Jump to content
  • Welcome!

    Register and log in easily with Twitter or Google accounts!

    Or simply create a new Huddle account. 

    Members receive fewer ads , access our dark theme, and the ability to join the discussion!

     

IR Trade rule?


Obeg

Recommended Posts

I believe you actually can now (there was a change sometime back) but the biggest rule governing that kind of trade is that you have to find somebody who's dumb enough to give something up for a guy who was injured badly enough to be designated "out for the year".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, TheCasillas said:

I’m so confused why people keep bringing up cut gano while he was on IR.... he isn’t getting paid his active game bonus, and it would result in 5.7mil of dead cap. 

I'm ignorant on all of the cans and cannots ... but my thought was we have what may be a healthy, good kicker on IR.  There are several desperate teams in need of a kicker.. Pats being one of these.  If we can trade off the IR OR use this fact to entice Gano to be generous in the injury settlement - we can get out from under some, if not all of what you mention.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Obeg said:

I'm ignorant on all of the cans and cannots ... but my thought was we have what may be a healthy, good kicker on IR.  There are several desperate teams in need of a kicker.. Pats being one of these.  If we can trade off the IR OR use this fact to entice Gano to be generous in the injury settlement - we can get out from under some, if not all of what you mention.

 

  Even if that was to happen, it would save only a couple 100K at best. The 5.6M isn’t going anywhere. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Makes no sense to cut Gano right now. He doesn’t count against the 53 man roster, and while on IR hits our cap for $3.7 mil. 

Of we cut him, he would instantly hit cap for $5.6 mil. We can’t injury settle/negotiate out of that $5.6m. It is money we have already paid him via signing bonus.

If we trade him, it would only make sense if the other team enticed us with good enough picks, which isn’t likely for a kicker. 

If Slye stays on his current trajectory, you cut or trade Gano after this season, and his dead cap number drops enough to where we would save about $1.5 mil by cutting him (cap number of $4.5 and dead money of $3 nets $1.5 savings).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • Strange, every news article and tweet I just searched all mentioned waivers. It is definitely his sixth year of at least 6 games. All I was trying to think of earlier was at the vet min could he beat out Bryce in camp next year lol. He's kinda got the old Darnold issue where he can obviously launch deep balls and qb run at a level Bryce will never achieve, but it sounds like he would be content being like a Josh Allen backup who doesn't throw the whole game plan out the window if he has to come in for a series or two. If we had him and for some reason still wanted to start Bryce he would kinda do what Justin Fields was doing the other night with Dangeruss, coming in for designed runs and maybe some play action/triple option rpo things to go deep. That would be so obvious and sad though. At least Russ can still sling it 40 yards in the air with a flick of the wrist
    • Too late to edit above but the quote is from this Diane Russini article in the Athletic: https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/5941684/2024/11/23/russinis-what-im-hearing-the-day-the-jets-fell-apart-and-the-broncos-rallied-belichick-best-fits/ Okay.. there you have sorry I left that out the first post.  Also waivers keep the contract intact. That is the major difference in released and waived. It's all in that link from the other post.
    • Okay so I am reading something in The Athletic and it says that Jones had to pass through waivers. So I don't know. I looked this stuff up when we were number one there all offseason and I thought it said 4 years in the league got you vested, as they call it.  Vested gets you out of waivers as I understood it. I probably got something wrong, but when I think about the slack quality of journalism these days I wonder about that. So I went and looked, again. Well, well.  For everyone: "When a player has accrued at least four seasons in the NFL, they are considered a vested veteran. When these vested veterans get cut, they are released and their contract is terminated. When a vested veteran is released, they are an unrestricted free agent that can sign with any NFL team, and the team that released them doesn’t need to provide any additional compensation." It runs it all down here, where the quotes came from: https://www.profootballnetwork.com/waived-vs-released-nfl/ As far as Jones, the team turned down his 5th year option so I knew that meant he had 4 years in, because they re-signed him anyway, after turning down the much cheaper extra year.  The Athletic is owned by the New York Times so I shouldn't be surprised. That paper was an institution once upon a time but they let their standards go.
×
×
  • Create New...