MaineMoxie Posted December 9, 2011 Posted December 9, 2011 Are there any salary adjustments when a player goes on IR? I'm not familiar with all the rules surrounding placing someone on IR. Obviously you still have to pay his salary, but does it get you out of paying bonuses?
K-9 Posted December 9, 2011 Posted December 9, 2011 Are there any salary adjustments when a player goes on IR? I'm not familiar with all the rules surrounding placing someone on IR. Obviously you still have to pay his salary, but does it get you out of paying bonuses? Depends on the nature of the bonuses I would think. Incentives tied to playing time, stats, post-season honors, etc. wouldn't be earned. Guaranteed money and salary remain unaffected. GO BILLS!!!
ICanSleepWhenI'mDead Posted December 9, 2011 Posted December 9, 2011 http://www.nfl.com/news/story/09000d5d8085ee3e/article/even-in-the-offseason-nfl-education-never-ends 2. Do players receive the same salary when they are on injured reserve as they would if they were active? Players who are sent to injured reserve by a club receive their full salary unless they signed a "split contract". A split contract designates a base salary for a player if he makes the team and a lower salary if he winds up on injured reserve. Typically the only players signing a split contract are undrafted rookies and a few veterans with severe medical histories.
Colorado Mike Posted December 9, 2011 Posted December 9, 2011 Are there any salary adjustments when a player goes on IR? I'm not familiar with all the rules surrounding placing someone on IR. Obviously you still have to pay his salary, but does it get you out of paying bonuses? I have wondered a little about that myself for the last few years now. It seems like in modern team history we are real quick to put guys on IR, spanning the last couple of coach/GM regimes. I have always thought that since they get paid anyway that a team would not put players on IR for money savings. However I have wondered if there may be seem little known financial benefit to the team to IR guys, like maybe after they go on IR their salary is paid by insurance or something instead of the team's own coffers.
NoSaint Posted December 9, 2011 Posted December 9, 2011 I have wondered a little about that myself for the last few years now. It seems like in modern team history we are real quick to put guys on IR, spanning the last couple of coach/GM regimes. I have always thought that since they get paid anyway that a team would not put players on IR for money savings. However I have wondered if there may be seem little known financial benefit to the team to IR guys, like maybe after they go on IR their salary is paid by insurance or something instead of the team's own coffers. Nope. Only effect would be playing time bonuses which are normally pretty high percentages so IR wouldn't be a real factor in most. I'll say this again and again- the biggest factor is we are a losing team. We aren't saving roster spots for a guy to come back week 15 if he picks up a 2 month injury.we also don't have huge talent so you can shelve a guy and do some open tryouts. It's not a money saving technique.
MaineMoxie Posted December 9, 2011 Author Posted December 9, 2011 Nope. Only effect would be playing time bonuses which are normally pretty high percentages so IR wouldn't be a real factor in most. I'll say this again and again- the biggest factor is we are a losing team. We aren't saving roster spots for a guy to come back week 15 if he picks up a 2 month injury.we also don't have huge talent so you can shelve a guy and do some open tryouts. It's not a money saving technique. But then I don't get why we never IR'ed Bell, especially since they've managed to survive without him for so long. Anyway, I just thought it sounded a little fishy when they IR'ed Lindell just after he said he was ready to come back (in his own mind, anyway). It seems like we've led the league in IR'ed players several of the past few years.
CBD Posted December 9, 2011 Posted December 9, 2011 But then I don't get why we never IR'ed Bell, especially since they've managed to survive without him for so long. Anyway, I just thought it sounded a little fishy when they IR'ed Lindell just after he said he was ready to come back (in his own mind, anyway). It seems like we've led the league in IR'ed players several of the past few years. My guess is that they wouldn't have started doing this until they felt they were out of the playoffs, which was pretty much decided with the loss two weeks ago to NY. At which point Bell was ready to come back (he was active last week and sat on the bench). Curious if Bell simply lost his starting job to Hairston while injured.
Cash Posted December 9, 2011 Posted December 9, 2011 Nope. Only effect would be playing time bonuses which are normally pretty high percentages so IR wouldn't be a real factor in most. I'll say this again and again- the biggest factor is we are a losing team. We aren't saving roster spots for a guy to come back week 15 if he picks up a 2 month injury.we also don't have huge talent so you can shelve a guy and do some open tryouts. It's not a money saving technique. Agreed. Although I thought it was a bit puzzling that the Bills instantly IR'd Fred Jackson when they were still very much in playoff contention. The timeline on his injury would've given him a shot to come back for a hypothetical playoff run. Even the quotes from Gailey at time sort of acknowledged this by saying "regular season" instead of just "season." On the other hand, we kept Lindell on the active roster for what, 3-4 weeks? before IR-ing him, and probably about the same for Kyle Williams.
NoSaint Posted December 9, 2011 Posted December 9, 2011 Agreed. Although I thought it was a bit puzzling that the Bills instantly IR'd Fred Jackson when they were still very much in playoff contention. The timeline on his injury would've given him a shot to come back for a hypothetical playoff run. Even the quotes from Gailey at time sort of acknowledged this by saying "regular season" instead of just "season." On the other hand, we kept Lindell on the active roster for what, 3-4 weeks? before IR-ing him, and probably about the same for Kyle Williams. obviously not a 100% rule, but a broad strokes issue that contributes regularly. every injury could be different. With KW we were still in it. The lindell one made me wonder what was going on - only answer i can come up with is he was ruled as "good to go next week" each time he was examined and finally it got to the point where either they were more clear on the injury, or the season was far enough in the tank.
SRQ_BillsFan Posted December 9, 2011 Posted December 9, 2011 obviously not a 100% rule, but a broad strokes issue that contributes regularly. every injury could be different. With KW we were still in it. The lindell one made me wonder what was going on - only answer i can come up with is he was ruled as "good to go next week" each time he was examined and finally it got to the point where either they were more clear on the injury, or the season was far enough in the tank. Was wondering if they thought they may have found a new kicker or at least a longer "let's see" and a competition for the kickers next pre season. How old is Lindell. 50+ yard field goals are nice to have.
ieatcrayonz Posted December 9, 2011 Posted December 9, 2011 Ralph is cheap. PTR Wawwwrwrrowrw hates to say he told you so, but Wawwwrwrrowrw told you so.
fansince88 Posted December 9, 2011 Posted December 9, 2011 Ralph is cheap. PTR Promo, this is your answer to everything isn't it?
Recommended Posts