Jump to content

Week 9: Lions (3-4) at VIKINGS (2-5)


swede700

Recommended Posts

7 minutes ago, Cearbhall said:

Not advocating for it, but players can be cut wit injury settlements.

Usually those are UDFAs hurt in camp

When a player under contract is injured, the team has a few options, partly depending on whether the player is vested (four years on an NFL roster):

  1. Designate the player as injured reserve. Vested veterans can be put directly on injured reserve. The player will continue to receive his weekly game checks (i.e., his base salary) for the remainder of the season. The team is responsible for his medical treatment. The team can sign another player, but must remain under the salary cap in doing so. Players designated as injured reserve can sometimes be returned to the squad in the same season, but often this is a season-ending designation. The player accrues a season toward becoming an vested veteran.
  2. Designate the player as waived/injured. This applies in the preseason to any un-vested player, and is an option for any player during the regular season. If a player is not going to be designated to the injured reserve list, the team will make the player an injury settlement offer. Typically this is some lump sum payment that would reflect all or a portion of any base salary and expected/unpaid bonus money, as well as the cost of medical treatment and rehabilitation for the injury.
    1. If the player accepts the settlement offer, they immediately become an unrestricted free agent and can be signed by any team in the next 24 hours.
    2. If the player accepts the settlement offer, and is not signed within the 24-hour waiver period, then he can be retained by the team, and moved to injured reserve.
    3. If the player rejects the settlement offer, things get awkward. The player essentially becomes designated as injured/reserve, receives pay and medical care accordingly, but has essentially burnt his bridge with the team, and probably can expect to be cut or traded at the earliest opportunity. They have already signaled their intent to move on from the player, so it’s pretty hard as a player to impose yourself on the team like that and then expect to be welcomed back with open arms. They probably felt it was necessary to waive the player in order to be able to sign a replacement player, so forcing them to retain the player on injured/reserve might be harming their chances to remain competitive
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, vikesfan89 said:

It's kind of weird that as good as Cook has been,  he really hasn't had many great games until this season.  I imagine injuries and shaky line play had a lot to do with that

I wouldn’t say all that. He is having a career season this year, but he has definitely had some great games prior to this season. 200 yards is an OUTSTANDING game and he hasn’t had any of those until now, but he def had some fantastic games.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...