Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
Jim Irsay And Jonathan Taylor And Salary Cap And Greed. I think we may be seeing this wrong. (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Joe Bryant
- Start date
Dr. Octopus
Footballguy
Yes- the criticism I've heard was that taking the "battle" to Twitter accomplished nothing but alienating Taylor. There was no upside in taking it public like that. I haven't see anyone call him greedy or invalidating his overall point (in fact most have said what he said was factual but should have kept it in-house).
Last edited:
I mean, yeah, its probably not cool to mock a guy battling addiction, however, that's also no reason to feel he's not in the wrong, and he certainly has a history of making very dumb statements, and straight up lying to the media.
I'm on the side of not paying Taylor top-5 RB money, and on the side that Irsay is also a terrible owner. I don't see those as mutually exclusive.
I'm on the side of not paying Taylor top-5 RB money, and on the side that Irsay is also a terrible owner. I don't see those as mutually exclusive.
massraider
Footballguy
With his star RB Jonathan Taylor entering the final year of his rookie contract, Indianapolis Colts owner Jim Irsay became the latest to address the situation as backs around the league band together to seek an improvement in how the position is paid.
"NFL (r)unning (b)ack situation - We have negotiated a CBA, that took years of effort and hard work and compromise in good faith by both sides," Irsay posted on social media. "To say now that a specific (p)layer category wants another negotiation after the fact, is inappropriate. Some (a)gents are selling 'bad faith.'
Irsay decided to wait till his best player was entering the final year of his deal, and become the spokesman for the league, and managed to say "check the CBA," in JT's face, while taking a swipe at his agent. Why would you speak up at all?
Not greedy.
Next level Stupid.
"NFL (r)unning (b)ack situation - We have negotiated a CBA, that took years of effort and hard work and compromise in good faith by both sides," Irsay posted on social media. "To say now that a specific (p)layer category wants another negotiation after the fact, is inappropriate. Some (a)gents are selling 'bad faith.'
Irsay decided to wait till his best player was entering the final year of his deal, and become the spokesman for the league, and managed to say "check the CBA," in JT's face, while taking a swipe at his agent. Why would you speak up at all?
Not greedy.
Next level Stupid.
massraider
Footballguy
Also:
We have negotiated a CBA, that took years of effort and hard work and compromise in good faith by both sides,"
We have negotiated a CBA, that took years of effort and hard work and compromise in good faith by both sides,"
Deamon
Footballguy
This. It's similar to the Sean Payton thing @Joe Bryant (which you were rightfully critical of Payton for).
He may not be WRONG in what he said, but the way he went about it was pointless, reckless, and just... unsmart.,
I'm seeing and hearing a lot of the Irsay is the new Dan Snyder like this. https://twitter.com/JBaileyNFL/status/1685833574786674690?s=20 and this "literal cocaine tweet". https://twitter.com/5on_it/status/1684347319381008385?s=20
I think everyone agrees he went about it poorly with social media.
Agreed.
Sure, social media is a cesspool with nearly unlimited hot takes, there are always going to be some that are out of bounds. But I'm not seeing how that contradicts what I said- most of the criticism is because of how he's going about it, not the decision to not pay him. That doesn't make it right to post things like that, but your write up seems to be focused on defending him for not paying Taylor. I don't think that's why the vast majority of people are posting things about him though, including your links.
Ministry of Pain
Footballguy
OK so you're not backing Irsay and the other 31 NFL owners?
When QBs get $50M per year, WRs $30M per year and yes I am reaching top side but the avg RB gets less than a million or two to run the ball on a lot of teams.
Doesn't seem like a fair playing field for these athletes, be better off working as TV voices if it's going to be so little.
I know plenty of folks agree with you and think Irsay not paying Taylor is unfair. I don't see it as unfair.
Ministry of Pain
Footballguy
Awesome, appreciate the honesty, let's take this out further, please
Irsay and the Colts want to exploit Taylor at RB going into Year 4 for about 1/3 or less of his current market value which is $13M on Spotrac, not MoP numbers but factual on other sites.
-If the Bengals don't redo Burrow in year 4, they will be the absolute horses you know what for 2023, in fact I cannot imagine Stephen A Smith and the entire ESPN crew NOT running to Cinci to try and protect Burrow and not allow him to take the field. I know Fruity Pebbles, but honestly that's the truth and then we come back to JT in Indy, why should he risk injury?
It's not fair, others risk great injury and get paid for it, RBs don't get any type of protection and are expected to just keep taking hand offs and punishment, seems unfair.
If QBs were exposed to hard hits and were put out to pasture in their early 30s like the 60s and 70s and even 80s then things would feel different.
My opinion, doesn't need to be everyone's, just saying it ain't fair, not even close.
Deamon
Footballguy
Market dictates everything.
Women athletes are paid less because they bring in less revenue. Fair or not?
Diamonds are expensive based on rarity. Fair or not?
RB's are easy to find/replace so they're paid less. Fair or not?
Ministry of Pain
Footballguy
none of that diminishes the RBs or the folks who feel they are justified in making a stand, if anything it only make their case stronger
You're saying the deck is stacked against them however you want to word it, @Deamon
Ministry of Pain
Footballguy
I want to be upfront because @Joe Bryant is smart to start a thread on a very hot topic and he himself should not be the target in any way so I want to take all the pressure off, it's unfair
-I'm very pro athlete or Pro RB here, think the owners have money for days and i don't feel a bit of sorrow for anything they endure money wise as they own an NFL Team, I'd give my eye teeth, 1st born, 2nd born, wife, 401K and basically anything in my possession to own an NFL franchise, I could buy it all back believe me....OK so i have no shame we all knew that.
-Let's not lose focus and I hope I'm making you smirk because I love that we have this forum to debate and i don't want to stop anyone's POV
RBs are close to homeless right now compared to other skill positions but I did like what Etienne says recently and was highlighted by @Hot Sauce Guy I think but he'll correct me if I'm wrong, trust me
I remember Chris Johnson holding the Titans ransom and getting $50M pretty quick but those days seem long gone. RBs are like Flat screen TVs in the early 2000s and the price on them is dropping quickly.
Cheers Everyone!
-I'm very pro athlete or Pro RB here, think the owners have money for days and i don't feel a bit of sorrow for anything they endure money wise as they own an NFL Team, I'd give my eye teeth, 1st born, 2nd born, wife, 401K and basically anything in my possession to own an NFL franchise, I could buy it all back believe me....OK so i have no shame we all knew that.
-Let's not lose focus and I hope I'm making you smirk because I love that we have this forum to debate and i don't want to stop anyone's POV
RBs are close to homeless right now compared to other skill positions but I did like what Etienne says recently and was highlighted by @Hot Sauce Guy I think but he'll correct me if I'm wrong, trust me
I remember Chris Johnson holding the Titans ransom and getting $50M pretty quick but those days seem long gone. RBs are like Flat screen TVs in the early 2000s and the price on them is dropping quickly.
Cheers Everyone!
Hot Sauce Guy
Footballguy
I mean, ETN was put in a tight spot with the questions.RBs are close to homeless right now compared to other skill positions but I did like what Etienne says recently and was highlighted by @Hot Sauce Guy I think but he'll correct me if I'm wrong, trust me
I thought under the circumstances he gave a very thoughtful, intelligent response.
The positional pay scale is an issue for sure. But players do need to go out and earn it.
Deamon
Footballguy
Yes the deck is stacked against them because their position is so replaceable.none of that diminishes the RBs or the folks who feel they are justified in making a stand, if anything it only make their case stronger
You're saying the deck is stacked against them however you want to word it, @Deamon
No, I don't think that's a problem. They're replaceable, the market decides what they "deserve" or not.
Catchers make less than 1st basemen. Quarterbacks make more than Cornerbacks. You say it should be like that because those positions are more important? Well a RB is less important to a team in today's NFL, so they should be making less.
Dr. Octopus
Footballguy
The Eagles are actually creating a blueprint, bringing in two talented former first round picks and having some system guys all on cheap contracts. Obviously Not easily recreated but something like that just makes sense.
Last edited:
goose_egged
Footballguy
Not really. Draft/rookie scales and franchise tags have restrained market forces here. They've artificially kneecapped the ability of RBs to realize their true market value during their most valuable productive years. Though all players are subject to their artificial market restriction, RBs are hardest hit due to their shortest shelf life. Owners like Irsay need to candidly face the fact that the system they've helped engineer is inequitable to this particular category of market actor. No one has to sympathize with a pro athlete like Taylor not being able to make quite as many millions as he would have been otherwise but neither can one accurately attribute this outcome to the invisible hand.
massraider
Footballguy
The NFL's enclosed system, revenue sharing and salary cap is the reason all the fans have a shot at a title.
You want to let the free market decide? No you don't.
Then you'd get soccer. And Qatari businessmen would buy the Giants/Rams/Dolphins, and Lions, Vikings and Bills fans would suddenly be cheering for the Leeds and Fulham of the NFL. They would have no chance at a title.
You want to let the free market decide? No you don't.
Then you'd get soccer. And Qatari businessmen would buy the Giants/Rams/Dolphins, and Lions, Vikings and Bills fans would suddenly be cheering for the Leeds and Fulham of the NFL. They would have no chance at a title.
CletiusMaximus
Footballguy
In a true free market, the NCAA wouldn’t exist, nor would the NFL draft, and kids could sign for the highest bidder the day they turn 18. The market for professional sports in our country is highly regulated and restrained from high school through the NFL.
CletiusMaximus
Footballguy
The problem running backs have isn’t with owners, it’s with the NFLPA. The players union has never protected rookies, for obvious reasons. Veteran players have repeatedly sold out the interests of future members in the CBA to protect themselves, as one would expect.
Smack Tripper
Footballguy
A salary cap means there is no market in play here.
CletiusMaximus
Footballguy
Maybe it’s semantics but there is absolutely a market for players in the NFL. It’s just a highly restricted market. All 32 teams essentially have the same budget for player salaries. Each team decides how it will allocate its budget on different players at different positions. The NFL player market determines the value of those different players and positions.
Ted Lange as your Bartender
Footballguy
Its tough. I sympathize with the idea that the salary cap is essentially a zero sum game and that every extra dollar that goes to a RB is taken away from a LT, edge rusher, CB etc. Every fan wants their team to have a franchise QB, elite lines, stud WRs/CBs, and a Pacheco type productive 7th round rookie RB making next to nothing, because then their team looks like geniuses.
On the other hand, I get the argument of RBs here too, as the productivity scale of RBs in general are for the most part inverted from other positions. They are maybe at their best in years 2 and 3, as opposed to say a defensive tackle or a TE, and certainly QBs, who need a few years of seasoning before really hitting their peaks professionally, and that’s where a rookie salary scale makes a lot more sense.
On top of that, franchise tagging years 5 and 6 creates a negative feedback loop of sorts on the position where the best of the best rarely get to determine what really is the true “market” for top end RBs since they are close to end of market life come year 7. And it makes it more likely that teams use the tag on that position specifically because it costs less to use it there.
To me, the most equitable thing to do would be that franchise tags after the rookie deal are ineligible to be used on RBs. If we’re saying the market says RBs should be paid less, fine, then free agency should settle that issue rather quickly.
Also, if I’m a top college RB, I’m now determining if I can make more in NIL money by staying in school vs being a 3rd or 4th round pick at best (because hey why even take a RB earlier than that amirite?) and getting replaced as early as possible.
On the other hand, I get the argument of RBs here too, as the productivity scale of RBs in general are for the most part inverted from other positions. They are maybe at their best in years 2 and 3, as opposed to say a defensive tackle or a TE, and certainly QBs, who need a few years of seasoning before really hitting their peaks professionally, and that’s where a rookie salary scale makes a lot more sense.
On top of that, franchise tagging years 5 and 6 creates a negative feedback loop of sorts on the position where the best of the best rarely get to determine what really is the true “market” for top end RBs since they are close to end of market life come year 7. And it makes it more likely that teams use the tag on that position specifically because it costs less to use it there.
To me, the most equitable thing to do would be that franchise tags after the rookie deal are ineligible to be used on RBs. If we’re saying the market says RBs should be paid less, fine, then free agency should settle that issue rather quickly.
Also, if I’m a top college RB, I’m now determining if I can make more in NIL money by staying in school vs being a 3rd or 4th round pick at best (because hey why even take a RB earlier than that amirite?) and getting replaced as early as possible.
That's a great point.
A friend said recently Sony Michel made more money with his pro career at Georgia than he did with the NFL.
J Giles Band
Footballguy
The seemingly obvious solution would be to significantly increase the franchise tag $ amount for RB's... not do away with it. I'm well aware that would require lowering the tag $ amount at other positions (zero sum game and all). But it could be spread amongst them, not taken from 1 or 2. And while we all understand the pecking order: QB, LT, edge rusher, CB (RB tag amount would obviously still be less than those)... it makes little sense that only K and P have a lower tag. Off ball LB, interior lineman and S are in a similar spot... but at least they tend to have longer shelf lives.
If the NFL and NFLPA agree to smooth the other franchise tags to increase the RB tag $ amount to one that would fairly compensate the elite RB in the absence of contract extension (and I emphasize elite RB, not replacement level)... it would in effect increase the likelihood teams would give the elite RB an extension at a lower annual $ amount. If the franchise tag is more painful, teams would have incentive to extend them instead. As it stands now, with the lowest tag $ amount besides K and P, and the shorter shelf life of RB, it is a an obvious move for teams to simply tag RB 1-2 times and then move on. By then RB are on the back 9 of their careers, if playing at all (see Sony Michel).
Last edited:
Drunken Cowboy
Footballguy
Life isn't fair. QBs contribute to team wins way more than every other position.
RBs have almost no effect on team wins
rockaction
Footballguy
The problem with labor market distortions is that they're just that -- labor market distortions. If it were the free market with no cap, you could be assured everyone was getting paid what they're worth, but the game would look so different to the fan, not to mention that the league would be so dynamic with player movement that it would render the league unknowable to those of us watching now.
The CBA merely cements these market distortions on the supply of labor. The market that is created is one where everything is held constant and specialization doesn't exist. But specialization does exist, therefore it's no wonder that a position like running back becomes devalued when a one-size-fits-all CBA gets applied to the matter at hand.
There's no way around it. Ted Lange had the best idea in the thread -- circumventing the franchise tag for RBs and letting them get to free agency quicker. But that might not even be beneficial to the RBs once the capologists and math guys get done crunching the numbers. I'd bet that second contracts are still bad for teams to hand out when the replacement-level backs are right there, unemployed and willing to be employed.
It's an intractable problem that isn't going to be solved because of the nature of the position and the surprising lack of (yes, bear with me) outlying physical characteristics a running back is required to have.
The CBA merely cements these market distortions on the supply of labor. The market that is created is one where everything is held constant and specialization doesn't exist. But specialization does exist, therefore it's no wonder that a position like running back becomes devalued when a one-size-fits-all CBA gets applied to the matter at hand.
There's no way around it. Ted Lange had the best idea in the thread -- circumventing the franchise tag for RBs and letting them get to free agency quicker. But that might not even be beneficial to the RBs once the capologists and math guys get done crunching the numbers. I'd bet that second contracts are still bad for teams to hand out when the replacement-level backs are right there, unemployed and willing to be employed.
It's an intractable problem that isn't going to be solved because of the nature of the position and the surprising lack of (yes, bear with me) outlying physical characteristics a running back is required to have.
Last edited:
Birdie048
Footballguy
Wasn't Sony at Georgia PRIOR to NIL payments?
That is a whole different issue, but this is a sad statement.
To be an integral part of a team that is part of a $15+Billion organization and see college as your most profitable time.
Todem
Footballguy
His market value is the contract he signed as a rookie.
What happens after his contract has expired the CBA and market dictates. Either he will be franchise tagged or he will sign as a free agent somewhere else.
This is the CBA the NFLPA and Owners signed.
Everyone loves a free market economy until it does not work in their favor.
Same thing here. While I don’t disagree that elite RB’s have a far smaller earning window now than in the past......this is what the reality of their league is. SO when the next CBA comes around to negotiate....let’s see what their players union does for them.
I say nothing much. It will be business as usual.
Taylor will end up making 7.8MM after his 4 years are up. A bargain for the Colts who took him in the second round.
His projected value in the open market was 13MM per year before this......market crash on free agent RB’s occurred. And this is where it’s at. A market crash on a particular position.
This was a quote from April on CBS sports......funny how his tone has completely changed since this market crash on the RB position.
Taylor, however, didn't appear to be focused on his contract as he took part in the start of the Colts' voluntary offseason workouts. When asked about it, Taylor said that his contract wouldn't be a distraction for him as he prepares for his fourth season in Indianapolis.
"I'm under contract here for four years," Taylor said, via the IndyStar. "I put the pen to the paper, so that's where I'm at right now. I have an obligation to them, and an obligation to me, but things will happen naturally."
I guess even though Irsay is a doosh......the bottom line is.....the quote above. If I were Taylor.....I get back to work......play my *** off and see where the chips fall in 2024. Because where else is going to make 7 figures for running around with a football.
1st world problems.
I simply don’t care when owners and players whine.......it’s ridiculous.
Todem
Footballguy
Yeah the cap really put’s the word “free market” under a microscope. But then if that happens......you will have MLB. Where you clearly see the incredible inequality in competitive balance which hurts the overall financial health of the league.
The NFL is never going to let go of the Cap........ever.
Todem
Footballguy
So let’s say elite RB’s will just vanish as time goes on (I don’t see that). Here is why they won’t.
There will be plenty of talented, productive RB’s more than willing to play for $750,000 a year to play a kids game. There will be plenty of them and teams will sign guys who are hungry and want to make life changing money.
Again......first world problems. These kinds of things work themselves out over time.
And this has nothing to do with the typical cop out answer “greedy owners”.
GM’s figured this out a few years ago. Draft RB’s later in the draft....have 2-3 on your team.
RBBC
It works, it’s effective and helps the team win and pay other areas which demand far more money (QB, OL, Edge, WR). It’s a passing league now......the rules favor passing the ball up and down the field. Yet the team that can run the ball best and control that clock as well as set up the PA seem to do best in the long term.
So instead of paying one guy too much money at position with the highest risk of injury.....pay 2-3 guys to get the same production overall. It’s not going to change. And teams are going to stop taking more and more RB’s in the first round.....the lucky “few” will get that Saqon rookie deal contract (he made 51MM all guaranteed his first 4 years).
The rest.......make what you can for playing a kids game.
There will be plenty of talented, productive RB’s more than willing to play for $750,000 a year to play a kids game. There will be plenty of them and teams will sign guys who are hungry and want to make life changing money.
Again......first world problems. These kinds of things work themselves out over time.
And this has nothing to do with the typical cop out answer “greedy owners”.
GM’s figured this out a few years ago. Draft RB’s later in the draft....have 2-3 on your team.
RBBC
It works, it’s effective and helps the team win and pay other areas which demand far more money (QB, OL, Edge, WR). It’s a passing league now......the rules favor passing the ball up and down the field. Yet the team that can run the ball best and control that clock as well as set up the PA seem to do best in the long term.
So instead of paying one guy too much money at position with the highest risk of injury.....pay 2-3 guys to get the same production overall. It’s not going to change. And teams are going to stop taking more and more RB’s in the first round.....the lucky “few” will get that Saqon rookie deal contract (he made 51MM all guaranteed his first 4 years).
The rest.......make what you can for playing a kids game.
rockaction
Footballguy
See, you know I respect your posts, Todem, but I can't get at this line of thinking. This is a man's sport that requires dedication and fervor way beyond a kid's game. There are serious health and well-being questions still unanswered when considering whether this game is fit for American male adults, never mind children that can't possibly understand the risk they undertake when they put pads and helmet on.
It's a kid's game only because we played it as kids. It's really a collegiate invention from rugby and soccer. I run the risk of being a pedant, but it is among the adult leisure classes that the game began, and it continues to be a sport best left for adults to play.
Just something to consider. It was always too violent for kids until it wasn't. It was never intended to be an idyllic game for children.
