The-Hogs.net - Washington Football Discussion, Redskins to Commanders Era

Posted: **Thu Jun 17, 2010 7:33 am**

Yeah, as far as I can tell the only one in this whole situation who lied, and broke their word is Albert Haynesworth. He agreed to play football for the Washington Redskins for an obscene amount of money. Now he decided he'd rather sit home and cash checks.

Posted: **Thu Jun 17, 2010 9:28 am**

They will get less than market value for him and I hope the new regime isn't going that route. He was told by the NFLPA that the team couldn't go after his bonus and as soon as it came out that they planned on getting some back Fat Albert said he'd show for training camp. Hopefully the FO is of the "fool me once shame on you..." state of mind, and will go after as much as they can get back as soon as they can get it back.

If he shows for camp it's going to be extremely difficult, if not impossible, for them to get any bonus money back.

Posted: **Thu Jun 17, 2010 9:30 am**

this from CBS Sportsline

http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/story/1353 ... ines;other

I hope that we do not just let him go - it really seems like Haynesworth is trying to have his cake and eat it too

wait him out and let him continue to look like he looks right now - he's a big fool

Posted: **Thu Jun 17, 2010 10:54 am**

I'm one of those people that your asking about/looking for... along with the Redskins GM, Head Coach, DC and others on this site.... I'm one of those people that took him at his word. I still say the media created the story because there was nothing said publicly about him not showing up for mandatory drills, in fact he said that he would be at Redskins Park for all of the team's mandatory drills.

Taking him at his word is what the GM and Shanahan did and since there has been a lack of communication (evidenced by Shanny's comment that he hasn't spoken to Albert since OTA Day 1) there was no reason for them not to take him at his word.

I agree that the media over-hyped the story, but they didn't create it wholecloth. The story actually wasn't that he would not show up for mandatory stuff, that was a shocker, the story here in D.C. for every single day has been that "Albert is at odds with management over being used as a nose tackle and wants to be traded."

The dilemma arose because Albert went on a radio show a couple of months ago and said that he'd do what he's asked to do and that the End in a 3-4 is basically the same as a DT in a 4-3. So, a lot of people assumed that Albert was on-board and that the media was making much ado about nothing.

But, we now know that where there's smoke there's fire. The Skins weren't actively trying to trade him, but he was allowed to seek his own trade provided that he didn't take the April bonus. Once he took it, the organization assumed that he'd show up as he said he would. But, obviously Chad Speck, who is most certainly one of the "sources" for these stories has been consistent in believing that Albert wanted to leverage his way out.

Why should they try to trade him? They won't get what they want for him and the cost to the team will be the same regardless if he is on the team or not. If he's going to cost the team like he is here than keep him here

I agree and disagree with you. We should "try" to trade him, but as I stated before, I would not entertain a trade unless it involved at least two 2nd round picks, or a comparable package. Haynesworth in my view is equally as talented at his craft as Brandon Marshall, but his behavior has compromised his value. I don't think we will get a fair package for him, but I do believe we should "try". I agree we should keep him if and when we can't get value for him in a trade. But, it will be a long season unless he makes amends with his teammates. That would require manning up and addressing them to explain his point of view. But, since DeAngelo Hall (who seems to have spoken to him most) didn't even know he wasn't showing up, we're left to believe that Albert doesn't have it in him to do that, which could make for a long season.

I actually think that Albert just doesn't want to play football for our team. He never made a home here, and he came here purely for the money. I don't think he really has a huge problem with the scheme (he knows he's the best d lineman on the team and would be allowed to create havoc) I think he's trying to double dip money wise. He's only due 9 million more in guaranteed money from the Skins...he likely believes that he can simply force his way into a trade, and I'm willing to bet he'd holdout for a new deal with the acquiring team.

Posted: **Thu Jun 17, 2010 11:26 am**

1Niks... I love that breakdown homie!

Posted: **Thu Jun 17, 2010 11:31 am**

There's a big debate right now on if the Skins have a legit claim for his bonus money. I think the major factor will be how he comes into camp come July - if he comes. If he does not come, I think the Skins have a legit shot but if he does come and fully participates, then we'll see. Expect to see him come and fake an injury.

Posted: **Thu Jun 17, 2010 12:59 pm**

frankcal20 wrote:There's a big debate right now on if the Skins have a legit claim for his bonus money. I think the major factor will be how he comes into camp come July - if he comes. If he does not come, I think the Skins have a legit shot but if he does come and fully participates, then we'll see. Expect to see him come and fake an injury.

And he'll show for this very reason if he isn't cut or traded.

Posted: **Thu Jun 17, 2010 7:07 pm**

Regardless of what Haynesworth was told before he signed his contract, he did sign, Cerrato said.

That's very telling. Not excusing what Al's doing but Vinny kinda tells on himself a bit with this quote. It appears that Al was "promised" some things.

Posted: **Thu Jun 17, 2010 8:53 pm**

Chris Luva Luva wrote:It appears that Al was "promised" some things.

