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

[Superman]

Just now, NewColtsFan said:

Sorry, but this makes no sense to me.   Why would you use a precious Day 2 pick with the idea that you’d be happy getting 4 good years?    To me,  that is a spectacular waste of a premium asset.   
 

If a team in theory would like 10 years from their first round pick if possible, they’d also like 8 years for a R2 player and 6 years for a R3.  Longevity has value as we’re finding out the hard way right now.   You have to get some bang for your buck.  Keeping a player roughly 4 years is fine with Day 3 picks, but not with Day 2 players.  
 

I don’t understand this line of thinking at all…. I’m as confused as can be.   Sorry.  

 

How often does a second round pick last 8 years? Statistically speaking, expecting that kind of return from a second rounder is pretty naive. I don't think teams even expect to get 8 years from first rounders. Yeah, you hope you hit on a guy and he plays out two contracts, but statistically speaking, it doesn't happen.

 

So if I can get a player who can be an immediate starter/producer, which is typical of RBs, and then get four years of production on a rookie contract ($2-3m/year), that's a win. And if he wants a record setting contract and the team thinks that's not a good decision, then you can trade him for more draft resources, or get a comp pick. You might also decide to sign him to a second contract, and then you're potentially getting closer to the 8 years you want.

 

I'm not lining up to spend a second rounder on a RB every year, but I'm not opposed to spending that pick on a RB, getting his prime production, and moving on. If teams are still shying away from using first rounders on RBs, then the second round is probably where the value is maximized.

[Restinpeacesweetchloe]

 

[KB]

2 minutes ago, NewColtsFan said:

Sorry, but this makes no sense to me.   Why would you use a precious Day 2 pick with the idea that you’d be happy getting 4 good years?    To me,  that is a spectacular waste of a premium asset.   
 

If a team in theory would like 10 years from their first round pick if possible, they’d also like 8 years for a R2 player and 6 years for a R3.  Longevity has value as we’re finding out the hard way right now.   You have to get some bang for your buck.  Keeping a player roughly 4 years is fine with Day 3 picks, but not with Day 2 players.  
 

I don’t understand this line of thinking at all…. I’m as confused as can be.   Sorry.  

I think to much value and thought gets put into "premium" picks. If we take a RB day 2 and he has a good 3 or 4 seasons, that's a success. Most day 2 picks won't be anything special. Most day 1 picks arnt anything special. We just hope they can be.

 

I get we want to have our first rounders be hall of famers with 10 year careers, round 2 players be solid starters, but that's rarely how it works. Solid production is all you can hope for.

[Restinpeacesweetchloe]

Lol

 

 

[Solid84]

4 minutes ago, Restinpeacesweetchloe said:

 

Weird wording on that? Market contract. The Colts are likely ready to give JT a "market contract" if he proves he can play and fits in the system. That's not what JT wants though.

[NewColtsFan]

3 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

How often does a second round pick last 8 years? Statistically speaking, expecting that kind of return from a second rounder is pretty naive. I don't think teams even expect to get 8 years from first rounders. Yeah, you hope you hit on a guy and he plays out two contracts, but statistically speaking, it doesn't happen.

 

So if I can get a player who can be an immediate starter/producer, which is typical of RBs, and then get four years of production on a rookie contract ($2-3m/year), that's a win. And if he wants a record setting contract and the team thinks that's not a good decision, then you can trade him for more draft resources, or get a comp pick. You might also decide to sign him to a second contract, and then you're potentially getting closer to the 8 years you want.

 

I'm not lining up to spend a second rounder on a RB every year, but I'm not opposed to spending that pick on a RB, getting his prime production, and moving on. If teams are still shying away from using first rounders on RBs, then the second round is probably where the value is maximized.

The idea that the second round is where the value for a RB is maximized is what I thought in 2020.   I no longer hold that view.   I think it’s maximized in R4.  
 

Im not saying there’s no value in a R2 or R3 RB,  I just think it’s less.  And I’m sympathetic to the plight of the modern day RB.   Sucks to be them right now.  
 

Having to read Moosehead’s posts alone ought to be worth an extra $500k annually to any RB and his agent!   Now there’s a misc bonus!   
 

I kid!   I joke!    I think!?!     

[CR91]

This is gonna be an interesting next 24 hours

[richard pallo]

12 minutes ago, Restinpeacesweetchloe said:

 

Love it.  If the Dolphins offer a conditional 2nd. and Hunt I'm taking it. 

[Restinpeacesweetchloe]

He is right. Bad bad by him and his agent to Create this mess.

