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

[IndySouthsider]

 

[GoColts8818]

1 hour ago, Southern Cal said:

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.  

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Colts have made it clear they aren’t interested in redoing his deal right now.  They don’t have too he’s under contract until the year is over.  They also have real questions about if he will work in their new offense and is he still the same player he was before the injury.  He’s also not like Barkley or Jacobs who hadn’t signed their tenders so technically they didn’t have a contract and didn’t have to play for their teams.  
 

So all the talk about working with him is moot right now, the Colts have said it’s not what they are going to do.  They have no reason to beyond just making Taylor happy and that might not be in the long term interest of the team.  This is the business side of football that no one likes or enjoys but you have to account for it to be a successful team.  
 

By the same token the Colts have also made it clear if Taylor performs well they will be happy to offer him an extension and judging by how Ballard has paid players in the past it will be a more than fair offer.  So the ball is Taylor’s court, play and earn his contract or sit out and have your contract basically roll over because it doesn’t sound like there are many legitimate offers out there for him and the ones that are out there aren’t matching the Colts asking price and they have no reason to give him away for less if they know his contract will roll over if he doesn’t do what they want which is for him to play.

[Restinpeacesweetchloe]

According to that story Destin said Steelers did call about Taylor. What would you guys think of a Taylor for Harris trade. Steelers would still have to add other picks because Harris isn’t as accomplished as Taylor.

[2006Coltsbestever]

51 minutes ago, Restinpeacesweetchloe said:

According to that story Destin said Steelers did call about Taylor. What would you guys think of a Taylor for Harris trade. Steelers would still have to add other picks because Harris isn’t as accomplished as Taylor.

Taylor for TJ Watt and we have a deal 

[Jackie Daytona]

14 hours ago, richard pallo said:

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

I think it's far more likely that "the SoUrCe" is the transcript of the Ballard press conference.

[VikingsFanInChennai]

9 hours ago, Restinpeacesweetchloe said:

According to that story Destin said Steelers did call about Taylor. What would you guys think of a Taylor for Harris trade. Steelers would still have to add other picks because Harris isn’t as accomplished as Taylor.

Harris is worse than Zack Moss with a first round draft pick pedigree, so Steelers would've to give a lot more than that..

 

I believe so many teams would've called Colts to get to know their asking price.. that's called due diligence that every GM would be interested to do, if they don't have an elite RB already.

 

It doesn't mean they're interested, many teams would just be interested in knowing the market price and assess how things shape up around the NFL. 

[krunk]

ESPN Article by Stephen Holder

 

From all indications, Indianapolis Colts All-Pro running back Jonathan Taylor appears ready to return to the playing field -- whether that happens in Indianapolis or elsewhere.

“He looks great. And I can’t wait to actually physically get a chance to work with him, see him move around, see that speed and feel that speed,” Colts running backs coach DeAndre Smith said.

 

Those workouts were the basis for Smith’s assessment of the running back, who led the NFL in rushing in 2021 with 1,811 yards with a league-high 18 touchdowns. Only Nick Chubb, Dalvin Cook and Derrick Henry have more explosive runs (10 yards or longer) since Taylor entered the league in 2020.

“He bounces a run and it might go for 60 [yards],” Smith said. “That’s what you need, those chunk plays. When [Colts running back] Zack [Moss] gets off a 20-plus yard run, those things are huge. So, if you get a guy who might be able to double that, it just makes the offense more explosive.”

https://www.espn.com/blog/indianapolis-colts/post/_/id/28256/colts-jonathan-taylor-looks-great-in-workouts-eligible-to-return-monday?platform=amp

[TrueBlue4ever]

So there you have it! Healthy and ready to roll! Get him off the PUP, activate him and play him in game 5 against the Titans. If Sermon can pick up the system in 5 days, so could Taylor! This drama is about to end!

[DougDew]

6 minutes ago, TrueBlue4ever said:

So there you have it! Healthy and ready to roll! Get him off the PUP, activate him and play him in game 5 against the Titans. If Sermon can pick up the system in 5 days, so could Taylor! This drama is about to end!

