Report claims Redskins won't cut Haynesworth

[Ruhskins]

Originally Posted by SBXVII

For those of you who simply want to cut him, how about you pay me $3,000 to mow your yard, I'll show up when I want, take a couple swipes with the push mower, take a break and lay on the ground for 5 mins., then leave because I'm not interested in pushing a mower through your whole yard. AND I decide to keep your money and look to mow someone else's who has a riding mower.

In a basic sense that's what has happened. Don't tell me you wouldn't try to come after me for the money or try to force me to do what I was paid to do. That's exactly how Snyder must feel. He wants SOMETHING in return. It's idiotic to simply think DS is rich and can handle it so let's just cut the fat fart and be done with him.

Well if someone told me that you would be a problem if I hired you, I wouldn't have hired you in the first place. If I did hire you, knowing that information, well I deserve to lose the money. Except that this scenario doesn't compare to football, like many other scenarios people try to compare to football.

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by Ruhskins

Well if someone told me that you would be a problem if I hired you, I wouldn't have hired you in the first place. If I did hire you, knowing that information, well I deserve to lose the money. Except that this scenario doesn't compare to football, like many other scenarios people try to compare to football.

That's not factually correct. From a legal perspective, Albert Haynesworth signed a contract with the Washington Redskins. Not with the "Jim Zorns Who Run a 4-3".

He's legally obligated to do what the coaches tell him.

I think it's fair to say the 'Skins were warned that his character isn't great and thus should have been aware that he could be a locker room problem, but there are locker room problems and then there's this. It's not fair to say they should have known that he would flat out ignore his contractual obligations to play whatever the coaches tell him to play.

[Ruhskins]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

That's not factually correct. From a legal perspective, Albert Haynesworth signed a contract with the Washington Redskins. Not with the "Jim Zorns Who Run a 4-3".

He's legally obligated to do what the coaches tell him.

I think it's fair to say the 'Skins were warned that his character isn't great and thus should have been aware that he could be a locker room problem, but there are locker room problems and then there's this. It's not fair to say they should have known that he would flat out ignore his contractual obligations to play whatever the coaches tell him to play.

First, I did say that this scenario is not a good comparison. Second, if you are going to invest $40 mil. to possibly $100 mil. on a player, you better be damn sure things are going to work out, but the team didn't.

In an ideal world, I would want Haynesworth to stay here, learn his lesson, and work things out. But, the team also thought he'd work out coming out of Tenn., and he didn't. I think he's a terrible person and nothing is going to motivate him.

This team also has a history of investing a lot on FAs, not doing their homework on whether they will work out, and then having them fail miserably. And the latest example was McNabb, costing us two draft picks, yet no one is clamoring for him to stay on the roster and work things out. It would actually benefit the team more for McNabb to stay and work things out, yet just about everyone wants him gone from the team (completely and utterly wasting the draft picks).

In the end, nothing good will come out Haynesworth staying with the team. And there are a lot of positives that will come out if he leaves the team. If you think otherwise you are either a.) way too optimistic thinking that Haynesworth will learn his lesson and work things out b.) care more about this guy "learning his lesson" than anything else c.) you are Dan Snyder.

As I repeatedly say, Vinny's f*ck ups won't be cheap to fix.