The Jay Cutler argument for sticking with Mike Shanahan

[Mahons21]

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

I don't know, I've said it's debatable in and of itself. I've actually said that multiple times, where did you come up with that idea that I believed with certainty that he'd get offers?

[elkabong82]

I don't know, I've said it's debatable in and of itself. I've actually said that multiple times, where did you come up with that idea that I believed with certainty that he'd get offers?

"Options never should have been offered. Shanny should have traded him." Hard to see anything else from that comment than you believed a trade was the only acceptable option and therefor believed a trade was out there. If you believe it was possible no trade could have been made, what would YOU have done instead?

[Mahons21]

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?

Where is there evidence of this happening in the history of the NFL? This is a ridiculous argument that deserves no more time.

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.

Then you're not getting said player, and if you need him it's quite silly not to make a fair offer for him because in the past you believe that GM has made poor deciisons.

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

Again where is there evidence of this ever occurring in the NFL?

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?

As a GM I'm going to low ball anyone with my first trade offer no matter how they've traded in the past, even if It's BB himself.

Futhermore if MS has a guy that will improve my team, and is willing to accept a fair offer I'm going to trade with him. I'm not going to prevent my team from getting better through a fair trade because MS has made a poor decision in the past.

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.

No if they were a 5th it would have been worth it because we wouldn't be in cap hell as we are now. Hell if it worth a 7th it would have been worth it to get out of the cap mess created by Al.

That difference in cap hit could the difference in the Redskins getting one of the top flight RT/CB this past offseason.


---------- Post added November-24th-2012 at 11:10 PM ----------

"Options never should have been offered. Shanny should have traded him."

Would you like me to point out the numerous posts where I say IF he could be traded? I know you saw those too but chose to cherry-pick one. Pretty weak sauce.

[elkabong82]

Would you like me to point out the numerous posts where I say IF he could be traded? I know you saw those too but chose to cherry-pick one. Pretty weak sauce.

So if Al couldn't be traded, what would YOU have done?

Would you like me to point out that your comment "Options never should have been offered. Shanny should have traded him," leaves a trade as the only acceptable option? If you admit a trade may not have been possible then you also are saying in that case then Shanny couldn't have done anything you would have liked. THAT is weak sauce.

[Mahons21]

So if Al couldn't be traded, what would YOU have done?

Why is that relevant?

If you admit a trade may not have been possible then you also are saying in that case then Shanny couldn't have done anything you would have liked. THAT is weak sauce.

Dude what are you talking about? If a trade wasn't offered I'm fine with the way MS handled it, I haven't said otherwise..

I have said IF a trade was offered (and as I've said multiple times that's debatable), that MS should have taken it. If you don't disagree with that, then you don't disagree with anything I've said, and a lesson in reading comprehension could be helpful.

If you do disagree with that, feel free to explain why.

[Hitman21ST]

No if they were a 5th it would have been worth it because we wouldn't be in cap hell as we are now. Hell if it worth a 7th it would have been worth it to get out of the cap mess created by Al.

That difference in cap hit could the difference in the Redskins getting one of the top flight RT/CB this past offseason.

Are you really arguing that we should have traded Haynesworth because if we had we wouldn't have been docked the $18M off the cap? It's not like Shanahan (or anyone) knew that would happen, or could even predict that Mara would have boned over the team. That's a weak argument. You're saying he should have known that Mara would have screwed us over, so he needed to make the moves to prevent that.

We wouldn't have gotten out of the cap mess anyway. As NLC posted, we still would have owed him even if we traded him, unless we restructured.

[Mahons21]

Are you really arguing that we should have traded Haynesworth because if we had we wouldn't have been docked the $18M off the cap? It's not like Shanahan (or anyone) knew that would happen, or could even predict that Mara would have boned over the team. That's a weak argument. You're saying he should have known that Mara would have screwed us over, so he needed to make the moves to prevent that.

No I'm saying the cap penalty (for the most part, there's the Hall contract too)is equal to what we would have to had to pay Al anyways because of the guaranteed money in his contract. Either way, the Redskins had to deal with the impact he had on the cap.

We wouldn't have gotten out of the cap mess anyway. As NLC posted, we still would have owed him even if we traded him, unless we restructured.

Oi Vey!

We're referring to trading him as soon as Mike got here, PRIOR to paying the guaranteed money(due on May something IIRC) on his contract. Had we traded him we most certainly would have avoided this cap mess. Nothing NLC said is in contradiction with that.

Seriously stop grasping bro, you're making this easy on me. Why won't you just accept that IF MS had been offered anything he should haven taken it/?

