IR Question

[Liquid Swords]

To avoid any "implied" rules again since i couldn't find a definitive answer in the rules, is it possible to cut a player on the IR before the 4 week minimum has passed, or must you wait until the 4 weeks are over to cut an IR player?

[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.


This is all my personal opinion on the matter, but a very good question.

[Liquid Swords]

cool. pretty much what i was thinking.

[Royal Hawaiian Opihi]

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...

[Preds]

Originally Posted by Royal Hawaiian Opihi

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...

OK, let me give you a creative scenario why I disagree (and you all know how I love to be creative with team managment).

Team A has player A on my IR, placed him there 2 weeks ago, but he's now healthy.

He was talking trade with Team B, but team B needs the guy this week, and if acquired via trade the IR status would transfer over (we've already debated this).

So instead, Team A executes a slightly different trade with Team B getting back more compensation than he really should, and cuts the IR player so that Team B can bid on him and use him that week.

Team B then bids on Player A, eventually wins the bid, and starts the guy that week, at a time when he should have still been on IR.

This is not an unrealistic scenario, is this something you'd like to see as legal?

[Royal Hawaiian Opihi]

Since we're in the "debating" mode... allow me:

I see a few problems with your reasoning. While I don't disagree that the above scenario could take place (and might even be "not unrealistic" as you proclaim in your last sentence)... here's where I have problems.

1. Even if Team A trades "IR player" to Team B... Team B would still have to cut him, if he wanted any chance at resigning him for the current week. However, with our new "waiver wire" policy, any other team in the league could make a claim, thereby throwing a wrench in Team B's "cut/sign" plans.

2. If "IR player" clears waivers, then it goes back to the usual bidding by the league. I can't imagine that this former-IR player would get resigned by Team B without a bit of interest from the rest of the league (and quite possibly the tried-n-true Mike Santalucia "keep away" bidding technique)... especially if the league thinks it's an attempt to get around the spirit of the rules.

What made me originally question your logic had nothing to do with trading an IR player... but simply if Team A puts a guy on IR, then decides to cut him, and he clears waivers... then why would the rest of the league have to be affected by what a previous owner did?