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

[Fluke_33]

4 hours ago, bluebombers87 said:

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

I only brought that up because he said something about not caring when the players make millions. 

2 hours ago, Jackie Daytona said:

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.

 

I think you missed the point.

[luv_pony_express]

1 minute ago, Fluke_33 said:

 

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.

Neither of them have any bearing on what specific players are paid.  It’s the cap that determines that - relative, of course, to how a player is valued.

 

Think of it less in terms of dollars than in percentage of the total salary cap they have to spend.  That will make it make more sense.

[Fluke_33]

6 minutes ago, luv_pony_express said:

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.

 

That's not my point.  The only reason i brought that up was the poster said he didn't care about players who make millions

Just now, luv_pony_express said:

Neither of them have any bearing on what specific players are paid.  

 

That is my point.  

[iuswingman]

4 minutes ago, Fluke_33 said:

 

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.

 I didn't miss your point.  Owners aren't complaining about how much money they are making so your comparison right off the bat is apples to oranges.

 

How much money they are spending on player salaries is controlled by the salary cap so I was addressing the ridiculousness of that part of your point.

[Fluke_33]

Just now, iuswingman said:

 I didn't miss your point.  Owners aren't complaining about how much money they are making so your comparison right off the bat is apples to oranges.

 

How much money they are spending on player salaries is controlled by the salary cap so I was addressing the ridiculousness of that part of your point.

 

You definitely did miss my point if that is what you think it is.

 

You got it above but now lost it again.   lol.

 

Time to move on.

[iuswingman]

4 minutes ago, Fluke_33 said:

 

You definitely did miss my point if that is what you think it is.

 

You got it above but now lost it again.   lol.

 

Time to move on.

 

probably because you had no point. 

 

Taylor signed a contract,  He isn't done with that contract.  He is currently making more money per year than most people could ever dream of making.

 

Why anyone would feel sorry for Taylor is crazy and what an owner makes is immaterial and that is what people are trying to explain to you. 

 

Hence, you had no valid point, even though you really wanted a "gotcha' moment.

[luv_pony_express]

7 minutes ago, Fluke_33 said:

 

That's not my point.  The only reason i brought that up was the poster said he didn't care about players who make millions

But owners aren’t complaining about how much money they pay players.  That’s not the limiting factor.

 

JT isn’t getting what he wants because he’s asking for a higher value than his market value…within the salary cap constraint.  It’s not that Irsay is complaining about the cash itself…but how much of the cap JT wants.

[cdgacoltsfan]

2 hours ago, NewColtsFan said:

Fair enough, thanks Marshawn!    

[Shaolin06]

 I think we should just try to trade him to Miami for jaylen waddle even if we have to send a second or third round pick with him to get it done. We would take care of two birds with one stone. Get rid of the disgruntled player and pick up a young emerging wide receiver.

 

[Fluke_33]

21 minutes ago, iuswingman said:

probably because you had no point

 

 

Good argument.   You won the internet!  Lol.

 

42 minutes ago, luv_pony_express said:

But owners aren’t complaining about how much money they pay players.  That’s not the limiting factor.

 

JT isn’t getting what he wants because he’s asking for a higher value than his market value…within the salary cap constraint.  It’s not that Irsay is complaining about the cash itself…but how much of the cap JT wants.

 

Exactly!  you get it!

[iuswingman]

2 minutes ago, Fluke_33 said:

 

 

Good argument.   You won the internet!  Lol.

 

 

Exactly!  you get it!

 

Lol that wasn't my whole post and the poster you said got it was saying what i had said. 

 

 

[Fluke_33]

Just now, iuswingman said:

 

Lol that wasn't my whole post and the poster you said got it was saying what i had said. 

 

 

 

I award you two trophies then!

[Superman]

1 hour ago, stitches said:

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... 

 

So what would you do? I've been saying we should incentivize him, but I know that's a double edged sword.

[stitches]

1 minute ago, Superman said:

 

So what would you do? I've been saying we should incentivize him, but I know that's a double edged sword.

I'm on the record that we should have traded him BEFORE he staged ... whatever this is. I thought we should have traded him before we left him on PUP for the start of the season. I think we should trade him now too...

