Contract question for the experts RE: Myron Pryor

[supafly]

Apologies if this is not in relation to the Myron Pryor situation, but I came across this article today which mentions a new provision in the current CBA that allows a player in the last yr of their contract to be retained if left on PUP all year.

The example set forth is for Bears WR Johnnie Knox, who is in the last year of his rookie deal and NOT coming off of PUP today, so they claim that he will not go on IR, but will remain on PUP all year...thus allowing the Bears to retain his rights for another season under this year's salary.

My question of course, is was anyone aware of this supposedly new provision, and if so--would it also allow Myron Pryor to stay here another year for more evaluation time (even if he is relatively healthy and ready to come back it may make sense to keep him on PUP) ????

Calling on the cap and personnel pact experts in this one: aka MoLewisRocks, AndyJohnson, Deus Irae, etc...thanks in advance.

Not only would this change the fact that many here assume that he'll be returning this year from PUP, but it would also mean that he will not be a free agent at the end of the season either.

Here is the most important quote to save time for clicking on the link:

"This is the last year of Bears wide receiver Johnny Knox’s rookie contract, but it isn’t necessarily the end of his time with the Bears.

Knox hasn’t been activated from the physically unable to perform list, and isn’t expected to be by today’s deadline, according to Brad Biggs of the Chicago Tribune. But a provision in the CBA allows teams to retain the rights to players who spend the entire year on PUP for the following season.

That’s different from players who spend the year on injured reserve, whose contracts can expire and the can go look for work as free agents.

Bringing him back next year (at his same $1.26 million salary) is a good faith gesture, giving him time to get ready for the offseason program and training camp next year."


Knox not expected to be activated from PUP today | ProFootballTalk

 

[hypotherion]

Would this apply to Ballard as well?

 

[Ring 6]

Apologies if this is not in relation to the Myron Pryor situation, but I came across this article today which mentions a new provision in the current CBA that allows a player in the last yr of their contract to be retained if left on PUP all year.

The example set forth is for Bears WR Johnnie Knox, who is in the last year of his rookie deal and NOT coming off of PUP today, so they claim that he will not go on IR, but will remain on PUP all year...thus allowing the Bears to retain his rights for another season under this year's salary.

My question of course, is was anyone aware of this supposedly new provision, and if so--would it also allow Myron Pryor to stay here another year for more evaluation time (even if he is relatively healthy and ready to come back it may make sense to keep him on PUP) ????

Calling on the cap and personnel pact experts in this one: aka MoLewisRocks, AndyJohnson, Deus Irae, etc...thanks in advance.

Not only would this change the fact that many here assume that he'll be returning this year from PUP, but it would also mean that he will not be a free agent at the end of the season either.

Here is the most important quote to save time for clicking on the link:

"This is the last year of Bears wide receiver Johnny Knox’s rookie contract, but it isn’t necessarily the end of his time with the Bears.

Knox hasn’t been activated from the physically unable to perform list, and isn’t expected to be by today’s deadline, according to Brad Biggs of the Chicago Tribune. But a provision in the CBA allows teams to retain the rights to players who spend the entire year on PUP for the following season.

That’s different from players who spend the year on injured reserve, whose contracts can expire and the can go look for work as free agents.

Bringing him back next year (at his same $1.26 million salary) is a good faith gesture, giving him time to get ready for the offseason program and training camp next year."


Knox not expected to be activated from PUP today | ProFootballTalk

Supa,
I wasn't aware of this.
I think if he can't go this is a good idea, but if he is healthy, activate him. He has rarely been healthy so getting a few games out of him this year may be the best we can get.

 

[ctpatsfan77]

Would this apply to Ballard as well?

Doesn't matter: Ballard is already under the Pats' control for 2013.

 

[part-timer]

Doesn't matter: Ballard is already under the Pats' control for 2013.

Exclusive rights free agent in 13
Resticted rights free agent in 14
unrestricted rights in 15

So realisticly we controll his rights for two more years regardless.

 

[Ring 6]

Doesn't matter: Ballard is already under the Pats' control for 2013.

But this would have him under their control for 2014

 

[supafly]

Supa,
I wasn't aware of this.
I think if he can't go this is a good idea, but if he is healthy, activate him. He has rarely been healthy so getting a few games out of him this year may be the best we can get.

Thanks for your thoughts. If anyone had some insight into the situation I assumed that it would have been you.

I agree about Pryor, although it's hard to have a strong feeling regarding exactly "how" healthy he may be now, or "how" injured he was.

We certainly could use some interior pressure from another rotational player, so I agree that if he's ready to go now that would be the best bet. However, the other scenario just seems like something that Belichick may consider too, as he is always a great manager of rosters both current and future.

I also wonder if there may be a possibility of giving G.Warren a call too, for a nice run down the stretch.

 

[Ring 6]

Thanks for your thoughts. If anyone had some insight into the situation I assumed that it would have been you.

I agree about Pryor, although it's hard to have a strong feeling regarding exactly "how" healthy he may be now, or "how" injured he was.

We certainly could use some interior pressure from another rotational player, so I agree that if he's ready to go now that would be the best bet. However, the other scenario just seems like something that Belichick may consider too, as he is always a great manager of rosters both current and future.

I also wonder if there may be a possibility of giving G.Warren a call too, for a nice run down the stretch.

I think I would rather have Pryor for 6 games this year than however many he may be able to play next. Of course, I doubt there is going to be a lot of competition for his services, so the extra contract yet may be pretty much moot.

 

[ctpatsfan77]

But this would have him under their control for 2014

It's not clear that it would; without having seen it, it might apply only to the final year of a contract (i.e., not simply "tolling" the contract a year).

 

[Avenger]

It's not clear that it would; without having seen it, it might apply only to the final year of a contract (i.e., not simply "tolling" the contract a year).

This is the final year of his contract, if he played this year he would be a ERFA at the end of the year and a RFA at the end of next year.

 

[jason423]

The rule applies to just the final contract year of a player. I actually thought the player has to return to practice in week 7 in order to avoid the automatic extension of his contract but it may just be that he is activated after the 3 week window.

This isnt a new rule though. Its pretty much been around forever.

 

[Ring 6]

The rule applies to just the final contract year of a player. I actually thought the player has to return to practice in week 7 in order to avoid the automatic extension of his contract but it may just be that he is activated after the 3 week window.

This isnt a new rule though. Its pretty much been around forever.

Is it mandatory or optional?

 

[hypotherion]

Relevant: Pryor, Ballard ineligible for this season

 

[supafly]

Relevant: Pryor, Ballard ineligible for this season

Thanks for the find.

It appears that this rule applies to both Pryor and Ballard then, as both are ineligible for return this season, and both are under the control of the NEP for 2013 also.

I am assuming that this does in fact, "toll" or set back the yr for Ballard too, as I am understanding that he will now no longer be a ERFA next year. I am admittedly not very well rehersed in the subject of contracts/cap scenarios though, so if I am wrong please accept my apologies.

 

[supafly]

The rule applies to just the final contract year of a player. I actually thought the player has to return to practice in week 7 in order to avoid the automatic extension of his contract but it may just be that he is activated after the 3 week window.

This isnt a new rule though. Its pretty much been around forever.

Thank you for the clarification and insight.

Your comments and knowledge regarding these situations are admired and greatly appreciated by myself and many others.