CanesSkins26 wrote:so it's absurd to hold players to a different standard, especially when oftentimes players agree to structure their contracts in certain ways to help teams deal with the salary cap.
Agreed. I take this stance all the time.
That's all well and good, but it doesn't really speak to the point at hand. If a team can cut a player or tell a player to accept less money after a poor season (despite a contract being in place), there is nothing wrong with a player asking for more money after a good season.
There have been numerous instances where teams had told players to either accept less money or be cut, so it's absurd to hold players to a different standard, especially when oftentimes players agree to structure their contracts in certain ways to help teams deal with the salary cap.
frankcal20 wrote:That's all well and good, but it doesn't really speak to the point at hand. If a team can cut a player or tell a player to accept less money after a poor season (despite a contract being in place), there is nothing wrong with a player asking for more money after a good season.
But legally, both parties are binded by the contract that THEY signed.There have been numerous instances where teams had told players to either accept less money or be cut, so it's absurd to hold players to a different standard, especially when oftentimes players agree to structure their contracts in certain ways to help teams deal with the salary cap.
So if a player is being asked to take less or be cut, then if the players value has diminished, it may be a better decision to take the money that's on the table than go onto the open market and get less. That's just a good business decision on both parts. Just like if a player is overachieving his contract, more times than most, if the player comes in, does his job, etc he get's a new deal because his value is there.
frankcal20 wrote:Here's an interesting idea by Adam Scheffner of ESPN about the bonus money for Haynesworth:
http://espn.go.com/video/clip?id=529216 ... id=2459789
Chris Luva Luva wrote:As I read more about this, Al's not going to win a lot of people over. LOL
Chris Luva Luva wrote:ATX_Skins wrote:If I were offered a job for a certain salary, then new management came in and told me my role would be changed.... I would deal with it.
I believe you're in the minority sir. I know for a fact that if I had new management come in today and told me I'd be doing something different that is beneath my capabilities, I'd be looking for a new job. Why would I work somewhere that I'm not happy when I have options? C'mon now... Let's be real here.ATX_Skins wrote:Let's cut the crap, Haynesworth is being unreasonable.
This I can agree with. I don't think he's giving the new regime a fair shake. Totally agree.ATX_Skins wrote:Trade him, cut our losses, learn from it.
There's nothing to learn from because Bruce/Shanny wouldn't have done this. They're dealing with baggage.ATX_Skins wrote:These issues will continue to come into play with the salaries these players are making, it's almost unavoidable nowadays.
You have to be very judicious in who you reward that type of many to, I don't believe Bruce would have done this.
HEROHAMO wrote:Unless he pays his bonus back? We should have no choice but to not honor his wishes. He has not honored his contract so therefore there is a breach in the contract. Haynesworth owes this franchise and we owe him nothing at this point. Even if we have to sit him on the bench oh well.
Here is a scenerio we trade Haynesworth to the Jets for Revis. The Jets pay us the bonus Haynesworth already has and we give Revis the contract he is seeking. Same could go for Andre Johnson. That is more wishful thinking but I like to entertain the thought.
Man am I dissapointed with this news. You would think AH would at least give it a shot?
Tuesday, June 15, 2010 9:45 p.m.
CSNwashington.com
"The Washington Redskins are a great and storied franchise with an owner in Mr. Snyder that will do anything in his power to win and a fan base that is unrivaled in the NFL. When I signed here after meeting all day with the staff and top executives, and talked about the defense that we would run and what my role would be, I was assured I would have the freedom to play to my strengths and I was excited about the future. After many years in the NFL, I know what it takes for me to perform at my highest level. My number one goal has always been to help my team win -period. It's also important at my position to help free my teammates to make plays, which I've done throughout my career when I've been allowed to play to my strengths. I will continue to work individually to prepare for training camp and the start of the 2010 season."
redskins14ru wrote:What can the redskins do as far as trades go can the redskins get anybody and if so who????
yupchagee wrote:redskins14ru wrote:What can the redskins do as far as trades go can the redskins get anybody and if so who????
Probably not much because:
1) His attitude
2) We have very little leverage
&
3) more teams have switched to the 3/4.
Shanahan also revealed that Haynesworth earlier this year was given the option of freedom or money—and chose money. The coach said he told Haynesworth in February that the Redskins would agree to release him and let him go to another team—in exchange for not paying him the $21 million bonus due April 1.
“Obviously, he took the check,” Shanahan said, “so I was surprised he wasn’t here today. … Don’t take our check and then say that, hey, you don’t want to be part of our organization.”
The Hogster wrote:Where are all of the people who were saying Haynesworth is ok and the media created this story? What happened to all will be fine cause he'll show up for mandatory stuff??
The Hogster wrote:At this point, the Skins have no choice but to try and trade him. Otherwise we are in for a long season.
The Hogster wrote:I dont know what kind of value we can get for him now - but this guy is a huge pile of $h*t
CanesSkins26 wrote:Here's Haynesworth's actual statement to the press....Tuesday, June 15, 2010 9:45 p.m.
CSNwashington.com
"The Washington Redskins are a great and storied franchise with an owner in Mr. Snyder that will do anything in his power to win and a fan base that is unrivaled in the NFL. When I signed here after meeting all day with the staff and top executives, and talked about the defense that we would run and what my role would be, I was assured I would have the freedom to play to my strengths and I was excited about the future. After many years in the NFL, I know what it takes for me to perform at my highest level. My number one goal has always been to help my team win -period. It's also important at my position to help free my teammates to make plays, which I've done throughout my career when I've been allowed to play to my strengths. I will continue to work individually to prepare for training camp and the start of the 2010 season."
CanesSkins26 wrote:I agree 100%. Teams are going to have to take a stand against all these players who refuse to honor their contract. Part of this problem is organizational since the Redskins tend to overpay for everything, but as a professional, a player should have the ethics to at least show up for work.
The Big Al situation aside, why should players have to honor contracts if teams don't? Players are cut (and therefore not paid all the money in their contracts) prior to the end of their contracts all the time. It goes both ways.