Tag: Albert Haynesworth contract (Page 2 of 2)

Playing devil’s advocate with the Albert Haynesworth situation

June 18, 2010 /

While the rest of us fans and media members are playing the bongos with Albert Haynesworth’s vital organs this week, ESPN.com columnist Patrick Hruby decided to play devil’s advocate with the defensive end’s situation. Hruby even goes as far as to write that he’s sympathetic to Haynesworth.

Here’s the crux of Hruby’s argument:

Haynesworth’s argument essentially goes like this:

I signed with the Redskins expecting to be a havoc-creating, quarterback-attacking playmaker in a 4-3 defense. That’s the role in which I excel; that’s the style of play I enjoy; that’s what was promised during my free-agent courtship. Only now, the team has shifted to a new coaching staff and a new 3-4 scheme, which basically asks me to eat double-team blocks. Thanks, but no thanks. I’d like a little more excitement. A lot more glory. Please send me somewhere else.

Is that really so awful? So craven?

Because this column is about the 6-foot-6, 350-pound Haynesworth — and not, say, the 5-6, 185-pound Darren Sproles — let’s try a food analogy. Imagine you’re a pastry chef. The top pastry chef in New York. A bunch of restaurants want you. One restaurant offers you more money than the others, plus the opportunity to run the dessert menu. You take it. A year later, the same restaurant switches to an all-fondue format and demands that you become a sous chef, chopping chocolate-dippable fruit wedges in the back room.

Technically, you’re still preparing dessert. And you’re still working with sugar. Woo-hoo! But otherwise, it’s not exactly the gig you signed up for. Would you be annoyed? Feeling jerked around? Would you maybe call in sick and check the restaurant want ads, even though you’re perfectly healthy? Would you try to prepare apple tarts somewhere else, perhaps move to a soufflé-friendly city like Boston or Philadelphia?

You would? Good. ‘Cause all of the above is pretty much Haynesworth’s situation. A situation that makes his reaction both understandably human and adult, as opposed to that of the world’s largest pouting toddler.

It’s a fair point, but it only works if the Redskins promised Haynesworth that he wouldn’t have to play in the 3-4. He and his agent claim that’s what the Redskins told him, but there is no proof of that to my knowledge. (Side Note: If anyone has record of the Redskins telling Haynesworth he didn’t have to play in the 3-4, feel free to share it.)

Hruby goes on…

Continue reading »

External Sports, NFL

Redskins to Haynesworth: We want our money back.

June 16, 2010 /

Per Adam Schefter at ESPN.com, the Redskins will try to recoup the $21 million option bonus that they recently paid Albert Haynesworth, who has decided to skip all team activities this offseason because he’s a gigantic crybaby he thinks Washington will waste his talents in a 3-4 defensive alignment.

Before Haynesworth made the decision not to report to the Redskins mandatory minicamp that kicked off Wednesday, the NFL Players Association assured him that the bonus money on the contract he restructured on March 12 would be his to keep, one source said.

But another knowledgeable NFL source that reviewed Haynesworth’s contract and the collective bargaining agreement Wednesday morning said this issue is “open to interpretation” now that the defensive tackle has declined to report to a mandatory minicamp and the Redskins are expected to pursue whatever money they can. The source added, “this is the type of case where a longshot may be given an extra hard look because it is so egregious.”

The egregious part is that Haynesworth is basically stealing from the Skins. They paid him for his services and instead of honoring his contract, he has decided to throw a hissy fit about playing in a defense that he doesn’t like. Talk about a backwards situation.

Perhaps the most interesting part of Schefter’s report is this little nugget:

It also puts the NFLPA in a difficult spot, since it will have to take a stand publicly defending Haynesworth. While players such as Tennessee Titans running back Chris Johnson and New England Patriots guard Logan Mankins want lucrative new deals, Haynesworth became the highest paid player in history at his position — and then chose not to honor the contract because he didn’t like the way he was going to be used in the Redskins defense.

