PDA

View Full Version : Why not waive someone else?



Giants10Joe
06-14-2012, 10:08 PM
The Giants waived Ballard in order to make room on the 90 man roster for Rocky Bernard. Now they're upset that the Patriots claimed him. I get that they thought no one would claim Ballard because he was injured, but why didn't they just waive someone they were willing to lose in order to make room for Bernard? I took a look at the 90 man roster (http://www.giants.com/team/roster.html). There are a whole bunch of guys on it that didn't play a down for the Giants last year and most of them won't even make the team this year (like Ryan Purvis, Isaiah Stanback, and Brian Witherspoon just to name a few). They should have waived one of those guys. No one would have claimed them, and if they did, so what?

bELIeve_in_Giants
06-14-2012, 10:19 PM
I'm sure they wished they had.

Toadofsteel
06-14-2012, 10:22 PM
I think it's because of the new cba in which you have to waive someone before they go on IR. or something like that...

Still, could have waived witherspoon in that case... or better yet, Antuan Molden. No way the pats would claim him off waivers, seeing as how they just released him and all...

Drez
06-14-2012, 10:31 PM
We did not waive Ballard to sign Rocky.

Simmsy
06-14-2012, 10:46 PM
I think it's because of the new cba in which you have to waive someone before they go on IR. or something like that...They could have put him straight on IR and not risked losing him. What waiving him does is take him off the 90-man roster before putting him on the IR. But that plan backfired.

Like I said in a post yesterday, about 40% of that 90 man roster will be gone within 12 weeks. I bet Coughlin could have easily found 20 guys he'd rather have gotten rid of.

byron
06-14-2012, 10:51 PM
maybe something to do with the 540 k he was due ? not sure, I can't find anything solid waived player pay rights</P>


</P>


edit what I'm reading is they only get the guaranteed money which I believe he had none of I may be wrong tho</P>


he was a non- vested player so he would have had to clear waivers had they waived/cut him at any point...he would have had to be on the 90 man roster to be safe and then I think you have to pay him the 540k....the move could have been all about saving a roster spot also....anyhow</P>


also from what I've read this move almost allwaysworks ...BB was the fly in the ointment</P>

RoanokeFan
06-14-2012, 11:07 PM
The Giants waived Ballard in order to make room on the 90 man roster for Rocky Bernard. Now they're upset that the Patriots claimed him. I get that they thought no one would claim Ballard because he was injured, but why didn't they just waive someone they were willing to lose in order to make room for Bernard? I took a look at the 90 man roster (http://www.giants.com/team/roster.html). There are a whole bunch of guys on it that didn't play a down for the Giants last year and most of them won't even make the team this year (like Ryan Purvis, Isaiah Stanback, and Brian Witherspoon just to name a few). They should have waived one of those guys. No one would have claimed them, and if they did, so what?


Ballard was waived because he is not gong to play this season, It;'s a procedural moved that 99% of the time results in the player released being resigned to IR. This time Belichick saw an opportunity to screw with Coughlin and he took it.

Signing Bernard had nothing to do with Ballard other than there was a open spot.

Simmsy
06-14-2012, 11:08 PM
maybe something to do with the 540 k he was due ? not sure, I can't find anything solid waived player pay rights</P>


*</P>


edit what I'm reading is they only get the guaranteed money which I believe he had none of I may be wrong tho</P>


he was a non- vested player so he would have had to clear waivers had they waived/cut him at any point...he would have had to be on the 90 man roster to be safe and then I think you have to pay him the 540k....the move could have been all about saving a roster spot also....anyhow*</P>Saving a roster spot is exactly what it was about. I can understand wanting to save a roster spot when you're down to, say 50-something men and you have to trim it to 53. Those last few cuts are agony for coaches and GM's.

What frustrates me the most about this situation is there are NINETY guys currently on the roster, including 17 rookies. It would have been mind-bogglingly easy to find one of those 90 who really doesn't have a chance of making the team and waiving him instead.

byron
06-14-2012, 11:08 PM
The Giants waived Ballard in order to make room on the 90 man roster for Rocky Bernard. Now they're upset that the Patriots claimed him. I get that they thought no one would claim Ballard because he was injured, but why didn't they just waive someone they were willing to lose in order to make room for Bernard? I took a look at the 90 man roster (http://www.giants.com/team/roster.html). There are a whole bunch of guys on it that didn't play a down for the Giants last year and most of them won't even make the team this year (like Ryan Purvis, Isaiah Stanback, and Brian Witherspoon just to name a few). They should have waived one of those guys. No one would have claimed them, and if they did, so what?


