Detroit Lions 2024 Offseason Thread

[MichiganCardinal]

17 minutes ago, Motown Bombers said:

That literally has no bearing on Cominsky since he will be off the books before those contracts kick in. In fact, they could have created a lot more cap space this year if they extended Goff in February. 

I think he's referring to Williams. But I don't think signing Williams would foreclose the various necessary extensions.

[MichiganCardinal]

21 minutes ago, Mr.TaterSalad said:

He has the injury history Brad likes, so there is a chance he could be had at the end of his career for a reasonable price given that. Brad clearly likes to buy lower on injured guys in hopes that they rebound and don't cost the team much. Michael Thomas is another name out there, who played under Campbell with the Saints and fits the X Receiver type.

It's a bit semantical, but I don't think it's injury history that Brad likes (e.g., signing Montgomery was cited to his lack of injury history), but rather that he likes short length, low risk deals that don't foreclose money long-term.

[Sports_Freak]

3 minutes ago, Motown Bombers said:

I'm just saying if the Lions continue to do it they will get a reputation. This is already an organization that has angered two hall of famers by forcing them to give back money. 

If players don't want to take a cut, they're free to leave. It's what Aaron Jones did in Green Bay. If they think they can make more somewhere else, we'll just fill their role with another player. It's really the players choice.

[Motown Bombers]

1 minute ago, Sports_Freak said:

If players don't want to take a cut, they're free to leave. It's what Aaron Jones did in Green Bay. If they think they can make more somewhere else, we'll just fill their role with another player. It's really the players choice.

You keep playing hardball like that and you're going to get a reputation. Ironically, that's what Quinn and Patricia said to players like Slay who didn't buy into their program. 

[Longgone]

8 minutes ago, Motown Bombers said:

You keep playing hardball like that and you're going to get a reputation. Ironically, that's what Quinn and Patricia said to players like Slay who didn't buy into their program. 

It's not hardball, it's simply a negotiation. If Cominsky, Vatai and Okwara didn't have any problem with it, why should you? If they had a problem with it, they surely would have declined and entered the free market as many others have.

[Motown Bombers]

3 minutes ago, Longgone said:

It's not hardball, it's simply a negotiation. If Cominsky, Vatai and Okwara didn't have any problem with it, why should you? If they had a problem with it, they surely would have declined and entered the free market as many others have.

Like I've said many times now, if the Lions keep signing players to contracts and ask them to renegotiate a year later or get cut, players are going to bypass the Lions. I can see the same thing happening with Amik Robertson. He has a big 2nd year on his contract. 

[Longgone]

Just now, Motown Bombers said:

Like I've said many times now, if the Lions keep signing players to contracts and ask them to renegotiate a year later or get cut, players are going to bypass the Lions. I can see the same thing happening with Amik Robertson. He has a big 2nd year on his contract. 

If the Lions had simply cut those players, like most teams do, you wouldn't have given two thoughts about it. But because they worked out a mutually beneficial arrangement, you somehow find it offensive. 

[Motown Bombers]

7 minutes ago, Longgone said:

If the Lions had simply cut those players, like most teams do, you wouldn't have given two thoughts about it. But because they worked out a mutually beneficial arrangement, you somehow find it offensive. 

The Lions are establishing a pattern of giving players a two year deal when the market says one and making that 2nd year a big one and then coming back a year later and using their leverage to get you to take a lower salary. Interestingly enough, they didn't do this to the big boys who under performed like Goff in 2021.

Edited March 13, 2024 by Motown Bombers

[RedRamage]

1 hour ago, Motown Bombers said:

And? This literally doesn't prevent the Lions from cutting Cominsky. The Lions cap hit for cutting Cominsky remains the same. If he underperforms he will be cut. The Lions gave him an ultimatum when they are nearly $30 million under the cap. 

You keep ignoring my semi-tongue-in-cheek replies to you. You have created this narrative that the Lions are doing a major wrong by not just cutting a player and instead asking him to take less money. But you're ignoring that this ask doesn't change eliminate cutting.

Obviously a team would never say it in these words, but essentially when a team cuts a player, they are saying:

We're unwilling to pay you next year the money that your contract calls for because we don't think you will perform well enough to earn that. So, we're cutting you.

This is the cold hard business side of the NFL and everyone accepts this. I don't think you see this as a problem, but correct me if I'm wrong. All the Lions are doing here is introducing an additional option for the player.

We're unwilling to pay you next year the money that your contract calls for because we don't think you will perform well enough to earn that. Given this, we have two options: If you'd like to stay with the team we're asking you to take a reduction in pay to what we expect your play level to be. If you'd rather not take the pay cut and test the open market we'll cut you.

The Lions are not forcing these players to take a pay cut. They have every right to refuse. If they refuse to take a pay cut then one of two things will happen. Either the Lions will keep them on the team for the original agreed upon price (unlikely, but possible) or the Lions will cut them, which we all seem to agree is business as usual for the NFL.

I honestly do not see this as a bad thing. Now, IF the Lions are routinely asking everyone on the team to take a pay cut instead of just the players who very likely could end up on the chopping block, then sure... that would an issue. But we haven't seen that.

[Motown Bombers]

1 minute ago, RedRamage said:

You keep ignoring my semi-tongue-in-cheek replies to you. You have created this narrative that the Lions are doing a major wrong by not just cutting a player and instead asking him to take less money. But you're ignoring that this ask doesn't change eliminate cutting.

Obviously a team would never say it in these words, but essentially when a team cuts a player, they are saying:

We're unwilling to pay you next year the money that your contract calls for because we don't think you will perform well enough to earn that. So, we're cutting you.

This is the cold hard business side of the NFL and everyone accepts this. I don't think you see this as a problem, but correct me if I'm wrong. All the Lions are doing here is introducing an additional option for the player.

