POLLS: The Jonathan Taylor Saga

[Superman]

Before the season starts, I thought it would be good to have a poll thread on the Taylor topic. Main discussion of the Taylor topic should still take place in the JT mega-thread. 

 

These polls will close the morning of Sunday, 9/10, that way no votes are influenced by the outcome of the Colts opener. Once the polls close, this thread will also close.

 

The purpose of these polls is to get an idea of this community's opinion of how things have gone with the JT contract standoff so far. Who do you think is to blame? What do you want to happen? What do you think will happen? There's been a ton of discussion (150+ pages in the mega-thread, so far), but maybe we can quantify some opinions with these polls.

 

No multiple choice answers. All responses are private. I tried to keep the questions and answers as straightforward as possible, and there are no "maybe" answers available. Just take the position that's closest to describing your opinion of the question.

[lollygagger8]

1. Who is MOST to blame for this contract standoff?

 

Malki Kawa

[csmopar]

Wow: not one by two questions with 100 percent so far. Who will be the one to break that

[iuswingman]

Maybe I'm just mean but i'd franchise tag him for as long as I could even if he was sitting the bench.   It would help prevent other players from thinking that trying to hold the team hostage is an acceptable path to take.

 

Unless another team offered fair value in a trade.

[Btown_Colt]

Voted based on my speculation of what’s been reported so far:

 

1. JT

2. I don’t think JT wants to, but I think hr will cave eventually because it’s best for him in the long run.

3. Not really but about as expected 

4. I say tag because im not sure the Colts will get any value from a trade, if they can though, I’d take that as well.

5.  No change

6. Maybe only slightly less just because I feel he has went about this the wrong way, not because he wants paid.

[Superman]

Here are my answers, with explanations.

 

1) Taylor and his side, for sure. I think the Colts' stance is reasonable, they want to see him back in action after the injury before they commit big money to him. Meanwhile, Taylor's agent has made things personal, and I think their side has picked a losing strategy.

 

2) This is probably the hardest question for me to answer. JT could come off of PUP, play one game and shut it down, and he'll qualify for free agency next year. I think it might be in the Colts' best interests to incentivize Taylor to play as many games as possible this year by adding some bonuses to his contract. So I say yes, he'll play this year, but I hope the Colts don't naively activate him without taking some steps to insure he doesn't just shut it down after one game.

 

3) Easiest question for me to answer, the local media has been awful on this. Especially over the last 3 weeks or so, when they apparently have started taking JT's side. I think they should have been more on point at the beginning of camp, asking relevant questions to get specific answers about what's going on. 

 

4) I think the Colts should tag JT after this season, and then keep their options open. Committing big money to RB seems unnecessary in today's NFL. I'd be open to a reasonable multi-year contract, but I think the most efficient move is to tag, and then trade him.

 

5) My opinion of the Colts front office has not changed. I was tempted to say it's improved, because maybe they're rethinking positional value and cap management, but that's probably not the case because Ballard and Irsay have signaled they want to keep JT long term. So they've basically just been reacting. The only reasonable alternative in my mind would have been trading Taylor early in the offseason, before things got noisy. But that's not how the Colts operate, for better or worse.

 

6) I initially was going to say my opinion has diminished, but that's because I really dislike the 'Colts made him play injured' rumor, and I think the only source for that rumor has to be JT's side. But now I'm thinking since it's only a couple of lower access guys floating that around (that I've seen), maybe that's just noise that no one expected to gain any traction. If JT's side really wanted to weaponize that rumor, they would have done so earlier and with a lot more publicity. So, my opinion all along has been that this all boils down to a contract dispute, and it's just business. And on that basis, I'm giving JT the benefit of the doubt and saying that he's doing what he thinks he needs to do to maximize his earning potential. So I say unchanged.

[Superman]

48 minutes ago, csmopar said:

Wow: not one by two questions with 100 percent so far. Who will be the one to break that

 

Both broken...

[AwesomeAustin]

Both sides are right and it will play out to a compromise eventually. Really don’t have an opinion on any of this besides we should have traded JT before the draft and his contract year. Been saying that for almost a year now bc we knew we were rebuilding as soon as Matt Ryan didn’t work out. 
 

