Report claims Redskins won't cut Haynesworth

[sportscurmudgeon]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

I don't agree. If he continues to be non-compliant we should have the legal discourse to retain his contract while deactivating him from the 53-man roster. I don't think our options are limited to:

- Keeping him and paying him
- Releasing or trading him

We should be able to Keyshawn his ass if he's not living up to his contract. I doubt any mediator would side with Haynesworth in a situation where he's knowingly and purposely not doing what he's told.

It's in our best interests to keep him and let him come around. What's he going to do, pout forever? Eventually, once you realized you had no option, wouldn't you want to make an impact again? If he continues to be a non-compliant piece of junk you Keyshawn him and get him out of your locker room. But you don't have to give him away for nothing.

Unless the new CBA has new provisions allowing a team to "Keyshawn a player's ass" for more than 4 games, that option will not be open to the Redskins.

That issue has been decided by an arbitrator back about 2007...

[sportscurmudgeon]

Originally Posted by Alvin Walton

Stainsworth has made a mockery of NFL contracts and of organizational and coaching authority.
I hope Roger G has seen this and gives this bum the maximum suspension possible.

The stupidity of the situation has to belong to the side of the table that handed $21M to the other side of the table believing that someone who has been a trouble-maker and a spoiled brat all of his career was about to change his stripes and become a sacrificing team-player.

The mockery belongs with the guys who handed over the $21M.

The scorn for being an a$$hole belongs with AH...

[Ruhskins]

Originally Posted by sportscurmudgeon

The stupidity of the situation has to belong to the side of the table that handed $21M to the other side of the table believing that someone who has been a trouble-maker and a spoiled brat all of his career was about to change his stripes and become a sacrificing team-player.

The mockery belongs with the guys who handed over the $21M.

The scorn for being an a$$hole belongs with AH...

This.

Sent from my SPH-D700 using Tapatalk

[mooby]

You can't receive a comp pick if you release a guy in the midst of his contract and he goes somewhere else and has a monster year for them can you?

I wouldn't release him as long as he has trade value though. If I were in the 'Skins FO, I'd make a trade based upon us receiving a conditional draft pick depending on how he plays on his new team. If he plays poorly, we receive a 4th. If he plays good but not great, we receive a 3rd. If he becomes dominant and plays a bunch of snaps and makes the Pro Bowl, we get the 2nd we're looking for. I think that would be fair to both teams, and odds are we won't get a 2nd for him anyways unless teams get into a bidding war with each other, which sounds unlikely.

[GusFrerotte]

Originally Posted by Ruhskins

I thought that this had been reported before.

Regardless, I would say that the Redskins will find a market for him. It is to their benefit to have stories like this out there, so teams won't wait out for him to get cut. But at the same time, the Redskins need to be flexible on the price. Honestly, his best destination will likely be Denver, since they are in desperate need of a 4-3 DT. If Philadelphia offers the best price, then I say deal him.

That is nuts to give him to Philly. Knowing our luck he will get a fire under his ass whenever he plays us and buries whoever is our QB that Sunday.

[GusFrerotte]

Originally Posted by sportscurmudgeon

The stupidity of the situation has to belong to the side of the table that handed $21M to the other side of the table believing that someone who has been a trouble-maker and a spoiled brat all of his career was about to change his stripes and become a sacrificing team-player.

The mockery belongs with the guys who handed over the $21M.

The scorn for being an a$$hole belongs with AH...

Exactly, Vinny and Danny were on crack when they came up with that contract. Took millions away from our cap for years. Money that could have helped get us some younger, more hungry FAs.

[SirClintonPortis]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

All of those arguments are meaningless. The smart decision makers set emotions aside and make the decision based on what's best for the organization/country/team/company going forward.


The bottom line is Haynesworth still has the capability to be dominant. You don't have to cater to him, he'll come around when he wants another big payday. Either that, or get a high pick for him in a trade where you can send him out of our division. Either is a decision that is most likely to positively impact the Redskins on a go-forward basis.

