The Jay Cutler argument for sticking with Mike Shanahan

[DogofWar1]

Now, they're a good team, and if the get lucky, I guess they could win a SuperBowl. But nobody really looks at them and says there is a real SuperBowl contender. They are team with holes that are still clear.
I hope we don't end up in the same boat.

Ehh...the window's size is arguable, but so long as Cutler is healthy they are definitely contenders. Two of their three losses came within the past two weeks when Cutler was down. With him in they're 7-1, similar to last year before he got injured.

Coming into this year I felt the two teams to watch were the Bears and Texans because of their solid defenses and that their offenses had franchise QBs, #1 WRs, and solid runningbacks.

So I suppose on the one hand if we end up in the same boat I wouldn't consider that bad necessarily. On the other hand, I actually want to see that potential fulfilled, and so far the Bears and Texans haven't made good on their potential.

[Mahons21]

The thing is, no team was willing to take on that contract. We had to pay that fat piece of crap his guaranteed money before any teams were willing to trade for him.

I said whether or not there was a market for him with his contract was debatable, you're now saying with certainty that there was no market. What concrete evidence do you have of this?

If we're just using conjecture to support our arguments. I could easily argue that since TB has reportedly offered him more money than the Redskins the year prior, it's very unlikely that no team in the NFL would be willing to take on his contract after one down year. Everyone knew he was a free-lancer before he came here, and everyone knew for him to succeed he would need to continue to be a free-lancer. The only difference is one "down year" and that's only by his standards, and a contract that was slightly reduced since the skins had already paid him for a year.

[PeterMP]

Ehh...the window's size is arguable, but so long as Cutler is healthy they are definitely contenders. Two of their three losses came within the past two weeks when Cutler was down. With him in they're 7-1, similar to last year before he got injured.

But part of the reason he gets injured is because their OL stinks, which is related to them needing piece other than Cutler.

[Hitman21ST]

I said whether or not there was a market for him with his contract was debatable, you're now saying with certainty that there was no market. What concrete evidence do you have of this?

If we're just using conjecture to support our arguments. I could easily argue that since TB has reportedly offered him more money than the Redskins the year prior, it's very unlikely that no team in the NFL would be willing to take on his contract after one down year. Everyone knew he was a free-lancer before he came here, and everyone knew for him to succeed he would need to continue to be a free-lancer. The only difference is one "down year" and that's only by his standards, and a contract that was slightly reduced since the skins had already paid him for a year.

Sorry, I misspoke.

I mean to say that I seriously doubt that no team was willing to take on that contract. My apologies.

If there was a team, then yes, we should have traded him.

I doubt that Shanny would have passed on a third rounder though, if that was actually on the table.

[Mahons21]

Sorry, I misspoke.

I mean to say that I seriously doubt that no team was willing to take on that contract. My apologies.

If there was a team, then yes, we should have traded him.

I doubt that Shanny would have passed on a third rounder though, if that was actually on the table.

As I said what value we got in return was of little importance. The value in the tra\de came from addition by subtraction, a 7th rd pick would have still been a very good trade for the SKins.

[Hitman21ST]

As I said what value we got in return was of little importance. The value in the tra\de came from addition by subtraction, a 7th rd pick would have still been a very good trade for the SKins.

At the time though, there was also the issue of Shanahan's perceived "power".

Shanahan told Haynesworth "We can trade or release you, but if you take the money, you're going to stay and play"
Haynesworth took the money
Haynesworth then didn't show up for any workouts (voluntary or mandatory) and demanded a trade

If Shanahan had traded him, that would have set a very bad precedent that anyone can be a malcontent, get their money, then sit out and behave like a baby, and get what they want. So, unless the offer was above and beyond what Shanny wanted, he did the right thing in keeping him.

[DogofWar1]

But part of the reason he gets injured is because their OL stinks, which is related to them needing piece other than Cutler.

