BuffaloBill Posted April 7, 2010 Share Posted April 7, 2010 Interesting how things change - a year ago many were arguing to sign this guy at nearly any cost. As an aside it would be interesting to see what data says about players who sign fat free agent contracts. It is easy to postulate that for most their productivity falls way off. If this is true, it makes the ability to draft well and to retain your core players that much more important. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steely Dan Posted April 7, 2010 Share Posted April 7, 2010 http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2010/...ues-to-heat-up/ I'll start off by saying this is one player I would NOT trade for. Tremendously talented player who played hard and was dominant when he had a contract to play for. Got (over)paid by dumb-dumb Snyder and copped an even bigger ego/attitude. The face-stomper rubbed Shanny the wrong way and now they're gonna unload this guy on a team dumb enough the trade for him. I find this interesting though because there's no way he takes a pay cut and if the Skins really don't want him, you have to wonder if they'll just cut their losses and release him because I find it hard to imagine any team wanting to pick up that contract. Especially for a guy who is oft-injured and lazy now that he's paid. I thought getting Haynesworth was a sign of Dan Snyder's commitment to winning? WTF happened? PTR I hope the negative nellies will realize that the Bills passing on him was a good thing and that signing the big name FA's is a bad idea sometimes. The Bills brass were 100% right about avoiding him. http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=3940991$41 million guaranteed. League sources told ESPN's Chris Mortensen that a $29 million "poison pill" in the fifth year of Haynesworth's contract effectively makes it a four-year deal worth $48 million. The Redskins would owe Haynesworth a lump sum of $29 million in salary and bonuses in 2013, the fifth year of the deal. It is unlikely the team will pay the full commitment of $100 million over seven years unless the contract is re-negotiated. Haynesworth will receive $41 million in guaranteed money. 4 years for $48 million? That's not that bad...? http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=3939011 During the first 13 months of the contract, Haynesworth will earn steal approximately $32 million. Fixed! Link Albert Haynesworth Defensive Lineman 2/27/2009: Signed a seven-year, $100 million contract. The deal contains $41 million guaranteed, including a $5 million signing bonus and his 2009-2011 base salaries. Haynesworth is due a $29 million "poison pill" in 2013, effectively making it a four-year, $48.2 million deal. Another $15 million is available through incentives. 2010: $3.6 million (+ $21 million guaranteed option bonus due 4/1), 2011: $5.4 million, 2012: $6.7 million (+ $500,000 workout bonus), 2013: $8.5 million (+ $20 million "discretionary signing bonus" + $500,000 roster bonus due 8/31 = Poison Pill Year), 2014: $10.3 million (+ $500,000 roster bonus due 8/31), 2015: $11.5 million (+ $500,000 roster bonus due 8/31), 2016: Free Agent Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lets_go_bills Posted April 7, 2010 Author Share Posted April 7, 2010 UPDATE: Looks like the remainder is very affordable: 3 years, $16 million, $9 million guaranteed. http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2010/...very-tradeable/ With the Redskins wanting to trade him and plenty of teams interested, he could be had for a reasonable price. Depending on who, if anyone, ultimately gets him, it could shake up the draft. Especially if Detroit gets him. Suh and McCoy could lose some money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted April 7, 2010 Share Posted April 7, 2010 I have to admire the way Shanahan is handling the very stubborn Haynesworth. He is establishing the fact that he is the HC and he determines how players are going to be used; not the other way around. Last year, Haynesworth was constantly battling the DC, Blanche, on how he wanted him to play. The DC wanted Haynesworth to play a more disciplined style, lane control, while Haynesworth wanted to free lance. Shanahan is smart enough and tough enough to establish authority very early in his tenure. This was a team in which star players would do end arounds to the owner when their were player/coach conflicts. That is not going to happen with the new coaching regime. I'm sure Clinton Portis is observant enough to realized that the old way (working outside the team structure) is not going to work anymore. You would think that with a SB-winning and respected coach like Shanahan, Haynesworth would be on-board with whatever he wanted. Perhaps if the Redskins stayed with the 4-3, there wouldn't be an issue. So the fault is partly Shanahan's, since Haynesworth is not a NT. And since Shanahan wants the 3-4 and Haynesworth doesn't want to play NT, there really is no other solution but to try and trade him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
papazoid Posted April 7, 2010 Share Posted April 7, 2010 Haynesworth is a beast......"IF" he was in this draft , he would be a top ten pick.......his contract is now a very reasonable 3 yr/ $16 mil (about the same yearly average as the #9 overall pick will be) his contract will be terminated after year four......i'd give my second or even a first round pick for him. he commands double team....your gonna need 6 quality D lineman....we have two. http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2010/...very-tradeable/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PromoTheRobot Posted April 7, 2010 Share Posted April 7, 2010 Haynesworth is a beast......"IF" he was in this draft , he would be a top ten pick.......his contract is now a very reasonable 3 yr/ $16 mil (about the same yearly average as the #9 overall pick will be) his contract will be terminated after year four......i'd give my second or even a first round pick for him. he commands double team....your gonna need 6 quality D lineman....we have two. http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2010/...very-tradeable/ So let me get this straight. You'd trade our #1 for a guy who has already proven himself to be a lazy piece of crap? Hey I have a sweet Porche I want to sell you. It was totalled in a wreck but was an awesome car when it was new. PTR Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
