Harrell

[The Shadow]

http://www.greenbaypressgazette.com/ic/blogs/insider/index.shtml

If IS really the end of this guy, I'd sure like to see the Pack add a Vonnie Holiday or Carter for insurance.

[pbmax]

Its to the point of sadness now. I feel the same way I did when Harris was looking to come back from his spleen rupture. I want the kid to be healthy for the rest of his life. Not six games this season or next.

I would also like someone to forward the X-Rays to Rock Gullickson so he can give his reasoned medical opinion again that herniated disks automatically spring from a possible seven weeks of inactivity.

[BallHawk]

It's bad news, but it's expected. I mean, did anybody really believe him when he said "I'm cured"? It was quite obvious that it was just a temporary fixed and he was gonna get hurt again. It just happens with some guys.

Hopefully he can work back from this, again. But I think this could be the end of the road for him in the NFL.

[Partial]

PUP list this jbro, then if he isn't at 100% put him on IR. Don't just cut him lose as he's dirt cheap anyway.

They need to figure out wtf is with this dudes back.

[Scott Campbell]

PUP list this jbro, then if he isn't at 100% put him on IR. Don't just cut him lose as he's dirt cheap anyway.

They need to figure out wtf is with this dudes back.


Good point. It's a back. They always take a long time to heal up - if ever.

[retailguy]

http://www.greenbaypressgazette.com/ic/blogs/insider/index.shtml

If IS really the end of this guy, I'd sure like to see the Pack add a Vonnie Holiday or Carter for insurance.

Honestly, "we're fine there". :P

[gbpackfan]

Either put Harrell on IR (again) or just cut him. Honestly, this doesn't worry me at all. With Raji, Pickett, Jenkins, and Jolly all being solid....we're good. Then add into the mix one or two of the young guys, like Wynn, I'm excited about the D-line. With the new 3-4 D we won't be carrying 9-10 d linemen like in years past. And in a pinch, could Kampman play DE? I would think so. Not ideal, I know. But if some guys went down in a game, he could fill in.

[red]

ug

time to move on. if its not his back, it'll be something else

pft makes a great point though, at least no one drafted after him in round one has proven to be much better

yeah, i think kampman could probably fill in at DE in the 3-4 if we need him to

[Bretsky]

ug

time to move on. if its not his back, it'll be something else

pft makes a great point though, at least no one drafted after him in round one has proven to be much better

yeah, i think kampman could probably fill in at DE in the 3-4 if we need him to


Leaper called for Reggie Nelson pretty well

And year 3 is the year of the WR; beware of Robert Meacham !!!

[packerbacker1234]

He was injured when we drafted him, and he's gotten hurt time and time again ever since. I think it may be time to just end it. Say he's cheap, but he's not playing. Were paying a guy to "not play".

Yup. 3rd season of this.

[Fritz]

I'm in agreement with Partial on this one. PUP him so he gets some down time. That gives a newbie like Jarious Wynn (what's his firat name?) a chance to stick and to show if he's got what it takes. Or you can sign Vonnie Carter or Kevin Holliday.

Then reevaluate after six games. If Harrell isn't better, IR him and make next year the make-or-break. If he's healed enough, ease him back in.

Injuries accrue during the season; if you're going to PUP him you're probably going to be at your healthiest at that position early in the season so you can afford to PUP the guy.

[Waldo]

A player can only be placed on the PUP list when they report. Once they participate in camp, it is either IR or cut.

There is no DL in the NFL, the PUP was never intended to be used as a DL.

[Lurker64]

I seem to recall Harrell as being very cheap to keep this year, if there is any hope, it's probably worth IRing him.

I wish the guy luck, as a human being, if not as a football player.

[Harlan Huckleby]

I thought Barnett was on the PUP list, but I see he is practicing.

I feel bad for Harrell. To have so much natural ability, and then have your body give-out at such a young age, damn.

Well, at least he got a little nest egg out of the ordeal. I assume he hasn't spent it all on candy.

