If JT leaves Indy…

[Farley]

I guess in my unprofessional opinion, this is exactly when a team would want to pay a RB. As has been mentioned, the priority has to be to develop AR. Having as many weapons around him as possible helps that. AR is also on a rookie contract. The Colts have 19m in cap space right now, and are projected for 78m next year right now. Perfect time to give a little bigger contract to a RB for 2-3 years. By the time AR is due for a large contract (hopefully), Taylor’s will be up anyway. Now, if you’re of the opinion no RB is worth a contract period…fair enough. I won’t argue that. But this seems a situation to me where one would fit.

On the subject of tagging Taylor and trading him next year…it could happen, but I have a tough time seeing that too. If the Colts couldn’t get the value they want this year, I see no reason to think they will next year either when Taylor is a year older, and has a larger cap number right out of the gate. (especially if he plays little to none this year)

JT wasn't that good last year, because he had an injury. As I said, had JT had his big year and finished healthy, an extension would have made a lot more sense for the team, but paying multiple years out of top end guaranteed money coming off a down year, with an injury, especially with JT's college and pro workload being quite large, is very risky. There's no guarantee he returns to form.

JT wasn't looking for a little bigger contract. He was looking for 15 million a year (or more) with guarantees for multiple years after this year. He was looking at resetting the RB market.

A better use of money would be to add a top end WR or upgrades on the OL.

Fixed it for you.

And we have no idea what JT was looking for or would have settled for if Irsay (and his agent) hadn't f'd things up so epically.

Both Jacobs and Barkley returned to their teams for pennies more than they were set to receive. Sometimes all that's needed is a little show of appreciation and respect to massage things over.

[frerichs5]

I guess in my unprofessional opinion, this is exactly when a team would want to pay a RB. As has been mentioned, the priority has to be to develop AR. Having as many weapons around him as possible helps that. AR is also on a rookie contract. The Colts have 19m in cap space right now, and are projected for 78m next year right now. Perfect time to give a little bigger contract to a RB for 2-3 years. By the time AR is due for a large contract (hopefully), Taylor’s will be up anyway. Now, if you’re of the opinion no RB is worth a contract period…fair enough. I won’t argue that. But this seems a situation to me where one would fit.

On the subject of tagging Taylor and trading him next year…it could happen, but I have a tough time seeing that too. If the Colts couldn’t get the value they want this year, I see no reason to think they will next year either when Taylor is a year older, and has a larger cap number right out of the gate. (especially if he plays little to none this year)

JT wasn't that good last year, and had an injury. As I said, had JT had his big year and finished healthy, an extension would have made a lot more sense for the team, but paying multiple years out of top end guaranteed money coming off a down year, with an injury, especially with JT's college and pro workload being quite large, is very risky. There's no guarantee he returns to form.


JT wasn't looking for a little bigger contract. He was looking for 15 million a year (or more) with guarantees for multiple years after this year. He was looking at resetting the RB market.

A better use of money would be to add a top end WR or upgrades on the OL.

Fair points. I will push back a little on he wasn’t that good though. Yes, he was injured and missed games. But on a per carry basis he was fine. Unless you think Barkley, Ekeler, Henry, Walker, McCaffrey, etc…weren’t that good either.

And I definitely agree that WR or OL are better use of money. But there are no guarantees that doesn’t turn into Kenny Golladay or Trent Brown either.

[FantasyFreak]

I guess in my unprofessional opinion, this is exactly when a team would want to pay a RB. As has been mentioned, the priority has to be to develop AR. Having as many weapons around him as possible helps that. AR is also on a rookie contract. The Colts have 19m in cap space right now, and are projected for 78m next year right now. Perfect time to give a little bigger contract to a RB for 2-3 years. By the time AR is due for a large contract (hopefully), Taylor’s will be up anyway. Now, if you’re of the opinion no RB is worth a contract period…fair enough. I won’t argue that. But this seems a situation to me where one would fit.

On the subject of tagging Taylor and trading him next year…it could happen, but I have a tough time seeing that too. If the Colts couldn’t get the value they want this year, I see no reason to think they will next year either when Taylor is a year older, and has a larger cap number right out of the gate. (especially if he plays little to none this year)

JT wasn't that good last year, and had an injury. As I said, had JT had his big year and finished healthy, an extension would have made a lot more sense for the team, but paying multiple years out of top end guaranteed money coming off a down year, with an injury, especially with JT's college and pro workload being quite large, is very risky. There's no guarantee he returns to form.


JT wasn't looking for a little bigger contract. He was looking for 15 million a year (or more) with guarantees for multiple years after this year. He was looking at resetting the RB market.

A better use of money would be to add a top end WR or upgrades on the OL.

