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

[jvan1973]

On 9/25/2023 at 8:49 PM, PRnum1 said:

So if you sign Taylor to an extension then you need to sign Pittman too.

 

It makes no sense to reward Taylor for holding out and faking injury and then to leave Pittman out in the cold.

 

Pittman has suited up every game and deserves a contract first before Taylor does.

 

I would sign Pittman before Taylor 

Pittman is going to get paid assuming he stays healthy

[Shepman]

2 hours ago, DougDew said:

And CEOs get poached from one company to the next, and usually negotiate an employment contract.  So they get paid the full contract value if they get released.  Terms of the contract.

 

I guess the NFL treats coaches like Corporate Executives who get paid full value, but treats the players like salaried/contract employees.  The NFLPA is apparently okay with it.  Its the typical Management/Worker dynamic.

What would you do about players who under perform, go ahead and pay them their full salary regardless of results?  Every drafted person should get a full deal?  Johnny Manziel is a prime example and only made it through what 2 years because he was too immature and an addict.

[ADnum1]

41 minutes ago, Restinpeacesweetchloe said:

Yeah wearing colts gear.

I hope you're right.

[w87r]

1 hour ago, PRnum1 said:

He'll definitely be back with 6 weeks left in the season, thats what they all do to get the year of service and be UFA next season.

 

Ballard needs to start playing hardball and start fining him and banning him from the Colts facilities until the hold out is over.

No he has to play by week 6(2 1/2 weeks from now), not play 6 games.

 

 

This isn't a typical Franchise Tag or player holdout.

 

This is PUP and there are different rules.

[Restinpeacesweetchloe]

There really are no trade partners for Taylor. I would be shocked if he was traded. 

[ADnum1]

8 minutes ago, w87r said:

No he has to play by week 6(2 1/2 weeks from now), not play 6 games.

 

 

This isn't a typical Franchise Tag or player holdout.

 

This is PUP and there are different rules.

Not that I doubt you but he won't be on PUP anymore after next week.

 

Also I was just going by the Melvin Gordon holdout a few years back.  I thought he was in the same situation as Taylor, last year of his contract.

 

But I can check again.

[w87r]

Just now, PRnum1 said:

Not that I doubt you but he won't be on PUP anymore after next week.

 

Also I was just going by the Melvin Gordon holdout a few years back.  I thought he was in the same situation as Taylor, last year of his contract.

 

But I can check again.

Was Gordon on the PUP list to start the season? You don't need to answer.  He wasn't, he was on the did not report list.

 

Doesn't matter if Taylor is off the PUP next week, he has to be active by game 6, he still follows the rules of a player that started the season on the PUP list.

[Superman]

2 minutes ago, w87r said:

Was Gordon on the PUP list to start the season? You don't need to answer.  He wasn't, he was on the did not report list.

 

Doesn't matter if Taylor is off the PUP next week, he has to be active by game 6, he still follows the rules of a player that started the season on the PUP list.

 

There's been a lot of back and forth on this. Is there a section of the CBA that you're referring to? 

[w87r]

6 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

There's been a lot of back and forth on this. Is there a section of the CBA that you're referring to? 

The only back and forth I've seen in regards to this, was about if he had to participate in practice for 2 weeks before he could play after being taken off PUP list.

 

Haven't seen any back and forth about having to play by week 6.

 

I will look back and find it.

 

 

 

 

[Superman]

8 minutes ago, w87r said:

The only back and forth I've seen in regards to this, was about if he had to participate in practice for 2 weeks before he could play after being taken off PUP list.

 

Haven't seen any back and forth about having to play by week 6.

 

I will look back and find it.

