RealGM

I'm a Colts Fan, and we are in the middle of the whole Jonathon Taylor mess. In Indy, we are not used to many holdouts. While Irsey is a jerk, he is right about the CBA Agreement. I don't see how a player under contract can just quit on a team over money, when the player reps and the owners agreed on the rules. If they want more money, go to free agency or the franchise tag for however many times it applies. In the end, they get their new contract or make a large 1 year franchise tag salary. How is that not fair, and does the CBA not count? What are team options if a player quits on them? Forced trades are BS. Is ther eany kind of cap relief for players that simply won't play?

Hamburger wrote:I'm a Colts Fan, and we are in the middle of the whole Jonathon Taylor mess. In Indy, we are not used to many holdouts. While Irsey is a jerk, he is right about the CBA Agreement. I don't see how a player under contract can just quit on a team over money, when the player reps and the owners agreed on the rules. If they want more money, go to free agency or the franchise tag for however many times it applies. In the end, they get their new contract or make a large 1 year franchise tag salary. How is that not fair, and does the CBA not count? What are team options if a player quits on them? Forced trades are BS. Is ther eany kind of cap relief for players that simply won't play?

How is it not fair?

RB's basically get screwed over by the current rules (CBA). As teams are able to use the tag & not be on the hook financially long-term. Which eventually leads to them finding a replacement at a much cheaper cost (draft). Essentially running them into the ground & then throwing them away at the first opportunity, when the cost outweighs their perceived worth. The franchise tag doesn't provide long-term security. Which is exactly what every player is seeking.

Holdouts are in the CBA, too.

Instead of using the franchise tag, the Colts could have used the transition tag. They could have let the other teams determine Taylor's contract worth and match it.

In Taylor's situation (top tier RB free agent) it actually makes sense to not play (and lose money as defined by the CBA) than to play on an one-year contract. But an issue is that the RBs themselves are a little delusional about their value. With the transition tag he would have known the max of what he'd be getting. Then his only options would be to play or retire.

Still another factor is that GMs are anxious about losing a player on the transition tag. That will count as making a gross mistake for not using the franchise tag. In contrast I've never seen a GM get blamed for a player holding out over the franchise tag. But teams that don't use the franchise tag see holdouts much more rarely.

So holdouts are in the CBA? A player under contract can quit, and the team eats it? I'm not talking exclusively about the running backs. Isn't there a limit on how many times they can be tagged? Tag money is massive, and they can still get their second contract for whatever the market says they are worth. I find it hard to take that a player can quit on his teammates because he doesn't like the system in general. Sorry guys, I don't like the rules, so screw you.

Hamburger wrote:So holdouts are in the CBA? A player under contract can quit, and the team eats it? I'm not talking exclusively about the running backs. Isn't there a limit on how many times they can be tagged? Tag money is massive, and they can still get their second contract for whatever the market says they are worth. I find it hard to take that a player can quit on his teammates because he doesn't like the system in general. Sorry guys, I don't like the rules, so screw you.

No, the team doesn't eat the contract. Holdouts actually mean more money is available under the salary cap, so I don't think the other players mind too much.

There's an unwritten rule that you don't comment on a teammate's contract negotiations. Travis Kelce doing so was unusual.

Using Taylor as an example, when he comes off the injury list, what are the Colts options? He is under contract, he doesn't want to play, he is practically untradeable for any value. Won't the Colts have to burn a roster spot and pay him for doing nothing? All because he won't take franchise tag money under the agreement before his second contract.

The problem is the owners can cut players that are under contract as soon as the guaranteed money runs out. This goes both ways. I dont like holding out either, but it is what it is.