I will say again if the Colts can get a 3rd and a 5th for JT and 7th, they should take that deal and not look back. He is a really good player but he isn’t a first round talent anymore with the contract he will demand. Get what they can and move on. 

[Creekside]

55 minutes ago, iuswingman said:

Maybe I'm just mean but i'd franchise tag him for as long as I could even if he was sitting the bench.   It would help prevent other players from thinking that trying to hold the team hostage is an acceptable path to take.

 

Unless another team offered fair value in a trade.

 

It's not mean. It's business...

[CoachLite]

Jonathan Taylor - A Colt in name only.

[AKB]

@Superman nice poll - looks like most fans agree here on this topic

[tikyle]

It's crazy to me how most people stand up 100% for management when it comes to their sports team's players vs their employer, yet are 100% against management when it's them vs their employer.  I still don't understand this logic........

[stitches]

1. Who is MOST to blame for this contract standoff? 

I think Taylor and Kawa have absolutely picked to worst possible strategy to get paid. My stance is still that the best chance he had to get paid was from the Colts and now he's almost certainly eliminated that option for himself. I think the Colts have overall a reasonable stance and have handled this thing MUCH better than Taylor and his agent. 

 

2. Will Taylor play any games for the Colts this season? 

I think so. I think he will play some games and then fake another injury and hope we don't franchise tag him next off-season. Doubt this goes his way either. 

 

3. Has local Indy media covered this standoff effectively? 

No... but that's not anything new. I think there were questions that had to be asked early during this whole ordeal that were not asked. And now I think they keep trying to both-sides this thing when the two sides are really not on the same footing. With that said - the national media has been even worse and more toxic.

 

4. Should the Colts re-sign Taylor, trade him, or tag him?

I thought the Colts should trade him before this whole thing and I still think they should trade him. But that's not to say they should just gift him to whoever gives you a bag of chips for him. If we get 2nd and 3d IMO we should trade him. 

 

5. How has this contract standoff influenced your opinion of Colts' management?

I don't think it really has changed my opinion much. Ballard has been professional and solid overall. Steichen has refused to comment, which I would have done too in his place. Irsay is... Irsay... his heart is in the right place and AGAIN... technically he's right about what he said. BUT with that said... he lacks some self-control and self-awareness and doesn't know when him saying the truth out loud is not in his or the team's best interest. This should have been just the next contract dispute alongside Bosa, Chris Jones, Brian Burns, etc... and instead it has turned into a public %show... 

 

6. How has this contract standoff influenced your opinion of Taylor?

This seemed totally out of character for Taylor so I would be lying if I said this didn't influence my opinion of him in a negative way, but I don't feel super strongly about it. Some people online have a lot of venom for Taylor right now and I can't muster that. I'm disappointed in how he's handled it, but not to the point to wish any ill on him.  He wants to get paid, I can understand that... it's just... he really did make bad choice after bad choice this summer starting from saying how he is good playing on his contract just 3 months ago to hiring that disaster of an agent, to... liking childish tweets, etc... 

 

Oh well... I think Irsay is ultimately right. Some day Jonathan Taylor won't be a Colt anymore and quite honestly... I don't think this will make or break this franchise. We have much more important things going on on this roster than whether Jonathan Taylor plays or not... (and I think it's wild that journalists and analysts don't seem to get that... the scarcity of money for RBs have not yet driven the point... lets hope in a few years they will learn - RBs are very fun to watch but also they are the most replaceable and one of the least important positions for winning). We will survive! 

[Solid84]

1. JT. The Colts have been nothing but reasonable in my opinion.

 

2. I think he'll have to if he wants get the kind of contract he wants here or any where else.

 

3. Not at all. I think it's been entirely one-sided and no one has taken a step back and actually looked at how the Colts have handled this. It's been either biased, uninformed or both. It seems most sources have just spouted what they've been spoon fed by Malki Kawa.

 

4. I honestly don't know what to think of JT at this point. I think he's borderline slandered the Colts. His story just doesn't add up with what he himself has said prior to this show of his and what we know about how Leonard's situation was handled. I voted re-signed, but I don't want to re'sign him at any cost. I'd rather just tag him then and trade him when it's convenient.