[8181]

Why didn't we just trade Haynesworth after April 1, when we paid him $20 million, but before July when that whole circus with fitness tests happened?

It's not like he contributed anything to the 2010 season, and we still got a fifth round pick, worth approximately a seventh round pick based on the fact it was two years later.

If we got a current year sixth or fifth or fourth that would have all been better than what we eventually got.

[elkabong82]

Why is that relevant?



Dude what are you talking about? If a trade wasn't offered I'm fine with the way MS handled it, I haven't said otherwise..

I have said IF a trade was offered (and as I've said multiple times that's debatable), that MS should have taken it. If you don't disagree with that, the you don't disagree with anything I've said, and a lesson in reading comprehension could be helpful.

If you do disagree with that, feel free to explain why.

You maintained a faulty premise that a trade was not only a definite option, but the only acceptable option, when really your post needed to include the qualifier "if a trade were available, otherwise I'm fine with how Shanny handled things." Hence I asked what you would have done.

and I disagree that any trade at all should have been accepted. In hindsight yes even a 7th rounder would be ok and unloading the contract, but at the time Al had been here just 1 season and still looked to have a lot of talent if motivated. Al was offered a respectable option of getting guaranteed money if he agreed to commit and play at NT (and he had the talent and size to do well there if he tried), he did, but then went back on it. That's on Haynesworth and him alone. At the time I would have wanted a 4th, or maybe a couple lower picks.

Now if you want to say that either a trade or an outright release if no trade was available was the better option, that would be understandable, though the cap hit would have been very bad. But Al lied and said he'd work within the system, so that masked his cancerousness.

[Mahons21]

You maintained a faulty premise that a trade was not only a definite option, but the only acceptable option, when really your post needed to include the qualifier "if a trade were available, otherwise I'm fine with how Shanny handled things." Hence I asked what you would have done.

I most certainly did use similar qualifiers, you just came into the discussion late. You may want to reference post 119.

and I disagree that any trade at all should have been accepted. In hindsight yes even a 7th rounder would be ok and unloading the contract, but at the time Al had been here just 1 season and still looked to have a lot of talent if motivated. Al was offered a respectable option of getting guaranteed money if he agreed to commit and play at NT (and he had the talent and size to do well there if he tried), he did, but then went back on it. That's on Haynesworth and him alone. At the time I would have wanted a 4th, or maybe a couple lower picks.

Whether or not Al was willing to play it is irrelevant, he was mis-cast. A free lancing DT isn't likely to succeed in a scheme that asks their NT to two-gap.

I've given my 3 points as to why Al should have been traded immediately none are based on hingsight, feel free to go back a page and read them.

Now if you want to say that either a trade or an outright release if no trade was available was the better option, that would be understandable, though the cap hit would have been very bad. But Al lied and said he'd work within the system, so that masked his cancerousness.

I'm fine with the way MS handled it, IF no trades were possible.

[Hitman21ST]

No I'm saying the cap penalty (for the most part, there's the Hall contract too)is equal to what we would have to had to pay Al anyways because of the guaranteed money in his contract. Either way, the Redskins had to deal with the impact he had on the cap.

My apologies, I guess I misread that.

Oi Vey!

We're referring to trading him as soon as Mike got here, PRIOR to paying the guaranteed money(due on May something IIRC) on his contract. Had we traded him we most certainly would have avoided this cap mess. Nothing NLC said is in contradiction with that.

Seriously stop grasping bro, you're making this easy on me. Why won't you just accept that IF MS had been offered anything he should haven taken it/?

Here's why he shouldn't have traded him immediately:

Knowing what MS knew when he came in, and being in his position - IF he got any offers, they were lowball, and the salary probably played no small part in that.
So Mike keeps him around, and the uncapped year allows Mike to get that elephant out of the room, which made Haynesworth more attractive to be traded, which he does to New England for a 5th.
At the time, Mike probably raised the amount of compensation we received for him by giving Haynesworth his bonus.

The ONLY way you can say that Mike made a bad decision and should have made the trade is if you take into account the cap penalty, which was leveled two years ex post facto. You also need to say that Mike would have needed to take that cap hit into account when making his decisions.

Obviously if he had known that doing what he did rather than trading him would have led to the cap hit, he should have traded him. But given the information and situation at the time, he made the right decision.

He got us a 5th for a miscast malcontent who was likely to be released anyway, when all he would have gotten earlier is probably a 6th or 7th.

[elkabong82]

I most certainly did use similar qualifiers, you just came into the discussion late. You may want to reference post 119.


