Jonathan Taylor comments on his contract/Request trade (Merge)

[Mr. Irrelevant]

4 hours ago, Jackie Daytona said:

Irsay is literally on the NFL owners finance committee.  It is completely legit and not at all out of line for him to comment on something as egregious as Implying the current CBA was negotiated in "bad faith" whatever a Malki Kawa is, doesn't seem to be looking out for anything other than its own commission % and is either massively stupid, or shortsighted and inexperienced.  Seriously .... Has anyone ever seen Milky Kawasaki and Victor Oladipo's crappy reps in the same place at the same time?  I'm suspicious.... Lol

 

Good post. I think it is now 100% certain that Taylor will not get a new contract with the Colts before season starts as long as he keep that agent. Not a chance. 

 

In addition, Ballard very clearly hinted during his presser that they wanted to see how it all worked out in regards to the running game before he wanted to talk a new contract. 

 

The big question is how Taylor is going to navigate this tension between his agent on one side and Irsay/Ballard on the other side. I think the best way to reset this is to get a new agent, but that might smell like defeat to Taylor. Not a great situation, sigh….

[w87r]

4 hours ago, stitches said:

For whatever it's worth it seems like this agent has quite a reputation for being a horrible manager and costing his clients tons of money. He's an MMA agent and has pulled some nonsense with his clients... tried to pull hustles on his clients too... he got fired on live TV by one of his fighters too:

 

 

His behavior on twitter makes perfect sense when you read just a tiny bit about him... 

You're telling me that the agent with a profile pic of himself double pointing as his chain has a bad reputation?

 

No way, even Rodgers wouldn't bet on that. ~ Sarcasm ~

 

 

Seriously though, I don't know why this guy double pointing at his chain bugs me so much, but it just doesn't display much professionalism, imo.

 

Have no problem with chains, but that isn't how my agent would be presenting himself.

[stitches]

18 minutes ago, w87r said:

You're telling me that the agent with a profile pic of himself double pointing as his chain has a bad reputation?

 

No way, even Rodgers wouldn't bet on that. ~ Sarcasm ~

 

 

Seriously though, I don't know why this guy double pointing at his chain bugs me so much, but it just doesn't display much professionalism, imo.

 

Have no problem with chains, but that isn't how my agent would be presenting himself.

There is definitely some importance to appearance when you are representing other people in front of their employers, but his actions not his twitter picture is what really bugs me. Liking tweets saying Taylor should ask for a trade... engaging frivolously with the owner of the team of one (two - Leonard is his client too) of your players. I have no idea what he thinks he's doing and does he really think this is in his client's best interest? If I'm Taylor I would be seriously considering what the hell am I doing being associated with and represented by someone like this... just boggles the mind. 

[csmopar]

21 minutes ago, w87r said:

You're telling me that the agent with a profile pic of himself double pointing as his chain has a bad reputation?

 

No way, even Rodgers wouldn't bet on that. ~ Sarcasm ~

 

 

Seriously though, I don't know why this guy double pointing at his chain bugs me so much, but it just doesn't display much professionalism, imo.

 

Have no problem with chains, but that isn't how my agent would be presenting himself.

Who is his agent?

[w87r]

6 minutes ago, stitches said:

There is definitely some importance to appearance when you are representing other people in front of their employers, but his actions not his twitter picture is what really bugs me. Liking tweets saying Taylor should ask for a trade... engaging frivolously with the owner of the team of one of your players. I have no idea what he thinks he's doing and does he really think this is in his client's best interest? If I'm Taylor I would be seriously considering what the hell am I doing being associated with and represented by someone like this... just boggles the mind. 

Yeah, it all ties together.

 

It's like, are you representing me(clients), or presenting yourself?

 

Wouldn't be surprised if the team refuses to work with him. Which could complicate Leonard's situation at some point.

 

I just can't see how Irsay is going to overlook this.

 

While I think Irsay's tweet had a little to do with Taylor, I think it was more at the situation as a whole. They are not going to ratify the CBA for 1 positional group.