It can't, the thread would die.  This thread has been responsible for probably 50% of the clicks the past 2 months.

[Superman]

14 hours ago, iuswingman said:

 

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.

 

Owners have plenty of protection. 

 

The increases in player compensation are a direct reflection of the increases in league revenue, which is what the salary cap is based on. The owners benefit from these increases just like the players do. And when there are drastic increases in pay at specific positions, it comes at a cost to players at other positions. For example, QB pay has exploded in relation to the salary cap, but RB pay has contracted. Those increases do not come at a cost to the owners. They continue to get their same slice of the pie.

[Superman]

11 hours ago, Restinpeacesweetchloe said:

According to that story Destin said Steelers did call about Taylor. What would you guys think of a Taylor for Harris trade. Steelers would still have to add other picks because Harris isn’t as accomplished as Taylor.

 

Harris looks bad. I don't think the Colts should/would be interested.

[ADnum1]

19 hours ago, Restinpeacesweetchloe said:

Good stuff in here.

 

 

Says he still doesn't want to play for the Colts. 

 

Looks like he will holdout then and come back the last 6 weeks so he is a UFA next season

[Restinpeacesweetchloe]

Wrong thread 

[csmopar]

42 minutes ago, PRnum1 said:

Says he still doesn't want to play for the Colts. 

 

Looks like he will holdout then and come back the last 6 weeks so he is a UFA next season

He can’t… if he holds out, his contract tolls and we’re back in the same spot next year. Plus he’s forfeit his pay for this year, this ends within the next two weeks, if not sooner

[iuswingman]

2 hours ago, Superman said:

 

Owners have plenty of protection. 

 

The increases in player compensation are a direct reflection of the increases in league revenue, which is what the salary cap is based on. The owners benefit from these increases just like the players do. And when there are drastic increases in pay at specific positions, it comes at a cost to players at other positions. For example, QB pay has exploded in relation to the salary cap, but RB pay has contracted. Those increases do not come at a cost to the owners. They continue to get their same slice of the pie.

 

so you think the pie should increase more than it already does so that every player can get what they want in salary?  Doesn't seem sustainable.

 

The owners don't have plenty of protection.  the only thing they are protected by is the salary cap, which is necessary to keep salaries somewhat under control and create an even playing field.  It would suck if one team was allowed to buy an all-star team.  

 

 

[DougDew]

There was a discussion about this a few pages back, but I believe the gist of it is that once JT comes off of PUP AND is activated for any game the remainder of the season, he becomes a FA.  The number of plays he plays is not relevant.

 

Releasing from PUP means that he is healthy.  Its assumed that a healthy player wants to play and a HC wants to play a healthy player.  So if JT dogs during practice, never gets in game shape, SS can simply leave him inactive for the games, and then his contract would roll over to next year. 

 

There is an incentive for JT to practice well enough to be considered for activation in the eyes of SS.

[Superman]

3 minutes ago, iuswingman said:

 

so you think the pie should increase so every player can get what they want in salary?

 

Doesn't seem sustainable.

 

I'm not suggesting that every player should get what they want in salary. The point of my response to you is that the owners' share doesn't change because Player A gets a big contract. Player B just gets less. The owners' share stays the same. So this talk about the owners wanting to protect their investment doesn't hit home for me.

 

And in the bigger picture, my point was that players are generally limited in their ability to maximize their earnings in the NFL, so the 'honor your contract' response definitely seems like a miss.

[iuswingman]

2 minutes ago, DougDew said:

There was a discussion about this a few pages back, but I believe the gist of it is that once JT comes off of PUP AND is activated for any game the remainder of the season, he becomes a FA.  The number of plays he plays is not relevant.

 

Releasing from PUP means that he is healthy.  Its assumed that a healthy player wants to play and a HC wants to play a healthy player.  So if JT dogs during practice, never gets in game shape, SS can simply leave him inactive for the games, and then his contract would roll over to next year. 

 

There is an incentive for JT to practice well enough to be considered for activation in the eyes of SS.

 

but after he is in for 1 play, then the incentive is gone.  Doesn't seem like a very good setup.

