Luc Mullinder

Luc Mullinder a été libéré par les Alouettes.

Donc, on a laissé aller Dallas Baker pour rien du tout? Tout un échange!

Avions-nous tant de talent à la ligne défensive pour libérer un canadien ou Mullinder avait-il des blessures occultes?

Nous verrons bien comment l'équipe s'en tirera sans lui, mais je peine à comprendre.

Les Alouettes n'étaient pas prêts à payer $100,000 à un joueur de ligne défensive non-partant et je suis totalement en accord. Il a refusé de modifier son contrat et il a été libéré. Il a modifié-à la baisse- son contrat avant de signer avec Hamilton; il a signé pour fin de saison actuelle et une année d'option. Durant la saison morte,il recevra un boni,sinon il sera libéré et deviendra agent libre.

Concernant Baker,il ne nous manque pas; il pourrait avoir été libéré. Il n'a pas encore joué avec les Riders,même si leurs besoins en receveurs sont "grands/criants".


Donc, si je comprends bien, lorsque les Alouettes sont allés chercher Mullinder, ils savaient que son contrat était trop onéreux et qu'ils pourraient être forcés de le libérer. Ce n'est pas nécessairement plus brillant.

C'est certain qu'on pouvait finir la saison sans Baker. J'ai moi-même écrit plusieurs fois que l'équipe serait meilleure avec Deslauriers à sa place. Cela dit, ce n'est pas que je croyais que Baker n'avait pas d'avenir, mais plutôt qu'il n'était pas encore prêt pour notre football.

Avec le départ de Mullinder, nos besoins à la ligne défensive sont-ils vraiment comblés? Je crois qu'il nous manque toujours un morceau, et cela vient démontrer que le choix de Mullinder n'était pas un bon choix si on ne s'était pas entendus avec lui avant l'échange. à moins que Popp ne voulait rendre service à Taman?

Historicaly the way Jim has worked these types of deals is that he brings in the player giving him an opportunity to be a starter. So what likely happened is the coaching staff evalutated Mullinder and decided he would be a backup, rotating role player, at that point the als have a set rate that they will pay for a backup and it is not 90 000.00. He was probably offered around 60k and chose not to take it. The rationale behind that is that if you start paying backups that kind of money you risk causing problems in your locker room. How can a coach look Bowman in the eye when he makes less money than the guy sitting on the bench playing the same position... and those 30k add up and next thing you know your payroll is out of wack and your losing players you want to keep.

Which all would make sense
If we were talking about an unknown factor...a rookie or someone from another league
Mullinder is a veteran
Bringing him in for an "evaluation" is nonsense
Everyone knows what Mullinder is capable of
We've certainly played him often enough

This thing was all over the place
They brought Mullinder in
Then the defence (with Moton Hopkins) has a huge albeit tainted performance against a weakened Eskimos offence
They release Mullinder

That's how it went down
Regardless of what the usual team apologists will have us believe
And the usual obfuscation about salary caps
(that excuse is getting oooooold)

It remains to be seen how much of last games performance was real
Or whether we still have one of the worst d-lines in the league
With the upcoming schedule it shouldn't be too long
Before we get an answer to that one

ROFLMAO , call me what you want! Your constantly shiatting on Jim Popp, first it was MacPherson then it was Cobourne, today it is Mullinder. I think I remember you stating you could do a better job than Jim. :lol:

What's even more comical is your always complaining that Jim is cheap and when he manages the payroll with marginal contributors you complain about that too. :x

You call me what you want. Your what we call bleacher manager :? , you remind me of these Habs fans that call in to CKAC and act like they know what is going on when in fact they know very little . You couldn't manage a handful of people let alone 65 carnivores and 30 staffers. You can have your opinion and I have mine. You ask any fan of this league and 99.9999 of them will tell you that Jim Popp is the best GM in the league and every team would love to have him run their business.

Yes it is hard for Jim to make trades, that's because he does not "lie down with dogs" as we say. He's not part of the old boys club and you know what. I like it like that. The Als do most everyhing from "scratch" and that's why we always have a competitive team as opposed to the Hamilton and Argos of the league who scrounge around stealing bits here and there to put a team together and have to start over every couple years.

It is obvious that Trestman resisted changing his ratio and using an import but Hopkins played so well that Trestman and Tibisar had a change of heart and will commit to at least giving Hopkins a run to prove himself and Bekasiak will return and if that still does not fix things by then the NFL will have reduced their personnel and there will be other candidates. Jim went out and got the best guys available with Lucas and Mullinder and the coach's did their end and evaluated them. Jim's job is to bring in the guys and the coaching staff decides who plays and who does not. Everybody did and do their job very well on this team.

Your next jab at Jim will probably will come when he trades Sandro :cowboy:

So the question is Why did Mullinder accept a lower salary with a bonus structure to make up the $20k difference with Hamilton and not with Popp and the Alouettes?!
And Popp trades away Baker and in the end Popp and the Als get nothing, not even a 4th or 5th round draft pick! Despite the fact Baker has yet to play for the Riders, at least they have options with him. Play him, put him on reserve or trade him. Popp has 0 for this trade and lost his man to a team that will be fighting them for 1st in the east.