 

Agent responds and then likes a post to request trade? Get out of here with that. Definitely didn't help your client tonight.

 

Alienating your best chance to get some extra financial security.

[Jackie Daytona]

9 hours ago, NFLfan said:

The last RB to be drafted in the first round was Najee Harris. He signed a 4-contract for a total of $16M, not all guaranteed. Bijan Robinson got nearly $22 million in guaranteed money. (Both rookies with no wear and tear in the NFL when they signed their contracts.)

Ok, and?  A Snickers bar (normal size) is $2.50 and a gallon of gas is back up to $3.75. So what? 

[w87r]

8 minutes ago, csmopar said:

Who is his agent?

 

[Jackie Daytona]

35 minutes ago, w87r said:

You're telling me that the agent with a profile pic of himself double pointing as his chain has a bad reputation?

 

No way, even Rodgers wouldn't bet on that. ~ Sarcasm ~

 

 

Seriously though, I don't know why this guy double pointing at his chain bugs me so much, but it just doesn't display much professionalism, imo.

 

Have no problem with chains, but that isn't how my agent would be presenting himself.

Matt is a local, on top of this weird fact set....maybe someone should set up a meeting for JT and Mitrione about Mr. MilkToast.  

 

The Leonard connection doesn't surprise me....  Having an MMA rep just seems like it would be too "cool" for an edgy personality like ShaqDarius to overlook.....

 

JT however.... Not that I know the man, but he just seemed to have the refined mind to match the "dawg" a guy like Leonard hangs his hat on... After all, he was accepted at Harvard right?

[lollygagger8]

If anyone is out of line, it's JT's agent 

[TimetobringDfence!]

1 hour ago, csmopar said:

Who is his agent?

Malki Kawa

[Korey]

Get your pop corn ready 

[TimetobringDfence!]

JT: SHOW ME THE MONEY

COLTS: STAY HEALTHY AND SHOW UP AND WE GOT YOU

JT: I GOT YOU, I'LL SHOW (P)UP!

MANNING: OUR ID*0T(RB)KICKER...

[Superman]

14 hours ago, w87r said:

I don't think it was a bad move by Irsay at all. I think it was needed. Happy he put them on blast, not just Taylor, all of them.

 

I don't think it was needed. It's definitely a bad PR move, and has the potential to make an already frigid situation even worse.

 

But I do find it interesting. Irsay's comments appear to be a response to some of the noise about changing the CBA to allow RBs to enter the league sooner, or to be eligible for 2nd contracts sooner. Those two factors aren't relevant in JT's case. In a vacuum, I would think that his comment is not specific to the Taylor negotiations, but a more general response to some of the stuff being said in the media. I don't know what's being said behind closed doors, though.

 

And in this case, I definitely agree with Irsay. The CBA changes that require three years of service before most players can be extended have been good for the NFL. They've probably had a negative impact on the earning potential of RBs, but they've reduced holdouts and contract disputes significantly from the levels they had reached prior to 2010. To create an exemption for one position group would be a nightmare.

 

Still, probably not something he should have tweeted right now.

[csmopar]

2 hours ago, w87r said:

 

Yeah not a professional look

[csmopar]

2 hours ago, w87r said:

 

He’d be better off to go hire Drew Rosenhal

[KB]

2 hours ago, w87r said:

 

This is the first I've seen of JTs agent, and it makes me think he is more of a problem for JT and the Colts then a help for JT. I think Taylor does deserve a nice contract, not record breaking, but with 1 year left on the contract in place/ coming off of a down year I don't think you can say the team has bad faith yet. That wouldn't be until they slap a franchise tag on him and ended negotiations.

 

Something tells me this is more of his agent wanting as much money as possible for himself and not what's best for his clients interests.

[CR91]

I feel like the biggest problem is not the market, but the franchise tag. Why are teams allowed to tag a player multiple times? I feel like the tag should be used to give both parties more time to come to an agreement on an extension not string along the player until they lose their chance to get paid. 

[Bravo]

His agent is also liking tweets that JT should request a trade.