I don't think this makes any difference at all. The so-called promises came from people who don't design the defense. Haynesworth knew that. His agent knew that. If that was supposed to be part of the deal, the agent should have included that in the contract.

Besides, Moose Allahan told him if he didn't like the new scheme he could go sign a deal somewhere else. He didn't do that. He chose to take the money, which means he chose to stay.

Posted: **Thu Jun 17, 2010 9:28 pm**

You can be pretty sure the weasle checked that his money was safe before asking for a trade so I cant see us getting any money back. In many ways it serves snyder right , perhaps getting his fingers burnt will make him moreprudent in the future :lol:

Posted: **Thu Jun 17, 2010 9:54 pm**

Manchester_Redskin wrote:You can be pretty sure the weasle checked that his money was safe before asking for a trade so I cant see us getting any money back. In many ways it serves snyder right , perhaps getting his fingers burnt will make him moreprudent in the future

I think that hiring Bruce Allen has already made him more prudent.

Posted: **Thu Jun 17, 2010 9:57 pm**

Chris Luva Luva wrote:
Regardless of what Haynesworth was told before he signed his contract, he did sign, Cerrato said.

That's very telling. Not excusing what Al's doing but Vinny kinda tells on himself a bit with this quote. It appears that Al was "promised" some things.

So what? It also seems clear that Shanahan told him that he'd let him walk if he were to forgo the most recent payment on his contract... that makes Haynesworth's whining nothing more than crocodile tears. He took the money... he needs to shut up and come to work.

Posted: **Thu Jun 17, 2010 10:13 pm**

Countertrey wrote:
Chris Luva Luva wrote:
Regardless of what Haynesworth was told before he signed his contract, he did sign, Cerrato said.

That's very telling. Not excusing what Al's doing but Vinny kinda tells on himself a bit with this quote. It appears that Al was "promised" some things.

So what? It also seems clear that Shanahan told him that he'd let him walk if he were to forgo the most recent payment on his contract... that makes Haynesworth's whining nothing more than crocodile tears. He took the money... he needs to shut up and come to work.

Not saying he shouldn't. But the previous FO shouldn't be speaking for our coaches. But that was par for the course for them, the same idiots who hired coordinators before a HC.

Posted: **Thu Jun 17, 2010 10:40 pm**

It's Cerrato. I can barely remember him... much less listen to anything he says... And, how does anything he says relate to Albert's behavior of today? It's ancient history... and Albert knows it. His contract is for 7 years... and does not dictate the defense to be used.

Posted: **Fri Jun 18, 2010 12:22 am**

"Albert Haynesworth is a child. A spoiled, oversized child with no concept of why his actions make him look as bad as they do, or why they have created such a fuss. In Haynesworth's mind, even amidst the din, it’s the rest of the world that doesn’t get it.

That is a child’s mentality, pure and simple, and only an adult can see it for what it is. Maybe the fact that London Fletcher—the embodiment of professionalism in sport—is the adult voice being heard today is a sweet irony not lost on anyone."

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/4075 ... blows-away

"If you want a quick, concise overview though, here is the best single piece I have seen yet—it has all the salient news and most of the salient quotes. Be sure to watch the video as well. There are some player quotes in there that haven’t gotten much play in print that you’ll want to see."

http://www.nfl.com/news/story?id=09000d ... nfirm=true

Posted: **Fri Jun 18, 2010 12:33 am**

"On the day he signed his $100 million contract, Albert Haynesworth famously said: "You're not going to remember Albert Haynesworth as a bust."

On Wednesday, the Washington Redskins used a more scathing word to describe the two-time All-Pro defensive tackle: selfish."

http://www.nfl.com/news/story?id=09000d ... nfirm=true

Posted: **Fri Jun 18, 2010 2:28 am**

Chris Luva Luva wrote:
Regardless of what Haynesworth was told before he signed his contract, he did sign, Cerrato said.

That's very telling. Not excusing what Al's doing but Vinny kinda tells on himself a bit with this quote. It appears that Al was "promised" some things.

Wow - keep talking Vinny. Apparently a lot went on within 5 minutes of Free Agency starting. SMDH

Even still, I wonder if they promised Andre Carter that he'd never play in a 3-4 again. I wonder if they promised D Hall that we'd never put him in man coverage. Every year a significant part of the league changes coaching staffs and schemes.

Posted: **Fri Jun 18, 2010 8:05 am**

Countertrey wrote:It's Cerrato. I can barely remember him... much less listen to anything he says... And, how does anything he says relate to Albert's behavior of today? It's ancient history... and Albert knows it. His contract is for 7 years... and does not dictate the defense to be used.

Jeez dude, I'm not here defending Albert. I simply posted a snippet that I found interesting that kinda tells on Vinny a bit, that there may have been promises made. Is there something wrong with that?

Posted: **Fri Jun 18, 2010 10:18 am**

Jeez dude, I'm not here defending Albert.

That's the second time you've said that in this thread Chris. :lol:

Apparently we can't tell that you're not defending him. It seems like you are.