It's all about the odds of 2 or 4 regular season games in the next couple of seasons, a draft pick, and a current roster spot then. Well, management also needs to appraise his likely contributions if he were to stay.

My counteropinion is that two potential regular games lost and missing out on him "dominating" for us is not worth the roster spot, especially for a short term asset like Haynesworth currently is.

Every team who wants to "buy" AH is going to assess the risk of him not playing up to his capabilities, whatever they are. The question they would as is "what's the probability that he's going to be Mr. Dominant vs the probability that he's going to be Mr. Lemon"? Mr. Dominant will provide much utility/benefit while Mr. Phat will provide almost nothing. I don't see the chances of AH being that high that he will dominate for us because he soured the relationship with his coaches so badly. In numbers, Albert Haynesworth is capable of providing 10 utility units, but the probability of that happening is likely low. So, the expected value is of utility units is lower than his capable utility.
Also, if he were such a "guaranteed" superstar, then that 2nd round price Shanahan set would have been paid a long time ago. But hell, even the Titans and Jeff Fisher didn't want to cough up the goods.

Another matter is how long he is going affect other teams in the league. Albert Haynesworth is on the wrong side of 30 and has NEVER been durable enough to last a whole season. With his style of play, he is going to get a lot of wear and tear on his body, and his natural abilities are going to fade away.
Not only that, if he does have an impact year next year and helps the Eagles sweep us, we get to pick higher in the draft, which means a better selection of players who might contribute to use beyond the next 3 years. I think 33 years is a safe estimate of when he will no long be dominant.


Then there's the muddy waters of how much he directly hurts this team. If he goes to the Eagles, there are two games that they might win thanks to him. Then again, we might split the series even with him there or even sweep them. But, you then have to consider that "Mr. Dominant" also hurts every other team in the league.

So in short, "smart" decision makers would evaluate just how likely each of the scenarios regarding AH is going to happen, how long will impact last, and how "strong" the impact is.
I wouldn't feel bad about Haynesworth leaving dominating, because gambling that he might fail or his impact on the Redskins minimal is far more likely than having him return to being a "superstar". AH gives a new meaning to the word stupid; even if he wants the carrot at the end of the maze, will he figure out how to get there again? I doubt it. If they're really scared of him going to Philly, then lower the damn price ship him off to an some AFC team so that he gets to hurt us directly for one or none games.

[SBXVII]

Originally Posted by sportscurmudgeon

The stupidity of the situation has to belong to the side of the table that handed $21M to the other side of the table believing that someone who has been a trouble-maker and a spoiled brat all of his career was about to change his stripes and become a sacrificing team-player.

The mockery belongs with the guys who handed over the $21M.

The scorn for being an a$$hole belongs with AH...

I don't kow. I wouldn't say all that. I wanted him, I was glad they picked him up. I was all excited about how our defense would roll over other teams with him on it. Then after he showed up to a 4-3 team of which he wanted he decides he does not like how strict and rigid Blache's scheme is and speaks out against it, complains, takes plays off, so on and so forth. Then the whole coaching staff gets changed as well as the scheme to a 3-4 and he pouts and complains all offseason. Given the opportunity to simply not accept the money and request a trade or to be cut he decides to take the money as if he has decided to go along with the program. Yet he chooses not to participate in OTA's, shows up out of shape, kept cutting his own work load, then got benched.

I do not fault the people handing over the $21 mill I fault the player for taking the money with the understanding he is to perform then refuses to perform.

I guess it goes back to a big issue.... a team can cut a player at any given time, even though they will have to pay a portion of his salary for future years but what can a player do if he's unhappy? All he can do is become a problem big enough for the team to want to trade or cut him. Which is what AH is doing. He should never have accepted the money. Right now I'd make darn sure I had one spot for him just to be on the team and ride the bench all year. Activate him but don't use him. Only carry 2 QB's, cut down on the number of RB's, where ever you need to cut but AH would be riding the pine all year unless the Eagles want to give up a 2nd round draft pick and a conditional 3rd. paybacks are a biotch.

