Quote:
Originally Posted by Schneed10
Every decision has a cost/benefit:
Costs of Keeping Him:
- 1 roster spot, the value of which is determined by how deep our team is. If our 53rd man sucks balls like he did last season, then there's really not much of a cost here.
- Salary and cap space, which at this point is relatively small
- Media headaches, which I think is overblown. What had more to do with our W/L record last year, the media asking questions about Haynesworth or our terrible transition to the 3-4 defense and terrible QB play?
|
Injuries can dictate whether a roster spot is important or not. They could always happen, and on a rebuilding team I think is ridiculous to take up a roster spot on a guy you are trying to teach a lesson.
Unless the team finds a way to not pay him, I'm sure the other players are not going to be so crazy about the idea of AH sitting on the bench and still get paid. I doubt MS would play him if he stays, and if he does, it'd be minimal play.
The media will continue to make a story out of this as long as AH is on the roster. I'm sure many players are sick of having to comment on the story.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Schneed10
Benefits of Keeping Him:
- keep him off opposing teams
- nowhere to go but up in terms of production, WAY up
- setting a tone for the team that you're not going to pout your way out of town, if you want to earn your next contract, you'll have to honor your first one.
|
AH has spent the last two years out of shape and playing at a subpar level. I really doubt he's going to be that dominant.
As I said before, I doubt MS will play him, so you are being very optimistic on this aspect.
And as far as your third point, well the Bengals have done that with Ochocinco and now they are doing it with Palmer, it hasn't gone too well for them. The team should focus on not bringing trouble players like Haynesworth in the first place. That's how you set a tone and culture on the team, not by keeping a malcontent on the roster and paying him to sit on the bench.