[Fritz]

I did not know that Waldo. I thought there were cases of mulling over putting a guy on PUP while camp was occuring. Didn't the Packers PUP someone last year or the year before?

But if that is so, then you still can let Harrell rest a couple weeks and if he's not responding you can IR him then.

I'd do what I could to make next year the make or break, not this year.

[Bossman641]

Really sad to hear as Harrell seems to be doing everything possible to get back. I recall reading a week back that Harrell's cap number is small this year, next year is where it really jumps. IR him and make next offseason the make or break.

[Merlin]

Does anyone really think this guy will ever be healthy enough to contribute on a consistent basis and help this team? I feel bad that he has all of these injuries but this shouldn't surprise anyone given his propensity for injury. He hasn't played a full season of football in how long?

[Partial]

Waldo,

What is the PUP list Harrell was on either rookie or sophomore year? I know there is a 6 week list to start the season, but perhaps you miss all of camp then as well.

Is Barnett out until week 6 then?

[Partial]

http://www.jsonline.com/sports/packers/53517247.html

[Waldo]

Waldo,

What is the PUP list Harrell was on either rookie or sophomore year? I know there is a 6 week list to start the season, but perhaps you miss all of camp then as well.

Is Barnett out until week 6 then?

Yes. To be on the PUP they have to be placed on it when they report. Guys that fail precamp physicals are placed on the PUP. When they pass their physical, they are ineligible for the PUP.

It has to do with injury liability. When the team passes a player via their physical, they become liable for the players salary for the season should injury occur. The only out is an injury settlement, which pays the players for a negotiated number of games and released them form their contract to be a FA, so they can play later in the season elsewhere.

The team is not liable for the player's full season salary when they are placed on the PUP. They only become liable when the player comes off of it.

[Patler]

There are really two PUP lists, a preseason PUP which is also referred to as Active PUP, and a Reserve PUP for the first six weeks of the season. As Waldo wrote, you can be placed on Active PUP only at the start of camp. Players on preseason or Active PUP count against the roster limits. They can come off it at any time. If you start preseason practicing with the team, even for just the first day, you can not be placed on PUP thereafter.

At the final cutdown, players still on the preseason Active PUP list can be placed on the Reserve PUP list to start the season, but they do not have to be placed on Reserve PUP. Only players on Active PUP can be placed on Reserve PUP. Reserve PUP players are paid, but do not count against the 53 man roster. They can not come off Reserve Pup for the first 6 weeks of the season. After six weeks, they can practice for up to 3 weeks with the team before a decision has to be made to either activate them (and move another player off the 53 man roster) or place them on IR.

As for the team being liable for salary, if the player is placed on Reserve PUP at the start of the season, it is no different than for a player on the 53 man roster. The team is liable for his salary. If the final disposition of the player's status between 6 and 9 weeks into the season is to place him on IR, then all the IR rules apply, including the injury waiver rules and injury settlements, which vary depending on a players years of seniority and some individual contract provisions. There is a slight difference for a Reserve PUP player in his final contract year. If his is still physically unable to perform after six weeks, his contract is tolled.

[Waldo]

There are really two PUP lists, a preseason PUP which is also referred to as Active PUP, and a Reserve PUP for the first six weeks of the season. As Waldo wrote, you can be placed on Active PUP only at the start of camp. Players on preseason or Active PUP count against the roster limits. They can come off it at any time. If you start preseason practicing with the team, even for just the first day, you can not be placed on PUP thereafter.

At the final cutdown, players still on the preseason Active PUP list can be placed on the Reserve PUP list to start the season, but they do not have to be placed on Reserve PUP. Only players on Active PUP can be placed on Reserve PUP. Reserve PUP players are paid, but do not count against the 53 man roster. They can not come off Reserve Pup for the first 6 weeks of the season. After six weeks, they can practice for up to 3 weeks with the team before a decision has to be made to either activate them (and move another player off the 53 man roster) or place them on IR.