 

Of course this all with the caveat that you don't just gift him to whoever offers you a bag of chips. If noone gives you more than what you can get as compensatory pick, just keep him. But if you are getting offers like 2nd and 3d or 2nd and 4th, 2x 3ds... I think I'd take it and just move on. 

[Fluke_33]

3 minutes ago, stitches said:

I'm on the record that we should have traded him BEFORE he staged ... whatever this is. I thought we should have traded him before we left him on PUP for the start of the season. I think we should trade him now too...

 

Of course this all with the caveat that you don't just gift him to whoever offers you a bag of chips. If noone gives you more than what you can get as compensatory pick, just keep him. But if you are getting offers like 2nd and 3d or 2nd and 4th, 2x 3ds... I think I'd take it and just move on. 

 

That's where i stand too unless he is causing a problem in the locker room then i would just trade him for anything, cut bait, and move on.

[Hoose]

29 minutes ago, Fluke_33 said:

 

That's where i stand too unless he is causing a problem in the locker room then i would just trade him for anything, cut bait, and move on.

That would be a mistake I doubt the Colts would make. If Taylor won’t play or is causing problems you suspend him. What the Colts should NOT do is send the message that being a trouble maker or an unreasonable holdout gets rewarded. Trading Taylor for whatever you can get at this point is rewarding him. Ain’t happening. 

Contrast Taylor with Pittman. He’s in the same contractural situation, and is balling. He’ll get rewarded as he should. That’s  the message to send. 
 

[hoosierhawk]

1 hour ago, stitches said:

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... 

I don't know JT but from everything I heard in the past he was a great teammate. You give me the impression that you think he is a conniver and has no regard for his team but only about himself. Sorry if you feel this way but my impression of JT is entirely different. Yes he wants to get paid more but I don't think he would jeopardize his career in this way. 

[richard pallo]

42 minutes ago, Fluke_33 said:

 

That's where i stand too unless he is causing a problem in the locker room then i would just trade him for anything, cut bait, and move on.

I haven’t read where he’s causing problems in the locker room.  So this is just a player front office dispute over money.  Happens all the time.  It will resolve itself and I have faith that Ballard will do what’s right for the Colts.

[stitches]

3 minutes ago, hoosierhawk said:

I don't know JT but from everything I heard in the past he was a great teammate. You give me the impression that you think he is a conniver and has no regard for his team but only about himself. Sorry if you feel this way but my impression of JT is entirely different. Yes he wants to get paid more but I don't think he would jeopardize his career in this way. 

I don't know what kind of teammate he is. Right now it seems like his highest priority is getting paid and getting away from the Colts. Everything from the reports I've heard around this whole situation suggests to me that JT was faking/exaggerating an injury and there are serious reports that the Colts believe this to be the case too. The very fact that right after he was left on PUP for the first 4 games, there were reports that JT is surprised that he's left on PUP and that he would have played if the Colts activated him before the season started, confirms to me that what is most likely happening is that he's following the advice and suggestions that NFLPA's execs were floating around IN THE OPEN during the summer - that players use fake/exaggerated injuries to impact contract negotiations. 

[Fluke_33]

18 minutes ago, Hoose said:

That would be a mistake I doubt the Colts would make. If Taylor won’t play or is causing problems you suspend him. What the Colts should NOT do is send the message that being a trouble maker or an unreasonable holdout gets rewarded. Trading Taylor for whatever you can get at this point is rewarding him. Ain’t happening. 

Contrast Taylor with Pittman. He’s in the same contractural situation, and is balling. He’ll get rewarded as he should. That’s  the message to send. 
 

 

That's a really good point! anyone in a contract squabble would do the same thing.  Suspending him makes sense.

[Fluke_33]

10 minutes ago, richard pallo said:

I haven’t read where he’s causing problems in the locker room.  So this is just a player front office dispute over money.  Happens all the time.  It will resolve itself and I have faith that Ballard will do what’s right for the Colts.

 

I'm not saying he is causing problems.  i'm saying if he did start to or i guess i really mean if he was a distraction.  

 

I hope you are right.

[Solid84]

1 hour ago, Superman said:

 

So what would you do? I've been saying we should incentivize him, but I know that's a double edged sword.

This really comes down to what JT wants in my opinion.

 

If they both want to get a deal done, then JT has to play. No way around it. He has to show he CAN and he fits the scheme. If he refuses that then trade him and get it over with. Incentives are a slippery slope.

