King predicts Haynesworth to Redskins

[44ever]

Originally Posted by DirtyLandry

So what do you think this means? Doesn't another restructured deal indicate a big move in the near future?

If its true then its more proof that they are'nt going after HWorth. But rather making more space to aquire more guy(s) like Canty, Hall ect... IMO

[Ruhskins]

Originally Posted by 44ever

If its true then its more proof that they are'nt going after HWorth. But rather making more space to aquire more guy(s) like Canty, Hall ect... IMO

I have a better answer, the Redskins are in cap hell and need to do this.

[DirtyLandry]

Originally Posted by Ruhskins

I have a better answer, the Redskins are in cap hell and need to do this.

I see what youre saying, but doesn't a lot of restructered deals mean more cap hell in the future? I'm just asking, I really don't know.

[44ever]

Originally Posted by Ruhskins

I have a better answer, the Redskins are in cap hell and need to do this.

Thats not a better answer but it sure is a obvious one.

[Ruhskins]

Originally Posted by DirtyLandry

I see what youre saying, but doesn't a lot of restructered deals mean more cap hell in the future? I'm just asking, I really don't know.

Well, restructuring a deal helps with the immediate issue of being under the cap and true it hurts further down the road. However, with the possibility of the demise of the salary cap, there may not be any repercussions at all. Although you may want to check out some of the posts by Schneed on this issue.

44ever: My answers are always better. LOL. :smashfrea

BTW, where's SmootSmack when we need him, we need some type of inside info about this Haynesworth rumor.

[Nflnick11]

If we sign haynesworth, does this mean we won't be able to sign D Hall and or Jason brown??

[BigHairedAristocrat]

Ok, found your post, sorry i missed it earlier.

Originally Posted by Schneed10

Agreed. BHA's logic regarding the return of a cap is unsound. He assumes that:

1) A salary floor for NFL franchises could not be set through other means and
2) The players would have a financial incentive to agree to a cap. They most certainly do not.

I guess this is how i look at it:

1) Through what means do you think a salary floor could be established without involving the owners? I ask this because:
2) The owners would NEVER agree to a salary floor without a salary cap. They have no financial reason to do so.

here is my logic on the series of events as i see them unfolding:

2010
1. Assuming the CBA expires, there will be no salary floor or salary cap in 2010. Since there will be very few players eligible for unrestricted free agency (due to players needing to have 6 years of NFL service to become eligible), very few players will be able to sign big money deals. That, combined with the declining economy means there will not be that much money thrown around in free agency in 2010. BOTTOM LINE: The huge payday many players are foolishly expecting simply won't happen.

2. While few players will be seeing signicant salary increases in 2010, a large number of players will not get the modest pay increases they are used to. Thats because there will be no salary floor. Ever year, small market teams like Greenbay, Arizona, and Detroit are well under the salary floor. Instead of pursuing big-name free agents, these teams typically extend contracts and pay their own players more money in that year. Its pretty much the exact opposite of what the skins do - we constantly push money off and backload contracts to free up cap space. Well these teams give their players money up front just to meet the salary floor. If you hadnt guessed, players really really like this. However, in 2010, teams will have no incentive to do this, and players wont get paid. BOTTOM LINE: Players on small market teams will not get the "raises" they are accustomed to.

3. Since 2010 is uncapped, it means teams that cannot release aging, underperforming veterans due to the cap hit it would normally create... will get to release all those aging, underperforming veterans. And how are these aging, underperforming veterans going to feel when they are released and on the market and no one is going to pay them anywhere near the money they would have been making if they had stayed on their former team? Not too happy, i imagine. BOTTOM LINE: These players will be screwed by the capless year.

2011
4. Ok, 2010 was rough on players with less than 6 years of NFL service but now everyone who would have been a free agent in 2010 plus those players who were normally scheduled to become free agents in 2011 are eligible for free agency in a capless year... but will they get the payday they are hoping for? No, because the owners are preparing for a lockout and they arent going to sign players to huge contracts only to have them sit. Lockouts arent good for anybody. BOTTOM LINE: Players will finally realize that the CBA with its salary cap and salary floor rules was really a good system. Now that they arent getting paid, they are going to make sure the Union and the Owners work something out.