As for the team being liable for salary, if the player is placed on Reserve PUP at the start of the season, it is no different than for a player on the 53 man roster. The team is liable for his salary. If the final disposition of the player's status between 6 and 9 weeks into the season is to place him on IR, then all the IR rules apply, including the injury waiver rules and injury settlements, which vary depending on a players years of seniority and some individual contract provisions. There is a slight difference for a Reserve PUP player in his final contract year. If his is still physically unable to perform after six weeks, his contract is tolled.

If a player is on reserve PUP, at the end if the team fails to activate him or put him on IR (therefore cutting him) they don't have to pay him the rest of the year (I'm pretty sure this is true of vested veterans as well). Likewise if he is cut while on the active PUP, they don't have to pay him. Any player placed on IR in camp is due a full season salary or settlement.

It is a means of managing the roster and risk with a previously injured player.

[MichiganPackerFan]

Read this on a JSO chat last week:


Q: Rich, LA - Hi Greg, if Justin Harrell Plays sparingly because of injury in the preseason and is ineffective, do you cut him?

A: Greg A. Bedard - No, because there's no point. Re-evaluate after the season and post-draft and free agency. No point in cutting him now. It's going to cost you the same.
http://www.jsonline.com/packerinsider/53180967.html

The kid's worked hard and I would have loved to see him be able to succeed. Rather reminds me of Terrence Murphy a few seasons back.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Waldo-Patler smackdown!

[Waldo]

Read this on a JSO chat last week:


Q: Rich, LA - Hi Greg, if Justin Harrell Plays sparingly because of injury in the preseason and is ineffective, do you cut him?

A: Greg A. Bedard - No, because there's no point. Re-evaluate after the season and post-draft and free agency. No point in cutting him now. It's going to cost you the same.
http://www.jsonline.com/packerinsider/53180967.html

The kid's worked hard and I would have loved to see him be able to succeed. Rather reminds me of Terrence Murphy a few seasons back.

....there are times that Bedard proves that he just doesn't get the game. He needs an editor or adviser half the time to filter his dumb or incorrect statements.

If he were cut today, a little over 4M in bonus payments would accelerate to the 2009 cap, and since he passed his physical and would be cut for injury reasons, his 640K salary/RB would still have to be paid. It would cost the team ~4.7M to cut him this year.

Were he placed on IR, 1 year of his bonus amortization and his salary count toward the cap. About 1.7M. Since there is no cap next year, if he is not recovered, he can be cut with no cap effects and the team owing him no money.

In other words, Bedards statement that it costs the same is not true. It is 3M cheaper to keep him than cut him, 3M is a good amount of money useful for extending players, and can be pushed forward by front loading.

[Patler]

If a player is on reserve PUP, at the end if the team fails to activate him or put him on IR (therefore cutting him) they don't have to pay him the rest of the year (I'm pretty sure this is true of vested veterans as well). Likewise if he is cut while on the active PUP, they don't have to pay him. Any player placed on IR in camp is due a full season salary or settlement.

It is a means of managing the roster and risk with a previously injured player.

I think you are making this sound more complicated than it really is.

In preseason he is really no different than any other player. He counts against the roster limit, so there is no advantage there as far as roster management. No player's salary is guaranteed in preseason (save for a few odd ball contracts) so it doesn't matter if he is on Active PUP or not if he is released in preseason. Assuming he wouldn't be practicing anyway (because he is physically unable to) there is no injury risk advantage. If he is put on IR in preseason or the regular season, there is no difference if that occurs from him being active in TC, on Active PUP in TC, on the 53 man regular roster or on Reserve PUP. It makes no difference.

The only thing I am not sure of is the effect on a vested veteran on Reserve PUP who is subsequently released. It might be the same "nonguarantee" for his salary as happens when teams release and resign veterans in the first week to avoid the salary guarantee. I don't think that is the case, I think the effect is the same as being IR'd or released from the active roster, but I'm not certain.