 

 

 

 

 

Okay so let's interpret this. Here's the text:

1. Section 2. Physically Unable to Perform: Any player placed on a Physically Unable to Perform list (“PUP”) will be paid his full Paragraph 5 Salary while on such list. His contract will not be tolled for the period he is on PUP, except in the last year of his contract, when the player’s contract will be tolled if (i) he is still physically unable to perform his football services as of the sixth regular season game; and (ii) he is not reinstated to the Club’s Active/Inactive List during that regular season or postseason. For the avoidance of doubt, if the player returns to practice, but is never reinstated to the Club’s Active/Inactive List during that regular season or postseason, his contract will toll.

To me, the player has to meet both of those conditions. First, he has to be on PUP as of the sixth game, AND he is not activated at any point during the season. If both of those are true, then the player's contract would toll, and he would not become a free agent.

 

I don't know that this means the player has to come off of PUP by the sixth game. If a player in the final year of his contract comes off of PUP in Week 5, practices for a couple of weeks, and then goes to IR without playing a game, I don't think his contract tolls. If he comes off of PUP after the team's sixth regular season game, and goes to IR without playing a game, I think his contract would toll.

[csmopar]

5 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

Okay so let's interpret this. Here's the text:

1. Section 2. Physically Unable to Perform: Any player placed on a Physically Unable to Perform list (“PUP”) will be paid his full Paragraph 5 Salary while on such list. His contract will not be tolled for the period he is on PUP, except in the last year of his contract, when the player’s contract will be tolled if (i) he is still physically unable to perform his football services as of the sixth regular season game; and (ii) he is not reinstated to the Club’s Active/Inactive List during that regular season or postseason. For the avoidance of doubt, if the player returns to practice, but is never reinstated to the Club’s Active/Inactive List during that regular season or postseason, his contract will toll.

To me, the player has to meet both of those conditions. First, he has to be on PUP as of the sixth game, AND he is not activated at any point during the season. If both of those are true, then the player's contract would toll, and he would not become a free agent.

 

I don't know that this means the player has to come off of PUP by the sixth game. If a player in the final year of his contract comes off of PUP in Week 5, practices for a couple of weeks, and then goes to IR without playing a game, I don't think his contract tolls. If he comes off of PUP after the team's sixth regular season game, and goes to IR without playing a game, I think his contract would toll.

If you keep reading, the CBA says he has to be on the “active roster” for 1 week before the close of Week 6 of the regular season or his contract will toll. Applies only for players in final year of contract. So practicing won’t satisfy that requirement 

[csmopar]

4 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

Okay so let's interpret this. Here's the text:

1. Section 2. Physically Unable to Perform: Any player placed on a Physically Unable to Perform list (“PUP”) will be paid his full Paragraph 5 Salary while on such list. His contract will not be tolled for the period he is on PUP, except in the last year of his contract, when the player’s contract will be tolled if (i) he is still physically unable to perform his football services as of the sixth regular season game; and (ii) he is not reinstated to the Club’s Active/Inactive List during that regular season or postseason. For the avoidance of doubt, if the player returns to practice, but is never reinstated to the Club’s Active/Inactive List during that regular season or postseason, his contract will toll.

To me, the player has to meet both of those conditions. First, he has to be on PUP as of the sixth game, AND he is not activated at any point during the season. If both of those are true, then the player's contract would toll, and he would not become a free agent.

 

I don't know that this means the player has to come off of PUP by the sixth game. If a player in the final year of his contract comes off of PUP in Week 5, practices for a couple of weeks, and then goes to IR without playing a game, I don't think his contract tolls. If he comes off of PUP after the team's sixth regular season game, and goes to IR without playing a game, I think his contract would toll.

The important thing to remember is that he does not have to be on the active roster after coming off PUP to practice. He can come off PUP, practice for up to 3 weeks before he either has to be active, released or put on IR

[Superman]

9 minutes ago, csmopar said:

If you keep reading, the CBA says he has to be on the “active roster” for 1 week before the close of Week 6 of the regular season or his contract will toll. Applies only for players in final year of contract. 

 

Where? I've been looking...

