Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Preds
I don't see any reason why you couldn't cut a guy within the 4 weeks. However, if the same guy was rebid upon and won (by any team) within the 4 week period then they'd have to be placed on IR for the minimum period remaining from the previous teams IR. My reasoning is that if the 4 week minimum wasn't enforced, there would in essence be a loophole for getting players back on the active roster before the 4 weeks were up.
|
As I've said before, I'm not on the rules committee... and I didn't even sleep at a Holiday Inn last night... BUT... I'd disagree, Mike. I can see how putting a guy on IR, then cutting him, then rebidding on him to get him back on the active roster of the original owners would be using a "loophole."
However, if someone else puts a guy on the IR, for whatever reason (remember, it doesn't have to be "out for the year," it could be simply designated as Questionable by the NFL)... and then cuts him... it seems wrong to force the NEW OWNER to have to abide by the previous owner's designation. If someone puts in a waiver claim, then yes, s/he must abide by the 4 week IR designation. But if it goes back into the general pool, I don't see why we'd have to keep the IR tag requirements.
Just my opinion...