[iuswingman]

5 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

I'm not suggesting that every player should get what they want in salary. The point of my response to you is that the owners' share doesn't change because Player A gets a big contract. Player B just gets less. The owners' share stays the same. So this talk about the owners wanting to protect their investment doesn't hit home for me.

 

And in the bigger picture, my point was that players are generally limited in their ability to maximize their earnings in the NFL, so the 'honor your contract' response definitely seems like a miss.

 

I get that and even explained that in previous posts. 

 

Their investment is drafting or signing a player that may be hit or miss.   They spend time and money getting said players to improve and put them in position to do well.  It's an investment in that player over other players that were available.

 

There is generally a limit to everyone's ability to maximize their earning regardless of occupation.  People should still honor their contract.    In what world should it be ok to say "well, i think i'm worth more, I don't give a crap what I signed" 

[GoColts8818]

4 minutes ago, iuswingman said:

 

but after he is in for 1 play, then the incentive is gone.  Doesn't seem like a very good setup.

If he says he’s hurt again no team will sign him due to injury concerns over the past two years and no production.  Look at Marlon Mack for example.  If he sits out the Colts can fine him and take his money which he doesn’t want either.  

[DougDew]

15 minutes ago, iuswingman said:

 

but after he is in for 1 play, then the incentive is gone.  Doesn't seem like a very good setup.

Yes, he can claim to have an Andy Luck sore leg that doctors can't find, and sit on the bench.  Unfortunately for the Colts, they did set a precedent when they paid Lucks contract when the doctors could not confirm an injury, so it would seem the Colts would be the last team to say anything about JT doing that.

 

I think the rules regarding this is based upon the assumption that the player wants to play, and that the team wants him to play.  Both a player or a team could play the system if they had bad motivations. 

 

It cuts both ways....SS could persistently say that JT isn't practicing well enough, never activate him, then the cheap contract would roll over and the Colts would have the benefit of JT on his rookie deal for one more season....when they may be more interested in winning games than this season.  The rules are written with such big loopholes that either side can run through because the rules assume PUP is an amicable thing.

 

If I understand the rules correctly.

[Superman]

1 minute ago, iuswingman said:

 

I get that.  Their investment is drafting or signing a player that may be hit or miss.   It's an investment in that player over other players that were available.  T

 

Okay but they're going to draft someone. That investment is getting made no matter what, and they're spending within a certain range over a period of time, due to CBA rules. That's why I say the owners' investment and their slice of the pie isn't really affected by how much any individual player is making, even if that player doesn't live up to the contract. Over time, it all balances out.

 

Even the Rams, the poster child for going all in and spending cash over cap. From 2020 to 2023 (as of right now), they have spent $771m in cash, but the cumulative cap for those four years is $814m. Just illustrating that the cap keeps the owners solvent.

 

Quote

There is generally a limit to everyone's ability to maximize their earning regardless of occupation.  People should still honor their contract.    In what world should it be ok to say "well, i think i'm worth more, I don't give a crap what I signed" 

 

Again, not arguing the merits. I'm saying that players use whatever avenues they can to maximize their earnings, and they do so because the rules strongly favor the teams over any individual player. The team has the unilateral right to terminate a contract early (unless the player negotiates an option), and they use that right frequently. Because it's a contractual right, we tend to treat it differently than if a player decides to hold out, even though it's fundamentally the same thing. 

 

To the bolded, when a team cuts a player, or goes to him to reduce his compensation, they're saying 'we think you're worth less, we don't care what you signed.'

 

And in both cases, those actions are taken and governed by leverage, which in almost every case the team has far more leverage than the player.

 

This is just devil's advocate. I'm not defending or promoting player holdouts. I'm just pushing back against this 'honor your contract' narrative, because again, I think it's narrow in focus.

[iuswingman]

Just now, Superman said:

 

Okay but they're going to draft someone. That investment is getting made no matter what, and they're spending within a certain range over a period of time, due to CBA rules. That's why I say the owners' investment and their slice of the pie isn't really affected by how much any individual player is making, even if that player doesn't live up to the contract. Over time, it all balances out.