 

7 minutes ago, csmopar said:

The important thing to remember is that he does not have to be on the active roster after coming off PUP to practice. He can come off PUP, practice for up to 3 weeks before he either has to be active, released or put on IR

 

That's kind of my point. If he comes off PUP in Week 5, then practices for up to three weeks, and then goes to IR, I don't think he meets both elements of that rule. In which case his contract would NOT toll, and he would become a free agent. 

[w87r]

18 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

Okay so let's interpret this. Here's the text:

1. Section 2. Physically Unable to Perform: Any player placed on a Physically Unable to Perform list (“PUP”) will be paid his full Paragraph 5 Salary while on such list. His contract will not be tolled for the period he is on PUP, except in the last year of his contract, when the player’s contract will be tolled if (i) he is still physically unable to perform his football services as of the sixth regular season game; and (ii) he is not reinstated to the Club’s Active/Inactive List during that regular season or postseason. For the avoidance of doubt, if the player returns to practice, but is never reinstated to the Club’s Active/Inactive List during that regular season or postseason, his contract will toll.

To me, the player has to meet both of those conditions. First, he has to be on PUP as of the sixth game, AND he is not activated at any point during the season. If both of those are true, then the player's contract would toll, and he would not become a free agent.

 

I don't know that this means the player has to come off of PUP by the sixth game. If a player in the final year of his contract comes off of PUP in Week 5, practices for a couple of weeks, and then goes to IR without playing a game, I don't think his contract tolls. 

Sounds like we are on the same page here, at least the same chapter.

 

Second paragraph has taken a couple reads, but yeah like you said both conditions need to be met.

 

Off PUP list

On active roster by week 6

 

Or he isn't a FA.

 

He knows this(now), he knows he needs to get on the field.

 

I think "if he is still unable to perform his football services by 6th regular season game" sums it up nicely. 

 

4 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

Where? I've been looking...

 

 

That's kind of my point. If he comes off PUP in Week 5, then practices for up to three weeks, and then goes to IR, I don't think he meets both elements of that rule. In which case his contract would NOT toll, and he would become a free agent. 

How?

 

1. He wouldn't of been able to provide football services by 6th regular season game.

 

+

 

2. He wouldn't of been placed back on the active roster either.

 

Both requirements hit.

[Superman]

@csmopar I think we would need additional info on this. The CBA PUP rules were adjusted. If a player was on PUP to start the season, he was unavailable for six weeks, not four. So that might explain the discrepancy. If the adjustment down to four weeks also adjusts the 'sixth regular season game' down to the 'fourth regular season game,' then there is no donut hole to be reconciled.

 

But in that case, it makes it even simpler in my mind. I'm still not seeing where the player being activated after a certain point in the season makes his contract toll, not as long as he actually plays a game that season.

[Superman]

2 minutes ago, w87r said:

How?

 

1. He wouldn't of been able to provide football services by 6th regular season game.

 

+

 

2. He wouldn't of been placed back on the active roster either.

 

Both requirements hit.

 

We need to define "still physically unable to perform his football services as of the sixth regular season game." I think practicing qualifies as performing football services. That's why a player can't practice with the team until he comes off PUP.

 

But, my scenario above is possibly assuming there's a donut hole that doesn't actually exist. I think we should be reading this paragraph as 'fourth regular season game' because the PUP rules changed from six weeks to four. Just posted that in my comment to csmopar.

[NewColtsFan]

50 minutes ago, Restinpeacesweetchloe said:

There really are no trade partners for Taylor. I would be shocked if he was traded. 

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.  

[w87r]

8 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

We need to define "still physically unable to perform his football services as of the sixth regular season game." I think practicing qualifies as performing football services. That's why a player can't practice with the team until he comes off PUP.

 

But, my scenario above is possibly assuming there's a donut hole that doesn't actually exist. I think we should be reading this paragraph as 'fourth regular season game' because the PUP rules changed from six weeks to four. Just posted that in my comment to csmopar.