Ballard was waived because he is not gong to play this season, It;'s a procedural moved that 99% of the time results in the player released being resigned to IR. This time Belichick saw an opportunity to screw with Coughlin and he took it.

Signing Bernard had nothing to do with Ballard other than there was a open spot.
yeah

byron
06-14-2012, 11:11 PM
maybe something to do with the 540 k he was due ? not sure, I can't find anything solid waived player pay rights</P>


</P>


edit what I'm reading is they only get the guaranteed money which I believe he had none of I may be wrong tho</P>


he was a non- vested player so he would have had to clear waivers had they waived/cut him at any point...he would have had to be on the 90 man roster to be safe and then I think you have to pay him the 540k....the move could have been all about saving a roster spot also....anyhow</P>


Saving a roster spot is exactly what it was about. I can understand wanting to save a roster spot when you're down to, say 50-something men and you have to trim it to 53. What frustrates me the most about this situation is there are NINETY guys currently on the roster, including 17 rookies. It would have been mind-bogglingly easy to find one of those 90 who really doesn't have a chance of making the team and waiving him instead.yeah I hear ya like RF says 99% of the time the player makes it through...enter BB...</P>


they wish they had done different now it seems ....</P>

NorwoodBlue
06-14-2012, 11:13 PM
I think the Giants took a calculated risk knowing that Ballard would not play in 2012, and probably would not be fully recovered in 2013. Given that Ballard's speed was always on the slow side even for a big TE, there's a pretty good possibility that he would lose some of the little speed he had. Jake had good hands and a good feel for the seams in defenses; but if he got any slower even the worst LBers in the league would be able to cover him. I just think it came down to Jake being an easy guy to replace, and upgrade the position.

RoanokeFan
06-14-2012, 11:25 PM
I think the Giants took a calculated risk knowing that Ballard would not play in 2012, and probably would not be fully recovered in 2013. Given that Ballard's speed was always on the slow side even for a big TE, there's a pretty good possibility that he would lose some of the little speed he had. Jake had good hands and a good feel for the seams in defenses; but if he got any slower even the worst LBers in the league would be able to cover him. I just think it came down to Jake being an easy guy to replace, and upgrade the position.


The Patriots needed a non-playing TE like a fish needs a bicycle.

Giants10Joe
06-14-2012, 11:31 PM
We did not waive Ballard to sign Rocky.


I've read in some places that the two moves were related because somebody needed to be removed from the 90 man roster to make room for Bernard. Maybe the articles I read that said that were wrong, or maybe Reese planned to waive Ballard anyway and the timing just worked out well so he wouldn't have to waive a healthy player to sign Bernard.

buddy33
06-14-2012, 11:49 PM
I'm starting to miss all the Osi threads.

miken609
06-15-2012, 12:02 AM
Threads like these happen on nights when the Mets have a matinee and the Yanks are off.

Shockeystays08
06-15-2012, 11:50 AM
A boatload of those 90 players are not going to play for the Giants this year. Saying Ballard was not going to play this year is a lame excuse. No need to candy coat it, our GMEN and Reese screwed up and I believe TC REALIZES THAT! As Ballards agent said " a smart front office will claim him" and that's what happened. Please stop the "well Ballard wasn't gonna play anyway this year" excuse!

B&RWarrior
06-15-2012, 12:30 PM
The Giants waived Ballard in order to make room on the 90 man roster for Rocky Bernard. Now they're upset that the Patriots claimed him. I get that they thought no one would claim Ballard because he was injured, but why didn't they just waive someone they were willing to lose in order to make room for Bernard? I took a look at the 90 man roster (http://www.giants.com/team/roster.html). There are a whole bunch of guys on it that didn't play a down for the Giants last year and most of them won't even make the team this year (like Ryan Purvis, Isaiah Stanback, and Brian Witherspoon just to name a few). They should have waived one of those guys. No one would have claimed them, and if they did, so what?


