Haynesworth trade possibly in the works

[celts32]

Originally Posted by GusFrerotte

Looks like AH might indeed be traded. Jason La Canfora says AH is looking to be traded and we are looking at another FA DT to possibly take his place if he is indeed traded. Looks like Shwartz from Detroit is very interested in him.Haynesworth avoiding Redskins' voluntary minicamp; trade possible

I can't think of a less reliable source then JLC. That said I would trade AH for Detroit's #2 pick but Tenn's #3 is not enough. We already paid the bulk of the money and even if he's disgruntled he will still be more valuable then a 3rd round pick will be.

[BigHairedAristocrat]

Originally Posted by celts32

I can't think of a less reliable source then JLC. That said I would trade AH for Detroit's #2 pick but Tenn's #3 is not enough. We already paid the bulk of the money and even if he's disgruntled he will still be more valuable then a 3rd round pick will be.

I trust JLC more than i trust Schefter when it comes to this sort of thing. his closeness to shanahan makes the accuracy of the information doubtful, especially when its to the skins strategic advantage to get false information out there. kinda like - whether it was about the search for WMDs or stories on the war in iraq, who would be most likely to report information closer to the truth - Fox News or the BBC? i'm not trying to get political beacuse I really don't care. I just think that, when agendas are involved, the media outlet with "closest" source is not going to have the most accurate information.

[tryfuhl]

Originally Posted by BigHairedAristocrat

I trust JLC more than i trust Schefter when it comes to this sort of thing. his closeness to shanahan makes the accuracy of the information doubtful, especially when its to the skins strategic advantage to get false information out there. kinda like - whether it was about the search for WMDs or stories on the war in iraq, who would be most likely to report information closer to the truth - Fox News or the BBC? i'm not trying to get political beacuse I really don't care. I just think that, when agendas are involved, the media outlet with "closest" source is not going to have the most accurate information.

Has JLC been right or on time with ANYTHING this year that's about us? He's broke a few things league wide but he's usually 2-4 days behind what we're even talking about on here. Remember he was the one saying that we were top on the list for Porter, Dansby, Pashos, etc etc

Just not much of what he's said has actually come close to anything that's happened.

[Ruhskins]

Originally Posted by BigHairedAristocrat

I trust JLC more than i trust Schefter when it comes to this sort of thing. his closeness to shanahan makes the accuracy of the information doubtful, especially when its to the skins strategic advantage to get false information out there. kinda like - whether it was about the search for WMDs or stories on the war in iraq, who would be most likely to report information closer to the truth - Fox News or the BBC? i'm not trying to get political beacuse I really don't care. I just think that, when agendas are involved, the media outlet with "closest" source is not going to have the most accurate information.

Well I'm sure JLC has no love for the Redskins FO so that (I think) would give a bit of a negative bias to his reports. Throw on top of that the whole "drama/negativity sells" makes me not trust JLC.

[BigHairedAristocrat]

Originally Posted by tryfuhl

Has JLC been right or on time with ANYTHING this year that's about us? He's broke a few things league wide but he's usually 2-4 days behind what we're even talking about on here. Remember he was the one saying that we were top on the list for Porter, Dansby, Pashos, etc etc

Just not much of what he's said has actually come close to anything that's happened.

Originally Posted by Ruhskins

Well I'm sure JLC has no love for the Redskins FO so that (I think) would give a bit of a negative bias to his reports. Throw on top of that the whole "drama/negativity sells" makes me not trust JLC.

apparently, you havent been paying attention recently. JLC has consistently praised the redskins front office under its current front office structure. he's on the tony kornheiser show every week and almost goes out of his way to praise the way the skins have handled the offseason. also, the redskins did pursue everyone JLC reported they pursued - its just at the end of the day, the front office chose not to get in a bidding war and overpay for any of those guys.

regarding Haynesworth, JLC isnt the only one who has cited sources indicating the skins want to move haynesworth. in fact, everyone in the media who cites sources says thats exactly what the skins are trying to do - except schefter. while some of you feel schefter's closeness with Shanahan means he should be beleived over everyone else, i think we have to look at the situation objectively.

while i'll trust schefter to provide updates on acquisitions in process, contract negotiations, etc - i dont take a thing he says about something at face value when shanahan would have a strategic reason to be less than forthright - especially when everyone else is reporting something different that schefter.

Also, Smoot, would you mind clarifying one point:

Originally Posted by SmootSmack

-That said, Shanahan isn't looking to unload Haynesworth but he is listening to offers and may settle for something a bit less than value

that statement seems somewhat contradictory. Saying Shanahan isnt "looking to unload" Haynesworth implies he either doesnt want to move him or doesn't really care either way. Stating that he "may settle for something a bit less than value" indicates he really want to move him, even if we don't get what we should. If either of the former statements were true, there would be no chance Shanahan would trade Haynesworth for anything less than value, wouldnt it?