Yeah, I thought you had a good point, there is a little bit of uncertainty.

 

It went from 6 games to 4 games in 2022, so that is a valid point.

 

But if it were to read 6 games like the old rules, a player on PUP would've never been able to beat the first condition.

 

 

And since it changed to 4 games a player on PUP would be unable to beat that condition as well.

 

Guess we will know soon enough.

[Jackie Daytona]

On 9/25/2023 at 10:56 PM, Zoltan said:

Hopefully he starts practicing sooner rather than later, because he hasn't had a single practice under the new offense so he may not play for a couple weeks due to that. A good example is Brents who was injured during camp and missed two weeks just to learn and catch up.

Yeah, running backs can walk in and play.  It's plug and play.  Always has been, that's part of the reason they are so replaceable.  The drop off from JT to Moss is big....no doubt, but not like the drop from starting.....any other position to the backup.  He k, street FA can come in and be serviceable RB in a couple days.  JT could practice once or twice and play on Sun. Just fine, assuming he's actually been conditioning and healthy this whole time.  (Hint, he has)

[Jackie Daytona]

4 hours ago, Hoose said:

 

The next few weeks will be fascinating to watch…. in a morbid sort of way. 
 

 

 

Morbid?  He's on Pup.....not a corpse.  What's morbid about any of this?

[Superman]

1 minute ago, w87r said:

Yeah, I thought you had a good point, there is a little bit of uncertainty.

 

It went from 6 games to 4 games in 2022, so that is a valid point.

 

But if it were to read 6 games like the old rules, a player on PUP would've never been able to beat the first condition.

 

 

And since it changed to 4 games a player on PUP would be unable to beat that condition as well.

 

Guess we will know soon enough.

 

It's possible that this sentence is the clarification already. The bolded seems like the major factor.

 

Quote

For the avoidance of doubt, if the player returns to practice, but is never reinstated to the Club’s Active/Inactive List during that regular season or postseason, his contract will toll.

 

The first condition about the sixth regular season game seems unnecessary. The player can't practice or play until after the sixth game, by rule. 

 

Regardless, I still don't think the Colts should trust Taylor and his agent. He can come off PUP, play one game, and then shut it down again. Yeah, that would result in grievances and all sorts of legal nonsense, and I don't think he'd get away with it, but it's something the Colts should try to avoid, IMO.

 

And I think the way to avoid it is to incentivize Taylor to play the rest of the season, and perform well. Games played bonus for the rest of the year, production bonuses, etc., and let him play his way into his free agency. That way, he actually has something to gain, instead of just triggering his free agency by playing one game and going back into hiding.

[DougDew]

1 hour ago, Shepman said:

What would you do about players who under perform, go ahead and pay them their full salary regardless of results?  Every drafted person should get a full deal?  Johnny Manziel is a prime example and only made it through what 2 years because he was too immature and an addict.

I wasn't suggesting how to redesign the player compensation system.  I was simply saying that I don't think its an injustice to stop paying a player who gets fired.

[DougDew]

58 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

Okay so let's interpret this. Here's the text:

1. Section 2. Physically Unable to Perform: Any player placed on a Physically Unable to Perform list (“PUP”) will be paid his full Paragraph 5 Salary while on such list. His contract will not be tolled for the period he is on PUP, except in the last year of his contract, when the player’s contract will be tolled if (i) he is still physically unable to perform his football services as of the sixth regular season game; and (ii) he is not reinstated to the Club’s Active/Inactive List during that regular season or postseason. For the avoidance of doubt, if the player returns to practice, but is never reinstated to the Club’s Active/Inactive List during that regular season or postseason, his contract will toll.

To me, the player has to meet both of those conditions. First, he has to be on PUP as of the sixth game, AND he is not activated at any point during the season. If both of those are true, then the player's contract would toll, and he would not become a free agent.

