Has the WP decided attacking the Skins is good for business?

We all know about JLC's lack of insider news and Sally Jenkins tendencies but after reading this article:

Sally Jenkins - Sally Jenkins: For Redskins, a Question of Layoffs vs. Payoffs - washingtonpost.com (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/story/2009/03/03/ST2009030303353.html)

I really wonder if the Post thinks the best way to get readers attention is to attack anything Redskins.
...
That the Redskins would cut lower-level employees as nonessential to the organization, while rewarding Haynesworth as vital to the tune of $48 million, betrays something fundamental about the team. In a league with a skewed reward system, the Redskins always manage to be at the far end of the skew. There is a certain tone-deaf profligacy at work. No, lower-wage staffers aren't as valuable to a team as a Haynesworth -- they don't come close to resembling his worth. But they resemble the sorts of people who actually watch the Redskins, and buy their gear: the paying public...

um that's a ridiculous statement.

(I think this is separate from JLC's lack of insider info thread but please merge if it blends together)

maybe the Post should "lay-off" some of these writers if they want to gain any type of respect back.

I don't think this is one of Sally's better pieces on the Skins, but it still makes some relevant points. My main criticism is that the skins are singled out, but then she concedes that paying athletes huge sums of cash is done in all sports by a lot of teams. It seems she couldn't decide whether to make it a redskins or pro sports based article.

I know she gets a lot of grief from the warpath, but I think she usually points out what the flaws of Vinny & Danny are. I want to think the Danny is learning, and this free agency class might turn out huge. But let's face it, he spends the most to field a mediocre team (over time that's what we've been since he owned the team). He's increased the overall value exponentially, and loves to make big moves. So far, his ownership has achieved much more financial success than football success. Judging by what some season ticket holders here have said, I think overall Sally has a point even if it's not clearly stated.

I'll give her credit for quoting peoplle who point out who the real revenue drivers are and that smart businesses have to make tough decisions on where to cut and where to add (and that includes laying people off sometimes), and that it's not like the Redskins are the only team to face this situation. But ultimately, it's all just a set-up for another bashing.

I think Sally Jenkins should take a paycut so others could be employed , maybe she should write childrens books ?????

So according to Sally the beer guy at FedEx who got laid off from his job was actually a cap casualty?

Who writes this stuff?

Just when I'm sure I've reached the apex of total dislike for an individual I read this article and realize that I've still got a long ways too go. {vomit smilie}

I wonder how much Jenkins gets paid per word for her BS drivel? Newspapers all over the country are really struggling and going through layoffs, the Washington Post included. Maybe she should sacrifice her job to save a lower income, more dedicated, less miserable employee.

I think Sally Jenkins should take a paycut so others could be employed , maybe she should write childrens books ?????

Book 1:
"The little man who failed" By: Sally Jenkins

Idiocy, plain and simple. Chris Mortenson mentioned recently that several teams around the league had bloated internal staffs and needed to shed as much as 25 percent of their non-essential workers. You don't need an advanced degree in economics to understand that this issue is wholly seperate from the product that you put on the field.