[SmootSmack]

Originally Posted by BigHairedAristocrat

that statement seems somewhat contradictory. Saying Shanahan isnt "looking to unload" Haynesworth implies he either doesnt want to move him or doesn't really care either way. Stating that he "may settle for something a bit less than value" indicates he really want to move him, even if we don't get what we should. If either of the former statements were true, there would be no chance Shanahan would trade Haynesworth for anything less than value, wouldnt it?

I should clarify, what I meant to write and I think I did later in the post was that he's not looking to unload him but will consider it at the best value. But I, SmootSmack, hope that he doesn't settle for lower value. Mainly because of other moves that haven't yet panned out, I just hope they don't get into desperation mode here.

[BigHairedAristocrat]

Originally Posted by SmootSmack

I should clarify, what I meant to write and I think I did later in the post was that he's not looking to unload him but will consider it at the best value. But I, SmootSmack, hope that he doesn't settle for lower value. Mainly because of other moves that haven't yet panned out, I just hope they don't get into desperation mode here.

Thanks for the clarification. So essentially, youre saying that the skins want draft picks (or specific players like Carriker). PLAN A was to do all sorts of little moves to acquire picks and players (trade campbell, landry, carter, rogers, mcintosh, portis, etc.). Since plan A hasnt worked thus far, the skins moved to PLAN B, which was to move Haynesworth as he probably has the value of about all of those guys combined? If the skins can get PLAN A to work before or during the draft, they'll have no need to execute PLAN B?

[SmootSmack]

Originally Posted by BigHairedAristocrat

Thanks for the clarification. So essentially, youre saying that the skins want draft picks (or specific players like Carriker). PLAN A was to do all sorts of little moves to acquire picks and players (trade campbell, landry, carter, rogers, mcintosh, portis, etc.). Since plan A hasnt worked thus far, the skins moved to PLAN B, which was to move Haynesworth as he probably has the value of about all of those guys combined? If the skins can get PLAN A to work before or during the draft, they'll have no need to execute PLAN B?

That's a fair assessment. I wouldn't say that Plan B is to trade Haynesworth, but I would say that you're right on Plan A and that Plan A is moving slower than hoped

[Pocket$ $traight]

Originally Posted by BigHairedAristocrat

I trust JLC more than i trust Schefter when it comes to this sort of thing. his closeness to shanahan makes the accuracy of the information doubtful, especially when its to the skins strategic advantage to get false information out there. kinda like - whether it was about the search for WMDs or stories on the war in iraq, who would be most likely to report information closer to the truth - Fox News or the BBC? i'm not trying to get political beacuse I really don't care. I just think that, when agendas are involved, the media outlet with "closest" source is not going to have the most accurate information.

When has Schefter put incorrect information out there related to Shanahan? Also, when has he ever furthered Shanahan's agenda? You don't think ESPN would discipline him for that?

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by Pocket$ $traight

When has Schefter put incorrect information out there related to Shanahan? Also, when has he ever furthered Shanahan's agenda? You don't think ESPN would discipline him for that?

I agree.
I would think that silence from Schefter would be more indicative of agreement with JLC's point, but I doubt Schefter would go out and play any part of a Shanahan media strategy using disinformation. My guess would be more so that Shanahan saw the media spinning away and possibly turning the situation into a J Cutler type one, so he tried to calm the waters through Schefter.

[BigHairedAristocrat]

Originally Posted by Pocket$ $traight

When has Schefter put incorrect information out there related to Shanahan? Also, when has he ever furthered Shanahan's agenda? You don't think ESPN would discipline him for that?

who said Schefter beleived the information was incorrect. Also, you dont realize that John Clayton also works for ESPN and he cited multiple sources who said Haynesworth was being shopped. So two ESPN analysts reported conflicting information. One sites several anonymous sources. The other cites an "anonymous" source who most definitely has an agenda. Its not hard to read between the lines.

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

I agree.
I would think that silence from Schefter would be more indicative of agreement with JLC's point, but I doubt Schefter would go out and play any part of a Shanahan media strategy using disinformation. My guess would be more so that Shanahan saw the media spinning away and possibly turning the situation into a J Cutler type one, so he tried to calm the waters through Schefter.

except that the great smootmsack himself indicates that Shanahan is willing to trade Haynesworth at a below market value. And tons of other reporters out there cite sources saying the skins want to move him and they'd be surprised if he's on the roster. I'm sorry if you don't want to hear it for some reason, but all signs point to the skins moving Haynesworth if they reasonably can.

[SmootSmack]

Originally Posted by BigHairedAristocrat

who said Schefter beleived the information was incorrect. Also, you dont realize that John Clayton also works for ESPN and he cited multiple sources who said Haynesworth was being shopped. So two ESPN analysts reported conflicting information. One sites several anonymous sources. The other cites an "anonymous" source who most definitely has an agenda. Its not hard to read between the lines.

I'll just repost what I did a few days ago, since it was missed:

The relationship between teams and the media is an admittedly complicated one. And the same media entity can have multiple sources within the same team making it even more complicated

Also, John Clayton did not say "actively shopping" he said "willing to part". And Schefter never said they aren't "willing to part" with Haynesworth. Like I said, they'll listen to offers for Haynesworth (more so than they would for say Devin Thomas) but they're not shopping him around.

except that the great smootmsack himself indicates that Shanahan is willing to trade Haynesworth at a below market value. And tons of other reporters out there cite sources saying the skins want to move him and they'd be surprised if he's on the roster. I'm sorry if you don't want to hear it for some reason, but all signs point to the skins moving Haynesworth if they reasonably can.

Who's smootmsack? Anyhow see above. Actively shopping and willing to part with are not the same thing. They're simply not. What the Redskins are actively trying to do is improve the team

[Pocket$ $traight]

Originally Posted by SmootSmack

I'll just repost what I did a few days ago, since it was missed:

The relationship between teams and the media is an admittedly complicated one. And the same media entity can have multiple sources within the same team making it even more complicated

Also, John Clayton did not say "actively shopping" he said "willing to part". And Schefter never said they aren't "willing to part" with Haynesworth. Like I said, they'll listen to offers for Haynesworth (more so than they would for say Devin Thomas) but they're not shopping him around.



Who's smootmsack? Anyhow see above. Actively shopping and willing to part with are not the same thing. They're simply not. What the Redskins are actively trying to do is improve the team

This is the important part. Correct me if I am wrong, but Shanahan and Allen have basically said, directly or indirectly, that they are willing to move ANY player if the compensation is right.

[BigHairedAristocrat]

Originally Posted by SmootSmack

I'll just repost what I did a few days ago, since it was missed:

The relationship between teams and the media is an admittedly complicated one. And the same media entity can have multiple sources within the same team making it even more complicated

Also, John Clayton did not say "actively shopping" he said "willing to part". And Schefter never said they aren't "willing to part" with Haynesworth. Like I said, they'll listen to offers for Haynesworth (more so than they would for say Devin Thomas) but they're not shopping him around.

Who's smootmsack? Anyhow see above. Actively shopping and willing to part with are not the same thing. They're simply not. What the Redskins are actively trying to do is improve the team

LOL sorry for the typo...

I saw your post a couple of days ago - i just view "actively shopping" and "willing to part" as semantics. they can call it whatever they want to call it - at this point it doesnt really matter. At this point, the word is out that the skins are very interested in seeing what they could get for Haynesworth. they don't need to call 31 teams and try to sell him. everyone knows they want to get rid of him and teams will call if theyre interested. if theyre not interested, then actively shopping him by calling teams wouldnt make a difference anyway. I imagine there's a decent market for Haynesworth and he'll get traded sometime within the next 7 or 8 days.

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by BigHairedAristocrat

LOL sorry for the typo...

I saw your post a couple of days ago - i just view "actively shopping" and "willing to part" as semantics. they can call it whatever they want to call it - at this point it doesnt really matter. At this point, the word is out that the skins are very interested in seeing what they could get for Haynesworth. they don't need to call 31 teams and try to sell him. everyone knows they want to get rid of him and teams will call if theyre interested. if theyre not interested, then actively shopping him by calling teams wouldnt make a difference anyway. I imagine there's a decent market for Haynesworth and he'll get traded sometime within the next 7 or 8 days.

I don't see how you see actively shopping and willing to listen as the same thing. I used the SONAR example earlier (which i wrongly called radar). But let's look at a used car. Say I have a used car, good low mileage good value. Let's say its blue book is 27000. I lose my job and definitely don't want to keep the debt. I vigilantly market it on the web, and will take any offer because I want it off my books. Then a job opens, and I hadn't sold it. Now, I don't go cancel my 1 month ad, and if I get a call at or above blue book value I will listen to the offer, but I will be far less willing to sell just for selling sake.

AH before April 1st was actively on the market from what EVERYONE, including Schefter, says. After we paid the bonus, well yeah everyone knows we will trade him, but now, we want to recoup that bonus in the way of picks, or having Al pay it back, so we aren't selling at the same level we were before.

I just don't see the difference as semantics as much as a reflection of a shifted attitude or stance in the FO.