 

I don't know that this means the player has to come off of PUP by the sixth game. If a player in the final year of his contract comes off of PUP in Week 5, practices for a couple of weeks, and then goes to IR without playing a game, I don't think his contract tolls. If he comes off of PUP after the team's sixth regular season game, and goes to IR without playing a game, I think his contract would toll.

I think its all just a contractual language way to say that, once he comes off the 5 week PUP, he has to be activated for at least one game for him to become a FA.  The assumption is that the coach will activate him because the player is healthy enough to perform well enough, likely demonstrated in practice.   

[w87r]

10 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

It's possible that this sentence is the clarification already. The bolded seems like the major factor.

 

 

The first condition about the sixth regular season game seems unnecessary. The player can't practice or play until after the sixth game, by rule. 

 

Regardless, I still don't think the Colts should trust Taylor and his agent. He can come off PUP, play one game, and then shut it down again. Yeah, that would result in grievances and all sorts of legal nonsense, and I don't think he'd get away with it, but it's something the Colts should try to avoid, IMO.

 

And I think the way to avoid it is to incentivize Taylor to play the rest of the season, and perform well. Games played bonus for the rest of the year, production bonuses, etc., and let him play his way into his free agency. That way, he actually has something to gain, instead of just triggering his free agency by playing one game and going back into hiding.

Colts hold the cards.

 

I don't trust Taylor or his agent either, but doing so would only hurt his value more, and even if he got his contract to toll, the Colts still hold those cards too, as they can just tag him next year again anyway.

 

 

I don't think we should give him anymore incentive, I think he has enough, in needing to go out there and prove he is worth it.

 

Maybe if he handled himself a little different, I maybe willing to(not that what I would be willing to do, matters), but with how things have transpired, nah, I'm good.

 

 

 

Something else Taylor probably should look at is, the Colts are 2-1 w/o him(arguably could've been 3-0), and Moss is averaging 105ypg, on 4.4ypc. Which is 26 more yards per game(78.3 ypg) and .1ypc less per attempt(4.5ypc) than Taylor, in his 2 games this year.

[Myles]

I am glad I don't have a Taylor jersey.  

[Superman]

3 minutes ago, w87r said:

I don't trust Taylor or his agent either, but doing so would only hurt his value more, and even if he got his contract to toll, the Colts still hold those cards too, as they can just tag him next year again anyway.

 

If his contract tolls, I believe his 2023 compensation gets reduced. And then he's back in 2024 under his final year salary of ~$4m. If his contract does not toll, he gets his ~$4m this year, and then maybe gets tagged at $12-13m in 2024. Yeah the Colts hold the cards, but that's a big difference for the player.

 

And if we activate him and he plays one game, then claims that the ankle still isn't right and he needs another surgery, and gets shut down for the year, he goes to free agency after the season. And he would have played the Colts like a fiddle.

 

Quote

 

I don't think we should give him anymore incentive, I think he has enough, in needing to go out there and prove he is worth it.

 

Maybe if he handled himself a little different, I maybe willing to(not that what I would be willing to do, matters), but with how things have transpired, nah, I'm good.

 

 

In principle, I agree. I think he's misplayed his hand, he and his agent have tried to make the Colts look bad, and I don't want to reward that kind of behavior.

 

In practice, I think it's dicey. Adding some bonuses is as much a protection for the Colts as it is an incentive for Taylor. 

 

Quote

Something else Taylor probably should look at is, the Colts are 2-1 w/o him(arguably could've been 3-0), and Moss is averaging 105ypg, on 4.4ypc. Which is 26 more yards per game(78.3 ypg) and .1ypc less per attempt(4.5ypc) than Taylor, in his 2 games this year.

 

And I don't even think Moss is that good. He's not running away from defenders or making guys miss or anything special. He's just producing. Imagine if we actually tried to replace JT's production in the draft and with a veteran FA. If anyone wants to understand why teams are hesitant to commit money to RBs, it's because a JAG backup who just broke his arm two months ago can come in and put up 140 scrimmage yards and a TD. There's no question that I'd rather have Taylor than Moss, but there's also no question that we can replace his production at half the cost.

