ATTN: BURT AND JIM, Re: Dallas Clark

[zdravko27]

Hello Burt and Jim -

Two questions on the status of Dallas Clark. It would probably be wise to have a ruling on those before the bidding ends, which would be tomorrow at the earliest. A ruling before a dispute arises is always better than one after the fact.

Based on the thread below, the Dallas Clark case may be different than the recent Ryan Grant case. While the Grant ruling required Grant to be properly accounted for in the active roster before being moved to IR, Clark was cut while already being on IR.

Question 1 - Now that he has been cut, is Dallas Clark eligible to be on the active roster of his original team before the four weeks are up? What about all other teams?

Question 2 - If Dallas Clark is NOT eligible for an active roster spot, then the team that signs him does not need to have enough cap space for the full contract, since he goes directly to IR. Reversely, if he IS eligible for active roster, then the same cap requirements that applied to Ryan Grant apply here. Is this correct?

Thanks!

Thread:
http://www.predsff.com/forums/showthread.php?t=11598&highlight=injured+reserve+IR

[Burt the Butcher]

I am not sure that a ruling on Ryan Grant was made..I think John added him to his active squad, then put him on IR later.

I am not sure what Preds meant in his last statement, but it looks like this was really never finalized.

My opinion is, that you need cap space for all FA signed, regardless of their IR eligibility. Otherwise, you basically allow someone to be bought for half of their final pricetag - not their actual final bid.

I agree with what Preds was trying to say, but I think the team who cut him should be allowed to bid on him...and that they should have cap room for his entire contract. And also, that he should be required to finish out his IR stint. But that should only hold for the team that cut him. If another team wins him, he should be allowed to do whatever he wants with the player.

I also think this same should hold if a player on IR is traded. The team he is traded to should be able to fit that players entire contract on his cap. It that team then wants to place the player on IR, the 4 weeks would restart.

That is my take on it...argue away ;-)

[zdravko27]

See, in my view, when the player was voluntarily released, the original team paid the cap penalty, which severs all obligations to the player. So the original team should be subject to the same rules that apply to everybody else, because the original team is now no different than everybody else.

The same principle applies, for example, when you cut a taxi squad player. No one can re-sign him to their taxi squad (without a claim), and neither can you. Once you cut the taxi squad player, you are not his team anymore; you are just another team in the league, so the same rules apply to you.

A fully separate question is whether a player cut from IR has to serve the remainder of the 4-week stint before being eligible for active roster. My view would be to require the completion of the four weeks on IR. Right now, I can win Jacoby Jones (whom I cut from IR) and re-activate him early in this way. I personally say that shouldn't be allowed, but I realize this is my subjective view.

The last issue here is that there shouldn't be a double standard between salary cap requirements and active roster status. If a player can be on the active roster, then the active roster needs to have the full cap space and years. If the player cannot be on the active roster, then the active roster does not need to have the full cap space and years. Can't have it both ways, have to pick one.

[Burt the Butcher]

I am not sure I understand your last statement, or at least what it pertains too.

My concern with forcing a player picked up on FA to have to serve out his IR term, is that the choice was made by the team who cut him, to place him on IR. I don't see this should be forced on the team who wants to pick him up.

The reason I would say that if you won Jacoby Jones, he would have to go on IR, is the same reasoning the link you included in your original post - this allows for a loop hole in the rules as a way around not keeping a player on IR for 4 weeks...granted a dicey loophole....

[zdravko27]

Once a team pays the cap hit for the release, this team should be subject to the same rules and restrictions as everyone else. Otherwise, you are penalizing one team and giving advantage to others by granting them special rights to a player. The only case we do this is when one owner is prohibited from bidding on a player for 30 days, and this is as a punitive measure. What are you punishing the original team for?

[Burt the Butcher]

Oh, so you are saying we should be consistent in our rules...what a concept.. ;-)

[zdravko27]

They don't call me wonderboy for nothing!!!!!

Well, what I am pointing out is that all teams should be subject to the same rules and restrictions unless there is a good reason for the opposite. The only example I could come up with for the opposite is the 30-day ban, which is a penalty for violating roster requirements. I don't think cutting a player from IR is worthy of a penalty (other than the cap hit)...and I don't think you do, either.

So I guess what I am saying is that no matter what decision is made on IR-eligibilty, it should apply the same to all.

[Royal Hawaiian Opihi]

Here's what I think.
If a player is CUT while on IR, that severs his relationship with the team. Period.
If he gets CLAIMED on WAIVERS, then his IR status still applies, as does his contract & salary.
If he clears waivers and goes into the FA MARKET... then he's a brand new player with a brand new situation. Any team that wins him HAS TO HAVE ROOM on their active roster for him, just like any other FA. However, the owner can then choose to put him in IR, once space has been made on the active roster.

So a team could technically "exploit a loophole" by declaring a player on IR... then cutting him (and subsequently taking the cap hit)... then reacquiring him as an active player... EVEN IF IT'S BEFORE HIS ORIGINAL IR STATUS WOULD HAVE ENDED. There's no guarantee the original owner will be the winning owner - that's the chance he takes.

Make sense?

[zdravko27]

This is the PERFECT ruling that addresses all issues clearly and in full. Thank you!

[emerald]

If a player is acquired by trade and he is on old teams IR does he go to new teams IR and serve out the origional IR sentence like a waiver pick up (see Kevin Kolb Reds-Burners trade)?

[Royal Hawaiian Opihi]

Originally Posted by zdravko27

This is the PERFECT ruling that addresses all issues clearly and in full. Thank you!

They don't call me the WONDER COMMISH for nothing!!!

[Royal Hawaiian Opihi]

To put it simply... YES.

Originally Posted by emerald

If a player is acquired by trade and he is on old teams IR does he go to new teams IR and serve out the origional IR sentence like a waiver pick up (see Kevin Kolb Reds-Burners trade)?

[emerald]

Good! Then I haven't broken any rule by leaving Kolb on IR...

[Burt the Butcher]

I like it Jim...

The only thing I would disagree with, is on trades...if a player is on IR and traded, I think the player should be treated the same as FA acquisition...the team he is going to needs to have cap space for entire salary, then he has the choice of placing this player on IR...Now whether it is for the rest of the term already serving, or starts anew, I can go either way - but I think the team he is going to should be able to put him on his active roster immediatly.

[Royal Hawaiian Opihi]

What I might say is this... there has to be room on the active roster, yes... but the traded team MUST finish the acquired player's IR period.

It would be different if the player was cut & reacquired via Free Agency.

[Burt the Butcher]

Fair enough....I can buy off on that...