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

[EasyE]

1 minute ago, richard pallo said:

Lamar Jackson said he didn’t want to play for the Ravens either and guess what he’s still their starting quarterback.  Nothing but posturing going on here.   Not to be taken seriously.  That said you can be sure if they trade him it won’t be for peanuts.  Ballard will always receive full value when he makes a trade.  He has demonstrated that consistently.  Not to worry.  We are in good hands with Ballard.

I hope you are right. I don't want to lose JT but I also think something has changed and he doesn't want to be in Indy anymore. JMO

 

[csmopar]

8 hours ago, hoosierhawk said:

ESPN's Jeremy Fowler disagrees. Who knows till next week. Could he be traded while on PUP? If so you would think he traded by now.

No he can’t . Not per the CBA. Who’s saying he can be

[Fluke_33]

1 hour ago, w87r said:

A team is not obligated to fulfill the contract, hence why there is an out option.

 

A player is fully expected to obligate his contract, they have no "out".

 

It just is what it is, it's 2 completely different things. Whether someone thinks it's right or not.

 

 

Players go into contract, fully knowing they have to perform, or they won't get all their money. Maybe not even get all their money if they do perform. It's not a surprise, it's just normal NFL business.

 

 

“it’s just the way it is” Powerful point.
 

It isn’t fair and equitable.  Players have no choice when they are drafted.  This the only league that can pay. They really have little power here.  
 

just because something is done doesn’t make it right. 
 

I have no issue with a hold out.  I don’t like how he has handled his. 

[Zoltan]

13 minutes ago, Fluke_33 said:

“it’s just the way it is” Powerful point.
 

It isn’t fair and equitable.  Players have no choice when they are drafted.  This the only league that can pay. They really have little power here.  
 

just because something is done doesn’t make it right. 
 

I have no issue with a hold out.  I don’t like how he has handled his. 

Look at what has happened in the NBA, that's what happens when players get too much control. Frankly for me players get compensated plenty, and by not having contracts fully guaranteed they can't just take nights off like in the NBA. The NFL is better than the NBA and the MLB because they have a good balance between ownership and players union.

[Fluke_33]

11 minutes ago, Zoltan said:

Look at what has happened in the NBA, that's what happens when players get too much control. Frankly for me players get compensated plenty, and by not having contracts fully guaranteed they can't just take nights off like in the NBA. The NFL is better than the NBA and the MLB because they have a good balance between ownership and players union.

I do generally side with the players and those with less power.    Players have little in the nfl.  

[w87r]

5 minutes ago, Fluke_33 said:

It isn’t fair and equitable.  Players have no choice when they are drafted.  This the only league that can pay. They really have little power here

Nor should it be.

 

Players come and go, the league and teams will keep things going long after a player(Taylor) leaves(as Irsay said, "the league will move on"). Why would they be on a level playing field?

 

The side paying the money should always have more options at their disposal. Too many variables.

 

Injuries/not the same player afterwards 

Drop in production

Players laying down and collecting checks(see Taylor)

Salary cap balance (cost vs production)

 

 

The players signed off on the CBA, I don't feel sorry for them. Definitely don't feel bad for Taylor after he handled things this way.

 

 

Like I said, most players know they won't see the whole contract when they sign it. Just try and get as much guaranteed as they can, while they can.

 

Draft is a part of professional leagues, they can go so something else if they wish not to play in the NFL. They don't have to, it's just an option for the blessed few.

 

So I'll revert back to "it just is what it is" because that's what it really is. Not meant to be a "powerful point", it's just the truth. NFL business as usual. Players are under contract and are expected to fulfill those obligations, teams are under no obligation to keep players for whole contract.

 

I would've had no problem with a hold out either, if he came back healthy and not played the injury angle. Would of made more sense. Instead the way he handled things, seemed very illogical and gives me some major concerns of him.

 

 

It's admirable to fight for the "little man", but, they don't have a leg to stand on in this argument, as they shouldn't.

