IR Spot?

[Panthers GM (Harris)]

Drop their contract obligation for the year they are placed on the IR I assume...

And will we be able to adjust our rosters if we decided not to keep/release players who were already placed on the IR.

For example, my team with Ron Edwards, and the Raiders dropping David Gettis.

[Falcons GM & Commish (Brian)]

Should we have this option available?

(If they go to IR, you get to drop their contract obligation)

This would only be for players in real life who go to the IR

Unlimited / none / somewhere in between.. open to thoughts here. I want to decide before our season starts and preferably in the next week or so

[dolphinzrule]

I think we should have an IR allocation but definitely not unlimited. You still need to be smart with your choices.

[michaelmelby]

Does this mean you lose the guy forever, or just dont have to pay him for the year, and his contract resumes on the same team the next year?

[dolphinzrule]

we might be able to make that an option i guess as well

that something to run by commish,,maybe to add on poll?

[Falcons GM & Commish (Brian)]

Aug 24, 2011 0:06:45 GMT -5 @michaelmelby said:

Does this mean you lose the guy forever, or just dont have to pay him for the year, and his contract resumes on the same team the next year?

If you lose the guy forever, wouldn't that make this pointless? ;D

You would get out of their contract obligation for the season in which you put him to the IR, but that's it. His contract would resume the next season.

[Texans GM (Victor)]

I think we should have IR spots but you should still have to pay them. Freeing up the roster spot should be good enough. In real life IR, teams still pay players on IR. Maybe giving the team the option of releasing with no cap penalty would be an option. But if you want to retain their rights you should have to pay. This is where managing your cap properly comes into play. Leaving some cap to sign other players if you suffer a major injury.

I voted other because I am in favor of IR and the 3spots but not having the team remove their salary for that season, just the roster spot.

[djromano]

I have seen leagues make you pay half the salary for a guy on IR. That's an option to strike a happy medium.

[darren]

I voted yes to 3 spots. I however think we should have to pay them while they are on IR. What sense does it make to not pay them? Not being a smart as just not sure I understand the reasoning behind not paying them.

[ripdawg]

You definitely need to pay the player..........why would you ever get to have a player on your roster for free?

The benefit of I.R. is to get the roster spot back.

[Cardinals GM (Marshall)]

i agree with the bucs

[eboogie]

I think that there should be no IR mean just put him on ur bench and pick somebody else up.

[michaelmelby]

To brian....no it wouldnt make it pointless becuase you wouldnt be obligated to pay half of his dropped salary. am i right or did i miss something? Either way, I wouldn't want the IR to work like that. Just clarifying it up for everyone.

[Cowboys GM (Geno)]

i am for the ir allocation,but would hate to lose a good young player due to 1 seasons injury...I would be ok if we had to pay them...they get paid in real life....the spot would free up a slot for his replacement.Would prefer 1/2 the salary but would be ok paying full salary to be able to keep the rights to him.
I feel if you wanna keep him pay him and place him on IR or cut him loose.If you bench him for the season you would have to pay him to sit on the bench.So dont see where paying should be a problem.

[michaelmelby]

I agree with that. Paying half would be ok but paying all to free up roster space would work as well. Does 3 seem a bit much? would 2 be better? or is that just splitting hairs.