 

5. I voted improved, if only slightly. I think it was a wise move by the Colts not to re-sign anyone immediately considering last years performance and the results of it.

 

6. Diminished. A LOT.

[stitches]

7 minutes ago, tikyle said:

It's crazy to me how most people stand up 100% for management when it comes to their sports team's players vs their employer, yet are 100% against management when it's them vs their employer.  I still don't understand this logic........

It's because they are fans of the team first and the players second. When a player takes a stance that will hurt the team or hinder them from building a stronger roster, it's only natural for the fans to take the side of management who are the ones protecting the interest of the team at that point. 

[Superman]

16 minutes ago, tikyle said:

It's crazy to me how most people stand up 100% for management when it comes to their sports team's players vs their employer, yet are 100% against management when it's them vs their employer.  I still don't understand this logic........

 

That's an interesting dynamic. 

 

In this case, what would you have the Colts do?

[masterlock]

I can see merit and blame on both sides. But there reaches a point where "right" and "wrong" no longer matter, and like it or not, a contract is a contract, and that's the point we have reached. 

[Superman]

13 minutes ago, stitches said:

3. Has local Indy media covered this standoff effectively? 

No... but that's not anything new. I think there were questions that had to be asked early during this whole ordeal that were not asked. And now I think they keep trying to both-sides this thing when the two sides are really not on the same footing. With that said - the national media has been even worse and more toxic.

 

The main local guy just so happens to now be the main national guy as well, working for an outlet that sets the narrative in a lot of ways. And coincidentally, Holder also happens to be plugged in in Miami, and potentially has significant access with JT's agent.

 

I think local media has a different responsibility than national media. I don't really care how national media handles the story. But it's the local guys asking the questions at the pressers, and talking to players and coaches on a daily and weekly basis. And I think they've done a really poor job on this.

[shasta519]

3 hours ago, csmopar said:

Wow: not one by two questions with 100 percent so far. Who will be the one to break that

 

I didn't break it, but I am certainly one of the few who voted the other way.

 

Here's my take on it. I don't think either side is blameless. And there is also the RB market overall that is part of the issue.

 

But the Colts FO set a precedent on paying guys early. Ballard has long preached about paying your own and he has practiced what he preached...several times. He even did so at the same position as JT. And he's been praised for this philosophy.

 

And now, when it's JT's turn, they say "well let's wait and see." They want him to prove his worth (again), except this time in a new  system with a first time HC and mobile QB who isn't going to check down to him, will likely take 8-10 carries of his...AND will vulture goal line TDs.

 

In his mind, it will be very difficult to put up close to his AP year and get the contract that he seeks. Now maybe JT overvalues himself, given the overall RB market. But he is one of the best RBs in the NFL.

 

Miles Sanders played in this system on an elite offense with an elite QB, made a PB and still only got $6M AAV. JT won't be playing in an elite offense or with an elite QB.

 

So I don't blame JT for feeling a sense of urgency or wanting to get out. He doesn't want to burn another year of his career on a rebuilding team in the hopes that he MIGHT get paid. And with how the FO has shifted their mindset into doing things they haven't done before, I wouldn't trust them to not use the franchise tag either...even though they haven't since Ballard got here.

 

Meanwhile, Jim Irsay is on Twitter saying silly stuff about how nobody would care if JT was out of the league. 

 

JT did hire a questionable agent. And he has continued to employ him. But that same agent got his teammate, Shaq Leonard, nearly $100M out of contract negotiations with the same GM. And he apparently was able to get valid contract offers from teams when he was seeking a trade. So was it really that questionable of a choice?

 

JT moping around practice is on him though. But he's been dealt a bad hand. 

 

[iuswingman]

1 hour ago, tikyle said:

It's crazy to me how most people stand up 100% for management when it comes to their sports team's players vs their employer, yet are 100% against management when it's them vs their employer.  I still don't understand this logic........

 

I bet it might be a little different if Taylor was at the end of his current contract.  He is fighting for more money when he is still on contract.  That isn't going to earn him much support, especially when complaining about making such an awful $4 million per year.  Most people don't pity millionaires.