[IndyEric07]

I think it’s immature of Jonathan Traitor to not even have a press conference about this whole situation! Does he want out or will he give the Colts room to negotiate? Just a yes or no answer and a true explanation! Traitors silence to the media on this whole thing is the most frustrating part! I myself don’t want this cancer in the team anymore and if he never plays another down for the Colts, I will forever refer to him as Jonathan Traitor! Or Twiggy as Jake Query calls him!

[EasyE]

Oops at first I thought you were calling him a traitor. Lmao my bad..He wants more money cause his position is used the most behind the QB and injuries can take there careers away on any play. Yes just like any other player. Players that touch and have the ball the most and take like car injury accidents will be injured the most and have shorter careers. IMO So JT wants more money for doing nothing his whole life but train for the NFL and get paid like a PRO.... Colts should give him a legit contract offer and see where it goes from there. I'm not saying he is CMC money but he deserves a legit offer for what he has done for this team... JMO

[Hoose]

13 minutes ago, EasyE said:

Oops at first I thought you were calling him a traitor. Lmao my bad..He wants more money cause his position is used the most behind the QB and injuries can take there careers away on any play. Yes just like any other player. Players that touch and have the ball the most and take like car injury accidents will be injured the most and have shorter careers. IMO So JT wants more money for doing nothing his whole life but train for the NFL and get paid like a PRO.... Colts should give him a legit contract offer and see where it goes from there. I'm not saying he is CMC money but he deserves a legit offer for what he has done for this team... JMO

The market for RBs has changed as has been said ad nauseum in this thread. JT’s contract, as well as any RB not named McCaffrey, will never reflect what they do for the team. In an NFL offense, the passing game is now king. That’s where the money will and should go. It’s the harsh reality of the marketplace when there is a limited pile of cash to go around. 

[LJpalmbeacher2]

8 hours ago, DougDew said:

Would you still get paid if you got fired?

 

When a person answers a job posting and is hired, they will be paid according to the terms of the posting for as long as they perform up to that level.  If they don't, they get fired.  The fact that the NFL job postings have an end date to them....the contract....doesn't change the fact that they can get fired upon notice and never get paid by that company again, just like most people's jobs.  

 

Also, the player is not entitled to get a pay raise just because they play better than the terms of the contract.  Just like a person doesn't normally get a raise for doing their job exceptionally well.  That person simply has earned a competitive place that better positions themselves for a raise (usually a promotion)....when a new job opening comes up.  

 

Beats me as to why coaches seem to get paid full contract value when they get fired for bad performance.  I guess its in the terms of the contract.  I don't get it, they shouldn't get paid either when they get fired.

 

 

The conversation was about honoring contracts and why its ok for NFL owners not honor a contract but not for a player. 

As far as "bad performance", many NFL players get terminated and didn't have bad performance. They often get released because their contracts escalate in pay the last year or two and teams don't want to pay the increased salary(and often they never intended to at the signing) and will often replace the player with a player making rookie/veteran minimum. 

 

Professional sports is different than the workplace of average people.....But the NFL is different than other sports like the  MLB and NBA, who  fully honor and guarantee the  contracts they sign and agree to with the occasional Buy Out option after a specific year in the length of the contract. 

 

I almost always side for the player who is trying to get paid a X amount of millions to take care of himself and families for the rest of their life and risk injuries/post concussion syndromes later in life  RATHER than owners who are BILLIONAIREs and spend more on a plane, yacht, or private collection of whatever tickles their fancy than a deserving players contract. 

But at the end its just business for both sides but other sports fully guarantee the players salaries/contracts as far as I know. 

[EasyE]

1 minute ago, Hoose said:

The market for RBs has changed as has been said ad nauseum in this thread. JT’s contract, as well as any RB not named McCaffrey, will never reflect what they do for the team. In an NFL offense, the passing game is now king. That’s where the money will and should go. It’s the harsh reality of the marketplace when there is a limited pile of cash to go around. 

Believe me I know this. But you think it's right for JT to sit back and collect 4 Million this season when other RBs are making more than  him and he  can run circles around the fools? He could have a career ending injury, but your cool with it cause he helping Colts win games. He needs a backer just like any other person that is building a 401k.. He been working for this moment his whole life.. Colts offer him something and see how close you all are!!!  Not that hard...