We're unwilling to pay you next year the money that your contract calls for because we don't think you will perform well enough to earn that. Given this, we have two options: If you'd like to stay with the team we're asking you to take a reduction in pay to what we expect your play level to be. If you'd rather not take the pay cut and test the open market we'll cut you.

The Lions are not forcing these players to take a pay cut. They have every right to refuse. If they refuse to take a pay cut then one of two things will happen. Either the Lions will keep them on the team for the original agreed upon price (unlikely, but possible) or the Lions will cut them, which we all seem to agree is business as usual for the NFL.

I honestly do not see this as a bad thing. Now, IF the Lions are routinely asking everyone on the team to take a pay cut instead of just the players who very likely could end up on the chopping block, then sure... that would an issue. But we haven't seen that.

I keep ignoring them because they are too damn long. (I didn't read past the first sentence) 

[RedRamage]

7 minutes ago, Motown Bombers said:

The Lions are establishing a pattern of giving players a two year deal when the market says one and making that 2nd year a big one and then coming back a year later and using their leverage to get you to take a lower salary. Interestingly enough, they didn't do this to the big boys who under performed like Goff in 2021.

What leverage are the Lions using to coerce players into taking a pay cut?

[Longgone]

9 minutes ago, Motown Bombers said:

The Lions are establishing a pattern of giving players a two year deal when the market says one and making that 2nd year a big one and then coming back a year later and using their leverage to get you to take a lower salary. Interestingly enough, they didn't do this to the big boys who under performed like Goff in 2021.

What pattern, that doesn't apply to Harris, Vatai or Okwara at all, and they did renegotiate Goff.

 

Edited March 13, 2024 by Longgone

[Motown Bombers]

Just now, Longgone said:

What pattern, that doesn't apply to Harris, Vatai or Okwara at all

 

Of course it applies to Harris. He signed a two year extension and was asked to renegotiate after one year, same as Cominsky. Okwara was a 3 year deal asked to renegotiate after 2 years. Vaitai was a Quinn signing so really not applicable. Surprisingly, they didn't appear to ask Walker to take a pay cut. That indicates to me they still wanted those other players around and didn't want Walker around regardless of salary. 

[Mr.TaterSalad]

45 minutes ago, MichiganCardinal said:

It's a bit semantical, but I don't think it's injury history that Brad likes (e.g., signing Montgomery was cited to his lack of injury history), but rather that he likes short length, low risk deals that don't foreclose money long-term.

I agree there. It's not that he wants players to get hurt and be hurt on his team. That would be dumb for any GM to want that. It's that he likes buying low on guys where he can get team friendly terms on both money and contract length. And about the only time really talented players get signed for more team favorable deals is when they have an injury history. So Brad targets guys with a high talent floor, but an injury history that he can buy lower on.

[Motown Bombers]

5 minutes ago, RedRamage said:

What leverage are the Lions using to coerce players into taking a pay cut?

They add a 2nd year at a large rate to have the player sign in the first place and then use that in year two to renegotiate. Perhaps the Lions should get better at determining players who are worthy of two year contracts. 

[Longgone]

2 minutes ago, Motown Bombers said:

Of course it applies to Harris. He signed a two year extension and was asked to renegotiate after one year, same as Cominsky. Okwara was a 3 year deal asked to renegotiate after 2 years. Vaitai was a Quinn signing so really not applicable. Surprisingly, they didn't appear to ask Walker to take a pay cut. That indicates to me they still wanted those other players around and didn't want Walker around regardless of salary. 

So, you admit, there's no pattern.

[Motown Bombers]

1 minute ago, Longgone said:

So, you admit, there's no pattern.

Like I said numerous times, they are establishing one and will start getting a reputation. That's four players in two years and three originally signed by Holmes. 

[Longgone]

2 minutes ago, Motown Bombers said:

Like I said numerous times, they are establishing one and will start getting a reputation. That's four players in two years and three originally signed by Holmes. 

The only one getting a reputation is you.

[KL2]

4 minutes ago, Motown Bombers said:

Like I said numerous times, they are establishing one and will start getting a reputation. That's four players in two years and three originally signed by Holmes. 

I linked several 49ers who faced the same situation, including a coach who got fired. 

I never heard one person, nadda, ever refer to a reputation for them. 

Edited March 13, 2024 by KL2

[Longgone]

7 minutes ago, Motown Bombers said:

Like I said numerous times, they are establishing one and will start getting a reputation. That's four players in two years and three originally signed by Holmes. 

The fallacy in your thinking is that the renegotiating is somehow onerous, deceptive or unfair to the players. There is no basis for thinking that way, in fact, it is a good and positive indicator.

[Motown Bombers]

13 minutes ago, Longgone said:

The only one getting a reputation is you.

Yeah for being right. 

[Motown Bombers]

 

[KL2]

24 minutes ago, Longgone said:

The only one getting a reputation is you.

[Motown Bombers]

Just now, KL2 said:

Surprised you have the nerve after how wrong you were on Goff. 

[RedRamage]

29 minutes ago, Motown Bombers said:

They add a 2nd year at a large rate to have the player sign in the first place and then use that in year two to renegotiate. Perhaps the Lions should get better at determining players who are worthy of two year contracts. 

Okay, so if I'm following you (and please do correct me if I'm wrong here), you'd saying that the Lions offer back loaded 2 year deals with the second half not guaranteed so that players are more likely to sign with them vs. a team which only offers a 1 year deal. For example Detroit offers two years, $4M the first year, and an unguaranteed $7M the second while Chicago offers $5 for one year. This lures the player to Detroit because hey... (4+7)/2 years equals 5.5M per year instead of only 5. 

Is this what you're saying?