Posted: **Fri Jun 18, 2010 10:57 am**

as I said in another thread:

Personally, I hope this guy gets treated harshly by the team and by the media BUT I think the current FO will make a decision about this along the line of what's best for the Redskins

Haynesworth can only 'add' to our defense - not having him is not going to make much of a difference - we are not winning OR losing games because of just 1 player

Posted: **Fri Jun 18, 2010 12:05 pm**

The Hogster wrote:
Jeez dude, I'm not here defending Albert.

That's the second time you've said that in this thread Chris. Apparently we can't tell that you're not defending him. It seems like you are.

Alright, screw discussing all points of this story. I hope Al gets tarred and feathered, he's a bum and horrible human being. Is that better?

Posted: **Fri Jun 18, 2010 3:38 pm**

Pay him in pennies. That'll teach him. :lol:

Posted: **Fri Jun 18, 2010 3:59 pm**

Chris Luva Luva wrote:
The Hogster wrote:
Jeez dude, I'm not here defending Albert.

That's the second time you've said that in this thread Chris. Apparently we can't tell that you're not defending him. It seems like you are.

Alright, screw discussing all points of this story. I hope Al gets tarred and feathered, he's a bum and horrible human being. Is that better?

Hyperbole, Chris. Bottom line is we all know the world is not black and white, but instead is usually shades of grey. Reality is always in the middle. No one is saying tar and feather Albert, or that he's a "horrible human being."

What people are saying is that he's at fault here. He's wrong. Very wrong. Even if there were "promises" made, be a big-boy, especially when you have 32 million reasons to take one for the TEAM...and another 68 million reasons to do it to the best of your ability.

It's not rocket science. Plenty of players endure change and deal with it without acting in this manner and for far less money.

Chris Johnson is set to make $550,000 this year, and he just became only the 6th RB in NFL history to rush for 2 G's last year. Nobody should be playing a fiddle for Albert.

BTW - I must have missed your point in favor of cutting Albert some slack and suggesting that the Redskins are being unreasonable here.

Posted: **Fri Jun 18, 2010 5:28 pm**

Posted by Mike Florio on June 18, 2010 3:34 PM ET
We've finally gotten our hands on the full contract between the Redskins and defensive tackle Albert Haynesworth. And it appears based on the language of the contract and the relevant terms of the Collective Bargaining Agreement that the Redskins have little or no chance of recovering any of Haynesworth's bonus money in the wake of his decision to skip this week's mandatory minicamp.

Based on the terms of the contract itself, the Redskins have the right to recover not only the $21 million in signing bonus money paid on April 1 but also $4,285,716 of the $5 million paid to him in 2009. But the contract ignores specific language in the 2006 CBA, which dramatically limits the forfeiture of cash money from signing bonuses to two specific circumstances.

Here's the relevant language, from Article XIV, Section 9(a) of the CBA: "No forfeitures of signing bonuses shall be permitted, except that players and Clubs may agree: (i) to proportionate forfeitures of a signing bonus if a player voluntarily retires or willfully withholds his services from one or more regular season games; and/or (ii) that if a player willfully takes action that has the effect of substantially undermining his ability to fully participate and contribute in either preseason training camp or the regular season (including by willfully withholding his services in either preseason training camp or during the regular season or willfully missing one or more games), the player may forfeit the greater of: (a) 25% of the prorated portion of his signing bonus for the applicable League Year for the first time such conduct occurs after the beginning of training camp until the end of the season for his Club, and the remaining 75% prorated portion of his signing bonus for the applicable year for the second time such conduct occurs during that period that year; or (b) the proportionate amount of his signing bonus allocation for each week missed (1/17th for each regular season week or game missed)."

In English, this means that skipping a mandatory minicamp places none of the signing bonus in jeopardy. Ever.

If Haynesworth fails to show up for even one day of training camp, the Redskins then can pursue 25 percent of the 2010 allocation of the initial $5 million signing bonus, and 25 percent of the 2010 allocation of the $21 million signing bonus paid this year. But if he shows up for training camp (and he reportedly plans to do) and for every game, he gets to keep his money.

And the Plaxico Burress grievance from 2009 means that Haynesworth keeps the money even if the team eventually suspends Haynesworth for conduct detrimental to the team. Basically, unless he holds out or retires, he keeps the money.

The only tangible consequence at this point arises with respect to the guaranteed nature of Haynesworth's $3.6 million base salary in 2010 and his $5.4 million base salary in 2011. By ditching the mandatory minicamps, the guarantees have been voided. This means that, if they cut him, the Redskins most likely won't have to pay him $9 million in future guaranteed money.

Still, as far as we can tell, Haynesworth and the NFLPA are right on this one. He gets to keep his money, even if he doesn't really deserve to do so.

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2010/06/18/redskins-will-have-a-very-hard-time-getting-haynesworths-bonus-money/

Posted: **Fri Jun 18, 2010 5:39 pm**

Andy614 wrote:Pay him in pennies. That'll teach him.

$20 million=2 billion pennies. that MAY weigh as much as Fat Albert!

The-Hogs.net - Washington Football Discussion, Redskins to Commanders Era

Oh no, Haynesworth wants out!!