2026 Detroit Lions Offseason Thread

[RedRamage]

1 hour ago, Motown Bombers said:

That’s not true. Teams are required to pay the player the guaranteed money per the contract. The Lions can’t just cut Goff and not expect to pay anything. The remedy is in the contract they negotiated. 

Yes, but only they guaranteed portion, if there is a guaranteed portion. Not all NFL contracts have that and even those that do are rarely all guaranteed. I used to think that signing bonuses were guaranteed, but even that's not the case apparently. 

[Motown Bombers]

3 minutes ago, RedRamage said:

Yes, but only they guaranteed portion, if there is a guaranteed portion. Not all NFL contracts have that and even those that do are rarely all guaranteed. I used to think that signing bonuses were guaranteed, but even that's not the case apparently. 

That guaranteed portion is negotiated in the contract. The signing bonus is guaranteed. The Lions can’t clawback a portion of Decker’s signing bonus.

[Hongbit]

As I think about this more, I wonder what would’ve happened had they let Frank keep his bonus after recouping from Barry and Calvin.

I can see a giant racial issue being created even though that wouldn’t have been the reason for letting Frank keep it.  

To avoid a media firestorm it may have come down to either recouping from Frank or finding a way to pay back Barry and Calvin.  The former being much simpler.  

The Lions are in their financial glory days.  The franchise has never made more money on their own while at the same time the league is churning it out for everyone.   I still think it would’ve been in their best interests and a great PR move to pay all the money back but I get it.  
 

 

Edited 8 hours ago by Hongbit

[RedRamage]

18 minutes ago, Motown Bombers said:

That guaranteed portion is negotiated in the contract. The signing bonus is guaranteed. The Lions can’t clawback a portion of Decker’s signing bonus.

Yes, because Decker was released. Ragnow, of course retired, which means they can get some of the signing bonus back.

And it makes some sense why Signing Bonuses aren't guaranteed... it was more of an off the cuff comment that NFL players are not always well protected in the contract side of things.

I don't totally blame the Lions for trying to get some of the bonus back because it does end up effecting the salary cap and in a cut throat environment where every edge is needed that might end up being important. I think it's just one more example of the issues players face.

I'd like the league to change it's rules to allow for some level of a team to be able to still pay out the signing bonus without it effecting the cap on a retired player. Obviously there's going to have to be some rules with that otherwise teams are going to just offer much higher bonuses with much lower base pay extended out many years because then a you can massively over pay your roster letting them retire and not have it effect your cap.

[Sports_Freak]

55 minutes ago, RedRamage said:

I disagree in the NFL where most contacts are not guaranteed. Decker being an obvious example here. The Lions seem to have wanted him to take a pay cut. They were "refusing" to pay the play under the contract. When he didn't agree to that the team cut him, "breaking" the contract. Teams in the NFL are allowed to do this, and they do it all the time. 

The players don't have the same luxury. They can't go to a team and say: "Hey, I think I've out performed my contract so I think you need to pay me more, and if you're unwilling to do that, I'm going to void the contract and go sign with a different team." Holding out is really their only leverage.

Take away the guaranteed money a team promises a player and I would agree. Its an agreement to pay for services. A player signs a contract and they should honor it. The same as a team honors the guaranteed money. Has a team ever refused to pay that part of a contract? But there has been players, under contract, who refuse to report without a new agreement. Which is usually more money...

[RedRamage]

8 minutes ago, Sports_Freak said:

Take away the guaranteed money a team promises a player and I would agree. Its an agreement to pay for services. A player signs a contract and they should honor it. The same as a team honors the guaranteed money. Has a team ever refused to pay that part of a contract? But there has been players, under contract, who refuse to report without a new agreement. Which is usually more money...

The issue I have with NFL contracts is that the team really holds the majority of the cards.

Super simplistically:

• If a player performs WELL below expectations of his contract, the team has ways to recoup large parts of the contract and pay the player less than agreed upon.
• If a player performs below expectations of his contract, the team has ways to recoup parts of the contract and pay the player less than agreed upon.
• If a player performs to the expectations of his contract, the team and player both get what they expected.
• If a player performs above expectations of his contract, the player has no way to increase his contract.
• If a player performs WELL above expectations of his contract, the player has no way to largely increase his contract.