Ballard was waived because he is not gong to play this season,** It;'s a procedural moved that 99% of the time results in the player released being resigned to IR.* This time Belichick saw an opportunity to screw with Coughlin and he took it.

Signing Bernard had nothing to do with Ballard other than there was a open spot.


Is he screwing with Coughlin or is Belichick doing what's best for his team? Pats run a two TE offense. If a TE goes down like Gronk did last year, a TE that can come in and let them be able to run their base offense with no changes is crucial and a healthy Ballard will give him that. I think Belichick made a great move for his team if Ballard can come back.

G-Man67
06-15-2012, 12:55 PM
I think it's because of the new cba in which you have to waive someone before they go on IR. or something like that... Still, could have waived witherspoon in that case... or better yet, Antuan Molden. No way the pats would claim him off waivers, seeing as how they just released him and all...</P>


but you have guys that you will likely cut and guys you would like to retain and put on IR, but now with the new rule ... it's almost like the practice squad, where you need to cut the guy, have him clear waivers, then sign to practice squad and even then any team can sign from your practice squad</P>


you probably should be more angry with the CBA</P>


now will the Pats have to cut him to put him on IR? ... i would think so</P>

Drez
06-15-2012, 01:23 PM
I think it's because of the new cba in which you have to waive someone before they go on IR. or something like that... Still, could have waived witherspoon in that case... or better yet, Antuan Molden. No way the pats would claim him off waivers, seeing as how they just released him and all...</p>


but you have guys that you will likely cut and guys you would like to retain and put on IR, but now with the new rule ... it's almost like the practice squad, where you need to cut the guy, have him clear waivers, then sign to practice squad and even then any team can sign from your practice squad</p>


you probably should be more angry with the CBA</p>


now will the Pats have to cut him to put him on IR? ... i would think so</p>
No, the Pats will have to keep him on their roster until after final cuts, then they'll be able to put him on IR. However, Ballard's salary will count against their cap for this season.

As I understand it, players that aren't vested in the league yet (I
think it's 4 or 5 seasons, but don't quote me on that), cannot be placed
directly to IR during the offseason without the player taking up a
roster spot on the camp 90.


We waived Ballard to not only free up a roster spot for a player that could come in during camp and contribute during the season, but to also free up the cap room.

Bernard signing on the same day was more coincidental than anything.

thomsoad
06-15-2012, 01:51 PM
You mean waive a healthy body as opposed to an average TE who cant play til 2013 and may not even play well then?

Some of you are really overblowing Ballards skills...its not like Reese did it to JPP or Eli.

We are talking about freaking Ballard here...not Gates.

NorwoodBlue
06-15-2012, 02:14 PM
Agreed, Ballard was incredibly replacable. With Bennett and the rookie TE, they've upgraded the postion already. Doubtful if Ballard would have been a starter in 2013 anyhow. I think this move just made sense.

T-Murda84
06-15-2012, 03:24 PM
How dare u disrespect Ballard like that. Bennett and the rookie TE is an upgrade over Ballard already?!?!

Just like the rookie, Bennett hasnt proven anything other than to be an unmotivated butterfingered Tight End. Cowboys tried their best to involve Bennett into the offense...and he was constantly confused on routes and couldnt catch the ball. Bennett as a Cowboy singlehandley help the Giants make the playoffs with his boneheaded plays.

Ballard did everything we asked of him...he got open and made huge catches in crunch time.. dont disrespect him like that.

Joe Morrison
06-15-2012, 03:28 PM
Time to Waive this thread, it's old news, over, move on, surely Bennet will catch 35 balls in the Gilbride offense, it's a not brainer.

FBomb
06-15-2012, 03:36 PM
How dare u disrespect Ballard like that. Bennett and the rookie TE is an upgrade over Ballard already?!?! Just like the rookie, Bennett hasnt proven anything other than to be an unmotivated butterfingered Tight End. Cowboys tried their best to involve Bennett into the offense...and he was constantly confused on routes and couldnt catch the ball. Bennett as a Cowboy singlehandley help the Giants make the playoffs with his boneheaded plays. Ballard did everything we asked of him...he got open and made huge catches in crunch time.. dont disrespect him like that.</P>


https://encrypted-tbn1.google.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSQspnXRaPqQpitB_bmKCeg_h1W6PqaX nJUW0aK9VXwuSeCwBX0</P>


<U><FONT size=4>OFFENDED!!!</FONT></U></P>

thomsoad
06-15-2012, 03:44 PM
How dare u disrespect Ballard like that. Bennett and the rookie TE is an upgrade over Ballard already?!?!