[SBXVII]

Originally Posted by GusFrerotte

Exactly, Vinny and Danny were on crack when they came up with that contract. Took millions away from our cap for years. Money that could have helped get us some younger, more hungry FAs.

He has only been here 2 yrs..... right? Plus I keep hearing how he's not effecting the cap all that much this year or whatever years are left on his contract which is why many people think we should just find a way to keep him.

I'll agree with you though we should have been getting younger a long time ago like back in 2002. Instead each year we kept bringing in older vets at each position.

[SBXVII]

Originally Posted by SirClintonPortis

It's all about the odds of 2 or 4 regular season games in the next couple of seasons, a draft pick, and a current roster spot then. Well, management also needs to appraise his likely contributions if he were to stay.

My counteropinion is that two potential regular games lost and missing out on him "dominating" for us is not worth the roster spot, especially for a short term asset like Haynesworth currently is.

Every team who wants to "buy" AH is going to assess the risk of him not playing up to his capabilities, whatever they are. The question they would as is "what's the probability that he's going to be Mr. Dominant vs the probability that he's going to be Mr. Lemon"? Mr. Dominant will provide much utility/benefit while Mr. Phat will provide almost nothing. I don't see the chances of AH being that high that he will dominate for us because he soured the relationship with his coaches so badly. In numbers, Albert Haynesworth is capable of providing 10 utility units, but the probability of that happening is likely low. So, the expected value is of utility units is lower than his capable utility.
Also, if he were such a "guaranteed" superstar, then that 2nd round price Shanahan set would have been paid a long time ago. But hell, even the Titans and Jeff Fisher didn't want to cough up the goods.

Another matter is how long he is going affect other teams in the league. Albert Haynesworth is on the wrong side of 30 and has NEVER been durable enough to last a whole season. With his style of play, he is going to get a lot of wear and tear on his body, and his natural abilities are going to fade away.
Not only that, if he does have an impact year next year and helps the Eagles sweep us, we get to pick higher in the draft, which means a better selection of players who might contribute to use beyond the next 3 years. I think 33 years is a safe estimate of when he will no long be dominant.


Then there's the muddy waters of how much he directly hurts this team. If he goes to the Eagles, there are two games that they might win thanks to him. Then again, we might split the series even with him there or even sweep them. But, you then have to consider that "Mr. Dominant" also hurts every other team in the league.

So in short, "smart" decision makers would evaluate just how likely each of the scenarios regarding AH is going to happen, how long will impact last, and how "strong" the impact is.
I wouldn't feel bad about Haynesworth leaving dominating, because gambling that he might fail or his impact on the Redskins minimal is far more likely than having him return to being a "superstar". AH gives a new meaning to the word stupid; even if he wants the carrot at the end of the maze, will he figure out how to get there again? I doubt it. If they're really scared of him going to Philly, then lower the damn price ship him off to an some AFC team so that he gets to hurt us directly for one or none games.

If your refering to trading him to the Eagles? I'm not scared of him and I think we of all teams would know his weakness's. I'd trade him to them in a heartbeat for the right price.

BUT, I wouldn't give him away or cut him simply to rid the team of a malcontent. He was paid $32 mill to do a job for which he CHOSE not to do. For that reason alone I'd make his life miserable, suit him up every Sun., and sit him on the bench to watch the game. He would have a few options, sit on the bench and stew all year long listening to fans ridicule him from othe sidelines, or he can decide to play ball and request to get more playing time in the 3-4 defense he hates soo much, or he can pay back a large portion if not the whole portion and request a trade.

