[MustardtheBallCarrier]

A few reasons to fight over the offset language:

First and foremost, from a negotiating posture, once a team concedes this point it is going to have it thrown in that team's face in every 1st round draft pick negotiation thereafter.  The team loses the ability to say "we don't agree to this" ever after.  As someone who negotiates contracts for a living, I can tell you that is something you don't say yes to easily.

Second, agreeing to a no offset contract is, from what I understand, not "market" from the team's perspective.  The offset is pretty typical and only a small number of players don't have it.  Myles Garrett, from what I have read, has offset language in his deal and was consensus pick 1-1, for example.  If the 49ers agree to this, they "lose" the negotiation, in the sense that the other contract terms are largely determined by the CBA.  They don't want that sign of weakness in the market for future negotiations with any players, draft picks or FA's.

Third, higher 1st round picks have fully guaranteed contracts, unlike everyone else, draft pick or FA.  Seeking some downside protection seems consistent given that in the NFL the market is that all other players can be cut to save non-guaranteed money.  A team would get some downside protection if they invested the future of the franchise and, effectively, the jobs of the coach and GM on a franchise QB in the FA market.  Asking for some relief if a high draft pick busts (in the form of clawing back a potential windfall for the player) doesn't seem out of step with this.

Fourth, there is no incentive for either side to cave now.  From a deal dynamics perspective, negotiations either come together quickly because there are no meaningful points of disagreement, or parties don't make concessions until they have to.  Right now they don't have to until later this week.

Fifth, you are looking at it from the perspective of the team giving less than a full vote of confidence in the player.  You can just as easily take the other perspective, where a cynic could color Thomas's position as arguing "if I don't do my job and perform to the level of an artificially reduced rookie pay scale, in addition to getting my money guaranteed, I want to be able to collect a second paycheck while you are still paying me."

Sixth, this is not necessarily about being a bust in the sense of making a poor pick.  Could also be a consequence of injury. 

Don't get me wrong, Solomon should fight the fight and god bless if he wins.  I'd be happy for him.  I can totally see why teams get dogmatic about the offset language though, in the context of how other NFL contracts work.

[MustardtheBallCarrier]

A few reasons to fight over the offset language:

First and foremost, from a negotiating posture, once a team concedes this point it is going to have it thrown in that team's face in every 1st round draft pick negotiation thereafter.  The team loses the ability to say "we don't agree to this" ever after.  As someone who negotiates contracts for a living, I can tell you that is something you don't say yes to easily.

Second, agreeing to a no offset contract is, from what I understand, not "market" from the team's perspective.  The offset is pretty typical and only a small number of players don't have it.  Myles Garrett, from what I have read, has offset language in his deal and was consensus pick 1-1, for example.  If the 49ers agree to this, they "lose" the negotiation, in the sense that the other contract terms are largely determined by the CBA.  They don't want that sign of weakness in the market for future negotiations with any players, draft picks or FA's.

Third, higher 1st round picks have fully guaranteed contracts, unlike everyone else, draft pick or FA.  Seeking some downside protection seems consistent given that in the NFL the market is that all other players can be cut to save non-guaranteed money.  A team would get some downside protection if they invested the future of the franchise and, effectively, the jobs of the coach and GM on a franchise QB in the FA market.  Asking for some relief if a high draft pick busts (in the form of clawing back a potential windfall for the player) doesn't seem out of step with this.

Fourth, there is no incentive for either side to cave now.  From a deal dynamics perspective, negotiations either come together quickly because there are no meaningful points of disagreement, or parties don't make concessions until they have to.  Right now they don't have to until later this week.

Fifth, you are looking at it from the perspective of the team giving less than a full vote of confidence in the player.  You can just as easily take the other perspective, where a cynic could color Thomas's position as arguing "if I don't do my job and perform to the level of an artificially reduced rookie pay scale, in addition to getting my money guaranteed, I want to be able to collect a second paycheck while you are still paying me."

Sixth, this is not necessarily about being a bust in the sense of making a poor pick.  Could also be a consequence of injury. 

Don't get me wrong, Solomon should fight the fight and god bless if he wins.  I'd be happy for him.  I can totally see why teams get dogmatic about the offset language though, in the context of how other NFL contracts work.