[NewColtsFan]

6 hours ago, NewColtsFan said:

There really are no trade partners right now that you’re aware of. 
 

If the Colts let the league know they’re interested in moving Taylor at the trade deadline they’ll get offers.   But none of us knows how good the offers would be.  
 

A trade at the start of a new league season calendar year in March of 24 would get the best offers.  

Ok….  I make a post and three people are confused.   So, I’ll ask….  
 

@coming on strong

 

@Restinpeacesweetchloe

 

@cdgacoltsfan

 

 

So each of you are confused.   Perhaps about the same thing, perhaps different things.   Would any of you like to ask me to clarify anything?    Perhaps I can answer your questions or address your concerns.  
 

I’m here if you’re curious…. 
 

 

[Zoltan]

1 hour ago, EasyE said:

Oops at first I thought you were calling him a traitor. Lmao my bad..He wants more money cause his position is used the most behind the QB and injuries can take there careers away on any play. Yes just like any other player. Players that touch and have the ball the most and take like car injury accidents will be injured the most and have shorter careers. IMO So JT wants more money for doing nothing his whole life but train for the NFL and get paid like a PRO.... Colts should give him a legit contract offer and see where it goes from there. I'm not saying he is CMC money but he deserves a legit offer for what he has done for this team... JMO

1 hour ago, EasyE said:

Believe me I know this. But you think it's right for JT to sit back and collect 4 Million this season when other RBs are making more than  him and he  can run circles around the fools? He could have a career ending injury, but your cool with it cause he helping Colts win games. He needs a backer just like any other person that is building a 401k.. He been working for this moment his whole life.. Colts offer him something and see how close you all are!!!  Not that hard...

 

I think the main point right now is you can't offer a contract because he can't prove he is healthy or will be able to produce at the same level. You don't pay a player for their past you pay for what you think they can produce going forward. Secondly 4 million isn't a low amount for a RB really (JT is top 10 for base salary this year) Z. Moss and Pacheco for the chiefs are making roughly 1 mil this year, which Moss is working towards a good contract next year which will probably average between 4-6 million.

[Fluke_33]

8 hours ago, w87r said:

Nor should it be.

 

Players come and go, the league and teams will keep things going long after a player(Taylor) leaves(as Irsay said, "the league will move on"). Why would they be on a level playing field?

 

The side paying the money should always have more options at their disposal. Too many variables.

 

Injuries/not the same player afterwards 

Drop in production

Players laying down and collecting checks(see Taylor)

Salary cap balance (cost vs production)

 

 

The players signed off on the CBA, I don't feel sorry for them. Definitely don't feel bad for Taylor after he handled things this way.

 

 

Like I said, most players know they won't see the whole contract when they sign it. Just try and get as much guaranteed as they can, while they can.

 

Draft is a part of professional leagues, they can go so something else if they wish not to play in the NFL. They don't have to, it's just an option for the blessed few.

 

So I'll revert back to "it just is what it is" because that's what it really is. Not meant to be a "powerful point", it's just the truth. NFL business as usual. Players are under contract and are expected to fulfill those obligations, teams are under no obligation to keep players for whole contract.

 

I would've had no problem with a hold out either, if he came back healthy and not played the injury angle. Would of made more sense. Instead the way he handled things, seemed very illogical and gives me some major concerns of him.

 

 

It's admirable to fight for the "little man", but, they don't have a leg to stand on in this argument, as they shouldn't.

Oh boy.  There is no point in arguing here.  We are too far apart on basics. 

[iuswingman]

7 hours ago, LJpalmbeacher2 said:

 

The conversation was about honoring contracts and why its ok for NFL owners not honor a contract but not for a player. 

As far as "bad performance", many NFL players get terminated and didn't have bad performance. They often get released because their contracts escalate in pay the last year or two and teams don't want to pay the increased salary(and often they never intended to at the signing) and will often replace the player with a player making rookie/veteran minimum. 