 

JT also removed all Colts media from his account a couple of days ago.

[csmopar]

3 minutes ago, CR91 said:

I feel like the biggest problem is not the market, but the franchise tag. Why are teams allowed to tag a player multiple times? I feel like the tag should be used to give both parties more time to come to an agreement on an extension not string along the player until they lose their chance to get paid. 

It’s to protect both parties interest. Years ago, it could be used over and over. Then they finally ended that. 
 

two years of tags is fair. It protects the teams investment while also paying a fair average of the top 5 salaries in that position plus 20%. 

[csmopar]

5 minutes ago, Bravo said:

His agent is also liking tweets that JT should request a trade.

 

JT also removed all Colts media from his account a couple of days ago.

Then yeah, leave him on PUP, let him sit on IR all season then. Then tag him. JT has no leverage here

[crazycolt1]

JT can't blame anyone except the players that ratified the union contract. It was the players themselves that voted on the provisions of their union contract.

[Hoose]

29 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

I don't think it was needed. It's definitely a bad PR move, and has the potential to make an already frigid situation even worse.

 

But I do find it interesting. Irsay's comments appear to be a response to some of the noise about changing the CBA to allow RBs to enter the league sooner, or to be eligible for 2nd contracts sooner. Those two factors aren't relevant in JT's case. In a vacuum, I would think that his comment is not specific to the Taylor negotiations, but a more general response to some of the stuff being said in the media. I don't know what's being said behind closed doors, though.

 

And in this case, I definitely agree with Irsay. The CBA changes that require three years of service before most players can be extended have been good for the NFL. They've probably had a negative impact on the earning potential of RBs, but they've reduced holdouts and contract disputes significantly from the levels they had reached prior to 2010. To create an exemption for one position group would be a nightmare.

 

Still, probably not something he should have tweeted right now.

I agree. Being right doesn’t require announcing it to the world. Irsay should not have tweeted.

I totally understand the frustration RBs must feel about their diminished value in the NFL. Their shelf life is far shorter than any other position. But that’s for the next CBA negotiations. Taylor’s agent is a stooge for going public and alienating the Colts’ brass. 

But Irsay is also guilty of running his mouth when the wiser path is silence. Let the negotiations take their course without creating any more hurdles. Meaning: let someone else take up the issue on behalf of the owners. Your team’s best player is in a holdout for goodness sake. 

[Superman]

4 minutes ago, Hoose said:

I agree. Being right doesn’t require announcing it to the world. Irsay should not have tweeted.

I totally understand the frustration RBs must feel about their diminished value in the NFL. Their shelf life is far shorter than any other position. But that’s for the next CBA negotiations. Taylor’s agent is a stooge for going public and alienating the Colts’ brass. 

But Irsay is also guilty of running his mouth when the wiser path is silence. Let the negotiations take their course without creating any more hurdles. Meaning: let someone else take up the issue on behalf of the owners. Your team’s best player is in a holdout for goodness sake. 

 

Yeah, if the Niners owner wanted to make this point, fine. You have a highly paid RB under contract already, so it would be obvious that you're talking big picture, and not about your own player's status.

 

But when your best offensive player is a RB, who is publicly unhappy with his situation, maybe don't do something that could be seen as antagonizing him on social media. 

 

Contrast that with Irsay's comments about Daniel Snyder last year. He was flanked by his legal team, sought out the cameras, and took a stand. I saw that as a strategic, fully considered decision. And it might have been a critical domino that needed to fall for Snyder to finally agree to sell. Irsay took the bullets at the time, but the way that situation played out, Irsay comes off looking good. 
 

In this case, I don't see a strategic advantage to Irsay making this comment at this time. Even though I think he's right, I feel like it makes an already tense situation even worse.

[csmopar]

10 minutes ago, Hoose said:

I agree. Being right doesn’t require announcing it to the world. Irsay should not have tweeted.

I totally understand the frustration RBs must feel about their diminished value in the NFL. Their shelf life is far shorter than any other position. But that’s for the next CBA negotiations. Taylor’s agent is a stooge for going public and alienating the Colts’ brass. 