[Superman]

4 minutes ago, shasta519 said:

But the Colts FO set a precedent on paying guys early. Ballard has long preached about paying your own and he has practiced what he preached...several times. He even did so at the same position as JT. And he's been praised for this philosophy.

 

And now, when it's JT's turn, they say "well let's wait and see." They want him to prove his worth (again), except this time in a new  system with a first time HC and mobile QB who isn't going to check down to him, will likely take 8-10 carries of his...AND will vulture goal line TDs.

 

I think if JT wanted three years, $18m, the Colts would do that in the blink of an eye. I don't know if the Hines deal is relevant. And the precedent that was set is the Colts will negotiate extensions before contracts expire, not necessarily that they'll agree to an extension the minute a player is eligible. Nelson played out Year 4 of his contract, and clearly was not thrilled about it, but he got a new deal on the eve of Year 5. 

 

Now, there are extenuating circumstances, and the Colts not jumping to extend JT is defensible. I get JT not liking it, and your point about his usage is legitimate as well. But I don't think the Colts are pulling the rug out from under him at all.

 

Quote

JT did hire a questionable agent. And he has continued to employ him. But that same agent got his teammate, Shaq Leonard, nearly $100M out of contract negotiations with the same GM. And he apparently was able to get valid contract offers from teams when he was seeking a trade. So was it really that questionable of a choice?

 

I'd love to hear some specifics from someone who doesn't appear to be being fed info from JT's agent. We don't know that he received any valid contract offers; in fact, the Dolphins were supposed to be the team most motivated to get him, but the GM says there were no trade offers exchanged, which would probably mean there were no contract discussions. During the week when JT had permission to talk to other teams, there were rumors that he just wanted out of Indy and would even take a lesser contract offer to facilitate a trade. Lots of noise... I'm not sure any of it was substantial. Looking back, it seems like a campaign to make the Colts look unreasonable.

[iuswingman]

19 minutes ago, shasta519 said:

 

I didn't break it, but I am certainly one of the few who voted the other way.

 

Here's my take on it. I don't think either side is blameless. And there is also the RB market overall that is part of the issue.

 

But the Colts FO set a precedent on paying guys early. Ballard has long preached about paying your own and he has practiced what he preached...several times. He even did so at the same position as JT. And he's been praised for this philosophy.

 

And now, when it's JT's turn, they say "well let's wait and see." They want him to prove his worth (again), except this time in a new  system with a first time HC and mobile QB who isn't going to check down to him, will likely take 8-10 carries of his...AND will vulture goal line TDs.

 

In his mind, it will be very difficult to put up close to his AP year and get the contract that he seeks. Now maybe JT overvalues himself, given the overall RB market. But he is one of the best RBs in the NFL.

 

Miles Sanders played in this system on an elite offense with an elite QB, made a PB and still only got $6M AAV. JT won't be playing in an elite offense or with an elite QB.

 

So I don't blame JT for feeling a sense of urgency or wanting to get out. He doesn't want to burn another year of his career on a rebuilding team in the hopes that he MIGHT get paid. And with how the FO has shifted their mindset into doing things they haven't done before, I wouldn't trust them to not use the franchise tag either...even though they haven't since Ballard got here.

 

Meanwhile, Jim Irsay is on Twitter saying silly stuff about how nobody would care if JT was out of the league. 

 

JT did hire a questionable agent. And he has continued to employ him. But that same agent got his teammate, Shaq Leonard, nearly $100M out of contract negotiations with the same GM. And he apparently was able to get valid contract offers from teams when he was seeking a trade. So was it really that questionable of a choice?

 

JT moping around practice is on him though. But he's been dealt a bad hand. 

 

 

I could agree with much of that if JT wasn't still on contract.  He has another year to go on his current rookie contract.

 

And I see nothing wrong with the Colts being smarter about how they are handing out contracts.  Stinks for JT sure but again he is still on contract.

 

JT should have played out his contract (like PIttman is doing) and gotten paid or traded next offseason.

 

I have no respect for how JT handled it.  He is still on contract.

[shasta519]

1 hour ago, stitches said:

1. Who is MOST to blame for this contract standoff? 

I think Taylor and Kawa have absolutely picked to worst possible strategy to get paid. My stance is still that the best chance he had to get paid was from the Colts and now he's almost certainly eliminated that option for himself. I think the Colts have overall a reasonable stance and have handled this thing MUCH better than Taylor and his agent. 

