Schefter: "Skins NOT shopping Big Al"

[Monkeydad]

Originally Posted by SFREDSKIN

I don't know about this, but it seems the relationship between Haynesworth and FO is deteriorating fast according to Jason Reid:


Haynesworth to skip Redskins voluntary workouts, attend mandatory sessions

Veteran defensive tackle Albert Haynesworth plans to report to the Redskins' mandatory offseason workouts, but probably will not attend voluntary sessions, two people in the organization with knowledge of the situation said Wednesday.

Haynesworth informed the sources, who requested anonymity because of Haynesworth's poor relationship with the new front office and coaching staff, that he would return to Redskins Park for mandatory workouts under the terms of the league's collective bargaining agreement. Haynesworth, whom the Redskins have attempted to trade, also has privately told friends he does not want to become a distraction because of his impasse with coaches about their plans to use him as a nose tackle in the Redskins' new 3-4 defensive scheme.

This is not news or necessarily a problem. We've known for a while that he's using a personal trainer that helped get him to the Pro Bowl with TEN.

The fact he's even concerned about not causing distractions shows he DOES care about the team.


I see no issues here.

Redskins Insider - Haynesworth's workout regime

Haynesworth, however, has not commented publicly on his situation since the end of last season. Before the workouts began, I wrote Haynesworth planned to be present on the first day, and he showed up to listen to Coach Mike Shanahan address the entire team for the first time.


Haynesworth also participated in other first-day activities. But Haynesworth, who is determined to have a big year in 2010, comitted to an individual workout regime with a trainer before the Redskins' plans were set, according to the people with knowledge of the situation.

Haynesworth is following an intense offseason workout program under the guidance of the same trainer who helped him reach all-pro status during the 2007-08 seasons.


Haynesworth showed respect to Shanahan by attending on the first day for something that is voluntary under the terms of the collective bargaining agreement.

Despite Shanahan's tough talk about players needing to show their commitment to the program if they want to be on the team, the reality is that didn't apply to Haynesworth. The Redskins will cut him a check for a guaranteed $21 million option bonus in April, and Haynesworth's 2010 and 2011 base salaries are guaranteed, too.


With the money Haynesworth is guaranteed, there's no way the Redskins would cut him for not reporting. Moreover, regardless if some in the main building believe Haynesworth has a bad attitude (and trust us, some do), the coaching staff knows they need the guy because he's one of few elite players on the roster.


Haynesworth met Shanahan halfway in appearing on the first day of the program. Perhaps Shanahan made a positive gesture in accepting Haynesworth won't be around all the time. That certainly not a perfect union -- but it's a start.

[MTK]

Originally Posted by SBXVII

In regards to the info being put out to media sources.... I could have sworn M.Shanahan mentioned the JC was the QB of the Skins when asked about JC with in the month or two of taking over the team. I could be wrong but I could have sworn. In any event JC is not going to be the QB of the Skins. Unless of course he's the #2 or #3 if he can't get himself traded.

Not sure what he said exactly but I do know he never said JC was his starter.

[Pocket$ $traight]

Originally Posted by Mattyk

Not sure what he said exactly but I do know he never said JC was his starter.

Hasn't "open competition" been the buzzwords since the Mastermind arrived?

[MTK]

Originally Posted by SmootSmack

That's not how it works. It's just not

I'm just guessing here, but I would think if Schefter thought he was being fed inaccurate or deceitful info he wouldn't report it, and he would at least double and triple check the info before filing it.

I would like to believe the guy has some integrity, and his allegiance lies with ESPN first and foremost over personal relationships when it comes to reporting info.

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by SirClintonPortis

The lesson to take (or retake) from that the media folks can be wrong.

-------------


Unlike Wikipedia, disseminating information on twitter is dependent on the member doing the disseminating, and last time I checked, Schefter was as reliable a source as there is.

True, but a tweet is generally an immediate thought. No back checking or proofing of sources, unless the person posting it chooses to. It's just not the same as true "journalistic integrity" of old. Information flows far faster now, and sourcing of reports is much more tenuous.

[SBXVII]

Originally Posted by BigHairedAristocrat

- The Eagles told their sources when they reported they wouldnt ship McNabb to an NFCEast team and then a day later they sent him to us.
- Parcells told his outlets he wouldnt trade Jason Taylor and then did so.
- Cerrato told his outlets he was having no conversations with Taylor or his agent... while he was actually neck deep in negotiations to trade for Taylor.
- Just a few months ago, Schefter reported that Shanahan was not close to a deal with the skins and then a day later Shanahan become our head coach.

Those are just the examples I can think of off the top of my head. Coaches and GMs lie to the media every single day. When it comes to Shanahan, Schefter is the absolute last person in the world we should beleive at face value. Reid, JLC, and Clayton, and others all indicate they have sources saying Haynesworth is on the market. Schefter is the only source saying he's not, and his report is ambigous and includes unnecessary comments meant to make Haynesworth not want to be here. If you beleive Schefter, then you probably beleived that there were WMDs in Iraq... even when every "neutral" source said that there wasn't.

I agree with you all the way up to the WMD. LOL. Although Iraq didn't have nuclear bombs as most of us would count as WMD they did have dirty bombs meaning poisons. We also found that they had missles that could reach all the way to Isreal which was something else they were not supposed to have according to the UN.