papazoid Posted April 7, 2010 Share Posted April 7, 2010 So let me get this straight. You'd trade our #1 for a guy who has already proven himself to be a lazy piece of crap? Hey I have a sweet Porche I want to sell you. It was totalled in a wreck but was an awesome car when it was new. PTR first of all.....haynesworth is NOT "lazy" (please prove that) ......secondly, he is NOT a porsche (i'd say more like an M1 Tank) or "totalled wreck" (he's not injured or damaged physically)......your analogies are flat wrong and silly. haynesworth is an absolute proven commodity, every draft pick is a crap shoot. if salary is equal, i would take the proven pro bowler over a draft pick any day. so yes, i would give up my #1 pick, if neccessary (prefer my second), for him. he is on the trading block because he has publicly expressed his frustrations with his previous wash defensive coaches over the way they utilized him last year. he has made his mark in this league by crushing the pocket and getting to the QB.....washington wants him to stop the run only. with his contract structured the way it is, he now has all the leverage and he is using it (like not reporting to a VOLUNTARY workout). yes, at worst, he is being selfish, by trying to put himself in a position to excell, at possibly (ones opinion) the expense of the team. that alone doesn't make him a piece of crap. heck, i would "let him" play DE in our 3-4 if thats what he preferred, he would be the BEST lineman on our team. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Malazan Posted April 7, 2010 Share Posted April 7, 2010 Dear Poster Above, You do realize the Bills are playing a 4-3? Sincerely, Jeremy2020 President of Stop Paying Overweight Lazy Players Tens of millions of dollars Committee to elect Doug Flutie Official Candystriper for Old Folks and Kittens Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
papazoid Posted April 7, 2010 Share Posted April 7, 2010 Dear Poster Above, You do realize the Bills are playing a 4-3? Sincerely, Jeremy2020 President of Stop Paying Overweight Lazy Players Tens of millions of dollars Committee to elect Doug Flutie Official Candystriper for Old Folks and Kittens the bills have announced they are switching to a 3-4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Conch Posted April 7, 2010 Share Posted April 7, 2010 LOL wait till Chicago sees what peppers does now that he got paid Just like our man Lee. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
silvermike Posted April 7, 2010 Share Posted April 7, 2010 Yeah, three years, at $5M-6M per is a very reasonable contract for Haynesworth. But it's short, and there's no way you keep him longer that that on the deal. You also can't franchise him, since the contract makes him get cut. Still, Suh and McCoy are such top prospects that I can't imagine anyone deciding to go with Haynesworth instead, so as far as shaking up the draft, I think it's unlikely. Needless to say, if he won't play 3-4 in DC, he won't play it here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. WEO Posted April 7, 2010 Share Posted April 7, 2010 http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=5062920 Oh well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SACTOBILLSFAN Posted April 7, 2010 Share Posted April 7, 2010 http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=5062920 Oh well. I'm pretty sure shanny said Campbell was his starting QB too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnC Posted April 7, 2010 Share Posted April 7, 2010 You would think that with a SB-winning and respected coach like Shanahan, Haynesworth would be on-board with whatever he wanted. Perhaps if the Redskins stayed with the 4-3, there wouldn't be an issue. So the fault is partly Shanahan's, since Haynesworth is not a NT. And since Shanahan wants the 3-4 and Haynesworth doesn't want to play NT, there really is no other solution but to try and trade him. The problem with Haynesworth is he wants to do what he wants to do. The real issue isn't that he doesn't want to play NT in a 3-4 scheme, the real issue is that he doesn't want to do what the coaches want him to do. Last year he was constantly arguing with the DC, Greg Blanche, becasue he wanted to free lance while the DC wanted him to play a more disciplined style. You say Haynesworth is not a NT? Why not? He has the size, strength, athleticism which would make him a very effective NT. Players play and coaches coach. There is nothing unusual for a new coaching staff to change the offensive and defensive schemes. Even when a coaching staff hasn't change there is nothing unusual about changing schemes on both side of the ball because the staff believes there is a need to change. Haynesworth is a self-centered and prickly person who is not very coachable. The new HC and regime are trying to instill a more team oriented culture to the franchise. Fat Albert doesn't fit in very well in that environment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
papazoid Posted April 8, 2010 Share Posted April 8, 2010 http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=5062920 Oh well. that is a smoke screen to keep his trade value up......Haynesworth WILL be traded, there is no going back for the redskins (just like you knew McNabb would get traded).......probably going to Detroit for their 2nd round pick. wonder how Whaley and Nix value Albert. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. WEO Posted April 8, 2010 Share Posted April 8, 2010 that is a smoke screen to keep his trade value up......Haynesworth WILL be traded, there is no going back for the redskins (just like you knew McNabb would get traded).......probably going to Detroit for their 2nd round pick. wonder how Whaley and Nix value Albert. You may be right. But Given that they can never get back the value they have already invested in Haynesworth, it's hard to believe that, after making it appear that he was on the market, simply denying it now would "keep his trade value up". In contrast, I (and the rest of the free world) knew McNabb would be traded because his FO told everyone he was for sale and were entertaining offers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sisyphean Bills Posted April 8, 2010 Share Posted April 8, 2010 It might be worth noting that Haynesworth was playing injured most of last year. On the other hand, probably not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
papazoid Posted April 8, 2010 Share Posted April 8, 2010 tennesee titans defense with Haynesworth Top 5. tennesee titans defense WITHOUT Haynesworth....bottom 10. coincidence ?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TDO'Kearney Posted April 8, 2010 Share Posted April 8, 2010 tennesee titans defense with Haynesworth Top 5. tennesee titans defense WITHOUT Haynesworth....bottom 10. coincidence ?? I think not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnC Posted April 8, 2010 Share Posted April 8, 2010 It might be worth noting that Haynesworth was playing injured most of last year. On the other hand, probably not. Is being grossly out of shape considered being injured? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts