The Jay Cutler argument for sticking with Mike Shanahan

[NLC1054]

I have gone back over your posts and I can't find any comment where you claim to know when the contract was fixed. Once again, if you knew this, then why did you say he was untradeable when I said that Al should have been traded in the preseason?

If I did did say he was untradeable during the preseason----and I don't think I did---I likely explained that at that point, Albert had $21 million of our money in his pocket and that made Shanahan less likely to trade him.

The "Haynesworth for a fourth and Bo Scaife" trade offer happened around draft time.

How can there be irony in two very different decisions?

1) Haynesworth is a very big problem to Coach 1;

2) Coach 2 has a chance to obtain Al who offers the potential of a high gain at at low cost while risking that the player might also become a problem for him.

Because this assumes that Mike Shanahan magically should've known that Haynesworth was going to behave the way he did.

Oh, I apologize. It is your position that it did not matter how Haynesworth behaved because he was not a scheme fit. You are correct sir. I mean, really, who has 350 pound nose tackles in a 3-4 defense. Who does that? Totally not a scheme fit.

[DogofWar1]

So as I understand it, the events went like this, and correct me if I'm wrong:

- Shanahan arrives, brings in Haslett, explains intention to run 3-4. Haynesworth was unhappy with 4-3 run previously, is due large 10-15M base salary. No trades on table at this point.
- Uncapped book-keeping is done, determined that signing bonus for Haynesworth can be moved into 2010 to save future cap room. Still no trades.
- Shanahan offers Al option to have money moved into 2010, provided he behaves. Haynesworth agrees and says he'll put in the effort. Contract is re-done with 21M in 2010, no trades on table until after contract redone.
- Draft time approaches, Tenn. puts offer of 4th + Scaife on table, however, 21M would still count against the Redskins payroll. Shanahan wants Tenn. to take a chunk of that 21M and put it on their payroll, Tenn. refuses, no deal.
- Al turns into Fat Al and reneges on promise to actually put in effort. Shanahan benches him.

Oh, I apologize. It is your position that it did not matter how Haynesworth behaved because he was not a scheme fit. You are correct sir. I mean, really, who has 350 pound nose tackles in a 3-4 defense. Who does that? Totally not a scheme fit.

We don't, ours are all around 320

[NLC1054]

We don't, ours are all around 320

Quiet, you, I'm trying to be saucy!

[Oldfan]

If I did did say he was untradeable during the preseason----and I don't think I did---I likely explained that at that point, Albert had $21 million of our money in his pocket and that made Shanahan less likely to trade him.

So, would you agree finally, that Haynesworth was tradeable in the preseason if Mike had been willing to take the best offer available at the time? And, would you further agree that Al's market value was higher before the preseason and before the fiasco?

Because this assumes that Mike Shanahan magically should've known that Haynesworth was going to behave the way he did.

Weren't you the poster who mentioned that Al was a headache for the Skins in 2009? Wasn't it predictable that he would throw a hissy fit if asked to play the 34?

Oh, I apologize. It is your position that it did not matter how Haynesworth behaved because he was not a scheme fit. You are correct sir. I mean, really, who has 350 pound nose tackles in a 3-4 defense. Who does that? Totally not a scheme fit.

Is it your opinion that you find NT's by weighing them?

[NLC1054]

So, would you agree finally, that Haynesworth was tradeable in the preseason if Mike had been willing to take the best offer available at the time? And, would you further agree that Al's market value was higher before the preseason and before the fiasco?

I would say that Mike Shanahan was not going to be willing to part with Haynesworth for anything but the most optimal offer he could get. I think he wanted a high draft pick, or a mid-round draft pick and a high caliber player, or he wanted whatever team he was making a deal with to take on at least part of the burden of the $21 million Haynesworth had gotten when he restructured.

If he did not get the deal he wanted, he expected Haynesworth to fulfill his obligation and live up to the deal they had.

It seems obvious Mike did not get the offer he wanted, so he did not trade him.

Weren't you the poster who mentioned that Al was a headache for the Skins in 2009? Wasn't it predictable that he would throw a hissy fit if asked to play the 34?

Isn't it possible that Mike Shanahan and Jim Haslett figured they could get something out of Haynesworth that Jim Zorn and Greg Blanche couldn't? All things told, Haynesworth relationship with Haslett was a solid working relationship, and Haslett is the guy who convinced him a switch to the 3-4 could work for him.

He may have been a headache, but he was an undoubtedly talented headache. If I were a coach I'd try to find a way to make it work as well. And I sure as hell wouldn't let him walk away with my money after he said he'd make a position shift and then sat out OTA's, minicamp, and part of training camp.

It's no different that Belichick, knowing all of Haynesworth's history, thinking he could "fix" him. Coaches are egomaniacs. They thing they can fix anybody.,

Is it your opinion that you find NT's by weighing them?

Haynesworth was the prototypical height, weight and size to play nose in the NFL. He was physically strong as all hell. And he already had commanded double teams in 2009, which is what freed up Rak and Carter. He was disruptive and could straight up bully centers and guards in one-on-one match-ups, and when he could be bothered he could collapse a pocket and bring pressure up the middle.

He had the physical talent to play any position on the interior of the defensive line. He simply did not have the will.

[Rufus T Firefly]

Haynesworth made pretty clear he didn't want to play in a 3-4 all along.

More importantly, he was a player with a history of injury and conditioning issues who was hitting his 30s. He had a contract that was going to have enormous, unworkable cap hits due in a couple of years.

A smart rebuilding team moves that kind of contract, especially when you can get value for him. And doubly especially when you have an uncapped year to do it in.

[Mahons21]

Despite his weight Fat Al was successful when free-lancing, he wasn't a gap disciplined player. And no, free-lancing DTs don't succeed as 2-gapping NTs, no matter what they weigh.

[NLC1054]

A smart rebuilding team moves that kind of contract, especially when you can get value for him. And doubly especially when you have an uncapped year to do it in.

Show me a football team that's willing to take on a contract that pays $10-15 mil a year (before the restructure) in a trade, and I'll show you a really poorly run football team.

Show me a football team that restructures that deal, gives a guy $21 million a year, and then trades that player for anything but the best deal possible, and I'll show you the same.


What this thread is teaching me is that people don't even care about the money, or the message it sends to more or less let people steal money from you.

[Rufus T Firefly]

Show me a football team that's willing to take on a contract that pays $10-15 mil a year (before the restructure) in a trade, and I'll show you a really poorly run football team.

Show me a football team that restructures that deal, gives a guy $21 million a year, and then trades that player for anything but the best deal possible, and I'll show you the same.


What this thread is teaching me is that people don't even care about the money, or the message it sends to more or less let people steal money from you.

There was no restructure. The 21 mil was always due that year, they just made it a roster bonus rather than a signing bonus.

After paying that money, his cap hits would have been very reasonable for any team trading for him.

As for the Redskins, they paid him that money either way. Not trading him meant that you want to hold on to him for a couple of rebuilding years, and pay him more in salary, while letting his value decline. To argue that there is some great logic to that because you've already paid him a lot doesn't make any real sense. It's just arguing that throwing good money after bad at the expense of acquiring value for your team is sound strategy.

[NLC1054]

There was no restructure. The 21 mil was always due that year, they just made it a roster bonus rather than a signing bonus.

There was a restructure, that 21 million wasn't always due that year, and they took an option bonus and made it a signing bonus.

The Redskins are the most egregious example . In 2010 the Redskins were slated to have a salary number of $141.6 million. This included large salaries and bonuses for Albert Haynesworth and Deangelo Hall. The Redskins had a $21 million option bonus for Haynesworth that they converted to a signing bonus. No problem there. Teams do this all the time. They convert it into a signing bonus and then they can spread the bonus out over the length of the deal. This routinely saves cap space for teams that owe superstar players large bonuses. The NFL has no problem with it.

The Redskins didn’t aim to spread the contract out, though. They aimed to dump it in 2010. The problem this time is that the NFL had this one uncapped year. The Redskins used a sneaky little provision in the contract called a “voidable” provision. This means that Haynesworth would take the $21 million signing bonus and then he could void his own contract at any time after 2010. Of course in order to void his deal, Haynesworth would have had to pay back his signing bonus or at least some arbitrator-determined unearned portion of it. As we all know, that was never ever going to happen. But that little provision allowed the Redskins to take every penny of Haynesworth’s signing bonus and apply it to 2010 as opposed to spreading it out over the length of the contract.

Source.

[Oldfan]

I would say that Mike Shanahan was not going to be willing to part with Haynesworth for anything but the most optimal offer he could get.

Nothing wrong with that.

I think he wanted a high draft pick, or a mid-round draft pick and a high caliber player, or he wanted whatever team he was making a deal with to take on at least part of the burden of the $21 million Haynesworth had gotten when he restructured.

What the seller wants has nothing to do with market value -- which is the highest price a buyer is willing to pay. So, if your speculation is right, that's where Mike went wrong.

If he did not get the deal he wanted, he expected Haynesworth to fulfill his obligation and live up to the deal they had.

Well, neither of us were in the room, so speculation on verbal agreements is pointless.

Isn't it possible that Mike Shanahan and Jim Haslett figured they could get something out of Haynesworth that Jim Zorn and Greg Blanche couldn't? All things told, Haynesworth relationship with Haslett was a solid working relationship, and Haslett is the guy who convinced him a switch to the 3-4 could work for him.

It's quite possible. The ego allows us to easily imagine that we can succeed where others failed.

He may have been a headache, but he was an undoubtedly talented headache. If I were a coach I'd try to find a way to make it work as well. And I sure as hell wouldn't let him walk away with my money after he said he'd make a position shift and then sat out OTA's, minicamp, and part of training camp.

Al was Vinny's mistake, but Mike's job was to cut the losses and move on. He didn't cut his losses by reducing the man's trade value.

It's no different that Belichick, knowing all of Haynesworth's history, thinking he could "fix" him. Coaches are egomaniacs. They thing they can fix anybody.,

There's truth in that, but Belichik's saving grace is that he's a smart egomaniac. He's a bargain hunter who knows that he's going to miss on lots of moves, so he does a cost/benefit analysis. He got good value from bad boy Moss, then missed on bad boy Haynesworth.

Haynesworth was the prototypical height, weight and size to play nose in the NFL. He was physically strong as all hell. And he already had commanded double teams in 2009, which is what freed up Rak and Carter. He was disruptive and could straight up bully centers and guards in one-on-one match-ups, and when he could be bothered he could collapse a pocket and bring pressure up the middle.

I saw that, but I also saw that he didn't play the nose like a nose. Maybe he just wasn't trying, but I didn't get that impression.

He had the physical talent to play any position on the interior of the defensive line. He simply did not have the will.

You could be right. Hard to say.

[stevemcqueen1]

Despite his weight Fat Al was successful when free-lancing, he wasn't a gap disciplined player. And no, free-lancing DTs don't succeed as 2-gapping NTs, no matter what they weigh.

My question is why did they want him to play NT when it was obvious he could only be a DE type in a 3-4? A Haloti Ngata type. Haynesworth was an obvious disruptor type and he was an elite run defender when allowed to run.

That's where I think Haslett's unfamiliarity with the 3-4 was a problem. I think he could have schemed to Haynesworth's strengths if he'd known the basic scheme better and could have improvised within it.

It shouldn't have been that hard to find an elite DL a role. But the well was poisoned from the get go and I'm not sure Haynesworth could have worked within any scheme after those venomous first few months. That was a failure in management on Mike's part IMO. It's important to be able to work with difficult people when they are that talented.

[NLC1054]

After paying that money, his cap hits would have been very reasonable for any team trading for him.

Like I said; people don't care about the money part of it, or the message it would send to other people that came here.

Yeah, Albert was going to get paid that money, but not all at once like he did.

So (I feel like a broken record) he had a contract that was nearly impossible to trade before he restructured his contract.

We didn't just restructure his contract because Bruce Allen was bored and was ****ing around in Excel one afternoon and figure it was an okay idea. We did it because his future cap hits were a mess.

[Rufus T Firefly]

There was a restructure, that 21 million wasn't always due that year, and they took an option bonus and made it a signing bonus.

Your own link shows it was due. Yeah, it was a signing bonus with a voidable provision, which made it all count on the 2010 cap. But the money was still to be paid then either way.

---------- Post added November-25th-2012 at 08:34 PM ----------

Like I said; people don't care about the money part of it, or the message it would send to other people that came here.

Yeah, Albert was going to get paid that money, but not all at once like he did.

So (I feel like a broken record) he had a contract that was nearly impossible to trade before he restructured his contract.

We didn't just restructure his contract because Bruce Allen was bored and was ****ing around in Excel one afternoon and figure it was an okay idea. We did it because his future cap hits were a mess.

He was always going to be paid 21 mil then. They just did it that way so the bonus would all count in the uncapped year rather than being spread out. That's why they made that change and whether or not they ended up trading him really has nothing to do with that.

[NLC1054]

He was always going to be paid 21 mil then. They just did it that way so the bonus would all count in the uncapped year rather than being spread out. That's why they made that change and whether or not they ended up trading him really has nothing to do with that.

Am I missing something?

There is a difference between $21 million being paid over several years, and $21 million being paid upfront all at once, right?