Just like the rookie, Bennett hasnt proven anything other than to be an unmotivated butterfingered Tight End. Cowboys tried their best to involve Bennett into the offense...and he was constantly confused on routes and couldnt catch the ball. Bennett as a Cowboy singlehandley help the Giants make the playoffs with his boneheaded plays.

Ballard did everything we asked of him...he got open and made huge catches in crunch time.. dont disrespect him like that.

You must be Ballards mom or something. Fact is the rookie TE and Bennett ARE upgrades for 2012 since Ballard cant even freakin play!

And lets be honest here...Upgrading Ballard isnt that incredibly difficult talent wise. Its not like Ballard was gonna unseat Boss if Boss was still here.

jakegibbs
06-15-2012, 04:12 PM
The Giants waived Ballard in order to make room on the 90 man roster for Rocky Bernard. Now they're upset that the Patriots claimed him. I get that they thought no one would claim Ballard because he was injured, but why didn't they just waive someone they were willing to lose in order to make room for Bernard? I took a look at the 90 man roster (http://www.giants.com/team/roster.html). There are a whole bunch of guys on it that didn't play a down for the Giants last year and most of them won't even make the team this year (like Ryan Purvis, Isaiah Stanback, and Brian Witherspoon just to name a few). They should have waived one of those guys. No one would have claimed them, and if they did, so what?


Another JR Blunder right?

RoanokeFan
06-15-2012, 04:23 PM
The Giants waived Ballard in order to make room on the 90 man roster for Rocky Bernard. Now they're upset that the Patriots claimed him. I get that they thought no one would claim Ballard because he was injured, but why didn't they just waive someone they were willing to lose in order to make room for Bernard? I took a look at the 90 man roster (http://www.giants.com/team/roster.html). There are a whole bunch of guys on it that didn't play a down for the Giants last year and most of them won't even make the team this year (like Ryan Purvis, Isaiah Stanback, and Brian Witherspoon just to name a few). They should have waived one of those guys. No one would have claimed them, and if they did, so what?


Ballard was waived because he is not gong to play this season, It;'s a procedural moved that 99% of the time results in the player released being resigned to IR. This time Belichick saw an opportunity to screw with Coughlin and he took it.

Signing Bernard had nothing to do with Ballard other than there was a open spot.


Is he screwing with Coughlin or is Belichick doing what's best for his team? Pats run a two TE offense. If a TE goes down like Gronk did last year, a TE that can come in and let them be able to run their base offense with no changes is crucial and a healthy Ballard will give him that. I think Belichick made a great move for his team if Ballard can come back.

A great move would have been for a player who's going to play. Ballard has had a serious injury and it's more risky for Belichick to sign him than it was for Reese to release him. I'm predicting Belichick will release Ballard by the end of the season. He's lost twice to Coughlin on the biggest show on earth and it's got to be eating him alive. I think this spite move will prove to be as productive as making us throw to Manningham in the Super Bowl.

gmen46
06-15-2012, 11:36 PM
The Giants waived Ballard in order to make room on the 90 man roster for Rocky Bernard. Now they're upset that the Patriots claimed him. I get that they thought no one would claim Ballard because he was injured, but why didn't they just waive someone they were willing to lose in order to make room for Bernard? I took a look at the 90 man roster (http://www.giants.com/team/roster.html). There are a whole bunch of guys on it that didn't play a down for the Giants last year and most of them won't even make the team this year (like Ryan Purvis, Isaiah Stanback, and Brian Witherspoon just to name a few). They should have waived one of those guys. No one would have claimed them, and if they did, so what?


Ballard was waived because he is not gong to play this season,** It;'s a procedural moved that 99% of the time results in the player released being resigned to IR.* This time Belichick saw an opportunity to screw with Coughlin and he took it.

Signing Bernard had nothing to do with Ballard other than there was a open spot.


Is he screwing with Coughlin or is Belichick doing what's best for his team? Pats run a two TE offense. If a TE goes down like Gronk did last year, a TE that can come in and let them be able to run their base offense with no changes is crucial and a healthy Ballard will give him that. I think Belichick made a great move for his team if Ballard can come back.