Not a good move on Popp's part if you ask me!

The only drawback with this deal is that Mullinder lands with the TiCats for 80k with bonus and Riders get Baker, whether he plays or not. They still have options with him. What does Popp get at the end of this one? Not even a late round draft pick.
Granted he has been a great GM but this one is not one of his better moves if you ask me.

If you read Herb's article today, you will see that Mullinder felt he had a better shot at playing in Hamilton than he did in Montreal. Looks like Hamilton gave him 70 to 75k and the Als were looking more at 50 to 60 bracket. The article also explains that the coaching staff decided to use Hopkins instead of Mullinder and that played in it as well. Hopkins is 24 and happy to be an Als where Mullinder is 30 and his heart is still in Regina.

Really the main cause of all this is not Jim but the coaching staff deciding to change the ratio at the position. The team seems very excited about Moton's attitude, energy and potential. Reminds me a lot of what Anwar's beginnings with the Als.

We might have a long term cog with Hopkins. Lapolice says it was the toughest cut he ever had to make.

Arguing over Luc Mullinder??!! - much ado about nothing. This is isn`t exactly the Chad Owens situation. (Speaking of which, playing offense full-time has certainly diminished his returning.)

Baker was going to be let go or put on the practice roster at the risk of being claimed. Popp took a chance on taking a look at Mullinder, the coaches found him wanting or preferred Hopkins and Chima. The better question is why Sask. let Mullinder go after several seasons.

Are we also going to rag on Popp for cutting Rodriguez and Bernard, signed by Edm. and Sask. with nothing in return?

And how did Winn. let Hopkins go without getting anything?

You cant keep em all.

Way to go Sheldon ! Good post !

True enough

One would think that with the Alouettes success using those Big receivers
And all the hoopla about our great depth at the position coming out of training camp
We might have received something in exchange for Baker
Maybe even something more than the token we got for Steenbergen
Before populating the rest of the league with our prospects

Again the vitriol in some corners
Et tu nez brun?

Before apologizing for Popp maybe one might wait and see
Just exactly where the team is at on the d-line
It's not unreasonable to insist that the Edmonton game was no yardstick for judging
And the Alouettes are arguably still severely lacking and vulnerable
Nor is it unreasonable to expect Popp to do his job in filling gaps on our team
That is...if you want to win

The next few games will tell
But everyone and their grandmum knows the Alouettes needed help on the d-line prior to Game 7
After the Eskies fell hard to the BC Lions...only a fool could feel assured that problem is resolved


C'est ce que je voulais dire en concluant "Nous verrons bien ce que l'équipe fera sans lui".

On devrait avoir la réponse demain.

Are we also going to rag on Popp for cutting Rodriguez and Bernard, signed by Edm. and Sask. with nothing in return?
Ideal, you are not comparing apples to apples with this statement. Rodriquez and Bernard were brought in at training camp, given nothing away! Popp trades Barker for Mullinder who then gets released, signing with a team in your own division for approximately 80k. Riders still have Barker whether they play him or not. They could ultimately trade him away for a draft pick if they so choose. At least they have that option, Als at the end of it all, gave him away!

Peut-être aurions-nous eu besoin de Mullinder pour cette partie, après tout. Burris n'a pas été aussi inquiété qu'il ne l'aurait dû.

Against Burris you don't go charging in. Contain is your first assignment. Against Glenn you will see more agressive pass rushing. If it is Glenn... I think we may see Porter.

Tant mieux si c'est Porter. Je ne me souviens pas qu'il nous ait battus. Porter peut très bien faire dans une partie de match, mais il finit par cumuler ses erreurs lorsqu'il joue un match complet.

Je m'attends à ce que ce soit Glenn. C'est lui qui nous a torchés la dernière fois.

Ironically...aside from a bunch of pressure at the start of the game...the Alouettes did neither against Burris.
If they really were sitting back more worried about contain it would have been nice if Burris hadn't been able to walk in for the TD after the Calvillo interception. Unfortunately Burris managed to have his cake and beat it too...with oodles of time in and out of the pocket...and an admittedly weakened secondary scrambling most of the second half...trying to cover their man for 5 steamboats or more. And impossible most db's will tell you.

I'd like to think the Alouettes will get in Glenn's face the next two go-rounds.
But I'm afraid our problems getting pressure have just started
And with bozos calling for the wrong heads (Eric Wilson is definitely not the problem)
I simply don't see things getting better any time soon

We better hope AC's gonna put up some massive numbers the next few weeks
Because the defence ain't gonna win us anything any time soon.

Make him BIG
And make him FAST
Without some creative introspection this team will not 3-peat

There's been a lot of talk of "Grey Cup Previews"
Als against the Eskimos
Als against the Stamps

You want a post-season preview?
Check the next two weeks
If we show well against the Cats...hell we may make it all the way
If we don't...well I sure hope somebody gets an idea or two
Or we aren't making it past the East Semi

I've had my say

Fixed it for ya :smiley: