Do Protestants have traditions?

Yes, Protestants have traditions. One is their canon of 66 books. As one guy writes:

Furthermore, the Protestant canon itself is an “extra-biblical tradition” in the sense that the 66 books of the Protestant canon are accepted de facto by most Protestants as scripture, trusting that the Reformers were correct in defining the canon as they did.

{from comment 126 here  http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2012/06/podcast-ep-17-jason-cindy-stewart-recount-their-conversion/

I would see the Bible alone, Faith alone, etc as part of their tradition.

see also this article: http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2010/02/the-tradition-and-the-lexicon/
IN this he discusses

By contrast, Protestants typically do not turn first to the Church Fathers when seeking to understand the meaning of a passage or term in Scripture that is unclear. Protestants generally turn to contemporary lexicons and commentaries written by contemporary biblical scholars whom they trust. Only rarely, and perhaps as a final step, do they turn to the Church Fathers. The common form of the Protestant mind is ready to believe that the Fathers often got Scripture wrong, and to use their own interpretation of Scripture to ‘correct’ or critically evaluate the Fathers

Another example of tradition is given here in comment 211 http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2012/06/podcast-ep-17-jason-cindy-stewart-recount-their-conversion/

 WCF 1:1 is able to pronounce this very well:

“Therefore it pleased the Lord, at sundry times, and in divers manners, to reveal Himself, and to declare that His will unto His Church . . . to commit the same wholly unto writing.”

The Bible simply does not say that God’s revelation of himself was committed “wholly unto writing.” This principle is a tradition, not a biblical teaching. And, when compared with Scripture, is found to be wanting.

from a comment here at comment 191 http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2010/02/the-tradition-and-the-lexicon/#comment-159772

Etienne Gilson (A Gilson Reader, essay “Wisdom and Time”)

Since it refused the authority of the Church, which is Christ Himself, interpreting for us His own word, Protestant theology had to take refuge in philology, as though the teaching of our Savior, having died with Him, was reduced to the meaning of certain words pronounced once upon a time and definable with the aid of grammars and dictionaries. The outcome of this undertaking is well known, and the work of the learned Adolf Harnack is its permanent model: beginning with the Gospels, Christianity is thought of as forming a departure from the teaching of Christ, the whole theology of the Fathers is a contamination of that teaching at the hands of the Hellenic spirit, and the Scholasticism of the middle ages is its final corruption. A strange historical method, surely, whose last word is that the history it is recounting is devoid of meaning and strictly without object! . . . . Certain that the word of the Church is the word of the living God, the Catholic theologian knows very well that the unfolding of the divine deposit of faith of which the Church is the guardian will come to an end only when time does, and even then the infinite richness of this deposit will not be exhausted. But the Catholic theologian likewise knows that this work of developing, which does not belong to any one man of whatever holiness or genius, belongs in fact to the Church, of which Christ is the head and he is a member. The teaching voice of the Church is alone the judge of the understanding of faith.

from comment 181 here  http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2013/11/sola-scriptura-redux-matthew-barrett-tradition-and-authority/#comment-162120

 The problem can be seen as soon as one reflects carefully on the following question: who counts as “the church”? Any heretic can define ‘the church’ according to his own beliefs and interpretations, and in this way affirm everything in the excerpted paragraph above as applying to his own [heretical] community, or to the set of communities he counts as sufficiently with the bounds of ‘orthodoxy’ as defined according to his false position. So all this locating of the Spirit in “the church” is worthless if“the church” is defined in an ad hoc way, because the position then reduces to ‘the Spirit speaks through the community of persons picked out by their sufficient agreement with my interpretation of Scripture.’ And that is even more nefarious than simply stating “the Spirit speaks ultimately through me” because it hides from itself its egoism, masking it under the semantics of community, as Neal Judisch and I have explained elsewhere.

Only the existence of a divinely authorized magisterium allows both ‘heresy’ and ‘schism from the Church’ to be defined in a non ad hoc way. But Allen and Swain do not acknowledge a divinely authorized magisterial authority, and for this reason their position regarding what is “the church” remains ad hoc. (I’ve pointed out this problem before in my reply to Mark Galli and in the last paragraph of comment #89 in the Brad Gregory thread.)

Moreover, fatal to the Protestant attempt to embrace tradition as in any sense authoritative is theecclesial deism inherent in Protestantism, according to which necessarily, as shown by the very need for Protestantism in the sixteenth century to the present day, tradition cannot be trusted, and must therefore be subject to one’s own interpretation of Scripture to test its authenticity. But when I submit only when I agree, the one to whom I submit is me. Hence, as I’ve shown in the post at the top of this page, when what gets to count as tradition is only that which conforms to one’s own interpretation of Scripture, one is giving only lip-service to the authority of tradition, while hiding from oneself one’s denial of the authority of tradition. In this way Protestant’s justification for its own existence presupposes that tradition is unreliable, and not authoritative.

Further evidence for this can be found in the confessionalists vs. biblicists debate within the Reformed community, a debate I’ve discussed here. The arguments raised by the Reformed biblicists against the confessionalists apply no less to the ‘catholic’ tradition, given a Protestant ecclesiology. Without a magisterium, there is no principled difference between choosing which Protestant confessions to which to ‘submit’ on the basis of one’s interpretation of Scripture, and choosing which catholic traditions count as ‘catholic tradition’ on the basis of one’s interpretation of Scripture. And if ‘catholic’ tradition is supposed to be more authoritative than the Reformed confessions because the former is not “Reformed,” then this only shows that Reformed theology is not ‘catholic.’

A second reason lies behind the inherent incompatibility of Protestantism and catholic tradition. The formation of a schism from the Church, in the name of standing with the tradition in the Church Fathers, is not itself part of the tradition of the Fathers, but is itself contrary to the tradition. For the Fathers it was better to die than to form or enter a schism from the Church (i.e. the living community). The tradition does not provide a justification for or affirmation of choosing to be excommunicated from the Catholic Church rather than submit to her authentic Magisterium; the tradition is exactly the opposite. So a belief in the acceptability of forming or entering a schism from the Church for the sake of presumed faithfulness to the tradition is itself a departure from the tradition, as is the embrace of excommunication from the Catholic Church, and of remaining in such a state of excommunication without appeal for reconciliation.

Protestants attempt to justify this position in two ways. They either claim that Protestantism is the continuation of the Church, and that the [Roman] Catholic Church departed from her through various errors, or they claim that Protestantism formed a branch within the “church catholic,” and was only cut off from a branch (i.e. the Roman Catholic Church), and is thus not in schism from the “church catholic.” The problem with the latter claim is that Protestantism’s ‘branch ecclesiology’ is itself a departure from the tradition. While “schism from” the Church is actually possible according to the tradition, yet because Protestantism’s invisible church ecclesiology makes “schism from” the Church conceptually impossible (see here), it thus does not allow for a non ad hoc distinction between a “branch within” the Church and a “schism from” the Church.

Likewise, the problem with the former claim is that the ecclesial deism inherent in the claim that the Church Catholic had departed from the faith is itself contrary to the tradition, because according to the tradition, the Church is indefectible. Any heretical group that separates from the Catholic Church can claim to be the continuation of the Church, and can claim that the Catholic Church separated from her. But any such claim can be justified only by way of ad hoc definitions of ‘heresy’ and ‘schism,’ definitions that depart from the respective definitions handed down within the tradition. So both attempted Protestant justifications for separating from the Catholic Church and remaining separated from the Catholic Church run afoul of tradition. And thus again, for these reasons, Protestantism and catholic tradition are inherently incompatible.