 

 

[Archer]

If we don’t trade him on time, I see him going into the season on PUP.  We’d be willing to wait and see what some team will give us after week 6 (if that’s still when he’d be eligible to come off…) 

[richard pallo]

14 minutes ago, Solid84 said:

Weird wording on that? Market contract. The Colts are likely ready to give JT a "market contract" if he proves he can play and fits in the system. That's not what JT wants though.

For me a market contract is 3 years averaging 12m or so with a large guarantee.  The other teams are banking on the fact he can still play and remain elite.  That's how a contender can talk themselves into paying him.  Short windows for them.  Colts don't want to go there.  They want the proof first.  And Taylor takes another year of pounding and risk before they negotiate.  

[Restinpeacesweetchloe]

Interesting stuff from George beemer. He said the $16 million was never demanded by Taylor’s deal. It was around the $12 million. He said if what he heard colts were willing to offer he understands why Taylor was not happy. I know Irsay said they never offered but sure sounds like Colts might of tried to low ball him.

[Solid84]

8 minutes ago, richard pallo said:

For me a market contract is 3 years averaging 12m or so with a large guarantee.  The other teams are banking on the fact he can still play and remain elite.  That's how a contender can talk themselves into paying him.  Short windows for them.  Colts don't want to go there.  They want the proof first.  And Taylor takes another year of pounding and risk before they negotiate.  

But is JT willing to take 12m? That's not the reset that was talked about by the RBs. If anything it's conforming to the market.

[stitches]

47 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

How often does a second round pick last 8 years? Statistically speaking, expecting that kind of return from a second rounder is pretty naive. I don't think teams even expect to get 8 years from first rounders. Yeah, you hope you hit on a guy and he plays out two contracts, but statistically speaking, it doesn't happen.

 

So if I can get a player who can be an immediate starter/producer, which is typical of RBs, and then get four years of production on a rookie contract ($2-3m/year), that's a win. And if he wants a record setting contract and the team thinks that's not a good decision, then you can trade him for more draft resources, or get a comp pick. You might also decide to sign him to a second contract, and then you're potentially getting closer to the 8 years you want.

 

I'm not lining up to spend a second rounder on a RB every year, but I'm not opposed to spending that pick on a RB, getting his prime production, and moving on. If teams are still shying away from using first rounders on RBs, then the second round is probably where the value is maximized.

I've been thinking about formulating my philosophy on whether you should be drafting players of low-value positions early in the draft, especially if you know that you won't be extending them if they hit... and even more - the better they hit the less likely it will be that you will extend them(because they will want top of the market money?

 

In general for me the draft is one of the ways to obtain premier talent, and quite possibly the best way... And it's also the best way, BAR NONE to get value over the salary market, simply because the rookie contracts are capped, thus you might have top of the market talent for bottom of the market pay. And if you have a lot of those, this leaves you with a lot of capspace to go out and address needs in FA or in trade. 

 

Now the question is... what happens when the rookie contract is over? Well... for contract purposes this player becomes the same as any other player in the league. Whether you pay Jonathan Taylor 15M or Chubb 15M, there is no major difference(if you consider their talents similar). So... at first sight, you shouldn't have a problem to be letting low-value position players go, when you can have similar level talent for the same price from elsewhere... There is no added benefit to keeping your own(strictly non-rookie contract-wise). 

 

So is there any further benefit to our own rookie contracts once they expire? Well, besides the institutional knowledge and PR of "keeping our own"... one of the biggest benefits is that you can actually franchise tag your own player and you have the inside track on keeping them if you want to keep them. For valuable position this is actually valuable aspect of having that as an own contract. But for a position you know in advance you won't want to keep, especially if they hit big(i.e. they require top of the market money), this is moot point. Here the consideration becomes the draft pick you can get in return(in a trade or compensatory picks).

 

I think at the end it boils down to the following question - Is that draft pick more valuable than the extra years you get from hitting on a valuable position at market value? 

 

By some studies most positions bust and hit at about the same rates in similar ranges of the draft, so this scenario will be happening with similar frequency for both cases(hit at valuable position vs hit at non-valuable position)... so this is really the question... 

 

I guess my answer would have to be considered on case by case basis and be influenced by where you are in your competitive cycle as a team. 

 

I still feel like you should be spending premier resources on premier position in general, with the allowance of some outliers, mainly because of opportunity cost. Because yes, Jonathan Taylor on rookie deal is really nice. But Jalen Hurts or Trevon Diggs or Deebo Samuel or AJ Brown on rookie contracts is much better. 