 

2. Will Taylor play any games for the Colts this season? 

I think so. I think he will play some games and then fake another injury and hope we don't franchise tag him next off-season. Doubt this goes his way either. 

 

3. Has local Indy media covered this standoff effectively? 

No... but that's not anything new. I think there were questions that had to be asked early during this whole ordeal that were not asked. And now I think they keep trying to both-sides this thing when the two sides are really not on the same footing. With that said - the national media has been even worse and more toxic.

 

4. Should the Colts re-sign Taylor, trade him, or tag him?

I thought the Colts should trade him before this whole thing and I still think they should trade him. But that's not to say they should just gift him to whoever gives you a bag of chips for him. If we get 2nd and 3d IMO we should trade him. 

 

5. How has this contract standoff influenced your opinion of Colts' management?

I don't think it really has changed my opinion much. Ballard has been professional and solid overall. Steichen has refused to comment, which I would have done too in his place. Irsay is... Irsay... his heart is in the right place and AGAIN... technically he's right about what he said. BUT with that said... he lacks some self-control and self-awareness and doesn't know when him saying the truth out loud is not in his or the team's best interest. This should have been just the next contract dispute alongside Bosa, Chris Jones, Brian Burns, etc... and instead it has turned into a public %show... 

 

6. How has this contract standoff influenced your opinion of Taylor?

This seemed totally out of character for Taylor so I would be lying if I said this didn't influence my opinion of him in a negative way, but I don't feel super strongly about it. Some people online have a lot of venom for Taylor right now and I can't muster that. I'm disappointed in how he's handled it, but not to the point to wish any ill on him.  He wants to get paid, I can understand that... it's just... he really did make bad choice after bad choice this summer starting from saying how he is good playing on his contract just 3 months ago to hiring that disaster of an agent, to... liking childish tweets, etc... 

 

Oh well... I think Irsay is ultimately right. Some day Jonathan Taylor won't be a Colt anymore and quite honestly... I don't think this will make or break this franchise. We have much more important things going on on this roster than whether Jonathan Taylor plays or not... (and I think it's wild that journalists and analysts don't seem to get that... the scarcity of money for RBs have not yet driven the point... lets hope in a few years they will learn - RBs are very fun to watch but also they are the most replaceable and one of the least important positions for winning). We will survive! 

 

1. The Colts haven't even made him an offer though. 

 

2. I think he gets traded by the TDL if he's healthy. There will be injuries around the NFL, which will provide them with some leverage. And obviously, there shouldn't be questions around his health like there were a week or two ago. If the Colts come out slow, they are likely fading in the AFCS race, which makes JT a bit of a luxury. 

 

3. Agree. But like you said, this is nothing new. 

 

4. I was hoping they would have traded him, but that seemed more like a dog and pony show all along.

 

5. My stance on the FO and mgt. hasn't changed either. They are allowed to change their approach. And they did allow him to "test the market." But maybe at least acknowledge that this is a shift though. That's where the media comes in. Maybe I missed it, but did anybody ask them about this?

 

I don't think the "situation just sucks" is a valid explanation from the GM. But that's more on the media than the GM.

 

6. My stance on JT hasn't really changed either. From all accounts, he is very intelligent. Unless he is hiding an injury, I think he's playing the only hand he can if he truly wants out to get out of IND and/or get paid. If we step back a bit, he's not the first player to request a trade out of IND in the last calendar year either. Those were different situations, obviously, but JT is allowed to look after #1 too.

[iuswingman]

4 minutes ago, shasta519 said:

 

1. The Colts haven't even made him an offer though. 

 

Do we know that for sure?

 

Although they don't need to make him an offer. He is still on contract.

 

JT is either hiding an injury or faking an injury.  Not exactly a legit strategy to get yours so to speak.

[Superman]

2 minutes ago, iuswingman said:

 

Do we know that for sure?

 

 

Pretty much. Between Ballard's pre-camp comments that they want to see how things go, and Irsay saying 'when your time comes after this season...', it's pretty much confirmed that the Colts are not ready to make an offer yet. 

