Jesse

Highest contract ever given out was by us, to Andrew Harris, at 170k. Brady could top that, but he's not blowing the pay scale out of the water. RBs are too replaceable.

2 years in your late 30s is kind of a big deal. We all expect Zach to potentially retire in 2 years after his current deal. I think it's a good idea to have a guy like Harris in the building as part of a rebuild. But what they need to do - starting with last year - is get a guy like Dru to be ready to step in and take the job.

I'm a huge Brady fan, but that would surprise me a lot. His ask will also be limited by the position he plays. There's a ceiling for RBs. If he's brought in as a starter, proven or not, the starting salary starts with a 3. Of course, that's not a sure thing at this point.

Not counting Kelly, who was on his rookie deal, the lowest paid starter was Adams, who got 350k. The higher paid back-ups (Arbuckle and Shilts) received 130ish and then play time bonuses for starts. to get them in the low 200s. It all depends if someone is going to go all-in on him as a starter, or if Dru is willing to bet on himself as a back-up somewhere where he thinks he can beat out an established starter or go behind a starter who's at a higher risk of missing time.

Count me as not caring one way or the other about how this went down. I think Buck would make a good HC, but glad he's staying with us while we attempt to make it 5 straight GC appearances, and even more glad he wont be leaving us for the Riders.

We all loved Cohen. But perhaps only because he was here before certain things started hitting the fan. The commish is simply the face of decisions made by the team presidents and franchises. Not too certain how much better/different things would be under Cohen. Before I address your points, I do want to share that I feel very comfortable with where the league strength is at. The Bombers are the model franchise, but BC and Montreal are showing strong growth under new ownership. Toronto is making small strides for the first time I can remember. The cap and TV deals are at their highest ever, including new money from the US (ever so small new money, but it's there). We may hate the idea of revenue sharing as the club making the most revenue, but no doubt it's supporting the league as a whole. The OPS cap that everyone hates at least has the benefit of keeping teams more fiscally responsible. The move from TD Atlantic to TD Pacific and beyond is a great upcoming promotional tool to grow the fanbase across the country. There are a lot of good things happening. Attendance is low, but it's a trend that is happening across sports and entertainment, I think. For years, the home experience has been getting better and better while tickets and food have gotten more and more expensive. But I think we are proof that a good product can still fight for it's place in the entertainment budget. Other teams saw positive trends this year too, while the Edmonton's of the world need to improve their product (I have a lot of faith in the market to support a successful team). I can't disagree with you on the convoluted rules, especially in the area of NIs and DIs and Gs. It's unnecessary and make the game inaccessible to most fans and a lot of coaches, tbh. But it also came with the stability of a new agreement with the players, so good and bad elements I suppose. I also agree that the league has stagnating a bit and is too strongly attached to risk-averse football. We definitely need a team to come in and shake things up, forcing some new ideas. I doubt the league has somehow forgotten how to scout, but the increases and changes surrounding the NFLs practice rosters and new leagues have certainly diluted the prospect pool, no doubt. It also may be a sign of the times as more and more parents don't let their kids play football. The free agent stuff is 100% overblown as we all know that the FA lists on Feb. 13 are going to be significantly different than they are today.

By what metric?

Actual CFL reporters have been calling him out on his BS since last year. They are so sick of him.

And we've been the team operating at a loss many times. As a league, this is what teams have agreed to because of league-wide revenues.

The caps are a result of the revenue that's coming in. It is what it is.

It's a lot to ask one guy (Mace in this case), to have the connections and pull to put together a full staff in one year. He'll have some ideas about some guys(some will say yes, some wont), and then he will need his GM to reach out to other people.

I certainly believe Wade was attempting to make it difficult for Buck to leave.

I agree 100% But there there's a guy's resume and then there's what he presents in an interview. Minds can be changed. That said, I think O'Day is an idiot and just the worst GM in the league. I trust him to be looking for the wrong traits in his staff.

Some people just love recycling the same old guys, I guess.

Not cutting Zach, regardless.

I didn't see the ring part, my bad.

They would not.

I'm not saying it was the right decision. It's just a different argument/decision that what we've been having. People are moving the goalposts. MOS made a comment about none of our players, that he can see, are "aging out". The roster management decisions (like keeping Jackson on at the expense of another receiver) are a different argument than Brandon Alexander is too old and is hurting the team. Bighill, Bryant, Collaros, Alexander, etc. may have lost a step form their prime, but none of them are liabilities out there (Injuries notwithstanding). And the depth guys like Briggs, whoever you bring in for them (rando Canadian draft pick from the last couple of years) isn't going to be so much more valuable that they make the impact the game is a way that some of you seem to think. _______________________________________ But completely separate from the "Aging out" discussion is the rostering decisions, which were just crazy in a lot of cases. Jackson was a waste of a spot, period. Should have been used on a DL that we didn't even seem to have. That is at least partly a scouting fail. We ran without depth in the secondary for most of the season and mostly never hurt ys, but easily could have. And I guess it's fine if you want to commit to a "jack knife" as your receiver depth if that's what you feel your offense needs, but if he's the guy you trust, he needs to be active in a game in which the rest of your receivers are injured. If you don't trust him in that role, you needed to be developing a different guy all year - roster/scouting fail.

Who didn’t we have depth for? Plenty of guys could have/should have been on the field for Bighill. We had Rose inactive. We had McCrae and Ambles ready to go at receiver (although we had too many injuries at receiver to reasonably cover). The roster choices for those people were garbage, but I don’t we had choices to go to if we wanted to. MOS didn’t, unfortunately.

Honestly, I was kind of shocked when it was announced that MOS got his raise last year for that reason, so I wouldn't put it past him.

Ball heard it from Dunk and then tweeted it out as "people in my circle". Before that moment, he's been saying it's going to be Mace.

We've talked about it since last night?

Just dump the secondary that led the league in passing defence. I don't see the same things you're seeing.

We got killed because out entire receiving core was limping. I'd like to see Eli at centre next year and a solid DE rotational piece. Otherwise, run it back as much as possible. But that has nothing to do with an older player who we should move on from, which is what we're talking about.

If Buck hasn't pulled himself out of the race at this point, he's in it to win it.