Fair points. I will push back a little on he wasn’t that good though. Yes, he was injured and missed games. But on a per carry basis he was fine. Unless you think Barkley, Ekeler, Henry, Walker, McCaffrey, etc…weren’t that good either.

And I definitely agree that WR or OL are better use of money. But there are no guarantees that doesn’t turn into Kenny Golladay or Trent Brown either.

I think the major difference with JT trying to reset the market is a guy like CMC, and Barkley, offer much more as receivers. That's the only way a RB is going to be able to compete with their contracts in this market.

In regards to Trent and Kenny G, yes, that can happen. As a GM, I think you'd rather swing and miss at those positions than paying a RB top dollar and whiffing though.

[Shoreline Steamers]

My understanding is Indy is still happy to trade JT. So, they've got another couple of months to see what happens with other team's RB situations and something could develop. Was a little surprised that Green Bay was the "mystery team" interested, and would imagine it would have been some sort of swap of JT for Dillon +. I do agree that a Dillon contract worked out for 2024 and beyond (if Indy did want to extend him) would cost substantially less than what JT was after.

[mild]

My understanding is Indy is still happy to trade JT.

I don't think it was ever in good faith, though. The rumour is that they were asking for "Waddle, and more" which is frankly, and obviously: insane.

It's also obvious that the contract itself is a non-starter for the inquiring teams - Packers, Dolphins - clearly have no qualms about signing JT to a market-level deal (as was reported) if they were to indeed land him in trade.

Really, this all just feels extremely toxic, and fits what we know of most players that leave the Colts - Irsay and Co. are not anyone you want to have anything to do with in life if you can help it.

(ie. whose the most famous Indianapolis Colt of all time? Yeah, he's busy being treated like a lifelong Denver legend these days and rooting for them instead... whose the 2nd most famous? Yeah, he retired to the wilderness to never be heard from again...)

It's all pretty gross, and I feel bad for JT that they are holding him ransom when he clearly isn't in their long-term plans going forward.

[FantasyFreak]

My understanding is Indy is still happy to trade JT.

I don't think it was ever in good faith, though. The rumour is that they were asking for "Waddle, and more" which is frankly, and obviously: insane.

It's also obvious that the contract itself is a non-starter for the inquiring teams - Packers, Dolphins - clearly have no qualms about signing JT to a market-level deal (as was reported) if they were to indeed land him in trade.

Really, this all just feels extremely toxic, and fits what we know of most players that leave the Colts - Irsay and Co. are not anyone you want to have anything to do with in life if you can help it.

(ie. whose the most famous Indianapolis Colt of all time? Yeah, he's busy being treated like a lifelong Denver legend these days and rooting for them instead... whose the 2nd most famous? Yeah, he retired to the wilderness to never be heard from again...)

It's all pretty gross, and I feel bad for JT that they are holding him ransom when he clearly isn't in their long-term plans going forward.

Every you've stated is conjecture. None of the GM's interviewed stated any such thing. The Dolphins "reportedly" never even made an offer. Tons of players don't get extensions they want in the last year of their deal. It's not being held ransom, it's being held accountable to your contract. Before he got this new agent, he was perfectly fine doing that. It's just the reality of the league, and pro sports. Some players get extended, others don't. IF it makes you feel any better for poor old JT, he's getting paid to not play despite supposedly being healthy.

It's not like this is the only player or team who wants a player to play out their current deal without an extension. Dobbins are Hock appear to be playing, just to name a few recently. Don't hate the player, hate the game, right? Nobody dare suggest JT didn't handle things too well on his end though, for the relationship to sour. His agent definitely didn't throw salt on the wounds......I agree it's toxic, but both parties are to blame for that.

Chris Ballard has a say in this stuff too. He is clearly not wanting to extend JT. In fact, nobody got an extension from the Colts after a 4 win season. That's their prerogative. They are clearly rebuilding, and don't want to tie money up in a RB long term.

If the Colts develop Richardson, nobody will care about this in a few years. Everything hinges on his development over his rookie deal.

[mild]

Chris Ballard has a say in this stuff too. He is clearly not wanting to extend JT. In fact, nobody got an extension from the Colts after a 4 win season. That's their prerogative. They are clearly rebuilding, and don't want to tie money up in a RB long term.

Right - so if you're not going to extend him, and he's not in your future plans - then why not honour his trade request and send him somewhere mutually beneficial?

I see no reason to not take the Waddle rumour semi-seriously, given that the Colts were asking for "a 1st round pick, or equivalent".

Again - it's just clearly not in good faith. Either he's worth a 1st round pick to you - and therefore is a "great player worth paying" - or he's not worth that, but you're not going to capitulate on your trade price because you prefer the current stalemate.

As for Peyton choosing Denver - I mean, find me the evidence to the contrary, cos he sure as sh-- ain't hanging out in Indy...