 

Even the Rams, the poster child for going all in and spending cash over cap. From 2020 to 2023 (as of right now), they have spent $771m in cash, but the cumulative cap for those four years is $814m. Just illustrating that the cap keeps the owners solvent.

 

 

Again, not arguing the merits. I'm saying that players use whatever avenues they can to maximize their earnings, and they do so because the rules strongly favor the teams over any individual player. The team has the unilateral right to terminate a contract early (unless the player negotiates an option), and they use that right frequently. Because it's a contractual right, we tend to treat it differently than if a player decides to hold out, even though it's fundamentally the same thing. 

 

To the bolded, when a team cuts a player, or goes to him to reduce his compensation, they're saying 'we think you're worth less, we don't care what you signed.'

 

And in both cases, those actions are taken and governed by leverage, which in almost every case the team has far more leverage than the player.

 

This is just devil's advocate. I'm not defending or promoting player holdouts. I'm just pushing back against this 'honor your contract' narrative, because again, I think it's narrow in focus.

 

You're completely ignoring that if the players %s the bed after the team drafts them, then the team doesn't do as well which could lead to loss of ticket/merchandise sales (if team starts losing because of it) etc.

 

Contracts generally stipulate that teams can cut a player.  Do you have any links to teams telling a player a "contract be damned, we're doin this anyway" scenario?  I'm guessing not.  

[Superman]

14 minutes ago, iuswingman said:

 

You're completely ignoring that if the players %s the bed after the team drafts them, then the team doesn't do as well which could lead to loss of ticket/merchandise sales (if team starts losing because of it) etc.

 

Contracts generally stipulate that teams can cut a player.  Do you have any links to teams telling a player a "contract be damned, we're doin this anyway" scenario?  I'm guessing not.  

 

Are you really arguing that if a team misses on a single draft pick, the team experiences a loss in revenue?

[iuswingman]

4 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

Are you really arguing that if a team misses on a single draft pick, the team experiences a loss in revenue?

 

If Taylor sucked instead of played well, then do you think that wouldn't have had any effect?

 

Of course, in that scenario he probably wouldn't be crying like a baby over making $4 million either.

 

Generally, a single miss isn't going to have a great effect....many misses would.

[Superman]

5 minutes ago, iuswingman said:

 

If Taylor sucked instead of played well, then do you think that wouldn't have had any effect?

 

Of course, in that scenario he probably wouldn't be crying like a baby over making $4 million either.

 

Do you think the Colts lost revenue because Ben Banogu didn't work out?

 

I think there's little chance we're going to see this similarly.

[iuswingman]

Just now, Superman said:

 

Do you think the Colts lost revenue because Ben Banogu didn't work out?

 

I think there's little chance we're going to see this similarly.

 

Nope, since at the end of the day, it is still a contract signed.  Taylor is in the wrong for pouting over it.

[2006Coltsbestever]

I still don't get why some in here doesn't think Taylor can return to 2021 form. He is young with Elite speed and has only been in the NFL for 3 years and hasn't had a bad year yet. Even last year he played good with nagging injuries and his ankle problem. His injury wasn't even that bad. If it were an Achilles or something, I could get that.

 

Also regarding his contract, it is very normal for an all-pro type of player to want an extension in the last year of their deal. It has happened 100's of times over the years. Not hard to understand. 

[iuswingman]

Just now, 2006Coltsbestever said:

I still don't get why some in here doesn't think Taylor can return to 2021 form. He is young with Elite speed and has only been in the NFL for 3 years and hasn't had a bad year yet. Even last year he played good with nagging injuries and his ankle problem. His injury wasn't even that bad. If it were an Achilles or something, I could get that.

 

Also regarding his contract, it is very normal for an all-pro type of player to want an extension in the last year of their deal. It has happened 100's of times over the years. Not hard to understand. 

 

Most think he can but he has yet to prove it (while claiming he was injured).

 

If someone was coming back from injury and refused to have a physical done while claiming to be injured, then how would you feel about tripling their pay or more (depending on his asking price)?

