Giants Won’t Place Eli Manning On Reserve/Retired List

Giants legend Eli Manning is retiring from football, but he won’t formally be placed on the league’s list of retired players, as PFT’s Mike Florio explains. It’s a small, but important distinction that could be factor should the quarterback consider coming out of retirement in 2020.

[RELATED: Eli Manning Retires From The NFL]

Manning’s contract will formally expire in March, which means the Giants cannot place Manning on the reserve/retired list, per league rules. Players on the reserve/retired list who decide to unretire after the trade deadline must go on the waiver wire first.

Manning retired, in large part, because he would not have had an opportunity to start for the Giants or any other club in 2020. But, hypothetically, a midseason injury to Daniel Jones or another QB1 could open the door for someone like Manning.

If Manning was on the list and the Giants wanted him back, they’d be subject to the same potential barriers as Rob Gronkowski. In 2019, Gronk would have had to return by Week 13 if he wanted to suit up for the Giants, because he was officially designated as a retired player. Meanwhile, Marshawn Lynch was not on the list, which paved the way for his late-season Seahawks reunion. If Manning wants to come back, he’ll have no obstacles in his way, just like Beast Mode.

Photo courtesy of USA Today Sports Images.

View Comments (10)
newest oldest

10 comments on “Giants Won’t Place Eli Manning On Reserve/Retired List

  1. The Lou

    Does a player have to be on the retired list in order for his clock to start for HOF consideration? I assume so but not sure if anyone here knows definitively.

  2. jorge78

    So when CAN a team put a player on the retired list if his contract is expired? That tidbit would have been nice Zach…..

  3. Boston2AZ

    “Gronk would have had to return by Week 13 if he wanted to suit up for the Giants”. I’m assuming you meant the Pats.

    • findingnimmo

      Just like the rest of the readers, we all knew what he meant. Why have to point out a mistake that’s not important?

      • thatsright

        Because journalistic integrity is important. This is a news article that people rely upon. I’m sure Tim Dierkes would agree that making each MLBTradeRumors story as accurate as possible is a prime directive, and I bet that Zach Links will appreciate the heads up (which was delivered politely) and make an update accordingly.

        • crosseyedlemon

          Protecting the Federation from Romulan incursions across the neutral zone is a prime directive…proof reading…not so much.

Leave a Reply