In the end, the NFLPA will have to defend Haynesworth. But that will not endear it to the public at a time when it is gearing up to battle the NFL on a new collective bargaining agreement.

No kidding. Haynesworth was paid $21 million to sit on his ass, while Johnson is actually in line for a raise and is getting nowhere with the Titans. The NFLPA won’t come out of this situation smelling like the bread aisle of a grocery store if it’s forced to back Haynesworth, who is clearly unappreciative of his current situation and who is just looking for an easy way out. I don’t care if it is a long shot – I’m glad to see that the Redskins are taking a proactive approach to the situation and trying to get their money back.

External Sports, NFL

Albert Haynesworth and his agent should start a comedy tour together

June 16, 2010 /

I don’t really feel like working today, so I won’t. My writing talents are wasted on a blog like The Scores Report, so I think I’ll just sit at home, fire up re-runs of “Married With Children” and wait for my boss to find me another place of employment.

If you think that sounds ridiculous, then you should hear some of the things Albert Haynesworth is saying through his agent.

This is from the Washington Post:

“The Redskins are trying to establish a new regime with new schemes at Redskins Park, and it is not an organization that Albert would have ever been attracted to just a short year ago – regardless of the money,” agent Chad Speck said in a phone interview. “He has made it clear to me that he does not want to play for the Washington Redskins.

Once I re-attach my spleen from laughing too hard, I’ll get back to this post.

He would have never been attracted to the Redskins a year ago, regardless of money? Who is Speck trying to fool with that comment? It was all about money last year when Haynesworth signed with the Redskins. If he were looking for the best situation, he would have re-signed with the Titans for less. Regardless of the money? Oh God, my spleen is giving out again…

Continue reading »

External Sports, NFL

Albert Haynesworth starting to irk teammates

May 10, 2010 /

Redskins’ owner Daniel Snyder signed Albert Haynesworth to a seven-year, $100 million contract in February of last year. It was the biggest payday for a defender in league history and so far, Snyder has undoubtedly not gotten what he paid for.

But then again, Snyder is used to not getting what he paid for when it comes to signing free agents. It’s Haynesworth’s teammates that have been affected the most by his salty attitude this offseason, which includes him being a no-show at voluntary camp this past weekend.

For the first time this offseason, some of the Redskin players are starting to show their frustration with Haynesworth. In a recent column by Mike Wise of the Washington Post, several of Haynesworth’s teammates spoke out about his absence at camp.

“From what I’m told, he can play the end spot,” Daniels said. “I’ve called him and told him that. The thing is, we have 100 percent participation if he is here. It’s now 99. He’s got to be here.”

“There is no room for negotiation at 4-12,” he added, speaking of the team’s woeful record last season. “I’m here, [London] Fletcher’s here, everybody’s here,” Daniels added. “He’s got to understand that. We need him to come here, be here and show these young guys that the veterans have bought in and that we want to win games.”

“It says this is voluntary, but for us, what we went through last season after a 4-12 season, it’s mandatory,” Daniels said. “He should definitely be here. And it’s a shame he’s not.”

While his teammates aren’t necessarily bashing him, their message is clear: Haynesworth needs to get his large frame to camp so that he and the rest of the Redskins can be on the same page heading into the season. If he’s not, then he’s not only hurting himself, but the entire team as well.

Some have suggested that Haynesworth has a right to be angry. After all, when he signed his $100 million contract, the Redskins were playing the 4-3 – the defensive scheme that he prefers.

But isn’t that the point? It shouldn’t be about what he prefers – it should be about what’s best for the team. Mike Shanahan has more than enough wins in this league to have proven that he knows what he’s doing and should be trusted. Haynesworth is proving that he’s a selfish player and if he wants to change that perception, then he needs to grow up and start earning his paycheck both as a player and as a teammate.

External Sports, NFL

Newer posts »

© 2025 The Scores Report – The National Sports Blog

Theme by Anders Noren — Up ↑