2009/2010 roster

[Bruiser]

Cool. I always liked his tenacity off the line:

Chicago Slaughter - CHI Position HT. WT. College/Pro
16 Jon Kowalyshen DL 6'3 260 Western Illinois

[Shef]

Originally Posted by Bruiser

Cool. I always liked his tenacity off the line:

Chicago Slaughter - CHI Position HT. WT. College/Pro
16 Jon Kowalyshen DL 6'3 260 Western Illinois

I don't remember him very much...the name sounds familiar, I thought he was with the Cardinals.

[Buda]

Originally Posted by Shef

I don't remember him very much...the name sounds familiar, I thought he was with the Cardinals.

http://vidswap.com/my/profile/index/user/jonko/embed/1

[kingflipper]

Wednesday Mar 10
CHICAGO
PLACING ON REFUSED TO REPORT
WR/LB DeJuan Alfonzo 6’0 190 1/12/77 Indiana State

http://www.arenafan.com/phpBB2/viewt...=asc&start=280

interesting, that could solve some tackling problems! Correct me if I'm wrong but doesn't he live in the Chicago area? Why would he refuse to report to the Rush camp? Decided to retire or decided to go back to the Slaughter??

[samcro01]

Strangely enough on that same refused to report list is Joe Peters who was also another member of the 2008 Rush, one of the starting linemen.

[Shef]

Was Zo one of the $1000 bucks a game players?

I doubt we'll see him in a Slaughter uniform this season though.

[Bruiser]

The AFL always had guys tagged like that. It just means they didnt show up to camp but an official roster had to be submitted to the league. The Rush are going thru a mini camp right now, my guess is Ho is giving those guys a pass.

It doesnt mean much, just sounds bad, "re-assigned" tag is worse.

[Bruiser]

Originally Posted by Bruiser

Actually, I didnt see that Pruitt was traded to B'ton recently.... I have no idea who or what Chicago got in return. Doubt Ty was involved in any trade.

So Ty was the other half of the Pruitt trade.

Someone please tell me what purpose is served by labelling players RFA's? This is $200/game ball fercrissakes, not the big time where you need to protect your investment in player property.

http://www.pantagraph.com/sports/foo...cc4c03286.html

[CasualObserver]

Originally Posted by Bruiser

So Ty was the other half of the Pruitt trade.

Someone please tell me what purpose is served by labelling players RFA's? This is $200/game ball fercrissakes, not the big time where you need to protect your investment in player property.

http://www.pantagraph.com/sports/foo...cc4c03286.html

The worst part about this whole deal is the "3 game sit rule" itself which reads that if a player played for a team in '09 that team holds his rights in '10, so in order for another team to sign him in '10 the player either has to sit out 3 games or the team signing him in '10 has to pay the '09 team $1,000.00!

Thats how this whole Pruitt for Meyers deal came about -- Ty has some personal family business which requires him to stay in the Chicago area to care for his children, and Bloomington didnt want to allow him to have a free release cause it would have been "bad business" not to require Chicago to pay the $1,000.00 -- the compromise was a "sign & trade" for the players mentioned.

Again, this has got to be one of the dumbest rules ever initiated by a league at this level! (and frankly, I think if a player really wanted to challenge it in court, they would win on grounds of this rule violating the player's "right to work")

[Bruiser]

Originally Posted by CasualObserver

The worst part about this whole deal is the "3 game sit rule" itself which reads that if a player played for a team in '09 that team holds his rights in '10, so in order for another team to sign him in '10 the player either has to sit out 3 games or the team signing him in '10 has to pay the '09 team $1,000.00!

Thats how this whole Pruitt for Meyers deal came about -- Ty has some personal family business which requires him to stay in the Chicago area to care for his children, and Bloomington didnt want to allow him to have a free release cause it would have been "bad business" not to require Chicago to pay the $1,000.00 -- the compromise was a "sign & trade" for the players mentioned.

Again, this has got to be one of the dumbest rules ever initiated by a league at this level! (and frankly, I think if a player really wanted to challenge it in court, they would win on grounds of this rule violating the player's "right to work")

Thanks for the detail CO. I guess there's some consolation in that Pruitt was deemed "not in shape" enough to play. FWIW, I think Chicago obviously got the upper hand in this one.