[EasyE]

JT will end up playing. He doesn't have much choice if making more money is his goal. One more whining session before he plays or 3 weeks of it anyways.. JMO

[holeymoley99]

8 minutes ago, Myles said:

I am glad I don't have a Taylor jersey.  

I do he was actually my favorite college player at Wisconisn, went to the same hs as my brother in law (Salem,NJ) though my brother in law much older he was actually a class mate of Colts great Lydell Mitchell.  Always been a class act and humble, really saddened by the turn of events and hoping against hope it somehow gets settled and he comes back to being the best back in the NFL like he was in 2021. A lot of bridges have been burned but Ballard remains hopefully so.....

[AwesomeAustin]

Honestly, I had almost forgotten JT is still on the team. Good player but I guess in my mind I had moved on. If he plays this year, I hope he tries and doesn’t pull anything shady to accrue another season and avoid playing. We could use him but if he isn’t on board then I guess best of luck.  He will be a backup or in a RBC within 2-3 years anyways. 

[w87r]

Revamp of teams that make sense to be trying to acquire Taylor:

 

Buccaneers (missing this element)

Ravens (enough said)

Bills (cheap elite option to add)

Browns (big loss at RB)

Vikings (Mattison isn't it, maybe Cam Akers?)

Rams (could see it)

Packers (already rumored)

Chiefs (cheap elite option to add)

Broncos (could use any help they can get)

 

 

Dolphins make "0" sense at this point to me.

 

2 minutes ago, Superman said:

If his contract tolls, I believe his 2023 compensation gets reduced. And then he's back in 2024 under his final year salary of ~$4m. If his contract does not toll, he gets his ~$4m this year, and then maybe gets tagged at $12-13m in 2024. Yeah the Colts hold the cards, but that's a big difference for the player.

 

And if we activate him and he plays one game, then claims that the ankle still isn't right and he needs another surgery, and gets shut down for the year, he goes to free agency after the season. And he would have played the Colts like a fiddle.

Yeah, it's a big difference, if it plays out that way. Which is most likely, I'm going in fully thinking Taylor will be a FA next year.(most likely tagged)

 

Not worried about the Colts being played like a fiddle though.

 

His contract is only $4.3m, in which he will already been paid a quarter of it. Like you said, will probably receive an even smaller chunk of the remaining if he gets "hurt".

 

Then if he elects to sit out on the tag, he won't get that money either.

 

 

Coming back and claiming injury again, only makes him look worse and decreases any potential future earnings. He needs to prove he can stay healthy and hope to secure a 2-3 year deal in the off-season.

 

 

Yeah he might play it this way and get us to tag him again next season. Make about $7-$8m more, but he will be 2 years down the road by that point.

 

All potential long term financial avenues dissipate if he "gets injured again".

 

12 minutes ago, Superman said:

In principle, I agree. I think he's misplayed his hand, he and his agent have tried to make the Colts look bad, and I don't want to reward that kind of behavior.

 

In practice, I think it's dicey. Adding some bonuses is as much a protection for the Colts as it is an incentive for Taylor

If you reward his effort to get money, how do you not reward guys like Pittman and Stewart who are also in the last year of their deal and performing well, Excellent in Stewart's case.

 

 

Colts really don't have much to loose at this point, imo.

 

We are playing with house money as everyone already counted us out for this season.

 

 

If JT wants to come back and build up his value, I'm fine with it. If he chooses do whatever he has been and elects to continue with the injury theme just to get his contract to toll, so be it.

 

 

18 minutes ago, Superman said:

And I don't even think Moss is that good. He's not running away from defenders or making guys miss or anything special. He's just producing. Imagine if we actually tried to replace JT's production in the draft and with a veteran FA. If anyone wants to understand why teams are hesitant to commit money to RBs, it's because a JAG backup who just broke his arm two months ago can come in and put up 140 scrimmage yards and a TD. There's no question that I'd rather have Taylor than Moss, but there's also no question that we can replace his production at half the cost.