 

 

[stitches]

8 minutes ago, Restinpeacesweetchloe said:

Interesting stuff from George beemer. He said the $16 million was never demanded by Taylor’s deal. It was around the $12 million. He said if what he heard colts were willing to offer he understands why Taylor was not happy. I know Irsay said they never offered but sure sounds like Colts might of tried to low ball him.

Destin Adams is saying Taylor is looking for a contract over 13M a year. So one of them doesn't have a good source... 

[CoachLite]

1 minute ago, stitches said:

...

I guess my answer would have to be considered on case by case basis and be influenced by where you are in your competitive cycle as a team. 

 

...

 

 

This^^, because a lot depends on the player's personality and team fit in addition to his football contributions.

[Restinpeacesweetchloe]

2 minutes ago, Solid84 said:

But is JT willing to take 12m? That's not the reset that was talked about by the RBs. If anything it's conforming to the market.

George Bremer just  said on his podcast he believes what he is hearing that if Taylor signs a extension with a new team it will be around that $12 million.

[Restinpeacesweetchloe]

2 minutes ago, stitches said:

Destin Adams is saying Taylor is looking for a contract over 13M a year. So one of them doesn't have a good source... 

Well I think that is in the same ballpark. From the way it sounded by Bremer  colts might of actually tried to low ball him. He said if what he heard is true it’s entirely on the colts. 

[CoachLite]

1 minute ago, Restinpeacesweetchloe said:

Well I think that is in the same ballpark. From the way it sounded by Bremer  colts might of actually tried to low ball him. He said if what he heard is true it’s entirely on the colts. 

It's not like the Colt's to low-ball a player they want to keep, but they also don't want to over-pay for the position, either.

[Solid84]

3 minutes ago, stitches said:

I've been thinking about formulating my philosophy on whether you should be drafting players of low-value positions early in the draft, especially if you know that you won't be extending them if they hit... and even more - the better they hit the less likely it will be that you will extend them(because they will want top of the market money?

 

In general for me the draft is one of the ways to obtain premier talent, and quite possibly the best way... And it's also the best way, BAR NONE to get value over the salary market, simply because the rookie contracts are capped, thus you might have top of the market talent for bottom of the market pay. And if you have a lot of those, this leaves you with a lot of capspace to go out and address needs in FA or in trade. 

 

Now the question is... what happens when the rookie contract is over? Well... for contract purposes this player becomes the same as any other player in the league. Whether you pay Jonathan Taylor 15M or Chubb 15M, there is no major difference(if you consider their talents similar). So... at first sight, you shouldn't have a problem to be letting low-value position players go, when you can have similar level talent for the same price from elsewhere... There is no added benefit to keeping your own(strictly non-rookie contract-wise). 

 

So is there any further benefit to our own rookie contracts once they expire? Well, besides the institutional knowledge and PR of "keeping our own"... one of the biggest benefits is that you can actually franchise tag your own player and you have the inside track on keeping them if you want to keep them. But for a position you know in advance you won't want to keep, especially if they hit big(i.e. they require top of the market money), this is moot point. Here the consideration becomes the draft pick you can get in return(in a trade or compensatory picks).

 

I think at the end it boils down to the following question - Is that draft pick more valuable than the extra years you get from hitting on a valuable position at market value? 

 

By some studies most positions bust and hit at about the same rates in similar ranges of the draft, so this scenario will be happening with similar frequency for both cases(hit at valuable position vs hit at non-valuable position)... so this is really the question... 

 

I guess my answer would have to be considered on case by case basis and be influenced by where you are in your competitive cycle as a team. 

 

I still feel like you should be spending premier resources on premier position in general, with the allowance of some outliers, mainly because of opportunity cost. Because yes, Jonathan Taylor on rookie deal is really nice. But Jalen Hurts or Trevon Diggs or Deebo Samuel or AJ Brown on rookie contracts is much better. 

 

 

I think it's really about a production interval for each position. The lower the range in production from lowest/worst to highest/best of a given position the less likely a team is to pay "elite" players.

 

The gap between a good RB and an elite RB isn't as notable (and thus valuble?) as the gap between a good QB and an elite QB. The bigger the range in production in the interval the more likely a team is to pay for elite production. I don't know if that makes sense?.. English and all that... 

[richard pallo]

9 minutes ago, Restinpeacesweetchloe said:

George Bremer just  said on his podcast he believes what he is hearing that if Taylor signs a extension with a new team it will be around that $12 million.

That's what I'm thinking.  JT would want more of course but around 12m a year would be an excellent result for him with a nice guarantee.  