I understand that there are part of contracts that are guaranteed and parts that aren't. I also understand that players and agents know this and they go in with eyes open.

I just feel that teams has a built-in, by default, method of reduce liability if if the player under performs while the player has no method to increase his income if he over performs. The "hold out" because his only option.

[Stanley70]

     

Maybe this is the reason Brad is being conervative this offseason. Philly may have some New Orleans type issues in a few years.

 

[Stanley70]

It says assuming all options are exercised. I don't understand how there can be an option on a void year.

[Motown Bombers]

Yeah it’s been pretty obvious they are preparing for the future cap. Notice the Eagles haven’t been very active either. The Hurts contract is a ticking time bomb. They tacked on a lot of void years. 

[1984Echoes]

2 hours ago, RedRamage said:

...

And it makes some sense why Signing Bonuses aren't guaranteed... it was more of an off the cuff comment that NFL players are not always well protected in the contract side of things...

Also...

I would guess that the signing bonus is for the entirety of the contract.

I'm giving a guy a $20 mill signing bonus to play for my team for the next 5 years. If he plays 3 and then retires... He's only earned 3/5 of that signing bonus, and owes back $8 mill for contractual non-performance.

 

... I'll get off of my business-law soapbox now...

[Mr.TaterSalad]

1 hour ago, Stanley70 said:

     

Maybe this is the reason Brad is being conervative this offseason. Philly may have some New Orleans type issues in a few years.

 

This doesn't paint an entirely accurate picture for several reasons. One, guys will retire and/or get cut/traded and come off the books financially. In the case of cutting guys, some of that will indeed impact their cap number. Moving on from guys like Barnes and McNeill are two examples of higher dollar players that, if moved on from, can reduce their cap crunch. Two, there will be more restructures, pushing these voided year numbers out further. St. Brown, Sewell, Hutch all could be restructured. Three, and perhaps most importantly, is the cap will most certainly continue to go up. Today the salary cap is $301 million, 5 years ago it was $182.5 million. It is projected to be nearly $400 million by Spotrac come 2030. So while these numbers look rough and while we're third on the list overall for voided years, the aforementioned changes would almost certainly make this chart look different and perhaps better in 3-4 years time.

[Hongbit]

2 hours ago, Stanley70 said:

     

Maybe this is the reason Brad is being conervative this offseason. Philly may have some New Orleans type issues in a few years.

 

If the Eagles can get back to another Super Bowl those issues will be well worth it.  

[Mr.TaterSalad]

19 minutes ago, Hongbit said:

If the Eagles can get back to another Super Bowl those issues will be well worth it.  

This too. Going all in isn't all bad. If you look at teams like the Eagles and Rams, they are clear, recent examples of success for going all in. The Rams won one Super Bowl right off the bat doing it and damn near made another one this year. The Eagles have won two Super Bowls with a more aggressive approach. I remember hearing at stat somewhere that talked about how most Super Bowl teams spend up to the cap in the year they make/win a Super Bowl.

[Sports_Freak]

3 hours ago, RedRamage said:

The issue I have with NFL contracts is that the team really holds the majority of the cards.

Super simplistically:

• If a player performs WELL below expectations of his contract, the team has ways to recoup large parts of the contract and pay the player less than agreed upon.
• If a player performs below expectations of his contract, the team has ways to recoup parts of the contract and pay the player less than agreed upon.
• If a player performs to the expectations of his contract, the team and player both get what they expected.
• If a player performs above expectations of his contract, the player has no way to increase his contract.
• If a player performs WELL above expectations of his contract, the player has no way to largely increase his contract.

I understand that there are part of contracts that are guaranteed and parts that aren't. I also understand that players and agents know this and they go in with eyes open.

I just feel that teams has a built-in, by default, method of reduce liability if if the player under performs while the player has no method to increase his income if he over performs. The "hold out" because his only option.