Kevrunner
Footballguy
Sony Michel made around $11.7 million in his pro career, I’m not believing that he made more while playing in college, there’s no way.
J Giles Band
Footballguy
I think this was a bit tongue in cheek...
steelcityman
Footballguy
USC players have been doing it for decades, Bama more recently.
Ministry of Pain
Footballguy
@Todem
Great contribution to the thread, don't agree with everything you said but you explain that side of the equation well and I do understand the owners POV and the fans that back that line of thinking but I completely disagree in exploiting players that are a major part of the glory and fan happiness every time they score a TD and are basically being paid on the bottom side of the tier while QBs even the poor ones get North of $30M a year these days
Wait until Miami pays Tua, something I know you are against right now but it's coming. Nobody would say a word if they extended Tua something along the lines of Geno Smith, 3yrs/$100M but 6 months ago that would have made a lot of fans angry down here. With the recent developments, I'm sure Stephen Ross is having the papers drawn up, whether they get signed, whether Tua turns 2023 into a $250M+ extension this off season, all TBD
Great contribution to the thread, don't agree with everything you said but you explain that side of the equation well and I do understand the owners POV and the fans that back that line of thinking but I completely disagree in exploiting players that are a major part of the glory and fan happiness every time they score a TD and are basically being paid on the bottom side of the tier while QBs even the poor ones get North of $30M a year these days
Wait until Miami pays Tua, something I know you are against right now but it's coming. Nobody would say a word if they extended Tua something along the lines of Geno Smith, 3yrs/$100M but 6 months ago that would have made a lot of fans angry down here. With the recent developments, I'm sure Stephen Ross is having the papers drawn up, whether they get signed, whether Tua turns 2023 into a $250M+ extension this off season, all TBD
Todem
Footballguy
If Ross extends him before he completes a full season and proves he is a QB worthy of a rich extension he is out of his mind.
We know Tua is a hit away from being done like dinner. His risk level is beyond the average NFL QB…..he has not has a single healthy season yet. Not one.
Anyway this is for a different thread.
Terpman22
Footballguy
Maybe I'm in the minority, but I don't feel bad for Jim Irsay a bit. He's lived a rich life his entire life and if he has addiction problems, he certainly has the resources to do whatever it takes to go at them full force. Its a matter of will and will only for a guy like him. Taylor on the other hand, this might be his only shot to get paid. He knows it. We know it. Jim knows it. Irsay is just once again acting like a turd, which he has a history of. Trying to have his cake and eat it too. Didn't they let Andrew Luck keep ALL THE MONEY when he retired early? If you don't want to pay Taylor, fine. Trade him. Don't be a d***bag and try to make some s*** up to try to take Taylor's EXISTING money from his CURRENT contract. All around not a great situation.
CletiusMaximus
Footballguy
It would take a major revision to the CBA, which I think runs through 2030, and I can't see non-RB vets - every other position group - voting to give up their salary to benefit FA running backs. It makes no sense for the NFLPA and I also don't see any benefit for owners. I'd also be concerned with trying to fix perceived problems in a highly regulated market with further regulation.
Long Ball Larry
Footballguy
I mean, college football is a multi-billion dollar organization also.
Snotbubbles
Footballguy
If Saquon Barkley was on the open market and the Giants didn't tag him, what do you think he would have gotten AAV?
massraider
Footballguy
I don't think Joe feels bad for Irsay. I think he takes exception to making fun of his addiction. Totally fair. It's one of those things many many people don't find funny.
-OZ-
Footballguy
It’s fair because it’s the market. Completely agree that RB takes the most damage for the least pay. But that doesn’t make it unfair.
Yep. It’s all fair.
Although good luck replacing Henry.
How much do you think the NCAA / SEC / Georgia makes?
I do firmly believe the rookie cap affects RB more than others, which is a reason the lions drafted Gibbs. Atlanta will use Bijan until his wheels fall off. Hopefully he’ll be able to get a decent couple contracts before he’s done. It’s the Position easiest to transition to the NFL and shortest shelf life. I’d support a different pay scale for RB in the draft for that reason. But that’s the only market inefficiency I see.
So yes, that affects JT right now. But I don’t blame the owner for following the market.