[w87r]

8 minutes ago, Restinpeacesweetchloe said:

George Bremer just  said on his podcast he believes what he is hearing that if Taylor signs a extension with a new team it will be around that $12 million.

That's because he said he would take less than he wanted to get out of here, no?

 

 

$12m makes sense, has all a long.

[Jackie Daytona]

1 hour ago, MikeCurtis said:

Me too dude..... Me too

 

We are thin as can be on the OL. We are heading into the season with a recently converted OT as our RG

I would take Robert Hunt and a 2nd for JT all day, every day

 

 

Be careful, you will get laughed at for holding this position

 

 

No one is laughing at people who are beating the drum for Robert Hunt and a 2nd for Taylor.  I haven't seen anyone laugh at that and make noise about it being stupid.... 

 

I have seen several who regard Hunt as highly as you do, and what they have said, is they think it's ridiculous to assume Miami will trade Hunt.....That's agreeing with you homie, not laughing at you!! Lol

[Solid84]

14 minutes ago, Restinpeacesweetchloe said:

George Bremer just  said on his podcast he believes what he is hearing that if Taylor signs a extension with a new team it will be around that $12 million.

 

12 minutes ago, Restinpeacesweetchloe said:

Well I think that is in the same ballpark. From the way it sounded by Bremer  colts might of actually tried to low ball him. He said if what he heard is true it’s entirely on the colts. 

The Colts haven't even given him an offer as far as we know? From everything Ballard has told us the Colts haven't even intertained that idea yet because of his injury and questions about how he fits in Steichen's scheme. They'd be willing to work something out during the season though.

[MikeCurtis]

1 minute ago, Jackie Daytona said:

No one is laughing at people who are beating the drum for Robert Hunt and a 2nd for Taylor.  I haven't seen anyone laugh at that and make noise about it being stupid.... 

 

I have seen several who regard Hunt as highly as you do, and what they have said, is they think it's ridiculous to assume Miami will trade Hunt.....That's agreeing with you homie, not laughing at you!! Lol

Its ok......  

 

I have been laughed at before....   

 

My wife has been married to me for almost 30 years......  she laughs at me at LEAST once per hour.....

 

[w87r]

Just now, MikeCurtis said:

Its ok......  

 

I have been laughed at before....   

 

My wife has been married to me for almost 30 years......  she laughs at me at LEAST once per hour.....

 

87,600 times she's laughed at you, at least. Lol.

 

 

That's at 8 hours a day over 30 years. Give you some sleep and work hours off.

[Moosejawcolt]

23 minutes ago, Restinpeacesweetchloe said:

Interesting stuff from George beemer. He said the $16 million was never demanded by Taylor’s deal. It was around the $12 million. He said if what he heard colts were willing to offer he understands why Taylor was not happy. I know Irsay said they never offered but sure sounds like Colts might of tried to low ball him.

Jacobs and Barkley are all around better backs than Taylor. I would put them in the same category  in  running ability but he is behind both in terms of pass catching and pass blocking. They are getting about 12 million a year and were not offered 2nd contracts. So why in the ... would the Colts offer the same amount of money and extend him? I have always said Taylor and his agent miscalculated his value in the NFL and especially to the Colts. New scheme, new coach, Ballard burned by recent contracts, RB market is what it is and Taylor over values himself as a RB in today's NFL.  5-10 years ago, he may have gotten what he wanted but the NFL  has changed a lot in terms of what it asks from its RB's. I mean Taylor is a guy you cannot say that he is a 4 down back. There are certain situations where the Colts would be forced to take him out of the game because of his poor pass blocking and average pass catching. U cannot say the same for Jacobs and Barkley.

[Restinpeacesweetchloe]

6 minutes ago, Solid84 said:

 

The Colts haven't even given him an offer as far as we know? From everything Ballard has told us the Colts haven't even intertained that idea yet because of his injury and questions about how he fits in Steichen's scheme. They'd be willing to work something out during the season though.

That’s what Irsay said. What if it isn’t true. Or what if the lowballed him as a starting point just talking and it offended him.

[MikeCurtis]

2 minutes ago, w87r said:

87,600 times she's laughed at you, at least. Lol.

 

 

That's at 8 hours a day over 30 years. Give you some sleep and work hours off.

LMAO...... thats funny

 

I guess I should count the 7 years with my first wife.....

 

 

Her name was bezelbub .... I think

[Restinpeacesweetchloe]

9 minutes ago, w87r said:

That's because he said he would take less than he wanted to get out of here, no?

 

 

$12m makes sense, has all a long.

Bremer said he and his agent never asked for much more then that. It was never 16 million.