 

Yea, many have wanted an extension, not many during their rookie deals.  How many have faked injuries before their ROOKIE deal was even completed?

[Chrisaaron1023]

Hey guys, I get a "report" on my phone about every hour telling me that "Taylor still doesn't want to play for the Colts." Did you guys know that?!

 

 

 

[Nickster]

4 hours ago, TrueBlue4ever said:

So there you have it! Healthy and ready to roll! Get him off the PUP, activate him and play him in game 5 against the Titans. If Sermon can pick up the system in 5 days, so could Taylor! This drama is about to end!

 

Running back is not a complex position to play compared to other positions. If JT his healthy lol, in condition and on the team, there is no football reason for him not to take over the a good amount if not most of the RB duties next week.

 

 

[iuswingman]

2 minutes ago, Chrisaaron1023 said:

Hey guys, I get a "report" on my phone about every hour telling me that "Taylor still doesn't want to play for the Colts." Did you guys know that?!

 

 

 

 

Yup, but if the Colts don't trade him then he doesn't have much of a choice unless he wants the last year of his contract to roll over to next year and we continue to have the same discussion.

 

Unfortunately for Taylor, the Colts could tag him for a couple more years so he could be simmering for a bit lol.

[2006Coltsbestever]

2 minutes ago, Chrisaaron1023 said:

Hey guys, I get a "report" on my phone about every hour telling me that "Taylor still doesn't want to play for the Colts." Did you guys know that?!

 

 

 

That has been the rumors/reports since late July and watch, he will probably play next week 

[jvan1973]

18 minutes ago, iuswingman said:

 

Nope, since at the end of the day, it is still a contract signed.  Taylor is in the wrong for pouting over it.

You've never asked for a raise?

[iuswingman]

17 minutes ago, jvan1973 said:

You've never asked for a raise?

 

Nope but even if I did, I wouldn't be sitting at home pretending to be sick until they gave me one.  Plus, I'm not on a contract so your point was already apples and oranges.

 

Nobody would care if all Taylor did was ASK for a raise.

 

Did you ever ask anyone to triple your salary?

[jvan1973]

2 minutes ago, iuswingman said:

 

Nope but even if I did, I wouldn't be sitting at home pretending to be sick until they gave me one.

 

Nobody would care if all Taylor did was ASK for a raise.

 

Did you ever ask anyone to triple your salary?

I've left jobs for triple what I was making

[iuswingman]

Just now, jvan1973 said:

I've left jobs for triple what I was making

 

Great. Not the same thing.

 

Taylor is more than welcome to leave the NFL and look for the $12 million job.

[rockywoj]

“Wanting” a raise and “asking” for a raise is one thing (two things, actually. lol), but whining when told mgmt. would like to evaluate your next year performance then work out a raise, saying you don’t want to work here anymore ‘cause your demand was not met, and potentially violating one’s employment contract is an entirely different thing.

 

JT’s desire is perfectly understandable, but his polarizing stance is unconscionable.

[2006Coltsbestever]

I would still love to hear JT speak about the whole situation. He hasn't said anything, basically everything that has been reported/tweeted, is just rumors. People say his agent is speaking for him, all he is doing is tweeting anything to help try and get JT a nice deal done. How do we know he isn't lying about many things? Until I hear JT say, I know longer want to be a Colt, then I am not believing anything I hear or read at this point. 

[iuswingman]

1 minute ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:

I would still love to hear JT speak about the whole situation. He hasn't said anything, basically everything that has been reported/tweeted, is just rumors. People say his agent is speaking for him, all he is doing is tweeting anything to help try and get JT a nice deal done. How do we know he isn't lying about many things? Until I hear JT say, I know longer want to be a Colt, then I am not believing anything I hear or read at this point. 

 

JT has liked quite a few tweets that were telling and he could fire his agent if his agent was misrepresenting his feelings on the matter.

 

He's also a grown man.  He could have done his physical like he was asked to do let the Colts know his health status.

 

Sure, maybe he isn't as set against leaving the Colts as being reported but there's not much to sugarcoat.