[FantasyFreak]

Chris Ballard has a say in this stuff too. He is clearly not wanting to extend JT. In fact, nobody got an extension from the Colts after a 4 win season. That's their prerogative. They are clearly rebuilding, and don't want to tie money up in a RB long term.

Right - so if you're not going to extend him, and he's not in your future plans - then why not honour his trade request and send him somewhere mutually beneficial?

I see no reason to not take the Waddle rumour semi-seriously, given that the Colts were asking for "a 1st round pick, or equivalent".

Again - it's just clearly not in good faith. Either he's worth a 1st round pick to you - and therefore is a "great player worth paying" - or he's not worth that, but you're not going to capitulate on your trade price because you prefer the current stalemate.

As for Peyton choosing Denver - I mean, find me the evidence to the contrary, cos he sure as sh-- ain't hanging out in Indy...

Perhaps they felt it was more beneficial for him to play this year for them. That's their prerogative. He signed a 4 year deal with the Colts. If he played 1 year, and wasn't good enough, or got hurt, and couldn't play anymore, he's still guaranteed all 4 years. The reality is, a team has the right to ask you to play out your contract. Many teams do this. I'm all for a player trying to maximize their earnings, but they also have to honor their contracts to some degree.

I don't like Irsay, but I certainly don't "feel sorry" for JT. There are many people who contribute more to humanity than pro athletes, that get paid far less. So forgive me for not shedding a tear for poor old JT. JT is welcome to go try his hand at another profession, if it suits him, but I doubt he gets more in another field, and the reality is he is under a contract that he agreed to, and has a certain obligation to that. One of the known risks is that you outplay your rookie deal, one of the benefits is you are guaranteed those 4 years of salary even if you get cut or hurt. These are known before you sign. It is what it is.

I don't fault him for trying to get paid, and I don't fault the team for not paying him, and wanting him to play. Both are looking out for their interests, but in this case, the team has the right to ask the player to fulfill his contract, no matter how unjust that might seem to the player or "fans". It's a legally binding agreement, regardless of people's feelings. He's also welcome to try and defraud, and if he gets away with it, good for him, I guess. Some people are suggesting he's basically doing that, but I am not so sure.

I try to not let emotion get involved in these things, I don't know the people, and don't know the behind the scenes stuff.

[Shoreline Steamers]

My understanding is Indy is still happy to trade JT.

I don't think it was ever in good faith, though. The rumour is that they were asking for "Waddle, and more" which is frankly, and obviously: insane.

I can't say if it was in good faith or not, though it's probably true that none of the "interested" teams were willing to give JT a market rate contract and send Indy the compensation they were looking for.

My point/opinion is, that now the Colts have more time on the clock, and we'll see what happens over the next couple of months. I'd opine that should someone pony up something close to what Indy is looking for, why would they keep Taylor? the relationship is clearly fractured beyond repair at this point. And rostering a malcontent does little to help the culture in the locker room. There's no "win" for the Colts organization if they keep him on the team this season, then franchise him next year. Unless it's a tag-and-trade scenario.

Edit: But then there's this, Per Rotoballer. So maybe Ballard isn't ready to say goodbye? (Just saw it on my news feed after posting)

Indianapolis Colts general manager Chris Ballard said he will not quit on his relationship with disgruntled and injured running back Jonathan Taylor (ankle). "Relationships are repairable. We have work to do on it," Ballard said. The GM said the Colts aren't just going to let Taylor get out of the building and that they value him. In addition, Ballard said that Taylor still has pain in his surgically repaired ankle, which is why he's starting the season on the Physically Unable to Perform list. The Colts could still trade Taylor while he's forced to sit out the first four games of the season, but it doesn't sound like that's their preference, especially not getting the value they wanted while shopping him before Tuesday's roster cutdown deadline.

[mild]

I can't say if it was in good faith or not, though it's probably true that none of the "interested" teams were willing to give JT a market rate contract and send Indy the compensation they were looking for.

I read the opposite, not that it matters. Acquiring teams happy to give him a market rate contract, but unwilling to meet the Colts excessive compensation demands.

This was pretty funny:

Colts GM Chris Ballard: “I'm not going to sit here and give you some rosy picture, like, 'Oh, everything's okay.’ It sucks for the Colts. It sucks for Jonathan Taylor. And it sucks for our fans. It just does. It's where we're at and we've got to work through it.”

[Shoreline Steamers]

I can't say if it was in good faith or not, though it's probably true that none of the "interested" teams were willing to give JT a market rate contract and send Indy the compensation they were looking for.

("And" was the important part. Teams weren't willing to meet both demands (Taylor's and Colts). And yes, I edited my earlier post because I too then saw Ballard's comments. Oh boy...

