Brandon Aiyuk is a Quitter! Pick #25, 2020 NFL Draft

So can we still possibly trade him for draft picks and/or player(s) or will this require his approval?

Originally posted by pillageDatazz:

Keyshawn Johnson gives his thoughts on the Brandon Aiyuk - 49ers situation:

"You're taking 27 million dollars of my money. I'm not gonna answer your phone call, nor am I gonna speak to you. Whose fault is it? It's the blame game now. As a professional athlete, when an… pic.twitter.com/sdgJKyRfiR

— Coach Yac 🗣 (@Coach_Yac) February 13, 2026

Why do I have a funny feeling if Aiyuk was white or a coach, Keyshawn would be saying "that's extremely unprofessional behavior! You're under contract! You gotta be there for your team!" ?

Originally posted by 49erKing:
So can we still possibly trade him for draft picks and/or player(s) or will this require his approval?

He does not have a no trade clause. Purdy is our only player with a NTC.

He could threaten to keep doing… what he's literally been doing with us, though?

Originally posted by Young2Owens:
F Keyshawn Johnson. He's talking out his ass and clearly has no idea about the details. BA breached his contract by not even doing the bare F'ing minimum. And it's not just the coaches and FO that are done with him. It's his teammates, his comrades on the field that are done with him. Tired of people coming to the defense of A-holes

Just another media person who hasn't been following the situation at all but pretends to know everything because they saw a half-assed (and possibly AI-slop generated) summary of it on Instagram or somewhere.

Have details even been released? I'll be curious to hear Yuks side. Can't trust the FO or the player.

Originally posted by ninersrule4:
Have details even been released? I'll be curious to hear Yuks side. Can't trust the FO or the player.

No they haven't.

Originally posted by ninersrule4:
Have details even been released? I'll be curious to hear Yuks side. Can't trust the FO or the player.

You don't need to trust the front office, you can look at the voided guarantees that were not disputed by BA, his agent or the nflpa. That is unheard of.

The nflpa will dispute anything and everything. That is what they're paid to do: advocate for the players. They've even disputed stuff for the players when there is literally video evidence to the contrary. So, you can put 2 and 2 together here.

Originally posted by frenchmov:

Originally posted by ninersrule4:
Have details even been released? I'll be curious to hear Yuks side. Can't trust the FO or the player.

You don't need to trust the front office, you can look at the voided guarantees that were not disputed by BA, his agent or the nflpa. That is unheard of.

The nflpa will dispute anything and everything. That is what they're paid to do: advocate for the players. They've even disputed stuff for the players when there is literally video evidence to the contrary. So, you can put 2 and 2 together here.

Exactly. There's nothing preventing Aiyuk from releasing a statement, or holding a press conference, or filing a grievance through the NFLPA. That he hasn't done the latter suggests he has no case. That he hasn't done either of the former suggests he's not willing to face the media researching and/or questioning of his version of events. The 49ers have had their position and actions media checked with nothing to suggest they've behaved improperly. Aiyuk could challenge that, but if he doesn't have a different story what benefit is there to him doing so?

Originally posted by frenchmov:
You don't need to trust the front office, you can look at the voided guarantees that were not disputed by BA, his agent or the nflpa. That is unheard of.

The nflpa will dispute anything and everything. That is what they're paid to do: advocate for the players. They've even disputed stuff for the players when there is literally video evidence to the contrary. So, you can put 2 and 2 together here.

This only addresses whether the 49ers had the right to void Aiyuk's guarantees… nothing else of substance.

Look at DK Metcalf's situation this past season in Pittsburgh. He was handed a suspension from the league for his altercation with a fan in Detroit. The suspension gave the Steelers the right to void $45 million in future guarantees. They opted not to do so.

Without seeing the language in Aiyuk's contract and the action(s) Aiyuk took that violated its terms, we don't have a clear view of the situation. As KJ said 'the devil is in the details'.

Having followed this situation closely going back to the negotiations around his extension, it seems plausible to me that the team's action here was less about egregious behavior on his part and more about their desire to get out of the contract. A contract that was the source of internal dispute. It's certainly more fitting with what is publicly known.

Originally posted by captveg:
Exactly. There's nothing preventing Aiyuk from releasing a statement, or holding a press conference, or filing a grievance through the NFLPA. That he hasn't done the latter suggests he has no case. That he hasn't done either of the former suggests he's not willing to face the media researching and/or questioning of his version of events. The 49ers have had their position and actions media checked with nothing to suggest they've behaved improperly. Aiyuk could challenge that, but if he doesn't have a different story what benefit is there to him doing so?

There is no tangible benefit to Aiyuk issuing a statement or holding a press conference and having a public pissing match with the team. There may be reasons he chose not to file a formal grievance against the team other than simply 'having no case'.

I would bet there's a good chance we'll hear Aiyuk's version of events once he is off the roster, and even if we don't, it will obviously be discussed in private in any negotiation with his next team (where it actually matters).

