Dwight Freeneys season possibly over

[Richard Tanner]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Freeney placed on IR

[/ QUOTE ]

D'oh, only plus side is we get a [censored] of cap room back to sign god-knows-who. This blows.

Cody

[/ QUOTE ]

Freeney still counts, the Colts get no relief from moving him to IR

[/ QUOTE ]

Huh? Why is that?

Cody

[/ QUOTE ]

b/c players on the IR still are paid, still count against the cap..I think it prevents gamemanship of the cap.

now, you do gain a roster spot b/c of this, but whatever you pay that new guy will also count against the cap. it typically doesn't matter much, a replacement type guy will be paid short money.

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you have a link to this because before you created doubt in my head, I was almost sure that part of putting a player on IR was getting their salary hit that year (perhaps prorated for weeks played) back to sign other players.

There's no "gamesmanship issue since the player is done for the season with no chance of coming back.

Cody

[Richard Tanner]

What the hell, I found a link myself. You're right. This makes no sense.

Cody

[capone0]

I think you play too much madden.

[Kneel B4 Zod]

[ QUOTE ]
What the hell, I found a link myself. You're right. This makes no sense.

Cody

[/ QUOTE ]

it's basically a non-issue; any player you want you can probably afford now. there aren't $8m guys sitting at home.

now, it did get very close to an issue for the Pats in 2005, b/c they literally ran out of room under the cap. they couldn't have afforded 1 more guys off the street. but they had a ridiculous amount of injuries, and were already close to the cap before the season started.

any guy you sign now will make $200k or something.

the trading deadline has also already passed, so it's not like you could trade for some big money player on a bad team

[Richard Tanner]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What the hell, I found a link myself. You're right. This makes no sense.

Cody

[/ QUOTE ]

it's basically a non-issue; any player you want you can probably afford now. there aren't $8m guys sitting at home.

now, it did get very close to an issue for the Pats in 2005, b/c they literally ran out of room under the cap. they couldn't have afforded 1 more guys off the street. but they had a ridiculous amount of injuries, and were already close to the cap before the season started.

any guy you sign now will make $200k or something.

the trading deadline has also already passed, so it's not like you could trade for some big money player on a bad team

[/ QUOTE ]

It's a non-issue now, but it wasn't for the Pats then. My problem is that I can't see what this is designed to prevent. If you place a player on IR, they're done for the season, no exemptions, so I can't see a team using this as a "trick" to sit one of their best players to "free up cap room". Worse yet, Freeney still counts this year on his contract, so it's not as if the Colts get him for another year (not that I would change this rule, just more "this doesn't make sense" fodder).

I don't see any way for a team to exploit this and giving some cap relief for that season back seems to be a fair way to handle things like this.

Cap,

[ QUOTE ]
I think you play too much madden.


[/ QUOTE ]

Yep, that's where I got it from, but since it always seemed to make sense in-game (and Madden is trying to imulate the real thing) I had thought it would be the real rule.

Cody

[Kneel B4 Zod]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't see any way for a team to exploit this and giving some cap relief for that season back seems to be a fair way to handle things like this.

[/ QUOTE ]

well, I started a thread about IR and lack of baseball style DL just this morning. I think the system is broken.

but, I think this particular rule is fine. imagine the Patriots signing a troubled WR to a 1 year deal ( [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img] ) and he starts bringing guns to practice and by week 1 it's obvious it's not gonna work. the team doesn't want him anymore, and nobody else does. the solution? put him on ir and use the money on someone else. see how that wouldn't work?

the team still needs to be held accountable for the signing. the relief they get for the injury is the roster spot. most teams leave a few million under the cap anticipating that this will happen

[Dynasty]

[ QUOTE ]

now, you do gain a roster spot b/c of this, but whatever you pay that new guy will also count against the cap. it typically doesn't matter much, a replacement type guy will be paid short money.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hasn't Simeon Rice already taken that roster spot?

[Kneel B4 Zod]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

now, you do gain a roster spot b/c of this, but whatever you pay that new guy will also count against the cap. it typically doesn't matter much, a replacement type guy will be paid short money.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hasn't Simeon Rice already taken that roster spot?

[/ QUOTE ]


yes. here is info on his salary situation wrt to the Colts

"it is rare that a vested vet like Rice with a $3 million contract would be claimed off waivers, but the Colts are only on the hook for his minimum salary; the other $2.2 million was tied to incentives and bonuses."

so I'm not sure what portion of the remaining $800k the Colts need to pay, but my guess is that the Broncos are on the hook for some and the Colts on the hook for some

[Case Closed]

This really blows. Nothing else to say really.

[owsley]

If I properly understand what you are suggesting, the PA would definitely oppose it. It would essentially require the owner's to raise the cap and share more $$ with the players, or the current players to agree to share more of their money with worse replacement level players (IE increase the supply of players and take a pay cut). The money would have to come from somewhere.