 

Professional sports is different than the workplace of average people.....But the NFL is different than other sports like the  MLB and NBA, who  fully honor and guarantee the  contracts they sign and agree to with the occasional Buy Out option after a specific year in the length of the contract. 

 

I almost always side for the player who is trying to get paid a X amount of millions to take care of himself and families for the rest of their life and risk injuries/post concussion syndromes later in life  RATHER than owners who are BILLIONAIREs and spend more on a plane, yacht, or private collection of whatever tickles their fancy than a deserving players contract. 

But at the end its just business for both sides but other sports fully guarantee the players salaries/contracts as far as I know. 

Nfl teams are honoring contracts because it allows them to cut players early.

 

Maybe players should argue how unfair that is prior to signing it rather than complain partway through after signing it.

[iuswingman]

19 minutes ago, Fluke_33 said:

Oh boy.  There is no point in arguing here.  We are too far apart on basics. 

His post was spot on.

 

Personally, I will never feel sorry for someone making millions per year and complaining about it, especially when they refuse to honor the contract they signed.  No one forced Taylor to come to the NFL and rookie contracts are pretty cut and dry on what they make.

 

If there is proof he faked the injury, then hopefully the NFL comes down hard on him.  That crap is despicable.  

 

 

[DougDew]

8 hours ago, LJpalmbeacher2 said:

 

The conversation was about honoring contracts and why its ok for NFL owners not honor a contract but not for a player. 

As far as "bad performance", many NFL players get terminated and didn't have bad performance. They often get released because their contracts escalate in pay the last year or two and teams don't want to pay the increased salary(and often they never intended to at the signing) and will often replace the player with a player making rookie/veteran minimum. 

 

Professional sports is different than the workplace of average people.....But the NFL is different than other sports like the  MLB and NBA, who  fully honor and guarantee the  contracts they sign and agree to with the occasional Buy Out option after a specific year in the length of the contract. 

 

I almost always side for the player who is trying to get paid a X amount of millions to take care of himself and families for the rest of their life and risk injuries/post concussion syndromes later in life  RATHER than owners who are BILLIONAIREs and spend more on a plane, yacht, or private collection of whatever tickles their fancy than a deserving players contract. 

But at the end its just business for both sides but other sports fully guarantee the players salaries/contracts as far as I know. 

Employees get paid for contributions made to the company.  If they get paid more than they contribute, they get fired.  If they get paid less than they contribute, they either quit now and get another job that pays more...or....

 

If they are a contract employee, they have to wait until the end of the contract (usually non compete clauses).....at which time they then find a better paying job.

 

Hourly wage employees and salaried employees can get fired on the spot if they are not contributing like they should, or threaten to quit every week and renegotiate their compensation every week if they are underpaid.

 

How rich the owner is has nothing to do with it.

 

Maybe NFL players should do the same.....have no contracts at all and be more like the hourly/salaried employee....make it a "right-now" performance based compensation system.   At the end of each week, all players on all teams would become available to the highest bidder for the next week's game.  That would probably be more fair, but the sport wouldn't work.

[Fluke_33]

1 hour ago, iuswingman said:

Personally, I will never feel sorry for someone making millions per year and complaining about it

How do you feel about those making billions complaining about what they have to pay?

[iuswingman]

28 minutes ago, Fluke_33 said:

How do you feel about those making billions complaining about what they have to pay?

 

They have this thing called the salary cap.  They are paying the same regardless.

 

Why should I root for the rb to get a bigger piece of the pie?

 

My complaint with owners would be why do taxpayers have to pay for the stadiums so they can pocket the profit..but that is a whole different discussion 

 

[cdgacoltsfan]

9 hours ago, NewColtsFan said:

Ok….  I make a post and three people are confused.   So, I’ll ask….  
 

@coming on strong

 

@Restinpeacesweetchloe

 

@cdgacoltsfan

 

 

So each of you are confused.   Perhaps about the same thing, perhaps different things.   Would any of you like to ask me to clarify anything?    Perhaps I can answer your questions or address your concerns.  
 

I’m here if you’re curious…. 
 

 

I'm just on here so I don't get fined.

[bluebombers87]

34 minutes ago, Fluke_33 said:

How do you feel about those making billions complaining about what they have to pay?

Depends on how much they have to pay and how much control, just like any business owner.

[NorthernColt]

Honestly, the vibes around this team are too good right now. All the guys are growing and gelling. Not even sure I'd want him back in the room at this point.

[Superman]

14 hours ago, csmopar said:

Yeah, I need to pull up all the amendments again. It may be there. I’m not home at the moment. I’ll look shortly.

 

bottom line is this: Taylor HAS to be on the active roster for 1 game this year to avoid the toll. The question is WHEN that has to be done. From what I have found, and confirmed, for players NOT in a contract year, that time line is week 8. For players in contract years that is week 6.  
 

the other fly in this soup is that he can practice for up to 3 weeks AFTER coming off PUP before he has to be traded, released, or IR’d. But he practice can start PRIOR to coming off PUP as long as it is medically approved by independent doc. BUT that practice cannot start prior to week 2. 
 

to me, none of the timelines given in the CBA completely line up. 

 

I can't find the amendments, if you can share that would be awesome.

[Superman]

13 hours ago, csmopar said:

No he can’t . Not per the CBA. Who’s saying he can be

 

I haven't found a rule saying he can't. The Patriots traded Stephon Gilmore to the Panthers while he was still on PUP.

[csmopar]

32 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

I haven't found a rule saying he can't. The Patriots traded Stephon Gilmore to the Panthers while he was still on PUP.

It’s under the trade section. Says injured players can’t be traded. 

[Superman]

21 minutes ago, csmopar said:

It’s under the trade section. Says injured players can’t be traded. 

 

I'm not sure what you mean by the trade section. What I understand is a player has to pass a physical, and the exam is subjective. Even in the even of a player on PUP, he could progress to the point of passing a physical within a couple weeks, but still not be eligible to come off PUP. Either way, I think the Gilmore trade is proof of concept showing that a player on PUP can be traded.

[jvan1973]

25 minutes ago, csmopar said:

It’s under the trade section. Says injured players can’t be traded. 

Pup players can be traded

 

https://www.cbssports.com/nfl/news/colts-keep-jonathan-taylor-on-pup-list-after-no-trade-materializes-star-rb-set-to-miss-first-four-games/

[Jackie Daytona]

12 hours ago, EasyE said:

Oops at first I thought you were calling him a traitor. Lmao my bad..He wants more money cause his position is used the most behind the QB and injuries can take there careers away on any play. Yes just like any other player. Players that touch and have the ball the most and take like car injury accidents will be injured the most and have shorter careers. IMO So JT wants more money for doing nothing his whole life but train for the NFL and get paid like a PRO.... Colts should give him a legit contract offer and see where it goes from there. I'm not saying he is CMC money but he deserves a legit offer for what he has done for this team... JMO

Why now?  He is literally signed to a "legit contract offer" this very second.  

[Jackie Daytona]

2 hours ago, Fluke_33 said:

How do you feel about those making billions complaining about what they have to pay?

There's the root of your issue here.  

 

I've never begrudged anyone for being wealthy.  I never felt they were obligated to spend their money in any particular manner either.  Certainly they aren't obligated to make things any more equitable.

[LJpalmbeacher2]

4 hours ago, DougDew said:

Employees get paid for contributions made to the company.  If they get paid more than they contribute, they get fired.  If they get paid less than they contribute, they either quit now and get another job that pays more...or....

 

If they are a contract employee, they have to wait until the end of the contract (usually non compete clauses).....at which time they then find a better paying job.

 

Hourly wage employees and salaried employees can get fired on the spot if they are not contributing like they should, or threaten to quit every week and renegotiate their compensation every week if they are underpaid.

 

How rich the owner is has nothing to do with it.

 

Maybe NFL players should do the same.....have no contracts at all and be more like the hourly/salaried employee....make it a "right-now" performance based compensation system.   At the end of each week, all players on all teams would become available to the highest bidder for the next week's game.  That would probably be more fair, but the sport wouldn't work.

