IR and cuts

[Philadelphia Freedom]

Not sure if this is the right place to ask but I was not sure if we are able to cut players if they are on the IR for us. I would think that this is okay since I am not seeing anything to the contrary but I wanted to check to confirm before I did it (if that is the course I choose take).

Can someone confirm or deny?

[Nittany Dodgers]

I see no issue with cutting someone from the IR. Normal cap hits would apply.

[Preds]

You can cut a player off IR.

If the player is claimed off waivers, they remain on IR for the minimum 4 week period. If they're not claimed, they become Free Agents and can be bid upon and used on the active roster of the winning team.

One thing we never really encountered or worked out is how to handle a situation where a team cuts a guy on IR, then rebids for their services, wins them, and wants them on the active roster within the original 4 week minimum. I guess I'd like Brian's input on that, but IMO, the originating team shouldn't be allowed to rebid and activate a guy that hasn't served the 4 week minimum. In that specific case, I would think the player would go back on the originating teams IR at the new salaryand would have to serve the out the 4 week minimum.

[Philadelphia Freedom]

Thanks I agreed with what Brian said in terms of how the rules read. I guess I was also thinking of the "loophole" that might exist that Mike mentioned. In this case I am not sure I would be bidding on the cut player but I can see how you might cut a guy absorb the hit and then try and re-sign him and make him active. Would the cap hit be enough of a disincentive (coupled with the fact that the team that made the cut could lose the player to a waiver claim or might not be able to be the highest bidder).

Not sure but it might be worth discussing that when the player is cut having the IR placement date included with the cut. That way anyone who acquires the player (either via waiver claim or via bidding) would have to wait out the IR period.

[Nittany Dodgers]

Originally Posted by Preds

One thing we never really encountered or worked out is how to handle a situation where a team cuts a guy on IR, then rebids for their services, wins them, and wants them on the active roster within the original 4 week minimum. I guess I'd like Brian's input on that, but IMO, the originating team shouldn't be allowed to rebid and activate a guy that hasn't served the 4 week minimum. In that specific case, I would think the player would go back on the originating teams IR at the new salaryand would have to serve the out the 4 week minimum.

I'm not sure on this one. I'd say something like that would have to have been specifically spelled out in the rules. For now, I think the exposure of the player to free agency would be suficient to allow the team to reactivate the player. It's not exactly a loophole that is easy to take advantage of, since a team could easily be outbid for a player.

[Preds]

Originally Posted by Nittany Dodgers

I'm not sure on this one. I'd say something like that would have to have been specifically spelled out in the rules. For now, I think the exposure of the player to free agency would be suficient to allow the team to reactivate the player. It's not exactly a loophole that is easy to take advantage of, since a team could easily be outbid for a player.

For a team with cap space it's not a disincentive at all. I'll give you a realistic scenario.

Last week, I put Lamont Jordan on IR, thinking his back was gonna shelve him for some time. To my surprise, he not only suited up but started and played well last week. Now here I am with a guy on IR for a minimum of 3 more weeks, yet I have almost $4g in cap laying around. If I was in dire need of a RB week 7 or 8, in your scenario I could cut him, eat some cap and rebid, likely outbid every other team save for maybe the Clwons, and make him active in the 2nd week of his minimum 4 week IR stint. I don't like that. At all.

[Nittany Dodgers]

Originally Posted by Preds

For a team with cap space it's not a disincentive at all. I'll give you a realistic scenario.

Last week, I put Lamont Jordan on IR, thinking his back was gonna shelve him for some time. To my surprise, he not only suited up but started and played well last week. Now here I am with a guy on IR for a minimum of 3 more weeks, yet I have almost $4g in cap laying around. If I was in dire need of a RB week 7 or 8, in your scenario I could cut him, eat some cap and rebid, likely outbid every other team save for maybe the Clwons, and make him active in the 2nd week of his minimum 4 week IR stint. I don't like that. At all.

Here's the key. I think there's always going to be at least one other team who's going to be able to bid on any given player.

Don't get me wrong, I mostly agree with your position. However, the issue is that while what you're arguing for is most likely the best position, I'm not sure it is supported in the rules. I'll read the rules a little closer and see what can be gleaned.

[Nittany Dodgers]

OK, just so we're all on the same page, here is the entirety of the IR rule:

Each team has a maximum of two (2) injured reserversonName>e sersonName>lots. For a player to be put on IR he must be listed as Questionable, Doubtful or Out on any NFL.com weekly injury reports. Any player placed on IR must remain on IR for a minimum of 4 weeks. By thersonName>e sersonName>tart of the next rookie draft, each franchise must clear IR and have no more than sixteen players on their roster. Once a player is placed on IR, the club can pick up another player but they must go through the free agent channel as with any other pick up.

When a player is placed on IR, 50% of their salary will count against your cap (either active or DS, depending where the player was before the IR move), teams will also receive 1 temporary "contract year". This temporary year may be used at the discretion of the team for signing a replacement, etc. As soon as the injured player is removed from IR, the temporary year is revoked and the team must immediately return its roster to a total of 36 contract years.

The 1st available date to list a player on IR is Monday, August 29, 2005at 12:00am - this will be a flexible date each year that basically commences the day after the 3rd pre-season games end (4th for the few teams that play 5). This will be approximately 7-10 days before the NFL regular season kicks off.

Since there is no reference to a particular team, and the rule generally states "a player must remain on IR for a minimum of 4 weeks," that has to be the same for all teams. Either when the player is cut he is still only IR eligible for all teams, or once he is cut, he can go back to the active roster for all teams. Now, we'd have a major loophole if we made it where a player cut from the IR had to go on other teams' IR for the 4 weeks, since people could IR players at the end of the season before cutting them to prevent any teams from picking them up. We don't want to open that can of worms, so I'd have to say the rule as written allows teams to rebid a player to their active roster after cutting them from IR.

That said, I think it needs to be changed.

[Preds]

Originally Posted by Nittany Dodgers

OK, just so we're all on the same page, here is the entirety of the IR rule:


Since there is no reference to a particular team, and the rule generally states "a player must remain on IR for a minimum of 4 weeks," that has to be the same for all teams. Either when the player is cut he is still only IR eligible for all teams, or once he is cut, he can go back to the active roster for all teams. Now, we'd have a major loophole if we made it where a player cut from the IR had to go on other teams' IR for the 4 weeks, since people could IR players at the end of the season before cutting them to prevent any teams from picking them up. We don't want to open that can of worms, so I'd have to say the rule as written allows teams to rebid a player to their active roster after cutting them from IR.

That said, I think it needs to be changed.

From what I read there, the issue isn't addressed at all, which means IMO, we as a board can determine the intent and a course of action.

I think players claimed off waivers, or via trades, need to stay on IR the minimum 4 weeks. It's the ones that are cut we need to think about, and IMO, the cleanest way around that is to simply bar the original team from activating the cut and rebid on player within the original 4 week window.