Trade for Haynesworth?

[gunn]

Originally Posted by cland

From the article the remaining salary would be "$16.2 million over the next three years, with only $9 million guaranteed." That's pretty darned reasonable....

To be fair... they went on to say that in actuality it is closer to 52 million with 20 guaranteed left on the deal. While the next three are reasonable it seems that there after that contract would be pretty awful. I'm not sure what kind of implecations that would have for the 2013 season and going forward, or if there could be anything done with that though.

[cland]

Right, but those salaries are not guaranteed. So after 3 years, you can renegotiate or cut without being forced to pay the 20 million in option bonus that comes in the last part of the contract. Agents typically add that type of language to push up the perceived value of the contract, and set a new negotiating point down the road.

[Bigtinylittle]

Hayyell no.

http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/news;_yl...hdebacle041610

[kRocket]

Oh, come on. If you don't want the best DT in the NFL for a second or third pick you ain't thinking. Even at half speed he is better than anything we have and if we drafted Suh it would be 3 years before he approached Haynesworth, if he ever does. I know players don't put out sometimes after they get a payday but the Redskins had a crappy team and he probably didn't put out as much as he could have.

Human nature being what it is, if you have a person join the team that is much better than the person he replaces it makes the whole team play harder and better.

[TheMatrix31]

No way. I don't want that bitch on my team.

[Bigtinylittle]

Originally Posted by kRocket

he probably didn't put out as much as he could have.

I agree with that part of your comment.

[gunn]

Originally Posted by Bigtinylittle

Hayyell no.

http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/news;_yl...hdebacle041610

Look... That article makes sense, don't get me wrong... but that type of article made more sense last year. At that time I would have agreed that its probably too much money.. But the past is the past and truth now is the primary focus of that piece is guaranteed money and he is just not owed all that anymore. As mentioned earlier, he is quite reasonable over the next three years.

To me, I look at that and say... here we can add a guy in his prime 28-32 range at a reasonable price for a three year window, one that dominates at his position, in an attacking 43 scheme that fits his style, a position of need, paired next to what we already have on the line and second level talent wise.. If we are able to add a piece to the secondary in the first round... That could make for one potent defense...

[HPF Bob]

So, you mean we can spend a ton of money on a selfish jerk that will upset the salary scale for our top defenders, take plays off and act as a clubhouse cancer to boot? Sign me up!

I'd rather have Richard Seymour.

[dalemurphy]

Originally Posted by HPF Bob

So, you mean we can spend a ton of money on a selfish jerk that will upset the salary scale for our top defenders, take plays off and act as a clubhouse cancer to boot? Sign me up!

I'd rather have Richard Seymour.

I don't want him either. But, I think the point is, he wouldn't hurt the cap because we wouldn't be responsible for any of his signing bonus money. That all is escalated to the Redskins 2010 cap (if there was one). We would only be responsible for the yearly base salaries. So, in theory, we could cut him at any point without there being a cap hit.

[NBT]

NOPE. Haynesworth only puts out when it is his contract year, otherwise he could care less.

[Blitzwood]

Originally Posted by dalemurphy

But, I think the point is, he wouldn't hurt the cap because we wouldn't be responsible for any of his signing bonus money. That all is escalated to the Redskins 2010 cap (if there was one). We would only be responsible for the yearly base salaries. So, in theory, we could cut him at any point without there being a cap hit.

If this is accurate, I'd have to give him a long hard look. Maybe a third rounder in 2011, which could be a compensatory pick and wouldn't cost us anything in essence. The real question is "do we want him in our locker room"?

If he checked out as a decent guy, I'd take him.

[kRocket]

Originally Posted by HPF Bob

So, you mean we can spend a ton of money on a selfish jerk that will upset the salary scale for our top defenders, take plays off and act as a clubhouse cancer to boot? Sign me up!

I'd rather have Richard Seymour.

Why do you say selfish? He isn't asking for a new deal, he just doesn't want to play in a 3-4 defense. As previously stated the ridiculous money has already been spent and the balance is pretty bearable. If he played on an already good defense where he was not the only horse pulling he might return to form. If he was obtainable it just wouldn't make sense not to jump at.

I have not heard of him being a clubhouse cancer? I Googled 'Haynesworth and cancer'. I found several references but they were all forum responses or blogs, no real incriminations except that he refuses to come to team workouts because he won't play NT and a 3-4. The team hired him to be in a 4-3 and then asked him to do something else and he refused. You might do the same at your job also. Well, you may not refuse but just look for a new job. Same-same.