49ers receiver Brandon Aiyuk has been holding in. It’s an increasingly common middle ground for players and teams with contract issues.
The player reports for camp, avoiding fines. The team has the player in the building, which most teams prefer to having the player elsewhere. But, still, the team has to be willing to go along with the hold in.
It’s fair to ask whether the 49ers should have simply refused to let Aiyuk show up for work without working.
While teams typically accept a hold in when the alternative is a holdout, the Patriots have made no qualms about expecting linebacker Matthew Judon to do his job.
“I mean, look, he understands he is under contract and we expect him to be out here at practice and it’s time for him to play, to go out there and play the game,” Patriots coach Jerod Mayo told reporters on Sunday regarding Judon.
The 49ers could have taken the same position with Aiyuk. They could take that same position whenever they want. Absent a trade or a long-term deal, at some point they’ll have to.
That’s what happened two years ago with the Bears and linebacker Roquan Smith. He held in. No deal was done. And he eventually went to work. (He was traded to the Ravens during the season.)
Of course, if/when the 49ers tell Aiyuk that the hold in has ended, he could resort to the old-school hold in, where a real or exaggerated or imagined injury keeps him from performing. If a conscious hold in irritates 49ers coach Kyle Shanahan, a more subtle approach based on an “injury” might make his head explode.
Regardless, it’s fair to ask whether the 49ers misplayed this by allowing Aiyuk to show up for work without working. And it’s fair for the 49ers to ask themselves whether, in the future, they’ll go along with a player who chooses to handle his contract discontent with a hold in, instead of a holdout.