 

If JT REALLY wants out then trade him and get it over with.

[hoosierhawk]

9 minutes ago, stitches said:

I don't know what kind of teammate he is. Right now it seems like his highest priority is getting paid and getting away from the Colts. Everything from the reports I've heard around this whole situation suggests to me that JT was faking/exaggerating an injury and there are serious reports that the Colts believe this to be the case too. The very fact that right after he was left on PUP for the first 4 games, there were reports that JT is surprised that he's left on PUP and that he would have played if the Colts activated him before the season started, confirms to me that what is most likely happening is that he's following the advice and suggestions that NFLPA's execs were floating around IN THE OPEN during the summer - that players use fake/exaggerated injuries to impact contract negotiations. 

Read about the NFLPA stuff but never read or heard about him being surprised the Colts put him on the PUP. Colts putting him on PUP you would think plays into the NFLPA's hand. Makes no sense but what do I know.

[Restinpeacesweetchloe]

😈

 

[Restinpeacesweetchloe]

Good stuff in here.

 

 

[Superman]

If that "team source" is real, then that's basically what I expected to hear, and it's exactly what Chris Ballard said before and after camp. 

[richard pallo]

9 minutes ago, Restinpeacesweetchloe said:

Good stuff in here.

 

 

After reading the quotes from the team source I think the source is Ballard.  JMO of course.  That’s a long list of teams that have inquired about JT.  Ballard accommodated Hines when he requested a trade.  I would say he received what he needed to make that trade with Buffalo and that was a player.  I think he will accommodate JT if he receives an offer that falls within the compensation that he is looking for.  And that too could very well be a player.  Still hoping he stays though.

[Superman]

3 minutes ago, richard pallo said:

After reading the quotes from the team source I think the source is Ballard.  JMO of course.  That’s a long list of teams that have inquired about JT.  Ballard accommodated Hines when he requested a trade.  I would say he received what he needed to make that trade with Buffalo and that was a player.  I think he will accommodate JT if he receives an offer that falls within the compensation that he is looking for.  And that too could very well be a player.  Still hoping he stays though.

 

It's the same thing Ballard said in his press conferences.

[richard pallo]

6 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

It's the same thing Ballard said in his press conferences.

Yeah I recognized the similarities too.  I think he’s the source.

[Btown_Colt]

8 minutes ago, richard pallo said:

Yeah I recognized the similarities too.  I think he’s the source.

I mean, I had a similar thought. It could be that the “source” intentionally parroted what Ballard had already said, though.

 

The trade list is pretty specific. It may not be Ballard, but it’s definitely someone higher up the chain, imo. Potentially being Dodds was my other thought.

[Restinpeacesweetchloe]

37 minutes ago, Superman said:

If that "team source" is real, then that's basically what I expected to hear, and it's exactly what Chris Ballard said before and after camp. 

Destin is usually pretty right on.

 

Still not convinced Taylor will want to stay. Will he give it his all here or play grumpy if they don’t trade him. At some point colts will have to realize it’s a lost cause if he truly wants out and just move on. Take what you can. 
 

Still don’t think there is a team going to give up much for him. So it’s really in Taylor’s court. He really didn’t accomplish anything if he gets traded with no extension. 

[Restinpeacesweetchloe]

27 minutes ago, richard pallo said:

Yeah I recognized the similarities too.  I think he’s the source.

Or it’s just a canned response they have on hand and everyone Judy’s parrots it.

[Superman]

32 minutes ago, richard pallo said:

Yeah I recognized the similarities too.  I think he’s the source.

 

Reading it back, I don't think it's Ballard. Just the verbiage and how I read the speech mannerisms, it seems a little more direct than Ballard usually is. There's also the 'blown out of proportion' part of the comment, which doesn't exactly mirror Ballard's comments in that last presser. Ballard took it very seriously. JMO.

 

Either way, the message is the same. And if this source is real -- IF -- then the Colts seem to think it all comes down to the money. Which has been my thinking all along. Not that JT hasn't possibly developed some negative personal feelings at some point along the way, but bottom line is he wanted a new contract before the season, the Colts wouldn't budge, and he decided to do what he's done.

[lester]

20 hours 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. 