[shasta519]

12 minutes ago, iuswingman said:

 

I bet it might be a little different if Taylor was at the end of his current contract.  He is fighting for more money when he is still on contract.  That isn't going to earn him much support, especially when complaining about making such an awful $4 million per year.  Most people don't pity millionaires.

 

But he's a RB. He won't have the same earning potential as other positions and could be out of the league by his late 20s even. He's likely only getting one shot at a huge contract. And he's going to be worth more at age 24 than he is age 25 or even age 26 (if he gets tagged). Plus, injuries are a major risk to that earning potential as well.

 

Look at what happened to his own teammate, Marlon Mack. Tore his Achilles in Week 1 of the last year of his rookie deal. The Colts threw him a bone last year, but Mack will makee a fraction of what he would have made if he got an extension early OR got to hit FA. 

 

And Mack isn't on JT's level. The difference in earning potential for JT in that scenario would be tens of millions.

[iuswingman]

5 minutes ago, shasta519 said:

 

But he's a RB. He won't have the same earning potential as other positions and could be out of the league by his late 20s even. He's likely only getting one shot at a huge contract. And he's going to be worth more at age 24 than he is age 25 or even age 26 (if he gets tagged). Plus, injuries are a major risk to that earning potential as well.

 

Look at what happened to his own teammate, Marlon Mack. Tore his Achilles in Week 1 of the last year of his rookie deal. The Colts threw him a bone last year, but Mack will makee a fraction of what he would have made if he got an extension early OR got to hit FA. 

 

And Mack isn't on JT's level. The difference in earning potential for JT in that scenario would be tens of millions.

 

Rookie contracts are all the same length.  Of course, players that do well WANT to get to the next contract sooner. 

 

He is still on contract though.  He should suck it up and honor it.

[shasta519]

7 minutes ago, iuswingman said:

 

I could agree with much of that if JT wasn't still on contract.  He has another year to go on his current rookie contract.

 

And I see nothing wrong with the Colts being smarter about how they are handing out contracts.  Stinks for JT sure but again he is still on contract.

 

JT should have played out his contract (like PIttman is doing) and gotten paid or traded next offseason.

 

I have no respect for how JT handled it.  He is still on contract.

 

But several of his teammates were still on their respective rookie contracts when they got big extensions. JT is not getting that treatment for reasons out of his control (unless he is actually hiding an injury).

 

You can't compare his situation to MPJ. The franchise tag for MPJ will pay him 2x what it will pay JT. And WRs have much longer careers than RBs. And the market has exploded in recent years. MPJ knows he will get paid by somebody, even if it's not the Colts.

 

And more importantly, MPJ wasn't an All Pro like JT. He hasn't been a top 5 player at his position like JT. He doesn't have the track record to be chirping about a new contract. 

 

I just think it's an unfair comparison. And I actually wouldn't be surprised to see MPJ get an in-season extension at some point.

[iuswingman]

3 minutes ago, shasta519 said:

 

But several of his teammates were still on their respective rookie contracts when they got big extensions. JT is not getting that treatment for reasons out of his control (unless he is actually hiding an injury).

 

You can't compare his situation to MPJ. The franchise tag for MPJ will pay him 2x what it will pay JT. And WRs have much longer careers than RBs. And the market has exploded in recent years. MPJ knows he will get paid by somebody, even if it's not the Colts.

 

And more importantly, MPJ wasn't an All Pro like JT. He hasn't been a top 5 player at his position like JT. He doesn't have the track record to be chirping about a new contract. 

 

I just think it's an unfair comparison. And I actually wouldn't be surprised to see MPJ get an in-season extension at some point.

 

Maybe JT should have worked on being a WR if he wants paid as a WR.

[shasta519]

1 minute ago, iuswingman said:

 

Rookie contracts are all the same length.  Of course, players that do well WANT to get to the next contract sooner. 

 

He is still on contract though.  He should suck it up and honor it.

 

We will just have to agree to disagree about him honoring his contract. Teams don't honor contracts. They cut players all the time.

 

This is an understood part of the CBA. Players are eligible to get extensions after year 3 (or year 2 for UDFAs). Him asking for a new deal is not any different than when other good players do it.