But Irsay is also guilty of running his mouth when the wiser path is silence. Let the negotiations take their course without creating any more hurdles. Meaning: let someone else take up the issue on behalf of the owners. Your team’s best player is in a holdout for goodness sake. 

I find no fault in what Irsay did or said. Honestly, it needed to be said and has more credence in my mind because of the situation. Regardless, JT is likely gone 

[CR91]

31 minutes ago, csmopar said:

It’s to protect both parties interest. Years ago, it could be used over and over. Then they finally ended that. 
 

two years of tags is fair. It protects the teams investment while also paying a fair average of the top 5 salaries in that position plus 20%. 

 

Two years for RBs is like 5 years for QBs. I feel like if players could only be tagged once, this wouldn't be such an issue.

[Superman]

35 minutes ago, CR91 said:

I feel like the biggest problem is not the market, but the franchise tag. Why are teams allowed to tag a player multiple times? I feel like the tag should be used to give both parties more time to come to an agreement on an extension not string along the player until they lose their chance to get paid. 

 

Players have been complaining about the franchise tag for many years. Yet, every CBA, they do nothing to get rid of it. And the main reason is because it affects so few of the players directly. Only a handful of guys are tagged each year, and almost no players get tagged twice. In fact, a strong number of players who get tagged wind up doing long term extensions with the team.

 

Really, the tag is more of a deterrent than it is an actual weapon. It does artificially suppress the market by keeping players from reaching free agency, but players seem to be okay with that because they wind up making many millions of dollars.

 

I agree that the tag is unfair and too pro-team/anti-player, but there isn't enough will to get rid of it through collective bargaining. I also think the tag helps the NFL avoid NBA-type scenarios with high level talent accumulating on just a few teams, leaving the rest of the league in a bad situation. I think players should be able to earn their free agency, and play wherever they want for whatever reason they want, but I think it's better for pro leagues when there's at least a chance for parity among the teams. Green Bay is a tiny market, and has had two highly marketable, HOF QBs for the last 30 years; that probably doesn't happen without the franchise tag.

[Restinpeacesweetchloe]

 

[krunk]

I think Steichen prefers RBBC. If so I'm interested to see how that plays into whether or not they pay Taylor a big bag, If his demands are not to their taste then do they  tag him for a season and start looking at letting him move on at some point? I remember Doug Dew was kind of questioning the fit. I'd like for us to keep Taylor but if the staff does not prefer the Bell Cow approach it's a bit of an issue. I could be wrong.

[csmopar]

22 minutes ago, CR91 said:

 

Two years for RBs is like 5 years for QBs. I feel like if players could only be tagged once, this wouldn't be such an issue.

Meh 

[csmopar]

1 minute ago, krunk said:

I think Steichen prefers RBBC. If so I'm interested to see how that plays into whether or not they pay Taylor a big bag, If his demands are not to their taste then do they start looking at letting him move on at some point. I remember Doug Dew was kind of questioning the fit. I'd like for us to keep Taylor but if the staff does not prefer the Bell Cow approach it's a bit of an issue. I could be wrong.

Considering the fact that no Team has won the SB with a top 5 RB in recent times, I’m not worried about. In fact, I’d try to fleece Carolina out of some picks for him. We all know Reich is stuck in the 1970s of football

[John Hammonds]

1 hour ago, KB said:

This is the first I've seen of JTs agent, and it makes me think he is more of a problem for JT and the Colts then a help for JT. I think Taylor does deserve a nice contract, not record breaking, but with 1 year left on the contract in place/ coming off of a down year I don't think you can say the team has bad faith yet. That wouldn't be until they slap a franchise tag on him and ended negotiations.

 

Something tells me this is more of his agent wanting as much money as possible for himself and not what's best for his clients interests.

I wouldn't be surprised if some teams factor in who the player's agent is in determining whether or not they draft that player.  So what do you do when the player changes agents afterwards?