 

It is fair and equitable. The contract binds both parties. The team and the player are obligated to adhere to the contract they signed. Sometimes teams are stuck with poor deals but must stick it out with a player they don't want any more. Sometimes players perform at a higher level than their current contract; but they are obligated to perform under the document they signed.

 

For players, contract protections include things like guaranteed money and signing bonuses. They are often paid in advance for services they haven't yet rendered. It is also evident in things like cap structure and dead cap. All kinds of contract language is used by players to protect themselves. The more valuable the player, the stronger the language that favors them.

 

Teams take a huge risk on drafting a player. The contract protects the player by getting them money before they have played a single down in the league. But the contract also protects the teams by giving the ability to cut a player who is not performing well. That does not mean they don't follow the contract, it means the player is paid the contract amount they agreed to.

 

[Superman]

8 minutes ago, lester said:

 

It is fair and equitable. The contract binds both parties. The team and the player are obligated to adhere to the contract they signed. Sometimes teams are stuck with poor deals but must stick it out with a player they don't want any more. Sometimes players perform at a higher level than their current contract; but they are obligated to perform under the document they signed.

 

For players, contract protections include things like guaranteed money and signing bonuses. They are often paid in advance for services they haven't yet rendered. It is also evident in things like cap structure and dead cap. All kinds of contract language is used by players to protect themselves. The more valuable the player, the stronger the language that favors them.

 

Teams take a huge risk on drafting a player. The contract protects the player by getting them money before they have played a single down in the league. But the contract also protects the teams by giving the ability to cut a player who is not performing well. That does not mean they don't follow the contract, it means the player is paid the contract amount they agreed to.

 

Butting in, but I happen to think this discussion is only glancing at the main issue. The NFL CBA, NFL contracts, and the general business model of the NFL greatly favors the owners over the players. Whether that's good, bad, or indifferent, it's the way it is.

 

So a discussion about 'honoring the contract' and whatnot is not really getting at the heart of the matter. Saying 'teams get stuck with bad contracts sometimes' so that makes it "fair and equitable" is rationalizing around the fact that teams almost(?) always have the upper hand in contract negotiations.

 

As it relates to this situation, the Colts have benefited greatly from the fact that the CBA requires a drafted player to sign a four year contract for a predetermined value, and does not allow the player to renegotiate that contract until after three years. So coming off of 2021, when JT's value was at its highest point, and he probably could have earned 10 times what he made that season on the open market, there was no discussion to be had.

 

And now, when JT is eligible for an extension, the Colts still have him over a barrel contractually, and he has no leverage. It's him taking all the risk by playing out the final year of his contract, and even if he has an amazing season, the Colts can still tag him. The tag, by the way, artificially limits the earning potential of the best players in the league, thereby reducing the market value and the future value of the tag for players at the same position. And because NFL precedent limits contract guarantees, the team can limit their exposure year by year by terminating the contract at their own discretion, with few limitations.

 

So everything benefits the team and gives them the upper hand, while the player gets told to 'honor their contract.' It's a very small percentage of NFL players -- basically really good QBs, and maybe a few other veteran star players at other positions -- who even come close to having any leverage.

 

I'm not arguing about the merits of any of this, simply stating that it's the way it is. And when these conversations start circling around fairness and what's equitable and risk and obligation, I think it gets lost in the shuffle that the CBA and contracts and negotiations are not about fairness, equity, etc., they aren't even really about value or worth. Negotiations are about leverage, above anything else. And most players have little to no leverage, and just have to grab whatever slice of the pie they can when the opportunity comes along. 

 

None of this should be taken as my support for Jonathan Taylor, or approval for how he's handled this situation. I think the Colts have handled this situation as best as they could (aside from a PR slip up from Irsay), and I think all the negativity and acrimony has come from Taylor and his side. I don't think the Colts have done anything wrong or inappropriate, and Taylor's side has greatly misplayed their hand. But I don't think 'honor your contract' is a genuine response.

[colts52761]

Taylor to the steelers?

[Indyfan4life]

Just now, colts52761 said:

Taylor to the steelers?

Gross. 

[Fluke_33]

51 minutes ago, lester said:

 

It is fair and equitable. The contract binds both parties. The team and the player are obligated to adhere to the contract they signed. Sometimes teams are stuck with poor deals but must stick it out with a player they don't want any more. Sometimes players perform at a higher level than their current contract; but they are obligated to perform under the document they signed.

