Question Can a player be traded with an injury designation? (1 Viewer)

[TenTwo]

Does anyone know if a player is allowed to be traded while having an injury designation? Is that why we have to wait until week 6 to do the Adams trade?

 

[TenTwo]

Part of the reason I ask is…there are names on our own injury report that makes me wonder…are we holding guys out Monday to make sure they’re healthy when the trade is transacted?

 

[soggymoss84]

Yes, as long as the injury is disclosed and the receiving team approves it.

 

[TribuneUK]

Part of the reason I ask is…there are names on our own injury report that makes me wonder…are we holding guys out Monday to make sure they’re healthy when the trade is transacted?

Not a chance. You play your best players to have the best chance to win every game. Take off the tin foil hat.

 

[TenTwo]

Not a chance. You play your best players to have the best chance to win every game. Take off the tin foil hat.

Tin foil hat? You think it’s that far out to think a team will inactivate a player so a trade will go through the next week? Did you check the injury report to see if we had any players on the last year of their contract who may not get renewed? You are regularly condescending with your messages, which would be palatable, except you never know what you’re talking about and yet act like you do.

 

[TenTwo]

Yes, as long as the injury is disclosed and the receiving team approves it.

Thank you!

I wonder if there is contract verbiage in trade deals regarding these players?

For example, if they remove the injury designation from Devante Adams ( I’ve seen mentioned that he’ll be healthy next week) if he shows up after that has been removed and he does not pass a physical, does that cancel a trade? I believe it does. So it’s within the realm of possibility that the Saints would demand the player be removed from the injury report in order to protect themselves in a trade.

And it’s also within the realm of possibility that there are Saints players being traded in this deal to offset asking price for salary and draft capital requests. And if you wanted to make sure that player was clean on injury, you might sit the player who’s involved in trade discussions with a fake (or mild) injury designation to ensure they are also healthy when the trade is transacted.

This is called “reading the tea leaves” @TribuneUK you should try it.

Reading the tea leaves is sort of a necessity for real NFL fans who understand that NFL teams hide their plans as a default. Or you can just take everything they all tell you at face value and stick your heads completely in the sand.

 

[Merl]

Whenever a player is traded the receiving team conducts a physical and if he fails it they can void the trade.

 

[TenTwo]

Whenever a player is traded the receiving team conducts a physical and if he fails it they can void the trade.

Right. But I guess my thought was, Raiders may downplay the hamstring injury in hopes that once they agree to make an exception because it’s disclosed, it makes it less likely that the trade will be canceled. We end up with a player who can’t play for a month when we thought he would play within two weeks.

 

[St. Widge]

Part of the reason I ask is…there are names on our own injury report that makes me wonder…are we holding guys out Monday to make sure they’re healthy when the trade is transacted?

Who do you think that is on our injury list that we are holding out so we can trade them? Who on our injury list would be worth anything in a trade? The Raiders want picks, not players. We don't have enough depth to play that game.

 

[Merl]

Right. But I guess my thought was, Raiders may downplay the hamstring injury in hopes that once they agree to make an exception because it’s disclosed, it makes it less likely that the trade will be canceled. We end up with a player who can’t play for a month when we thought he would play within two weeks.

I am sure the receiving team can still void if the injury is worse than initially stated or (I would hope) not even executed without a physical first .

 

[TribuneUK]

Tin foil hat? You think it’s that far out to think a team will inactivate a player so a trade will go through the next week? Did you check the injury report to see if we had any players on the last year of their contract who may not get renewed? You are regularly condescending with your messages, which would be palatable, except you never know what you’re talking about and yet act like you do.

So many fallacies in one post.

If you're inactivating a player to save them for a trade, you don't have to invent a spurious injury to do so.

Also, it's great to hear that my posts interest you to such an extent that you have tracked and kept a total of how often I'm right and wrong. I'd be flattered, if I didn't doubt your arithmetic.

Ta ta for now.

 

[AARPSaint]

It would be crazy if the language in the trade agreement didn’t include a stipulation that the tradee passes a physical. IIRC, the return specialist from the Vikings had been released and failed the Saints’ physical so that wouldn’t count. The transaction has to be above board.

 

[TenTwo]

So many fallacies in one post.

If you're inactivating a player to save them for a trade, you don't have to invent a spurious injury to do so.

Also, it's great to hear that my posts interest you to such an extent that you have tracked and kept a total of how often I'm right and wrong. I'd be flattered, if I didn't doubt your arithmetic.

Ta ta for now.

Okay dude…

So I didn’t say they HAVE to use an injury designation, but maybe there are contactual clauses or rules or something I’m not considering which may make it better to use this instead of just inactivating. Reading comprehension is fundamental.

As far as your posts, I take notice of posters who condescend me more than once. Don’t flatter yourself in thinking I care enough to tally your nonsense. Contribute to the conversation respectfully or prepare yourself to get embarrassed.

 

[TenTwo]

Ultimately, I’m still trying to understand why a trade needed to wait until week 6. The injury designation is the only thing that stands out to me. Maybe there are financials I’m not considering. Maybe it’s something else.

 

[TribuneUK]

Sorry fella, I can't be responsible for how you manage your insecurities. All I saw was, you asked a yes/no question, you got a 'no' and began throwing a little fit about it.

Don't ask questions if you only ever want an answer that agrees with your pre-supposed hypotheses. You'll frequently be disappointed.

TTFN.