A great move would have been for a player who's going to play.* Ballard has had a serious injury and it's more risky for Belichick to sign him than it was for Reese to release him.* I'm predicting Belichick will release Ballard by the end of the season.* He's lost twice to Coughlin on the biggest show on earth and it's got to be eating him alive.* I think this spite move will prove to be as productive as making us throw to Manningham in the Super Bowl.


I was surprised Patriots didn't make a decent move for Manningham when he went on the market, frankly (maybe they did, but I didn't hear anything to that effect).

They obviously were in need of at least a decent, above average WR with some speed, and MM sure provides some down field--and downhill-- speed on the outside, as opposed to all the OVER-the-hill FAs they picked up.

And, of course, the move could have satiated the so-called "Belichick Revenge Factor" nonsense that some on this board like to cling to.

miked1958
06-16-2012, 11:15 AM
We did not waive Ballard to sign Rocky.


I've read in some places that the two moves were related because somebody needed to be removed from the 90 man roster to make room for Bernard. Maybe the articles I read that said that were wrong, or maybe Reese planned to waive Ballard anyway and the timing just worked out well so he wouldn't have to waive a healthy player to sign Bernard.
Well... Something like this should have been anticipated by front office brass. They are paid to analyze this type stuff. They dropped ball on this one. Should have done like some of the guys said and waived someone they didn't care about if they thought there was even a one half of one percent chance someone might claim him and it would mess up 2013 plans if they did. They could of waited till much later in offseason to decide on Ballard when teams are getting down to nitty gritty with roster spots. Chances are if done that late then no one would of claimed him. Now with 90 man rosters chances were a lot higher we'd lose him

FBomb
06-16-2012, 12:23 PM
We did not waive Ballard to sign Rocky.


I've read in some places that the two moves were related because somebody needed to be removed from the 90 man roster to make room for Bernard. Maybe the articles I read that said that were wrong, or maybe Reese planned to waive Ballard anyway and the timing just worked out well so he wouldn't have to waive a healthy player to sign Bernard.
Well... Something like this should have been anticipated by front office brass. They are paid to analyze this type stuff. They dropped ball on this one. Should have done like some of the guys said and waived someone they didn't care about if they thought there was even a one half of one percent chance someone might claim him and it would mess up 2013 plans if they did. They could of waited till much later in offseason to decide on Ballard when teams are getting down to nitty gritty with roster spots. Chances are if done that late then no one would of claimed him. Now with 90 man rosters chances were a lot higher we'd lose him</P>


I will never understand why the front office doesn't read this board before making any decisions. It's obvious there are posters who know FAR more and can better decide what the best move is.</P>

Dirt66
06-16-2012, 04:46 PM
Why is everyone acting ike we lost the second coming of Bavaro? JB made some nice catches but come on people!!!! We're better at the TE position than we have been in a while.

miked1958
06-17-2012, 04:52 AM
Why is everyone acting ike we lost the second coming of Bavaro? JB made some nice catches but come on people!!!! We're better at the TE position than we have been in a while.I agree but only going by what the giants were saying after he was claimed how theywere so upset. Seems if they were that high on him they wouldn't have taken the chance on losing him

miked1958
06-17-2012, 04:53 AM
We did not waive Ballard to sign Rocky.


I've read in some places that the two moves were related because somebody needed to be removed from the 90 man roster to make room for Bernard. Maybe the articles I read that said that were wrong, or maybe Reese planned to waive Ballard anyway and the timing just worked out well so he wouldn't have to waive a healthy player to sign Bernard.
Well... Something like this should have been anticipated by front office brass. They are paid to analyze this type stuff. They dropped ball on this one. Should have done like some of the guys said and waived someone they didn't care about if they thought there was even a one half of one percent chance someone might claim him and it would mess up 2013 plans if they did. They could of waited till much later in offseason to decide on Ballard when teams are getting down to nitty gritty with roster spots. Chances are if done that late then no one would of claimed him. Now with 90 man rosters chances were a lot higher we'd lose him</P>


I will never understand why the front office doesn't read this board before making any decisions.* It's obvious there are posters who know FAR more and can better decide what the best move is.</P>Shouldnt your post be in red... I know u don't think I had a better solution then the giants FO did