I actually think Moss is pretty solid. Is he JT? Of course not, but he is more than adequate, and is a well rounded back.

 

 

But your point stands, there is replaceability.

[Superman]

2 minutes ago, w87r said:

Coming back and claiming injury again, only makes him look worse and decreases any potential future earnings. He needs to prove he can stay healthy and hope to secure a 2-3 year deal in the off-season.

 

This is a good point. I don't think it would be a good idea for JT to do this, I'm just uneasy about him and his agent after all this stuff. Especially after that rumor that he's mad at the Colts because they forced him to play injured, which was obvious nonsense.

 

Quote

If you reward his effort to get money, how do you not reward guys like Pittman and Stewart who are also in the last year of their deal and performing well, Excellent in Stewart's case.

 

Another good point, but I think the JT situation presents exigent circumstances. And I think you can mitigate part of this by reupping Pittman right now. But I'm not sure I know the strategy or the timeline on that just yet.

 

I set Stewart aside in a different category; he already got his second contract. And there's no larger positional value discussion or trend affecting Stewart or Pittman, so again, exigent circumstances, IMO.

 

This is not my first inclination, by the way, for all the reasons you're presenting. I just think it will suck if JT plays the game this way. But ultimately, no question the Colts would either tag him or trade him before the league year starts if he played that game.

 

Agreed on Moss, I'm not shading him at all. Just talking about the larger trend.

[Fluke_33]

6 hours ago, Patrick Miller said:

I’ll always be in the camp that players should honor their contract. He should have been a team player and balled out this year….show that he deserves another huge contract. So yeah …as talented as he is…He doesn’t want to be here and I dont want the guy on the team. 

I agree with your last sentence but do you feel the same way when a team cuts a player while under contract? 

[EasyE]

1 hour ago, Myles said:

I am glad I don't have a Taylor jersey.  

HAHA. I have one matching my grandson. He wears his all the time, he always asks me papa why you not wearing your JT jersey? I say it's in the dirty laundry..

[w87r]

4 minutes ago, Fluke_33 said:

I agree with your last sentence but do you feel the same way when a team cuts a player while under contract? 

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.

 

 

[csmopar]

2 hours ago, Superman said:

 

Where? I've been looking...

 

 

That's kind of my point. If he comes off PUP in Week 5, then practices for up to three weeks, and then goes to IR, I don't think he meets both elements of that rule. In which case his contract would NOT toll, and he would become a free agent. 

I read that part as the only way for him to not toll is to be on the active roster for at least one game. 
 

I don’t have the CBA pulled up but hg on, I’ll find it again. I posted it up a few weeks back

[csmopar]

2 hours ago, Superman said:

 

It's possible that this sentence is the clarification already. The bolded seems like the major factor.

 

 

The first condition about the sixth regular season game seems unnecessary. The player can't practice or play until after the sixth game, by rule. 

 

Regardless, I still don't think the Colts should trust Taylor and his agent. He can come off PUP, play one game, and then shut it down again. Yeah, that would result in grievances and all sorts of legal nonsense, and I don't think he'd get away with it, but it's something the Colts should try to avoid, IMO.

 

And I think the way to avoid it is to incentivize Taylor to play the rest of the season, and perform well. Games played bonus for the rest of the year, production bonuses, etc., and let him play his way into his free agency. That way, he actually has something to gain, instead of just triggering his free agency by playing one game and going back into hiding.

He can practice at week 4, he can come off PUP at week 4. That’s what the 6 week trigger is about. If I were the colts, I would not activate him until week 6. Thus forcing his contract to toll. 