 

And considering that many of JT's teammates didn't have to suck it up and honor their deals, I can see where he is coming from.

[iuswingman]

4 minutes ago, shasta519 said:

 

We will just have to agree to disagree about him honoring his contract. Teams don't honor contracts. They cut players all the time.

 

This is an understood part of the CBA. Players are eligible to get extensions after year 3 (or year 2 for UDFAs). Him asking for a new deal is not any different than when other good players do it.

 

And considering that many of JT's teammates didn't have to suck it up and honor their deals, I can see where he is coming from.

 

The contract stipulates that teams can cut players...so yes they are honoring the contract.

 

Nice try

 

Just because Colts did it with other players means nothing.

[throwing BBZ]

1 hour ago, stitches said:

1. Who is MOST to blame for this contract standoff? 

I think Taylor and Kawa have absolutely picked to worst possible strategy to get paid. My stance is still that the best chance he had to get paid was from the Colts and now he's almost certainly eliminated that option for himself. I think the Colts have overall a reasonable stance and have handled this thing MUCH better than Taylor and his agent. 

 

2. Will Taylor play any games for the Colts this season? 

I think so. I think he will play some games and then fake another injury and hope we don't franchise tag him next off-season. Doubt this goes his way either. 

 

3. Has local Indy media covered this standoff effectively? 

No... but that's not anything new. I think there were questions that had to be asked early during this whole ordeal that were not asked. And now I think they keep trying to both-sides this thing when the two sides are really not on the same footing. With that said - the national media has been even worse and more toxic.

 

4. Should the Colts re-sign Taylor, trade him, or tag him?

I thought the Colts should trade him before this whole thing and I still think they should trade him. But that's not to say they should just gift him to whoever gives you a bag of chips for him. If we get 2nd and 3d IMO we should trade him. 

 

5. How has this contract standoff influenced your opinion of Colts' management?

I don't think it really has changed my opinion much. Ballard has been professional and solid overall. Steichen has refused to comment, which I would have done too in his place. Irsay is... Irsay... his heart is in the right place and AGAIN... technically he's right about what he said. BUT with that said... he lacks some self-control and self-awareness and doesn't know when him saying the truth out loud is not in his or the team's best interest. This should have been just the next contract dispute alongside Bosa, Chris Jones, Brian Burns, etc... and instead it has turned into a public %show... 

 

6. How has this contract standoff influenced your opinion of Taylor?

This seemed totally out of character for Taylor so I would be lying if I said this didn't influence my opinion of him in a negative way, but I don't feel super strongly about it. Some people online have a lot of venom for Taylor right now and I can't muster that. I'm disappointed in how he's handled it, but not to the point to wish any ill on him.  He wants to get paid, I can understand that... it's just... he really did make bad choice after bad choice this summer starting from saying how he is good playing on his contract just 3 months ago to hiring that disaster of an agent, to... liking childish tweets, etc... 

 

Oh well... I think Irsay is ultimately right. Some day Jonathan Taylor won't be a Colt anymore and quite honestly... I don't think this will make or break this franchise. We have much more important things going on on this roster than whether Jonathan Taylor plays or not... (and I think it's wild that journalists and analysts don't seem to get that... the scarcity of money for RBs have not yet driven the point... lets hope in a few years they will learn - RBs are very fun to watch but also they are the most replaceable and one of the least important positions for winning). We will survive! 

 

 4. Why diminish our long term prospects wasting valuable cap space on a RB?

 This is the philosophy going forward. He isn't wanted or needed beyond what he would consider for menial money. There is no offer coming.

 Ballard's job is to exact as much for him as he thinks he can.

  

[shasta519]

31 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

I think if JT wanted three years, $18m, the Colts would do that in the blink of an eye. I don't know if the Hines deal is relevant. And the precedent that was set is the Colts will negotiate extensions before contracts expire, not necessarily that they'll agree to an extension the minute a player is eligible. Nelson played out Year 4 of his contract, and clearly was not thrilled about it, but he got a new deal on the eve of Year 5. 