I'm not going to lose a minutes sleep whether JT, who I don't or ever will know, and other players get or don't get paid. 

......I'm going to have to agree to disagree on this with you and anyone else.

 

I will add that I think that possibly its bigger than Irsay and JT. 

It may be the league(31 other owners) don't want other owners paying RB's? Even if Irsay wants to pay JT, he would upset the narrative of the league and doesn't want to go against the collective business practice of the other owners???

JT is not the first back to be denied extension AND won't be the last. 

 

[stitches]

1 hour ago, Superman said:

 

I haven't found a rule saying he can't. The Patriots traded Stephon Gilmore to the Panthers while he was still on PUP.

Yeah, it's probably not an official rule, but more of a practical consideration when a team is acquiring a player. First - teams don't usually want to trade for injured players, and second... if the player is exaggerating... (*cough, cough*... faking *cough*) injuries and tells the team acquiring him behind the scenes "hey, i'm not actually injured, you should trade for me", it tells that new team that this player is willing to do something like that and might do it to them in the future... and both of those make such a player less desireable. Thus.. players on PUP or IR being traded really rarely(just to be clear - them actually being injured is the much more relevant consideration). 

[NewColtsFan]

3 hours ago, cdgacoltsfan said:

I'm just on here so I don't get fined.

Fair enough, thanks Marshawn!    

[csmopar]

44 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

I'm not sure what you mean by the trade section. What I understand is a player has to pass a physical, and the exam is subjective. Even in the even of a player on PUP, he could progress to the point of passing a physical within a couple weeks, but still not be eligible to come off PUP. Either way, I think the Gilmore trade is proof of concept showing that a player on PUP can be traded.

Ok that may be where my confusion lays then. I thought he had to pass a physical to come off PUP and that once he did, he’d come off PUP, then could be traded

[Superman]

12 minutes ago, stitches said:

Yeah, it's probably not an official rule, but more of a practical consideration when a team is acquiring a player. First - teams don't usually want to trade for injured players, and second... if the player is exaggerating... (*cough, cough*... faking *cough*) injuries and tells the team acquiring him behind the scenes "hey, i'm not actually injured, you should trade for me", it tells that new team that this player is willing to do something like that and might do it to them in the future... and both of those make such a player less desireable. Thus.. players on PUP or IR being traded really rarely(just to be clear - them actually being injured is the much more relevant consideration). 

 

Yeah, in most cases it would be a practical consideration. In general, I don't want to trade for your damaged goods, and if you're willing to trade a player on PUP, maybe you have an indication that the player won't get back to 100%. That's more info than I could ever acquire during a pre-trade routine physical. It would be really rare to see a team trade for a player on PUP.

 

I think the Gilmore situation was an exception. First, they traded him for a 6th rounder, which was pretty ridiculous. Second, he's in his contract year. Third, he's coming off a quad injury. But with all those factors, the Panthers rolled the dice. It didn't pay off for them, but they only lost a late round pick. The Colts got a much better version of Gilmore in 2022, another year off the injury. 

 

Still, his PUP designation -- six weeks, at that time -- was kind of obvious. He had a major injury, but he seemed to be milking it because he wanted a new contract. The Pats washed their hands of the whole situation. But it's easy to see a player who isn't ready to go at cut down day, on a team that really needs the extra roster spot, and he goes on PUP but is physically ready after a couple weeks. He still can't be activated until after the 4th game, but he could pass a physical. In that case, there's nothing preventing him from being traded. It definitely applies in this case, if the Colts think JT can pass a physical, and another team is aggressive enough to make a great offer.

 

I still think JT winds up playing out his contract this year. 

[Superman]

13 hours ago, EasyE said:

Oops at first I thought you were calling him a traitor. Lmao my bad..He wants more money cause his position is used the most behind the QB and injuries can take there careers away on any play. Yes just like any other player. Players that touch and have the ball the most and take like car injury accidents will be injured the most and have shorter careers. IMO So JT wants more money for doing nothing his whole life but train for the NFL and get paid like a PRO.... Colts should give him a legit contract offer and see where it goes from there. I'm not saying he is CMC money but he deserves a legit offer for what he has done for this team... JMO

 

Contract negotiations are about leverage. What he wants, or "deserves," is likely different from what he can actually get. Especially since he's not a free agent.

 

And I understand any NFL player wanting to get a new contract before playing their final year, especially a good RB. But players play out their contracts all the time in the NFL, even RBs. It's not unfair or unreasonable for the Colts to tell a player that he won't be extended right away. Even the great Peyton Manning played out his contract, twice in fact. So taking it as disrespect or a lack of appreciation is misguided. 

[DougDew]

1 hour ago, LJpalmbeacher2 said:

I'm not going to lose a minutes sleep whether JT, who I don't or ever will know, and other players get or don't get paid. 

......I'm going to have to agree to disagree on this with you and anyone else.

 

I will add that I think that possibly its bigger than Irsay and JT. 

It may be the league(31 other owners) don't want other owners paying RB's? Even if Irsay wants to pay JT, he would upset the narrative of the league and doesn't want to go against the collective business practice of the other owners???

JT is not the first back to be denied extension AND won't be the last. 

 

I think its no different than any other company who sees a lot of highly talented contract employees having expiring contracts at the same time this spring, combined with the constant stream of college graduates entering the labor market.  Kind of a glut coming in a few months, so why renegotiate your guy at a higher salary now.

 

I don't think the big-bad owners are coordinating anything.  I think they are all trying to run their businesses efficiently and all see the supply and demand issues the same.  

 

Like others have said, there may be one or two owners who have an atypical market for a RB...they want an upgrade for a playoff run and might pay above current market value for JT.....but about 30 teams read the landscape about the same.

[luv_pony_express]

4 hours ago, Fluke_33 said:

How do you feel about those making billions complaining about what they have to pay?

This complaint makes no sense.  Things cost what they cost.  How much money you have in the bank is irrelevant to that.

 

Can you imagine if you walked onto a car lot, wanted to buy a car, and when you asked how much it costs they said “Well, that depends on your income.  How much do you make?”

 

And, of course, all NFL teams have to deal with the salary cap.  In fact, that is probably the single biggest influence on player salaries.  Because all 32 teams have to build the best roster they can within its constraints.

 

Taylor’s problem is the same one that Cook, Jacobs, Barkley etal had:  the league just doesn’t value RBs as much as they think they should be valued.  There’s nothing they can do about that…no matter how much money Jim Irsay has.

[stitches]

58 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

Contract negotiations are about leverage. What he wants, or "deserves," is likely different from what he can actually get. Especially since he's not a free agent.

 

And I understand any NFL player wanting to get a new contract before playing their final year, especially a good RB. But players play out their contracts all the time in the NFL, even RBs. It's not unfair or unreasonable for the Colts to tell a player that he won't be extended right away. Even the great Peyton Manning played out his contract, twice in fact. So taking it as disrespect or a lack of appreciation is misguided. 

I feel like if we don't trade him he will fake another injury or just refuse to play even with the slightest of discomfort... 

[Fluke_33]

4 hours ago, iuswingman said:

 

They have this thing called the salary cap.  They are paying the same regardless.

 

Why should I root for the rb to get a bigger piece of the pie?

 

My complaint with owners would be why do taxpayers have to pay for the stadiums so they can pocket the profit..but that is a whole different discussion 

 

 

You missed my point.  You said part of the reason you don't care is that players are making millions.  So are the owners.  That shouldn't have an effect on the issue of holding out or paying more.

[luv_pony_express]

5 hours ago, Fluke_33 said:

How do you feel about those making billions complaining about what they have to pay?

Also, keep in mind that the net worth of an owner has no bearing on salaries because of the cap.

 

I think Stan Kroenke might be the wealthiest current NFL owner.  Maybe Josh Harris has him beat now, I don’t know.

 

Irsay probably has one of the lower net worths of the owners.

 

But guess what?  It doesn’t matter - because they’re all subject to the same cap.