[GusFrerotte]

He has only been with us for a couple years, but that money wasted will affect us for longer. Sure you say it might not affect us all that much, but still we signed him to a $100 millioin contract over 4 years, with a big chunk that was up front. Think of that money that could have been spent filling multiple gaps in the offensive line, maybe sign some younger FAs for depth at DB or WR. The AH move isn't as bad as say the Heath Shuler disaster, but it probably ranks as the #2 disaster of the past 20 years.

[SBXVII]

Originally Posted by GusFrerotte

He has only been with us for a couple years, but that money wasted will affect us for longer. Sure you say it might not affect us all that much, but still we signed him to a $100 millioin contract over 4 years, with a big chunk that was up front. Think of that money that could have been spent filling multiple gaps in the offensive line, maybe sign some younger FAs for depth at DB or WR. The AH move isn't as bad as say the Heath Shuler disaster, but it probably ranks as the #2 disaster of the past 20 years.

Totally agree with you, but he's here and we can't go back and change the past. So lets somewhat forget that the mistake was made to pick him up for such a high cost and look to what we have, a player who is only making what just about all the other players are making for the remaining portion of his contract. Which in comparison is supposedly not that big a deal.

The issue I have is he accepted the $32 mill. Not for free but to perform whatever task was asked of him. and he chose not to uphold his part of the bargin/contract. In VA thats a type of fraud. You get paid to perform a service and you don't do the work that you were paid to do. If the team has no recourse in getting the money back then let him rot on the bench and not play.

[SirClintonPortis]

Originally Posted by SBXVII

If your refering to trading him to the Eagles? I'm not scared of him and I think we of all teams would know his weakness's. I'd trade him to them in a heartbeat for the right price.

BUT, I wouldn't give him away or cut him simply to rid the team of a malcontent. He was paid $32 mill to do a job for which he CHOSE not to do. For that reason alone I'd make his life miserable, suit him up every Sun., and sit him on the bench to watch the game. He would have a few options, sit on the bench and stew all year long listening to fans ridicule him from othe sidelines, or he can decide to play ball and request to get more playing time in the 3-4 defense he hates soo much, or he can pay back a large portion if not the whole portion and request a trade.

Philly is the worst-case scenario of AH directly affecting our wins and losses. With Casey Rabach as the center, AH is rather capable of screwing us. But then again, they swept us last year easy-peasy without him...

Letting him stew on the bench makes it harder to trade him. Thus, more likely than not, we'll eventually have to make a choice between letting him go for cheap or for free if we choose that route. Teams are going to say "it's too risky for us to pay for a volatile player like him, lower the price or no deal". Major character flaws, needs "babying", and even when "motivated", he's prone to embellishing injuries to take plays off. If someone actually does pay the 2nd rounder, I'll be happy as anyone, but I'm certainly NOT counting on that happening, especially with what he's done.
AH is like a junk bond. You're going to say "wow, look his potential return", but once that bond issuer defaults and can't pay you anything, you're going to say "$#@!"

Actually, for someone as capable of Haynesworth, I'm surprised no rumors of teams offering a 1st for him ever surfaced. Goes to show how teams view him. They're scared to take him for too much due to fear of the "lemon" Haynesworth.

[NLC1054]

Originally Posted by SirClintonPortis

Philly is the worst-case scenario of AH directly affecting our wins and losses. With Casey Rabach as the center, AH is rather capable of screwing us. But then again, they swept us last year easy-peasy without him...

The Eagles swept us?

Huh...I guess that whole Week 5 "Donovan gets his revenge" thing was a mirage...

[SirClintonPortis]

Originally Posted by NLC1054

The Eagles swept us?

Huh...I guess that whole Week 5 "Donovan gets his revenge" thing was a mirage...

Whoops.

But the second game was so bad, it could count as two games. It was "Historic", mate, HISTORIC, I tell you!!!!!

Oh, and Lady Luck was good to us. Jason Avant, the new dropaholic receiver to laugh at.