Whether or not Al was willing to play it is irrelevant, he was mis-cast. A free lancing DT isn't likely to succeed in a scheme that asks their NT to two-gap.

I've given my 3 points as to why Al should have been traded immediately none are based on hingsight, feel free to go back a page and read them.


I'm fine with the way MS handled it, IF no trades were possible.

Ok then, just seemed you went from a trade being possible to it definitely being an option, but we've cleared that up now.

I think trying to keep Al for NT reflects poorly on Haslett since he was the one likely saying Al could work as a NT. I don't know if there were better DCs out there at the time though, so hard to criticize Shanny through extension of Haslett unless there were better options at DC available.

[Mahons21]

Here's why he shouldn't have traded him immediately:

Knowing what MS knew when he came in, and being in his position - IF he got any offers, they were lowball, and the salary probably played no small part in that.
So Mike keeps him around, and the uncapped year allows Mike to get that elephant out of the room, which made Haynesworth more attractive to be traded, which he does to New England for a 5th.
At the time, Mike probably raised the amount of compensation we received for him by giving Haynesworth his bonus.

The ONLY way you can say that Mike made a bad decision and should have made the trade is if you take into account the cap penalty, which was leveled two years ex post facto. You also need to say that Mike would have needed to take that cap hit into account when making his decisions.

Obviously if he had known that doing what he did rather than trading him would have led to the cap hit, he should have traded him. But given the information and situation at the time, he made the right decision.

He got us a 5th for a miscast malcontent who was likely to be released anyway, when all he would have gotten earlier is probably a 6th or 7th.

Mike was told many times not to use the un-capped year the way he did, he knew the risk associated with it. If you're suggesting it was smart to keep Haynesworth, and take the risk associated with the uncapped year in an effort to get a future 5th rd pick in comparison with a 6th or 7th rd draft pick, then I strongly disagree.

Furthermore, he wouldn't have had to deal with the impact Haynesworth would have on the salary cap, whether or not his contract was front-loaded in an uncapper year.

---------- Post added November-25th-2012 at 12:14 AM ----------

Ok then, just seemed you went from a trade being possible to it definitely being an option, but we've cleared that up now.

No I didn't, you just didn't take the time to follow the sequence of a discussion came in late and made an incorrect assumption. Qualifiers weren't necessary at that point in the discussion, as they'd already been used on numerous occasions.

I think trying to keep Al for NT reflects poorly on Haslett since he was the one likely saying Al could work as a NT. I don't know if there were better DCs out there at the time though, so hard to criticize Shanny through extension of Haslett unless there were better options at DC available.

And I can say it was likely on Raheem Morris who wanted him in TB, but had predicted he'd lose his HC gib than go on to Washington, and coach Haynesworth, but his plan was foiled.

But since neither of these arguments have any real weight, why don't we just leave them out of here? Unless you have some evidence that Haslett, who apparently can't even hire his assistants, had a profound impact on the Redskins largest player contract.

[Hitman21ST]

Mike was told many times not to use the un-capped year the way he did, he knew the risk associated with it. If you're suggesting it was smart to keep Haynesworth, and take the risk associated with the uncapped year in an effort to get a future 5th rd pick in comparison with a 6th or 7th rd draft pick, then I strongly disagree.

Furthermore, he wouldn't have had to deal with the impact Haynesworth would have on the salary cap, whether or not his contract was front-loaded in an uncapper year.

There was no salary cap impact, as there was no salary cap and we got rid of him before there was a hit on our cap.

Not to get into the invisible salary cap discussion, but those moves (paying Hall and Haynesworth) were generally lauded across ES because it got rid of a majority of the "bad money" and made Haynesworth a tradable asset, and no one could have foreseen the cap hits two years down the road. Whether or not the punishments were justified, using the uncapped year to our advantage was the smart, right move.

[Mahons21]

There was no salary cap impact, as there was no salary cap and we got rid of him before there was a hit on our cap.

Yes, I know. But Mike was told otherwise in meetings, and also told there would be consequences. Mike took the risk associated with it. Had he traded him prior to paying him, there would be no impact on the salary cap and no risk.

Not to get into the invisible salary cap discussion, but those moves (paying Hall and Haynesworth) were generally lauded across ES because it got rid of a majority of the "bad money" and made Haynesworth a tradable asset, and no one could have foreseen the cap hits two years down the road. Whether or not the punishments were justified, using the uncapped year to our advantage was the smart, right move.

No one on ES was privy to the information MS was. Of course, if there's no risk associated with it, it was a smart move. Had you told ES, the competition committee has warned that there may be serious consequences if the uncapped year is used to gain a competitive advantage, there would have been a much more divided ES.