Digs reports

[tomdalton22]

Legally speaking, they aren't.

The players have until Aug. 5 each year to report or lose a year of accrued time. They can also be fined 30K per day they miss, and 70K for missing any mandatory camp.

That they have a clause built in that allows them to holdout is on the NFL who gave it to them in the CBA. There is no violation of their contract so long as the CBA allows for it.

And in the case of players like Digs, he reported for OTAs and skipped voluntary workouts... which is 100% his right. OTAs are technically voluntary too, so had h chose not to report until training camp, he still would be within the terms of his contract.

That sounds about right. Of course a lot of them have a clause in their contracts that give them a bonus for attending the OTAs...so they are not breaking their contract but they are giving up money.

 

[inkfreq]

That sounds about right. Of course a lot of them have a clause in their contracts that give them a bonus for attending the OTAs...so they are not breaking their contract but they are giving up money.

No doubt there. That's the most confusing part of most holdouts.

"I want more money, and I am willing to give up my money to show the commitment to wanting more money"...

fukkinwha????

 

[lucke]

No doubt there. That's the most confusing part of most holdouts.

"I want more money, and I am willing to give up my money to show the commitment to wanting more money"...

fukkinwha????

Exactly, but you have to remember, most players aren't exactly the brightest crayon in the box when it comes to money management. It's a highly risky move that backfires more often than it works.

I would think the better option would be to never leave money on the table, and play your ass off and prove you deserve more money. But hey, what do I know, in not dealing with multimillion dollars per year at my job.

 

[everyoneneedsasmil]

Exactly, but you have to remember, most players aren't exactly the brightest crayon in the box when it comes to money management. It's a highly risky move that backfires more often than it works.

I would think the better option would be to never leave money on the table, and play your ass off and prove you deserve more money. But hey, what do I know, in not dealing with multimillion dollars per year at my job.

The issue always seems to be about leverage. Teams want players at the most cost-effective contract they can manage. Players/agents always want to maximize contracts when the player is at his highest value. Star players have leverage in that the team will legitimately be worse off if they don't play. Each game means a lot more to making the playoffs and seeding in the NFL than other sports, so teams are forced to negotiate with stars.

Guys like Ihedigbo are more nuanced. He's obviously our best SS, and the drop-off to the next guy is noticeable. But is it enough to swing a game? Hard to say. Ihedigbo has been a decent, but replaceable safety for most of his career, which is exactly why we signed him for so little in free agency. He had a good year last year, which raised his current value. All he's trying to do is cash in on his play. The Lions are smart not to give in, though. Last year was an outlier in his career, despite playing for the same coach. It's more likely that he'll regress towards his career play than he's turned a corner and will be worth a bigger, longer contract (let's not forget he's already over 30).