Haason Reddick‘s Jets holdout has come to an end, with team and player agreeing to a deal. It remains to be seen at this point how the financial components of the revised pact will shake out vis-à-vis the multitude of penalties Reddick accumulated before today’s news. 
One point of contention is the money Reddick lost during the preseason. His decision to avoid reporting to the Jets allowed the team to fine him the value of one regular season game check (just under $792K) for each exhibition game missed. As a result, $2.38MM in fines were accumulated, although it is unsettled with respect to if it will be paid out.
Mike Florio of Pro Football Talk reports the NFLPA had already filed a grievance over the preseason fines in question prior to today’s Reddick news. The union’s argument is that Reddick signed his contract to join the Eagles before eventually being traded to the Jets, differentiating his situation from holdouts affecting a player’s original contracted team. The same could be argued as it pertains to the $2MM in fines Reddick racked up by remaining absent from training camp, although as Florio notes those penalties are not currently at issue.
A separate Florio piece adds that the Jets are prepared to waive the fines for Reddick’s preseason absence if the NFL and NFLPA can reach an agreement regarding whether or not it is possible for that to take place. Of course, the missed game checks from his regular season absences comprise a much larger penalty, and it will be interesting to see how exactly the revised accord between team and player works out. Once the full details of the pact are known, further clarity will arise based on what Reddick’s earning potential for 2024 is as he prepares to report to the team. Crucially, the two-time Pro Bowler will remain on track for free agency regardless of what happens regarding his Jets penalties.
Greedy and he’ll never get that money back.
The fact that the Jets want to forgive the fines but can’t should be the basis of the grievance. If not, it really doesn’t make sense to argue that teams can’t fine a player for missing games. I know that Reddick signed originally with the Eagles, but it makes contracts even more worthless (queue the “contracts are already worthless” comments) if players can’t be fined for not reporting. He’s still beholden to that contract, and it didn’t include a no trade clause. Reddick wasn’t wrong to want a better deal, but at the same time, he knew the terms of his current deal and had to accept the risk that he took by not showing up.
I do see why the NFL would be against making an exception (and the Jets probably secretly are, too). If the fines become forgivable, then in the long run it will create an expectation on the part of the players that their fines will always be forgiven. Now, the teams can point the finger at the NFL and avoid as much flack for not ignoring fines, which makes them more enforceable. There are a lot of dumb things in NFL deals that favor either the teams or the players, but unforgivable fines makes sense to me in a roundabout way.
Spot on. The players could get rid of ‘hold-ins’ then, which I find silly. ‘I showed up for work but didn’t work, so you can’t fine me.’
I don’t have any problem with fines being forgiven in some of these situations. We don’t actually get to see what goes on behind the scenes but I suspect many players aren’t getting the best agent representation.
That’s on them for choosing their reps. But all reps are vetted by the league and NFLPA.
Most of these kids weren’t at college because they were PHD candidates. They can be easily exploited by some smooth talking shyster. Being vetted only means you have the necessary credentials it doesn’t mean you have impeccable morals.
“Just cause you go to church every Sunday; doesn’t make you a good person”
Accountability for your signature on a piece of paper. Know the content of the ‘contract’. Having attended college one might infer players can read and understand written American English – or – have available legal representation to clarify content.
Just when I thought that we’d finally heard the last of this schmuck they drag us back in. Sigh.
Few players would be able to understand the legalese language included in contracts so it comes down to trust. The agent says “hold out” and I’ll pressure that GM into meeting our demands” so the player goes along with the idea. Then he realizes that the agent was just blowing a lot of smoke his way. Sure he can dump the agent, but the damage has already been down as his market value has decreased.
he really needs to be a game-wrecker every game for the rest of the season to make GMs and owners salivate over signing him as a FA. 10+ sacks are still possible.
My question is if we are not holding players responsible for contracts they signed with another team and then were traded, this is going to be a problem. Can a player traded in the middle of a contract say, I’m not playing under that rip or up? What about the player who is vastly overpaid and traded, can the team say, “Oh, you signed that with another team we’re not paying you that”.
You can’t have it both ways. If that’s the case, void every contract when a player is traded and have the parties negotiate a new contract. Then case solved.
In Reddick’s case, didn’t this all come about because he was pushing for a new deal with Philly? So he didn’t actually change his stance after the trade.
Also, there have been instances where the selling team eats a portion of the remaining salary, or the acquiring team negotiates a new deal or restructure.
Options are already available for every side. This is a more complex situation, IMO, because perhaps the Jets just expected Reddick to be satisfied with a change of scenery-or early talks of a deal fell on deaf ears and he stomped his feet and pouted.
Greedy POS’s the people that pay their wages (fans) are sick of these over paid losers… go bag groceries if y’all don’t want to pay for the contract you signed!!!