had to take his shot, but in doing so, will he become another bouncing ball "back".
Anybody remember Terry Metcalf ? Maybe Lion24 sees the return of this style of RB in the NFL. Would that be too exciting for them?

[Wakesbetterthanyou]

Sproles is really good, dont get me wrong, same with logan. But i just dont see a scatback being a regular back in the NFL for long. You at best get two good years out of them if they are an every down back, after the first two years (if they survive that long) you can imagine the little bodies would start to succumb to the massive hits these guys take. And in the NFl guys are even bigger. Logan wouldnt make it thro an nfl season, i can guarantee you that.

[Blue In BC]

I agree with Hambone on the option year comments. It is not often that we lose talent that way. The option year provides that little enticement to the player coming up here.

I disagree with Hambone. Let's talk about specific players. Who are all these star players who only signed in Canada because they knew they could leave after one season? Hmmmm?? Certainly not S. Logan. He was happy to be playing anywhere and do you think Wally would of sat him out for half the season if he thought he was some NFL marquee signing? I can certainly find you many players who ruined their seasons, and some their entire careers (P. Lacoste?), by trying the NFL after one CFL season and failing, then never regaining their prominence or position in the CFL. Let's not forget these option year players will be free agents after their option season and can resign with any CFL or NFL team. I doubt you can find a single NFL player who did not benefit from playing two seasons in Canada (C. Wake, C. Wilson...)

Following that scenario, if allowing players to leave after one season helps recruiting star players, why not let them leave during the CFL season? Like David Allen, for instance. Perhaps the CFL could then sign bonafide NFL SuperStars, who can bolt back to the NFL in Sept or Oct if they are needed. Allen tore up the CFL as a returner for several games, then left for the NFL in the middle of the season with the Stamps gearing up for their playoff run. The Stamps were left scrambling with no return man. Allen sat on the bench for a couple of NFL games, then was discarded and has faded into obscurity. He had a clause in his contract which allowed him to leave for the NFL during mid-season. This loophole is still available for other teams to use if they choose.

Even if a CFL team was unable to sign a U.S. player because of the two-year commitment, they would probably be better off choosing developing another player who IS willing to play for two seaosns. Did the Esks really benefit from signing superstar K. Campbell last year? Now after one season, they have nobody, and will have to start from scratch finding and training another receiver...who also may only stick around for one season?

The CFL mandates minimum 2-yr contracts for a very good reason, and they should stick to it.

I agree. I'm all for getting rid of the NFL option deal. If these players didn't accept the CFL contracts, they'd have been out of football for a season and possibly out of football forever.

If they want an opportunity to showcase their skills for an eventual shot at the NFL, I don't think 2 years is to large a commitment. The CFL commits to them and it's a two way street.

Although we may lose seeing some of these guys in the CFL because of he NFL clause, I seriously doubt it.

[Hambone]

I don't see killing the option year clause as changing anything other than shorter term contracts being signed. You'd see more 1+1 deals signed where 2+1 are signed now. Buono is known to insist on a minimum 2+1 for new players. Why? Because of the option year clause. Wally has adjusted his negotiation practices to compensate for the clause. With the clause removed he'd settle for 1+1 because that ties the player to the Lions for 2 years just as the 2+1 does now. Certainly any player considering the CFL as an option while keeping his NFL dream alive would very reluctant to sign for 2+1 if the option clause was eliminated.

Get rid of the clause and you see most new players coming in under 1+1 instead of 2+1. JohnHenry raises the Kelly Campbell example which is valid. However I believe that was a case of the Esks being very interested in his services while Campbell didn't want to totally close the door on the NFL. Signing a 2+1 which would make him unavailable until he was 30 would be closing the NFL door. Even getting a shot this year as he did was a bit of a longshot. I think the Esks gambled a bit that he wouldn't draw NFL interest this year and agreed to the 1+1 instead of a longer term. That gamble may still pay off for Edmonton. Lots can change between now and the start of CFL training camps. There still is the NFL Draft to come, NFL Free Agency and Mini-Camps. The Bucs' depth chart could change quite a bit between now and then. Like other prospective CFL players there is still a very real possibility of Campbell being cut before he even gets to the Bucs' main camp.

The David Allen scenario I still can't figure out. It seems to be a contravention of both the NFL and CFL CBAs.