The advantage of placing a player on Active PUP is that it makes him eligible for Reserve PUP.

The advantage of Reserve PUP is that the player does not count against the 53 man roster limit, and you have the opportunity to activate him after 6 weeks. It is almost like a temporary IR. It is a place for a player to rehab while not using a roster spot and still being available to come back and play in the second half of the season.

[Patler]

Waldo-Patler smackdown!

What are you talking about? We pretty much agree.

[green_bowl_packer]

Negotiating a injury settlement - Jack Bechta - National Football Post

http://www.nationalfootballpost.com/Negotiating-an-injury-settlement.html

[Patler]

Read this on a JSO chat last week:


Q: Rich, LA - Hi Greg, if Justin Harrell Plays sparingly because of injury in the preseason and is ineffective, do you cut him?

A: Greg A. Bedard - No, because there's no point. Re-evaluate after the season and post-draft and free agency. No point in cutting him now. It's going to cost you the same.
http://www.jsonline.com/packerinsider/53180967.html

The kid's worked hard and I would have loved to see him be able to succeed. Rather reminds me of Terrence Murphy a few seasons back.

....there are times that Bedard proves that he just doesn't get the game. He needs an editor or adviser half the time to filter his dumb or incorrect statements.

If he were cut today, a little over 4M in bonus payments would accelerate to the 2009 cap, and since he passed his physical and would be cut for injury reasons, his 640K salary/RB would still have to be paid. It would cost the team ~4.7M to cut him this year.

Were he placed on IR, 1 year of his bonus amortization and his salary count toward the cap. About 1.7M. Since there is no cap next year, if he is not recovered, he can be cut with no cap effects and the team owing him no money.

In other words, Bedards statement that it costs the same is not true. It is 3M cheaper to keep him than cut him, 3M is a good amount of money useful for extending players, and can be pushed forward by front loading.

Aren't you mixing cap impact and cash outlays?
The cap effect is as you describe. It differs depending on when he is released.
The cash cost to the team is the same either way. The bonus has been paid already. The 2009 salary due is the same either way, if it is a career ending injury. The 2010 payments will not be paid either way.

The $3 million savings you mentioned is a paper savings against the 2009 salary cap, it is not a savings in payments made by the Packers. The Packers paid it and Harrell got it already.

There is an accounting difference, but not a cost difference.

[Harlan Huckleby]

What are you talking about? We pretty much agree.

sorry, wishful thinking. Was hoping for a nerd fight.


http://images.crackberry.com/files/kevin/thundernerdfight.jpg

[Patler]

Negotiating a injury settlement - Jack Bechta - National Football Post

http://www.nationalfootballpost.com/Negotiating-an-injury-settlement.html

Brings back memories of the Matt O'Dwyer and Cletidus Hunt situations. ! :lol:

[Patler]

What are you talking about? We pretty much agree.

sorry, wishful thinking. Was hoping for a nerd fight.


http://images.crackberry.com/files/kevin/thundernerdfight.jpg

So which one is Waldo and which one is me?

Besides, I like to think of us as Renaissance Men, not nerds! Of course, a chant of "Renaissance Man fight! Renaissance Man fight!" doesn't sound as good as "Nerd fight! Nerd fight!" does it?

[Tarlam!]

[quote=Patler] What are you talking about? We pretty much agree.

sorry, wishful thinking. Was hoping for a nerd fight.

So which one is Waldo and which one is me?

Besides, I like to think of us as Renaissance Men, not nerds! Of course, a chant of "Renaissance Man fight! Renaissance Man fight!" doesn't sound as good as "Nerd fight! Nerd fight!" does it?

Do we have a Renaissance Rat already? If not, maybe Waldo could use it.

[Sparkey]

PUP list this jbro, then if he isn't at 100% put him on IR. Don't just cut him lose as he's dirt cheap anyway.

They need to figure out wtf is with this dudes back.


Good point. It's a back. They always take a long time to heal up - if ever.