True, but if we're talking about them being a contender, even with their OL they still have to be considered among the group. 7-3 last year with Cutler, 7-1 this year with him, they are a top team when he's there. While I agree their OL deficiencies put them at greater risk than other contenders (Pat's and GB's crappy 2011 defenses didn't increase their QB's odds of injuries), I don't think it's fair to say a team with contender talent isn't a contender on the basis of future hypothetical injuries. Cutler is starting again this week, and I expect them to finish strong, probably 11-5 or 12-4, provided, again, Cutler remains upright.

---------- Post added November-24th-2012 at 09:34 PM ----------

If Shanahan had traded him, that would have set a very bad precedent that anyone can be a malcontent, get their money, then sit out and behave like a baby, and get what they want.

Didn't we also still have a bunch of guaranteed money we would have been paying him post trade too for several years, or is that what you're talking about here? I thought NLC mentioned something about how even if we'd managed to trade him before paying him we'd still have been on the hook for a bunch of money anyway.

[Mahons21]

At the time though, there was also the issue of Shanahan's perceived "power".

Shanahan told Haynesworth "We can trade or release you, but if you take the money, you're going to stay and play"
Haynesworth took the money
Haynesworth then didn't show up for any workouts (voluntary or mandatory) and demanded a trade

If Shanahan had traded him, that would have set a very bad precedent that anyone can be a malcontent, get their money, then sit out and behave like a baby, and get what they want. So, unless the offer was above and beyond what Shanny wanted, he did the right thing in keeping him.

Options never should have been offered. Shanny should have traded him because;
a.) He didn't fit the scheme
b.) He'd already expressed that he didn't want to play in the scheme
c.) His prior behavioral issues

By giving Haynesworth options, Shannhan created a problem (struggle for power) for himself that didn't have to exist.

[NLC1054]

Didn't we also still have a bunch of guaranteed money we would have been paying him post trade too for several years, or is that what you're talking about here? I thought NLC mentioned something about how even if we'd managed to trade him before paying him we'd still have been on the hook for a bunch of money anyway.

In order to restructure his deal, the Redskins basically had to give Albert Haynesworth a huge chunk of his guaranteed money up front, to the tune of $20 million dollars. Giving him the bulk of his guaranteed money up front from Vinny's ****ty contract freed up that money in 2011, 2012 and 2013, and made him more trade worthy in future years. Without restructuring that deal, Albert's contract would've been closer to $10 mil a year, which basically would've made it ****ing impossible to trade him. Albert would've had to take a pay cut, and well...he's Albert Haynesworth.

If we had traded him after restructuring, Albert would've pocketed the $20 million regardless. The next team would've been able to snag him for a much more cap friendly deal of 3-year, $16 million dollar deal. And we're out $20 million for a guy who never even stepped on the field.

[Hitman21ST]

Options never should have been offered. Shanny should have traded him because;
a.) He didn't fit the scheme
b.) He'd already expressed that he didn't want to play in the scheme
c.) His prior behavioral issues

By giving Haynesworth options, Shannhan created a problem (struggle for power) for himself that didn't have to exist.

I don't really have a problem with him wanting to get at least something close to fair market value. I understand the addition by subtraction mindset, and agree with it, but there needs to be a line somewhere. If he makes that trade for a 7th, that would essentially have been two trades in a six month span that we would have been viewed as being fleeced on, and would have been hard-pressed to get fair trade offers in the future.

[Mahons21]

I don't really have a problem with him wanting to get at least something close to fair market value. I understand the addition by subtraction mindset, and agree with it, but there needs to be a line somewhere. If he makes that trade for a 7th, that would essentially have been two trades in a six month span that we would have been viewed as being fleeced on, and would have been hard-pressed to get fair trade offers in the future.

So you wouldn't make a trade that the public may perceive as you being fleeced, because that could have been two bad trades in six months, even IF the trade clearly set your team up for a brighter future?

Saying he'd never get another fair trade offer in the future is ridiculous. What evidence do you have a to support that claim?

I hope the Redskins never have someone in charge of their personnel that would apply such logic.

Futhermore fair market value, is decided by the market. If MS took the top offer he received that would have been fair market value, because all things must be taken into consideration including contract.