Originally posted by SmokeyJoe:

Originally posted by frenchmov:
You don't need to trust the front office, you can look at the voided guarantees that were not disputed by BA, his agent or the nflpa. That is unheard of.

The nflpa will dispute anything and everything. That is what they're paid to do: advocate for the players. They've even disputed stuff for the players when there is literally video evidence to the contrary. So, you can put 2 and 2 together here.

This only addresses whether the 49ers had the right to void Aiyuk's guarantees… nothing else of substance.

Look at DK Metcalf's situation this past season in Pittsburgh. He was handed a suspension from the league for his altercation with a fan in Detroit. The suspension gave the Steelers the right to void $45 million in future guarantees. They opted not to do so.

Without seeing the language in Aiyuk's contract and the action(s) Aiyuk took that violated its terms, we don't have a clear view of the situation. As KJ said 'the devil is in the details'.

Having followed this situation closely going back to the negotiations around his extension, it seems plausible to me that the team's action here was less about egregious behavior on his part and more about their desire to get out of the contract. A contract that was the source of internal dispute. It's certainly more fitting with what is publicly known.

No offense but the whole "devil is in the details" thing is stupid here. Yes you're right the 49ers didn't have to void his guarantees. I'm sure if they felt confident in Aiyuk as a player and where he was at in his rehab and mental state they wouldn't void his deal.

However the injury he suffered added a lot of uncertainty to the picture. Aiyuk giving the team ammo to void those guarantees to the point where he won't even fight it says his mind wasn't right.

The fact that he completely bailed on the team and checked out makes it even worse.

We'll see what happens moving forward but as a player if you care about the money…then don't give the team an opportunity to take that money away. DK's situation was based on a ahole fan clearly getting into DK's feelings during a high adrenaline filled game. Aiyuk's situation was very different and spread out.

Originally posted by genus49:
No offense but the whole "devil is in the details" thing is stupid here. Yes you're right the 49ers didn't have to void his guarantees. I'm sure if they felt confident in Aiyuk as a player and where he was at in his rehab and mental state they wouldn't void his deal.

However the injury he suffered added a lot of uncertainty to the picture. Aiyuk giving the team ammo to void those guarantees to the point where he won't even fight it says his mind wasn't right.

The fact that he completely bailed on the team and checked out makes it even worse.

We'll see what happens moving forward but as a player if you care about the money…then don't give the team an opportunity to take that money away. DK's situation was based on a ahole fan clearly getting into DK's feelings during a high adrenaline filled game. Aiyuk's situation was very different and spread out.

I don't disagree Aiyuk shares blame (as I mentioned in an earlier post) at a minimum for allowing the team the opportunity to void those guarantees. Without knowing what actually happened it is too wild a leap for me to assume Aiyuk's 'mind wasn't right'.

I've seen a lot of inaccurate information being thrown around this thread, not including the many flat out unhinged posts. An example of that would be that he bailed on the team. Ultimately that's true but timelines matter, and he was an active participant with this team in the time period after his guarantees were actually voided (and the team was shielding that action from the public, which they did for months). I wonder why that was?

Originally posted by SmokeyJoe:
There is no tangible benefit to Aiyuk issuing a statement or holding a press conference and having a public pissing match with the team. There may be reasons he chose not to file a formal grievance against the team other than simply 'having no case'.

I would bet there's a good chance we'll hear Aiyuk's version of events once he is off the roster, and even if we don't, it will obviously be discussed in private in any negotiation with his next team (where it actually matters).

LOL at "There is no tangible benefit to Aiyuk issuing a statement". In fact there are 27 million reasons, but he's declined that opportunity.

Originally posted by SmokeyJoe:
This only addresses whether the 49ers had the right to void Aiyuk's guarantees… nothing else of substance.

Look at DK Metcalf's situation this past season in Pittsburgh. He was handed a suspension from the league for his altercation with a fan in Detroit. The suspension gave the Steelers the right to void $45 million in future guarantees. They opted not to do so.

Without seeing the language in Aiyuk's contract and the action(s) Aiyuk took that violated its terms, we don't have a clear view of the situation. As KJ said 'the devil is in the details'.

Having followed this situation closely going back to the negotiations around his extension, it seems plausible to me that the team's action here was less about egregious behavior on his part and more about their desire to get out of the contract. A contract that was the source of internal dispute. It's certainly more fitting with what is publicly known.

If that's the case the question still remains as to why? Why did they want to get out of the deal so bad a year after doing it? Can't just be because they weren't unanimous in the decision to sign him. In any case, I don't care and just can't wait to get rid of this mistake

Originally posted by 49ers808:
If that's the case the question still remains as to why? Why did they want to get out of the deal so bad a year after doing it? Can't just be because they weren't unanimous in the decision to sign him. In any case, I don't care and just can't wait to get rid of this mistake

Doesn't have to be anything other than cash savings (not cap savings), which was a priority for the team this past offseason. Could be something more… it's not clear.