 

Now, there are extenuating circumstances, and the Colts not jumping to extend JT is defensible. I get JT not liking it, and your point about his usage is legitimate as well. But I don't think the Colts are pulling the rug out from under him at all.

 

 

I'd love to hear some specifics from someone who doesn't appear to be being fed info from JT's agent. We don't know that he received any valid contract offers; in fact, the Dolphins were supposed to be the team most motivated to get him, but the GM says there were no trade offers exchanged, which would probably mean there were no contract discussions. During the week when JT had permission to talk to other teams, there were rumors that he just wanted out of Indy and would even take a lesser contract offer to facilitate a trade. Lots of noise... I'm not sure any of it was substantial. Looking back, it seems like a campaign to make the Colts look unreasonable.

 

The Hines deal isn't really relevant. Different times and different players and different commitment. But Hines is still an example of how this team has approached keeping players.

 

But mostly, if Hines were still in IND, I think far more people would be on JT's side in this...because it would be unfair for JT to not only have to play out his rookie deal (Hines didn't), but also make less than the guy behind him on the depth chart when he is eligible for an extension. I think that would be a big talking point.

 

I am not sure if we have gotten any real facts so far. But this is far from done I would expect it to lever up as we get to mid Oct.

 

[w87r]

He is "injured" right...? 

 

Not really seeing much mentioning of that, in the reasoning for and against an extension.

 

"Injured"

Devalued position

New offensive philosophy

Low expectations for current season

 

 

You can't compare them to each other in any case, because every situation is different.

 

 

Those 4 factors are clearly working against Taylor. That's even before all the antics they(Taylor and Agent) have pulled, that isn't helping them out very much either.

 

 

 

Injury angle, was a bad one and has left Taylor in a bad spot.

[shasta519]

11 minutes ago, iuswingman said:

 

The contract stipulates that teams can cut players...so yes they are honoring the contract.

 

Nice try

 

Just because Colts did it with other players means nothing.

 

And the rookie contract stipulates that, after 3 years, the player can seek an extension. So they are also honoring the conditions. 

 

It's weird that you think it's fine for a team to cut players (and their salaries), but it's bad form for a player to want to be given an extension when he's eligible.

 

And paying other teammates early might mean nothing to you, but it means something to JT. 

[w87r]

7 minutes ago, shasta519 said:

The Hines deal isn't really relevant

I think the Hines deal is very relevant. At least in JT mind.

 

Remember having this conversation a year or 2 back.

 

That Taylor had to be looking at the contract that a clearly inferior back got from the team and was just counting down to his pay day.

[shasta519]

15 minutes ago, throwing BBZ said:

 

 4. Why diminish our long term prospects wasting valuable cap space on a RB?

 This is the philosophy going forward. He isn't wanted or needed beyond what he would consider for menial money. There is no offer coming.

 Ballard's job is to exact as much for him as he thinks he can.

  

 

And I am good with that. If they don't want to give him the contract, that's fine. I get the arguments for that.

 

It's the "just wait out this season and we will pay you then" that makes me roll my eyes.

 

I just hope they are able to trade him and get back legit draft capital.

[w87r]

3 minutes ago, shasta519 said:

And the rookie contract stipulates that, after 3 years, the player can seek an extension. So they are also honoring the conditions

And the team can say no, which happens all the time.

 

Then the player goes back to work and honors his contract.

[Superman]

3 minutes ago, w87r said:

Then the player goes back to work and honors his contract.

 

Even if the player doesn't go back to work, even with a holdout, I get it. It's business. Several other players are holding out as we speak.

 

What makes the strategy so weird, IMO, is the injury piece. You want the team to trade you when you're presenting yourself as damaged goods, which de-incentivizes the team from the start. 

[shasta519]

Just now, w87r said:

I think the Hines deal is very relevant. At least in JT mind.

 

Remember having this conversation a year or 2 back.

 

That Taylor had to be looking at the contract that a clearly inferior back got from the team and was just counting down to his pay day.

 

Oh it's definitely relevant in JT's mind. That was his teammate in the RB room. I just meant it's not as relevant because it was two years ago and it wasn't a contract on the level that JT is asking for.

 

I remember having this conversation as well. At the time, I thought that deal would all but ensure they would have to pay JT big money and pay him early.