I read the opposite, not that it matters. Acquiring teams happy to give him a market rate contract, but unwilling to meet the Colts excessive compensation demands.

This was pretty funny:

Colts GM Chris Ballard: “I'm not going to sit here and give you some rosy picture, like, 'Oh, everything's okay.’ It sucks for the Colts. It sucks for Jonathan Taylor. And it sucks for our fans. It just does. It's where we're at and we've got to work through it.”

[Ice]

The Good Faith Argument is incredibly weak.

The Colts were not actively shopping JT (who is under contract) in the first place. JT was not happy and was the one seeking a trade. The Colts at least gave him an option and it was public enough that 31 teams had and have an opportunity. The Colts gave him a short window due to roster decisions but it certainly doesn't mean any one of those 31 team can't step up with a legit acceptable offer to acquire the talented player by the 10/31 trade deadline.

The fact the Colts put him on PuP is a good thing for JT and could actually help keep trade options open limiting distractions for a few weeks.

The Colts are not giving him away and have zero obligation to do so. The NFL is a hard business. Feelings don't really matter too much in the decision process.

[natjjohn]

Chris Ballard has a say in this stuff too. He is clearly not wanting to extend JT. In fact, nobody got an extension from the Colts after a 4 win season. That's their prerogative. They are clearly rebuilding, and don't want to tie money up in a RB long term.

Right - so if you're not going to extend him, and he's not in your future plans - then why not honour his trade request and send him somewhere mutually beneficial?

I see no reason to not take the Waddle rumour semi-seriously, given that the Colts were asking for "a 1st round pick, or equivalent".

Again - it's just clearly not in good faith. Either he's worth a 1st round pick to you - and therefore is a "great player worth paying" - or he's not worth that, but you're not going to capitulate on your trade price because you prefer the current stalemate.

As for Peyton choosing Denver - I mean, find me the evidence to the contrary, cos he sure as sh-- ain't hanging out in Indy...

Ekeler wanted traded and the chargers told him no. Why didn’t the chargers honor his trade request? They didn’t extend him either? No huge pay increase either?

[FantasyFreak]

I guess in my unprofessional opinion, this is exactly when a team would want to pay a RB. As has been mentioned, the priority has to be to develop AR. Having as many weapons around him as possible helps that. AR is also on a rookie contract. The Colts have 19m in cap space right now, and are projected for 78m next year right now. Perfect time to give a little bigger contract to a RB for 2-3 years. By the time AR is due for a large contract (hopefully), Taylor’s will be up anyway. Now, if you’re of the opinion no RB is worth a contract period…fair enough. I won’t argue that. But this seems a situation to me where one would fit.

On the subject of tagging Taylor and trading him next year…it could happen, but I have a tough time seeing that too. If the Colts couldn’t get the value they want this year, I see no reason to think they will next year either when Taylor is a year older, and has a larger cap number right out of the gate. (especially if he plays little to none this year)

JT wasn't that good last year, because he had an injury. As I said, had JT had his big year and finished healthy, an extension would have made a lot more sense for the team, but paying multiple years out of top end guaranteed money coming off a down year, with an injury, especially with JT's college and pro workload being quite large, is very risky. There's no guarantee he returns to form.

JT wasn't looking for a little bigger contract. He was looking for 15 million a year (or more) with guarantees for multiple years after this year. He was looking at resetting the RB market.

A better use of money would be to add a top end WR or upgrades on the OL.

Fixed it for you.

And we have no idea what JT was looking for or would have settled for if Irsay (and his agent) hadn't f'd things up so epically.

Both Jacobs and Barkley returned to their teams for pennies more than they were set to receive. Sometimes all that's needed is a little show of appreciation and respect to massage things over.

Jacobs and Barkley weren't under contract. Their situation isn't the same. They literally couldn't do more than a 1 year deal at the point that happened, it's just not the same situation at all. '

JT not being good because he was hurt, doesn't change the fact he came into this season on a down year, and still rehabbing that injury. It would have been irresponsible of the GM to give out the supposed extension JT was supposedly looking for, to an injured player. It was reported he was looking to reset the market, or close to.

https://fansided.com/posts/jonathan-tay ... -rb-market

[murphysxm]

Really, this all just feels extremely toxic, and fits what we know of most players that leave the Colts - Irsay and Co. are not anyone you want to have anything to do with in life if you can help it.

(ie. whose the most famous Indianapolis Colt of all time? Yeah, he's busy being treated like a lifelong Denver legend these days and rooting for them instead... whose the 2nd most famous? Yeah, he retired to the wilderness to never be heard from again...)

I will push back on this. Mathis and Freeney are involved today. Marvin shows up, Wayne is on the staff. Peyton still speaks fondly. We will skip the obvious Saturday connection.