[Superman]

49 minutes ago, NewColtsFan said:

The idea that the second round is where the value for a RB is maximized is what I thought in 2020.   I no longer hold that view.   I think it’s maximized in R4.  
 

Im not saying there’s no value in a R2 or R3 RB,  I just think it’s less.  And I’m sympathetic to the plight of the modern day RB.   Sucks to be them right now.  
 

 

What informs the viewpoint that RB value is maximized in R4 as opposed to R2? My thinking is that, if teams are unwilling to draft RBs in the first round, then you're getting the best RBs drafted somewhere in the 30-50 range every year, guys who are elite HWS athletes, have college production, and can play a significant role in basically any offense right away. Taylor would have been a top 5 pick in the early 2000s, we got him at #41, and signed him for $2m/year. 

 

I'm somewhat sympathetic to these RBs. But I think my philosophy would track closer to the rigid, logical 'don't pay for RBs' trend that seems to be taking hold right now. In general, I tend to be more pro player at my core, but in practice, I'm more black and white about applying the rules to each situation.

 

I'm somewhat less sympathetic to Jonathan Taylor in particular. If he just hates playing for the Colts -- and maybe that's the case, we haven't done a great job in the three years he's been here -- that's one thing. But the way he's played his hand this offseason hasn't won me over. I think he and his agent have had an agenda from Day 1.

 

Quote

Having to read Moosehead’s posts alone ought to be worth an extra $500k annually to any RB and his agent!   Now there’s a misc bonus!   
 

I kid!   I joke!    I think!?!     

 

 

We all should get paid for having to read his posts, LOL. 

[cdgacoltsfan]

Taylor and his agent are whack jobs.

If he truly is injured ( doubt he is) , probably not a good time to be looking to break the bank.

If he's lying and faking it, who in their right mind is going to trade draft capital and sign him to a long term deal.

[Jackie Daytona]

20 minutes ago, Restinpeacesweetchloe said:

Well I think that is in the same ballpark. From the way it sounded by Bremer  colts might "have" actually tried to low ball him. He said if what he heard is true it’s entirely on the colts. 

Eh, even if they made an offer (doubtful, as we haven't heard a single peep about it until right before the "deadline") That doesn't make the "lowball" incumbent on Indy....if they offered just less than triple his pay this year as a sweetener, then technically that's interpreted here by Bremer, and in turn you, as alllll Indy's fault for a "lowball" offer less than 12/per..I doubt JT would see a bump from 4.3 to 11.5 as an insult.....now, I dont think hef be pleased enough to take that and that one either.

 

[w87r]

Just now, Restinpeacesweetchloe said:

Bremer said he and his agent never asked for much more then that. It was never 16 million.

A lot of people have said a lot of things.

 

 

 

 

 

Separate note:

I don't know why everyone thinks having to give up compensation and give a contract is some new thing, or that some how restricts things.

 

 

Colts trade #13 for Buckner, then gave him $21m AAV over four years.

 

 

Pretty standard stuff.

 

If you trade for elite talent you expect to have to pay them as well.

 

 

Teams coming to contract agreements only gives the Colts more leverage in the deal. 

 

 

I will admit, Taylor's situation is a little different because he played the injury card, but everyone knows he isn't injured so it really doesn't affect too much. 

[Jackie Daytona]

7 minutes ago, Restinpeacesweetchloe said:

Bremer said he and his agent never asked for much more then that. It was never 16 million.

Why are you putting Bremer reports above everyone else, and stating them, and defending them, as factual...... Mere minutes after you said to take all the "reporters" posts and claims with a "grain of salt"?

 

There's not a lot of nuance, or shades of gray in your world are there? ; )

[w87r]

 

 

[Restinpeacesweetchloe]

6 minutes ago, Jackie Daytona said:

Why are you putting Bremer reports above everyone else, and stating them, and defending them, as factual...... Mere minutes after you said to take all the "reporters" posts and claims with a "grain of salt"?

 

There's not a lot of nuance, or shades of gray in your world are there? ; )

Huh. Just posting what he said. It’s just info to try and put a confusing puzzle together.

[Restinpeacesweetchloe]

5 minutes ago, w87r said:

 

 

I really don’t understand why colts didn’t try and up his salary for at least this year. Too late for a compromise now.

[Coltsbluefan]

6 minutes ago, w87r said:

 

 

Don’t give in Ballard and Irsay,if a team wants him bad enough they will give up a 1st,if not just keep him.

[Restinpeacesweetchloe]

Is Taylor going to cost the colts a tosstrr spot. Because if he stays on pup he can’t play for the team he is traded for until like we 7 if this keeps going.