Albert Haynesworth is going to honor his contract and show up to training camp.

Apparently he was always planning on doing that.

Seriously – his words.

“Despite my current differences with the Redskins, I have always planned to attend training camp and honor my contract,”

This was the same man that has skipped all of the Redskins’ OTAs (mandatory or otherwise) this offseason, demanded a trade via his agent, and who has been lambasted by the media and his own teammates for being selfish. But he was always planning on attending training camp and honoring his contract. Really, you don’t say? Had me fooled.

All this man cares about is money and anyone who tries to convince me otherwise is drunk. I wouldn’t be shocked if someone finally got to him and made him realize that he stood to lose a lot of money if he didn’t report to camp.

“Hey Al, got a minute? It’s your No. 1 agent, Chad Speck! Listen, I’m going to need you to get your big, beautiful ass to training camp so you don’t get fined any more than you have. I would hate to see the Redskins go after that $21 million bonus check, too. I’ve got a Porsche in the driveway and that ain’t cheap to fill up, my man! Haha, you feel me? Yeah………so just honor your damn contract.”

Daniel Snyder should have never paid this mope $100 million and Haynesworth should have honored his contract from the beginning by showing up to at least the mandatory camps this offseason. Seeing as how he alienated himself by being selfish, who knows how his teammates will react once he finally arrives. Either way, both parties have to sleep in the beds they’ve made.

Of course, all his teammates will care about in the end is if he helps them win. This situation will blow over rather quickly if Haynesworth shows some class and puts in a little hard work. Not that he knows what either of those things mean.

From ESPN.com:

Former Green Bay contract negotiator and current National Football Post columnist Andrew Brandt hatched a trade idea that would give the Redskins financial relief in another way. It calls for Haynesworth to keep all of the Redskins’ money while the acquiring team takes on the expensive contract of another Redskins veteran — namely, running back Clinton Portis.

Portis is due to make $7.2 million in 2010, of which $6.43 million is guaranteed. The Redskins would get some financial relief, and the new team would have to guarantee a total of $15.43 million for Haynesworth and Portis combined. The Redskins already have veteran running backs Willie Parker and Larry Johnson on their roster, while the Lions could surely use some backfield depth while Kevin Smith rehabilitates his knee injury.

As I alluded to in the title, the idea is certainly unconventional, but not far-fetched. The Redskins want to recoup at least some of the money that they unwisely gave him last year and now that he’s unwilling to play, they might as well rid themselves of him in the process.

That said, acquiring Haynesworth as is would be a bargain for any team because the Redskins have already paid most of his salary. Even though he’s an elite player when his head is on straight, why would any team want to acquire Haynesworth and pay Portis’ contract? Haynesworth is already forcing the Redskins into a corner, so teams might as well wait and see how the situation plays out, instead of taking a more proactive approach.

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…

Read the rest of this entry »

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.

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…

Read the rest of this entry »