It wasn't left out due to "convenience". The 9-gamers don't count to the SMS. It goes without saying that since there only is a 46-man roster (plus the DR), that changes will need to be made.
Just seeing this article, my first question is, is he referring to next year when he is saying, "We're also significantly over the salary cap.".
If he is referring to next year, the next question is then (based on your comments above), is the $250K over based on the 70-man roster you cite, or a 46-man roster?
Sorry Dave, I figured the interpretation of it being next year's figure was a natural and that you were going with a tongue in cheek subject line. I didn't realize that you were actually seeking clarity on it.
The point of bringing it up now is probably rooted in a couple of different premises IMO.
1) Demonstrating the commitment the team was showing to continue to compete in the face of injuries. Maciocia and Eskimo management have been lightning rods for public criticism by the great unwashed that don't have any patience for building towards something over a few seasons.
2) Setting up some veterans for the idea that they may be asked to consider paycuts in order to retain some of the talent that was brought in
3) Preparing some others for not being asked back and letting them know that, at least in part, it's financially based rather than performance or fit.
What will remain to be seen is whether the Esks were actually over this year. As Hambone points out, the long-term injuries actually can work favourably wrt the SMS, as not only are replacements generally cheaper, but they're also less likely to have incentive clauses and bonuses kicking in for either the injured or the replacement.