NFL owners are billionaires. And billionaires want more billions...😆

But I kinda agree with them. People (players) want to make a lot of money? Sure, OK. If they do a good job (play good). You think players should make top dollar if they don't perform? I see too much of that in other sports. Players sign huge guaranteed contracts, stink, and teams are stuck paying them and keeping them. I say...either perform or get out...think about Javy Baez....no way is he even worth half of his salary. If the Tigers cut him, they still gotta pay him.

[1984Echoes]

45 minutes ago, Sports_Freak said:

... think about Javy Baez....no way is he even worth half of his salary. If the Tigers cut him, they still gotta pay him.

That is the difference between the MLB player's union and the NFL player's union...

[sagnam]

47 minutes ago, Sports_Freak said:

NFL owners are billionaires. And billionaires want more billions...😆

But I kinda agree with them. People (players) want to make a lot of money? Sure, OK. If they do a good job (play good). You think players should make top dollar if they don't perform? I see too much of that in other sports. Players sign huge guaranteed contracts, stink, and teams are stuck paying them and keeping them. I say...either perform or get out...think about Javy Baez....no way is he even worth half of his salary. If the Tigers cut him, they still gotta pay him.

Should owners make money if their team is bad?

[RedRamage]

44 minutes ago, Sports_Freak said:

NFL owners are billionaires. And billionaires want more billions...😆

But I kinda agree with them. People (players) want to make a lot of money? Sure, OK. If they do a good job (play good). You think players should make top dollar if they don't perform? I see too much of that in other sports. Players sign huge guaranteed contracts, stink, and teams are stuck paying them and keeping them. I say...either perform or get out...think about Javy Baez....no way is he even worth half of his salary. If the Tigers cut him, they still gotta pay him.

Sure, Baez is a great example of the dangers of signing a player to a big contract, but in baseball the playing field is level. What Baez started hitting like Judge while playing okay defense at SS. Suddenly his contract is a steal for the Tigers. So it's even. If Baez does poorly, as expected, or fantastic he's paid the same.

If the Tigers can't reduce what they're paying if Baez sucks, then Baez shouldn't be allowed to hold out if he out performs. If the Tigers CAN reduce what they're paying Baez then I'd advocate for Baez to be allowed to hold out for more if he excels.

Now this differs from what a lot of we're used to in our jobs, but sports jobs are different from what a lot of us are used to as well. Most of us aren't in a situation where we can't quit from our job and then have our previous employer prevent us from being able to get hired by a similar company in a different part of the country. Yes, there are non-compete clauses in some people's contracts, but those are rarer and not nearly of the same level of exclusive as NFL where it's basically: Here are the best 32 employers out there where you can make big money, or you can go to anyone from 33-whatever and make maybe 1/50th of what you'd make with the top 32.

[RedRamage]

10 minutes ago, sagnam said:

Should owners make money if their team is bad?

Possibly, because here we're talking about what you're getting paid for. A player is getting paid to play the game. An owner is getting "paid" to put an entertaining product out there for fans. Even if the team is bad the owner may have created enough loyalty (sometimes by accident more than because of shrewd moves) that it's still entertaining enough that fans will spend money.

[Motown Bombers]

The Eagles are Super Bowl contenders because they draft well. Who did they go “All in” for? AJ Brown? Barkley? Swift?

Edited 3 hours ago by Motown Bombers

[Mr.TaterSalad]

1 hour ago, Motown Bombers said:

The Eagles are Super Bowl contenders because they draft well. Who did they go “All in” for? AJ Brown? Barkley? Swift?

Yes drafting well helps and it is the main reason they've done very well. But some of their free agent signings and trades helped too. They made big signings of Saquan Barkley, Bryce Huff, CJGJ, and Devin White in 2024 along with Torrey Smith and Alshon Jeffery in 2017. They also traded for AJ Brown as you mentioned in 2023, Kevin Byard in 2023, and Ronald Darby in 2017.

[Mr.TaterSalad]

1 hour ago, RedRamage said:

Possibly, because here we're talking about what you're getting paid for. A player is getting paid to play the game. An owner is getting "paid" to put an entertaining product out there for fans. Even if the team is bad the owner may have created enough loyalty (sometimes by accident more than because of shrewd moves) that it's still entertaining enough that fans will spend money.

What's entertaining about going 0-16 other than the excitement of your GM finally getting canned?