From experience, they never heal up. It is always there, one wrong move from hurting it. It sucks for GB and for Harrell. By all accounts, the guy is a hard worker and when healthy, is immensely talented.

[Waldo]

Read this on a JSO chat last week:


Q: Rich, LA - Hi Greg, if Justin Harrell Plays sparingly because of injury in the preseason and is ineffective, do you cut him?

A: Greg A. Bedard - No, because there's no point. Re-evaluate after the season and post-draft and free agency. No point in cutting him now. It's going to cost you the same.
http://www.jsonline.com/packerinsider/53180967.html

The kid's worked hard and I would have loved to see him be able to succeed. Rather reminds me of Terrence Murphy a few seasons back.

....there are times that Bedard proves that he just doesn't get the game. He needs an editor or adviser half the time to filter his dumb or incorrect statements.

If he were cut today, a little over 4M in bonus payments would accelerate to the 2009 cap, and since he passed his physical and would be cut for injury reasons, his 640K salary/RB would still have to be paid. It would cost the team ~4.7M to cut him this year.

Were he placed on IR, 1 year of his bonus amortization and his salary count toward the cap. About 1.7M. Since there is no cap next year, if he is not recovered, he can be cut with no cap effects and the team owing him no money.

In other words, Bedards statement that it costs the same is not true. It is 3M cheaper to keep him than cut him, 3M is a good amount of money useful for extending players, and can be pushed forward by front loading.

Aren't you mixing cap impact and cash outlays?
The cap effect is as you describe. It differs depending on when he is released.
The cash cost to the team is the same either way. The bonus has been paid already. The 2009 salary due is the same either way, if it is a career ending injury. The 2010 payments will not be paid either way.

The $3 million savings you mentioned is a paper savings against the 2009 salary cap, it is not a savings in payments made by the Packers. The Packers paid it and Harrell got it already.

There is an accounting difference, but not a cost difference.

It is a paper difference. But it just so happens that we have a lot of FA's to sign in a short period of time. The more cap space the better.

Even if we don't do extra contracts, that 3M is space to convert signing bonus into roster bonus, thus limiting the future impact of money paid this year.

[Patler]

It is a paper difference. But it just so happens that we have a lot of FA's to sign in a short period of time. The more cap space the better.

Even if we don't do extra contracts, that 3M is space to convert signing bonus into roster bonus, thus limiting the future impact of money paid this year.

But if there is no cap next season as you suggested in your early post, it doesn't matter. Just sign them all after the 2009 season ends if you are out of cap space. That seems to be the direction they are headed anyway. It was reported that the Packers have had little to no discussions with any of their FAs-to-be after signing Jennings.

Besides, if there is no new agreement, a lot of those free agents for the Packers will become restricted free agents instead.

(Perhaps you didn't mean "convert" as in changing bonuses already paid. If you meant that for future negotiations, you can ignore this next paragraph.)
I don't believe that you can convert signing bonuses already paid to roster bonus. You can guarantee a roster bonus, thus converting it to a signing bonus impact, spreading it out over the remaining life of the contract. If you could convert a signing bonus to a roster bonus, there would be no need to go through the likely-to-be-earned bonus scams that teams do near the ends of seasons to roll cap space forward.

There also might be reason to try and get as much already committed costs as possible into 2009. Several have suggested that in a new CBA/Salary cap agreement, everyone will start from zero. No 2009 space will be rolled into the new cap via unearned likely-to-be-earned bonuses. However, all actual player costs will apply against the new cap if not previously applied against a previous cap. If that is the case, it might be better to have all of Harrell's costs in 2009 and nothing in 20010, and to otherwise use up all that they can in 2009. It will lessen how much is applied when the salary cap "starts over".

[rbaloha1]

Whatever Harrell's salary cap number is its small. Agree with the injury reserve.

Thank goodness for Raji and Jenkins return. Jolly is looking good and probably solidified his role.