 

For players, contract protections include things like guaranteed money and signing bonuses. They are often paid in advance for services they haven't yet rendered. It is also evident in things like cap structure and dead cap. All kinds of contract language is used by players to protect themselves. The more valuable the player, the stronger the language that favors them.

 

Teams take a huge risk on drafting a player. The contract protects the player by getting them money before they have played a single down in the league. But the contract also protects the teams by giving the ability to cut a player who is not performing well. That does not mean they don't follow the contract, it means the player is paid the contract amount they agreed to.

 

 

That is a lucid, well thought-out, intelligent objection, mr gambini 

 

[iuswingman]

1 hour ago, Superman said:

 

Butting in, but I happen to think this discussion is only glancing at the main issue. The NFL CBA, NFL contracts, and the general business model of the NFL greatly favors the owners over the players. Whether that's good, bad, or indifferent, it's the way it is.

 

So a discussion about 'honoring the contract' and whatnot is not really getting at the heart of the matter. Saying 'teams get stuck with bad contracts sometimes' so that makes it "fair and equitable" is rationalizing around the fact that teams almost(?) always have the upper hand in contract negotiations.

 

As it relates to this situation, the Colts have benefited greatly from the fact that the CBA requires a drafted player to sign a four year contract for a predetermined value, and does not allow the player to renegotiate that contract until after three years. So coming off of 2021, when JT's value was at its highest point, and he probably could have earned 10 times what he made that season on the open market, there was no discussion to be had.

 

And now, when JT is eligible for an extension, the Colts still have him over a barrel contractually, and he has no leverage. It's him taking all the risk by playing out the final year of his contract, and even if he has an amazing season, the Colts can still tag him. The tag, by the way, artificially limits the earning potential of the best players in the league, thereby reducing the market value and the future value of the tag for players at the same position. And because NFL precedent limits contract guarantees, the team can limit their exposure year by year by terminating the contract at their own discretion, with few limitations.

 

So everything benefits the team and gives them the upper hand, while the player gets told to 'honor their contract.' It's a very small percentage of NFL players -- basically really good QBs, and maybe a few other veteran star players at other positions -- who even come close to having any leverage.

 

I'm not arguing about the merits of any of this, simply stating that it's the way it is. And when these conversations start circling around fairness and what's equitable and risk and obligation, I think it gets lost in the shuffle that the CBA and contracts and negotiations are not about fairness, equity, etc., they aren't even really about value or worth. Negotiations are about leverage, above anything else. And most players have little to no leverage, and just have to grab whatever slice of the pie they can when the opportunity comes along. 

 

None of this should be taken as my support for Jonathan Taylor, or approval for how he's handled this situation. I think the Colts have handled this situation as best as they could (aside from a PR slip up from Irsay), and I think all the negativity and acrimony has come from Taylor and his side. I don't think the Colts have done anything wrong or inappropriate, and Taylor's side has greatly misplayed their hand. But I don't think 'honor your contract' is a genuine response.

 

Yet new records are broken regularly on how much players are getting paid.  

 

With that kind of money flowing, owners want some protection on their investment, hence rookie contracts and franchise tags, which still pay players handsomely based on positional value.

[Southern Cal]

I like JT and he has played great for our Colts.  I do not like his behavior during this dispute and do not know what his attitude is towards Colts players and coaches. I do not want him to be a cancer in the locker room and if he plays for us I want him to give us his best effort. Without knowing any particulars with team interactions, I would propose giving him incentives based on performance.  He has already missed four games so that should cost him.

 

I would offer $400,000 for each game played and $ 500,000 bonus if he runs for 1000 yards, another $1,000,000 bonus if he runs for 1500 yards.   Added to his $4 million base, JT could earn up to $10,700,000  ($5,200,000 for 13 games and $1,500,000 for 1500 or more yards).  Add $1 million bonus for each playoff game played.  Sign-off that Colts will not franchise tag him after this year.   We can flex numbers some, or include games played incentives after he gets 8 games under his belt, such as no bonus until 9th game and then each game $ 1,200,000 bonus (9th, 10th, 11th, 12th, 13th games total $6,000,000)

 

Let's work with him.  It benefits AR and the Colts team to have JT play for us.