It kills me everytime I hear people say there were no WMD when in reality they had the means and equipement. Sadam was known for using poisons agains his own people. That too is a WMD considering it kills a lot of people with one explosion. So lets all finally agree that in reality they did have WMD and stop the whole idea that Sadam was innocent and was a victim and we simply wanted to go after him for pappa Bush. I do believe Lil Bush exagerated some info but in reality there were WMD which were in violation with the UN, not to mention Sadam was no playing the game the UN wanted him to play. The whole time he snubbed him nose, kicked out UN inspectors which was a violation, and in reality was a tyrant. Had he played by the rules we would not be there now.

[SmootSmack]

Cerrato did lie, no question about that. I don't recall the Eagle saying they wouldn't trade McNabb within the division. Parcells said in March that there were no plans to trade Taylor, which was probably true at the time.

There's also a little something called "off the record" as in "on the record" "We don't want to trade McNabb within the division" (as an example) but "off the record" "We're having serious discussions with the Redskins"

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.

[SBXVII]

Originally Posted by Mattyk

Not sure what he said exactly but I do know he never said JC was his starter.

I'll agree with you. I think it's a play on words. In other words although Schefter is reporting the Skins are not shopping AH, the play on words is they have not come out and said AH is not for sale or trade. Which means like someone else said if another team comes along with a decent offer he might be on the table. But the Skins are not calling other teams saying "hey what would you give us for him."

[BigHairedAristocrat]

Originally Posted by Mattyk

I'm just guessing here, but I would think if Schefter thought he was being fed inaccurate or deceitful info he wouldn't report it, and he would at least double and triple check the info before filing it.

I would like to believe the guy has some integrity, and his allegiance lies with ESPN first and foremost over personal relationships when it comes to reporting info.

Schefter and Shanny have a "special relationship" and most people know it. Right now we have a case where multiple reporters are citing sources saying Haynesworth is on the block. Schefter is citing a source that says we are not. Obviously, someone, somewhere is not being 100% truthful.

[BigHairedAristocrat]

Originally Posted by SmootSmack

Cerrato did lie, no question about that. I don't recall the Eagle saying they wouldn't trade McNabb within the division. Parcells said in March that there were no plans to trade Taylor, which was probably true at the time.

There's also a little something called "off the record" as in "on the record" "We don't want to trade McNabb within the division" (as an example) but "off the record" "We're having serious discussions with the Redskins"

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.

As a practical matter, I don't see the difference. Whether you openly admit to calling teams and trying to see if theyre interested in a player or announcing to the whole world that you are willing to part with an elite player, the end result is the same - you really, really want to trade the player. This is exactly what the Eagles did with McNabb and he was traded in a about a week. By the sounds of it, there is definitely a market for Haynesworth and we are discussing trade scenarios with other teams. Who technically innitiated the contact is completely irrelevant. The only question is whether or not we receive an offer that is good enough to pull the trigger.

My guess would be that we've already got something in place that we want to execute and all we need to do is get Haynesworth to agree to some sort of financial concession.

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by SmootSmack

Cerrato did lie, no question about that. I don't recall the Eagle saying they wouldn't trade McNabb within the division. Parcells said in March that there were no plans to trade Taylor, which was probably true at the time.

There's also a little something called "off the record" as in "on the record" "We don't want to trade McNabb within the division" (as an example) but "off the record" "We're having serious discussions with the Redskins"

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.

GTripp is crying softly

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by BigHairedAristocrat

Schefter and Shanny have a "special relationship" and most people know it. Right now we have a case where multiple reporters are citing sources saying Haynesworth is on the block. Schefter is citing a source that says we are not. Obviously, someone, somewhere is not being 100% truthful.

Interesting that you left the word "shopping" out of Schefter's part. Are we shopping AH since 1 April, no. Is he "on the block" yes, is he actively shopped no. So both reports are fairly accurate and yet the connotation is completely different.

[SBXVII]

Originally Posted by BigHairedAristocrat

Schefter and Shanny have a "special relationship" and most people know it. Right now we have a case where multiple reporters are citing sources saying Haynesworth is on the block. Schefter is citing a source that says we are not. Obviously, someone, somewhere is not being 100% truthful.

If the Skins wanted other teams to know they were interested in any trade offers but didn't want to come out publically and ruin any relationship with AH they would pass on info to select people so word gets out and yet they can deny it. This way the team looks good to AH yet other teams will think about it and possibly call with offers. Not that hard to digest.

Did Schefter say that he was told in no uncertain terms would AH be traded? Then somewhere someone is not telling the whole truth. I still think Shanahan must have said something to Schefter on word play that later they can deny by saying "we never said we wouldn't trade him we simply said we were not actively shopping him." My first paragraph scenario is what usually happens when a team is looking for trade value.

I see Three sources with info that AH is available for a trade if someone wants to make an offer and I see a team that put out feelers behind the scene's with the availability to later deny the whole mess if AH is still a Skin.

[Pocket$ $traight]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

GTripp is crying softly

I would like to hear GTripp's response to Bosworth's column.

washingtonpost.com

Boz is a heavyweight when it comes to sports related statistical analysis.

I guess Boz is as misguided as most of us on the Warpath...

[BigHairedAristocrat]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

Interesting that you left the word "shopping" out of Schefter's part. Are we shopping AH since 1 April, no. Is he "on the block" yes, is he actively shopped no. So both reports are fairly accurate and yet the connotation is completely different.

I clarified in my next post, but its all just a matter of semantics. Whatever anyone wants to call it -we want to get rid of Haynesworth and are actively trying to make it happen.