[Hitman21ST]

Saying he'd never get another fair trade offer in the future is ridiculous. What evidence do you have a to support that claim?

I didn't say that. I said he would be hard pressed to get fair trade offers. Meaning that teams more than likely would offer more one-sided trades. I'm sure over time he would have shaken off that stigma, but do you really want to be known as the guy that can get fleeced on trades?

Futhermore fair market value, is decided by the market. If MS took the top offer he received that would have been fair market value, because all things must be taken into consideration including contract.

So are you saying that we paid Haynesworth fair market value when we offered him the $100M contract?

Fair market value is different than market value. Market value is what is decided by the market. Fair market value something different:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_market_value

Fair market value (FMV) is an estimate of the market value of a property, based on what a knowledgeable, willing, and unpressured buyer would probably pay to a knowledgeable, willing, and unpressured seller in the market. An estimate of fair market value may be founded either on precedent or extrapolation. Fair market value differs from the intrinsic value that an individual may place on the same asset based on their own preferences and circumstances.

If I'm selling a 3 bedroom house for $250,000 because other 3 bedroom houses are going for that, then that's the fair market value. If someone offers to buy it for $50,000 and I accept because that was the highest bid, the market value was $50,000 - much less than the fair market value. I also would have gotten fleeced on the deal.

[Mahons21]

I didn't say that. I said he would be hard pressed to get fair trade offers. Meaning that teams more than likely would offer more one-sided trades. I'm sure over time he would have shaken off that stigma, but do you really want to be known as the guy that can get fleeced on trades?

I want to be known as the guy who did what's best for the team. Do you want to be known as the guy who didn't do what was right for the team because you feared you wouldn't get any more fair trade offers?

So are you saying that we paid Haynesworth fair market value when we offered him the $100M contract?

Yes, at the level he was playing at, absolutely.

Fair market value is different than market value. Market value is what is decided by the market. Fair market value something different:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_market_value



If I'm selling a 3 bedroom house for $250,000 because other 3 bedroom houses are going for that, then that's the fair market value. If someone offers to buy it for $50,000 and I accept because that was the highest bid, the market value was $50,000 - much less than the fair market value. I also would have gotten fleeced on the deal.

The NFL market and housing market are entirely different, it's not an apples to apples comparison.

There's no cap relief you'd get by selling your house for $50k so it was just be dumb. There's no addition by subtraction, as there is in the case of Al.


I don't know why you're grasping so hard to prove something. Wouldn't it just be easier to accept that IF Mike Shannhan had been offered any trade he should have made it? While also acknowledging it's possible there were not trade offers?..

[Hitman21ST]

I want to be known as the guy who did what's best for the team. Do you want to be known as the guy who didn't do what was right for the team because you feared you wouldn't get any more fair trade offers?

Long term. If making this trades means I'm more likely to get lowball offers in the future, why would I want to make it?

If I'm the GM of another team, as soon as someone says they want to be traded from the team, I'm only floating 6th or 7th rounders, no matter how talented the guy. As soon as someone goes on the trading block from that team, I'm only offering low round picks.

Shanahan is less likely to receive fair offers in that situation.

Obviously I can't predict what would have happened, but put yourself in opposing GMs shoes. If you see that, are you making any fair offers to Shanahan after doing that twice?

I don't know why you're grasping so hard to prove something. Wouldn't it just be easier to accept that IF Mike Shannhan had been offered any trade he should have made it? While also acknowledging it's possible there were not trade offers?..

Shanahan was put in a bad situation with Haynesworth. He wanted to make the best of it. "Any trade" means he should have accepted even a 7th. He ended up getting a 5th. Unless the offers before the fiasco were above a 5th and he turned them down (which I doubt happened), he made the smart move.

[elkabong82]

Options never should have been offered. Shanny should have traded him because;
a.) He didn't fit the scheme
b.) He'd already expressed that he didn't want to play in the scheme
c.) His prior behavioral issues

By giving Haynesworth options, Shannhan created a problem (struggle for power) for himself that didn't have to exist.

Who would have given up a draft pick for a known malcontent with a $100 million contract?