[krunk]

2 minutes ago, csmopar said:

Considering the fact that no Team has won the SB with a top 5 RB in recent times, I’m not worried about. In fact, I’d try to fleece Carolina out of some picks for him. We all know Reich is stuck in the 1970s of football

Seemed to me we won more when Reich was RBBC. We won less with the Bell Cow approach. There's more that played into it of course. I honestly prefer the RBBC.

[Superman]

13 hours ago, colts89 said:

This situation just gets weirder. I would love to know what the offer on the table currently is. 

 

Based on what Ballard said, my guess is there is no offer on the table.

[Colts1324]

19 minutes ago, csmopar said:

Considering the fact that no Team has won the SB with a top 5 RB in recent times, I’m not worried about. In fact, I’d try to fleece Carolina out of some picks for him. We all know Reich is stuck in the 1970s of football

Dalvin Cook is a top 5 RB & is still on the market. 
 

I doubt a team would trade assets for Taylor to pay him even more than Cook.  

 

I love Taylor. I hope we keep him. But, he does have little leverage right now. The demand is so low with no teams wanting to pay their RB’s. 

[tweezy32]

I really want to see someone actually holdout and a team refuse to get them a new contract for them being little babies. If Taylor is refusing to play until he gets a new contract, then don’t let him play and franchise him next year too to prove a point. We have the leverage and should not cave in to peoples demands. Let’s see if he wants to waste two years of his career not playing and not getting paid. Teams need to stop giving in to these players because they will keep doing it if they don’t take a stand.

[GoColts8818]

4 minutes ago, tweezy32 said:

I really want to see someone actually holdout and a team refuse to get them a new contract for them being little babies. If Taylor is refusing to play until he gets a new contract, then don’t let him play and franchise him next year too to prove a point. We have the leverage and should not cave in to peoples demands. Let’s see if he wants to waste two years of his career not playing and not getting paid. Teams need to stop giving in to these players because they will keep doing it if they don’t take a stand.

Taylor hasn’t said he will refuse to play.

[BlackTiger]

He pretty much has to play, this wont be a big problem until next year.  Sitting out now isnt going to get him more money

 

This could get tough if he does have another big year, if he doesnt he wont have leverage 

[Solid84]

25 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

Based on what Ballard said, my guess is there is no offer on the table.

Yeah, I think Ballard was pretty geniune when he alluded to wanting to see JT in the new system with the new coaching staff and in pads. Honestly, that's pretty reasonable in my opinion.

 

When talking about contracts and JT he mentioned Grover and said they aren't against doing contracts during the season. I think JT's agent had him playing hardball without even needing to. Well, "hardball". I think this soft hold in is an overreaction from the JT camp, because what the Colts are doing isn't unreasonable.

[Solid84]

12 minutes ago, BlackTiger said:

He pretty much has to play, this wont be a big problem until next year.  Sitting out now isnt going to get him more money

 

This could get tough if he does have another big year, if he doesnt he wont have leverage 

Yeah, having another monster year is the only thing that could give JT any leverage.

 

I don't think he'll hold out. If he does his agent is a *. Worst thing that could happen for JT is if he holds out and a Moss/Hull RBBC combo does really well. Then he's as good as gone.

[2006Coltsbestever]

12 minutes ago, Solid84 said:

Yeah, having another monster year is the only thing that could give JT any leverage.

 

I don't think he'll hold out. If he does his agent is a *. Worst thing that could happen for JT is if he holds out and a Moss/Hull RBBC combo does really well. Then he's as good as gone.

We should have never drafted a RB in the 2nd round to begin with going by most fans and our owners logic. It was a wasted pick, dude played like Barry Sanders in 2021 and it still doesn't matter now. Like I posted in another thread, JT was a wasted pick because as of now RB's aren't valued by their teams anymore. Unless you are McCaffery  , and he even got traded. If our FO train of thinking was like this back in 2020, we should have took a WR instead of JT. What was even the purpose of even drafting JT??

 

I can tell you right now, JT can play like Barry Sanders again this year and it won't matter. Irsay said all I needed to know in his tweet.