[MichiganPackerFan]

Negotiating a injury settlement - Jack Bechta - National Football Post

http://www.nationalfootballpost.com/Negotiating-an-injury-settlement.html

Brings back memories of the Matt O'Dwyer and Cletidus Hunt situations. ! :lol:

Forgot all about Hunt. Where did he waste his career after GB? McDonalds?

[Waldo]

It is a paper difference. But it just so happens that we have a lot of FA's to sign in a short period of time. The more cap space the better.

Even if we don't do extra contracts, that 3M is space to convert signing bonus into roster bonus, thus limiting the future impact of money paid this year.

But if there is no cap next season as you suggested in your early post, it doesn't matter. Just sign them all after the 2009 season ends if you are out of cap space. That seems to be the direction they are headed anyway. It was reported that the Packers have had little to no discussions with any of their FAs-to-be after signing Jennings.

Besides, if there is no new agreement, a lot of those free agents for the Packers will become restricted free agents instead.

(Perhaps you didn't mean "convert" as in changing bonuses already paid. If you meant that for future negotiations, you can ignore this next paragraph.)
I don't believe that you can convert signing bonuses already paid to roster bonus. You can guarantee a roster bonus, thus converting it to a signing bonus impact, spreading it out over the remaining life of the contract. If you could convert a signing bonus to a roster bonus, there would be no need to go through the likely-to-be-earned bonus scams that teams do near the ends of seasons to roll cap space forward.

There also might be reason to try and get as much already committed costs as possible into 2009. Several have suggested that in a new CBA/Salary cap agreement, everyone will start from zero. No 2009 space will be rolled into the new cap via unearned likely-to-be-earned bonuses. However, all actual player costs will apply against the new cap if not previously applied against a previous cap. If that is the case, it might be better to have all of Harrell's costs in 2009 and nothing in 20010, and to otherwise use up all that they can in 2009. It will lessen how much is applied when the salary cap "starts over".

By convert I was talking about new contracts, the only real difference between signing bonus and roster bonus is the cap effects.

That is true that there will be no cap next year. But it has to be assumed that there will be a cap when there is a new CBA. It is hard to predict what the rules will be for the new cap and how it relates to the uncapped year, but it is a safe play to just operate as if there is a cap. Because of the way the organization runs and its finances, a cap system makes sense for them anyway, as it is somewhat of a rolling average of player costs over a few year period.

Though it does make sense to take advantage of the uncapped year for structure to make as much money cap accountable that year by things like big salaries and whatnot. But if they take the big salary route, they can't sign the guys until after this season when they have no contract, an extension is subject to the maximum salary inflation of the uncapped rules, a new contract isn't.

[Patler]

By convert I was talking about new contracts, the only real difference between signing bonus and roster bonus is the cap effects.

That is true that there will be no cap next year. But it has to be assumed that there will be a cap when there is a new CBA. It is hard to predict what the rules will be for the new cap and how it relates to the uncapped year, but it is a safe play to just operate as if there is a cap. Because of the way the organization runs and its finances, a cap system makes sense for them anyway, as it is somewhat of a rolling average of player costs over a few year period.

Though it does make sense to take advantage of the uncapped year for structure to make as much money cap accountable that year by things like big salaries and whatnot. But if they take the big salary route, they can't sign the guys until after this season when they have no contract, an extension is subject to the maximum salary inflation of the uncapped rules, a new contract isn't.

I kind of thought that's what you meant by "convert".

I'm not convinced that there will not be a cap next year. I'm not convinced that they won't have a new CBA in place to avoid the uncapped year. I'm not convinced that either side wants to risk what might happen if they let things go that far. Sometimes people become stubborn to their own detriment, and that could happen here. But I tend to think that each side will realize they have a lot to lose, and will get it fixed.

There is an interesting side story to all this too, I think. For the first time last season the owners and players should have become aware that what fans are willing to spend is not a limitless amount. This couldn't have happened at a better time to hopefully inject some common sense reality into their discussions for a new relationship.