[csmopar]

2 hours ago, Superman said:

@csmopar I think we would need additional info on this. The CBA PUP rules were adjusted. If a player was on PUP to start the season, he was unavailable for six weeks, not four. So that might explain the discrepancy. If the adjustment down to four weeks also adjusts the 'sixth regular season game' down to the 'fourth regular season game,' then there is no donut hole to be reconciled.

 

But in that case, it makes it even simpler in my mind. I'm still not seeing where the player being activated after a certain point in the season makes his contract toll, not as long as he actually plays a game that season.

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. 

[csmopar]

2 hours ago, w87r said:

Sounds like we are on the same page here, at least the same chapter.

 

Second paragraph has taken a couple reads, but yeah like you said both conditions need to be met.

 

Off PUP list

On active roster by week 6

 

Or he isn't a FA.

 

He knows this(now), he knows he needs to get on the field.

 

I think "if he is still unable to perform his football services by 6th regular season game" sums it up nicely. 

 

How?

 

1. He wouldn't of been able to provide football services by 6th regular season game.

 

+

 

2. He wouldn't of been placed back on the active roster either.

 

Both requirements hit.

This is how I read it too

[EasyE]

55 minutes ago, w87r said:

Revamp of teams that make sense to be trying to acquire Taylor:

 

Buccaneers (missing this element)

Ravens (enough said)

Bills (cheap elite option to add)

Browns (big loss at RB)

Vikings (Mattison isn't it, maybe Cam Akers?)

Rams (could see it)

Packers (already rumored)

Chiefs (cheap elite option to add)

Broncos (could use any help they can get)

 

 

Dolphins make "0" sense at this point to me.

 

Yeah, it's a big difference, if it plays out that way. Which is most likely, I'm going in fully thinking Taylor will be a FA next year.(most likely tagged)

 

Not worried about the Colts being played like a fiddle though.

 

His contract is only $4.3m, in which he will already been paid a quarter of it. Like you said, will probably receive an even smaller chunk of the remaining if he gets "hurt".

 

Then if he elects to sit out on the tag, he won't get that money either.

 

 

Coming back and claiming injury again, only makes him look worse and decreases any potential future earnings. He needs to prove he can stay healthy and hope to secure a 2-3 year deal in the off-season.

 

 

Yeah he might play it this way and get us to tag him again next season. Make about $7-$8m more, but he will be 2 years down the road by that point.

 

All potential long term financial avenues dissipate if he "gets injured again".

 

If you reward his effort to get money, how do you not reward guys like Pittman and Stewart who are also in the last year of their deal and performing well, Excellent in Stewart's case.

 

 

Colts really don't have much to loose at this point, imo.

 

We are playing with house money as everyone already counted us out for this season.

 

 

If JT wants to come back and build up his value, I'm fine with it. If he chooses do whatever he has been and elects to continue with the injury theme just to get his contract to toll, so be it.

 

 

 

I actually think Moss is pretty solid. Is he JT? Of course not, but he is more than adequate, and is a well rounded back.

 

 

But your point stands, there is replaceability.

I like the trade order you put possibility for JT. It will come down to whether or not Colts feel like it's a good deal. I'm sure they will not trade him for peanuts. But I hope Colts do come to reality and not expect too much and JT ends up traded with win win for both sides. Just hope it doesn't end with Colts getting the short end of the stick. That's why I don't think Colts should get too greedy over a player that has stated he doesn't want to play for this team any more. I wish there was a compromise for each side, but it isn't looking like that. IMO

[richard pallo]

13 minutes ago, EasyE said:

I like the trade order you put possibility for JT. It will come down to whether or not Colts feel like it's a good deal. I'm sure they will not trade him for peanuts. But I hope Colts do come to reality and not expect too much and JT ends up traded with win win for both sides. Just hope it doesn't end with Colts getting the short end of the stick. That's why I don't think Colts should get too greedy over a player that has stated he doesn't want to play for this team any more. I wish there was a compromise for each side, but it isn't looking like that. IMO

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.