How does all this get resloved? I dont know exactly. But a salary cap/salary floor system is in the players interest and its in the owners interest. The main reason the owners voted to void the current CBA is because guys like Dan Snyder and Jerry Jones dont think that they should have to give their hard earned money to lazy owners of small market teams. So the big market teams voted to get rid of the CBA.

So why did the lazy owners of small market teams want to cancel the CBA? Well, they are lazy and they like getting free money from guys like Snyder and Jerry jones, and that want more of that money. However, if they cant get that money, then the next best thing is to get rid of the salary floor, so they can stop incurring those pesky expenses like multi-million dollar player salaries.

In the end, the current CBA structure is the best thing in the history of sports, but its not perfect. It needs to be tweaked. And the only way the players and owners can continue making money is to work something out. I personally think the players will cave in first.

once they see they arent getting paid as much as they thought in an uncapped 2010 and they owners threaten a lockout in 2011, theyll make sure the union gets something done. And that something will have to include a salary cap and a salary floor. 2010 will be uncapped. If nothing is worked out prior to the 2011 lockout, that season may be uncapped too. But the NFL cannot afford to go without a season for more than one year, so you can better beleive it will be back by 2012 and it will be capped. (Unless of course, the large market teams form their own capless league and the small market teams join the UFL, but thats another post entirely)

[SBXVII]

BHA, You wrote:If reports are true, almost 1/7th of the teams entire salary will be devoted to a guy approaching 30 years old, who hasn’t started a full seaason in his 7 year career, who was spotted driving his car over 100mph two day after going on probation for reckless driving, and whose performance is expected to drop dramatically once he signs a big contract. He was nothing special his first 5 years in the league.... even now, he only averages one sack every 2 games.


Then say:If the CBA goes away for good, then sure, sign haynesworth for all i care. its snyders money. Haynesworth is an upgrade to our DL...

He's either an upgrade or not. If he's as bad as you say then chemistry will not be there and the other players will not be able to keep him in line and have him training with them in the offseason. Otherwise he's an upgrade which we desperatly need and hopefully with team support players will help keep him on the straight and narrow, working out in the offseason, and becoming a moster for us.

Also everyone keeps refering to him being 30 something. He's 27. Supposedly a players prime considering some come out of the draft at 24 or 25 y/o. He has probably atleast 3 good yrs left if there is no major injuries and maybe even a total of 6 or 9 if we keep him as long as Griffin and Daniels. Both are 36 and 37 y/o and some of you are saying keep one or both.

[BigHairedAristocrat]

Originally Posted by SBXVII

BHA, You wrote:If reports are true, almost 1/7th of the teams entire salary will be devoted to a guy approaching 30 years old, who hasn’t started a full seaason in his 7 year career, who was spotted driving his car over 100mph two day after going on probation for reckless driving, and whose performance is expected to drop dramatically once he signs a big contract. He was nothing special his first 5 years in the league.... even now, he only averages one sack every 2 games.


Then say:If the CBA goes away for good, then sure, sign haynesworth for all i care. its snyders money. Haynesworth is an upgrade to our DL...

He's either an upgrade or not. If he's as bad as you say then chemistry will not be there and the other players will not be able to keep him in line and have him training with them in the offseason. Otherwise he's an upgrade which we desperatly need and hopefully with team support players will help keep him on the straight and narrow, working out in the offseason, and becoming a moster for us.

Also everyone keeps refering to him being 30 something. He's 27. Supposedly a players prime considering some come out of the draft at 25 or 25 y/o. He has probably atleast 3 good yrs left if there is no major injuries and maybe even a total of 6 or 9 if we keep him as long as Griffin and Daniels. Both are 36 and 37 y/o and some of you are saying keep one or both.

I dont get where i say he would not be an upgrade.... we have a pretty horrible d-line. it doesnt take much to upgrade performance. Even if Haynesworth declines, he would still be an upgrade... just not one worth the contract he would get if there is a salary cap...

As to the ages of Griffin and Daniels, Griffin just turned 32 in december and his play has been steadily declining for 3 years. The last time he was a truly reliable and dominant DT, he was 29. Phillip Daniels is 35. He'll be 36 next month. He hasnt been a dominant DE, year in and year out, since 2002... when he was 28

Haynesworth will be 28 when the regular season begins. As a defensivelinemen who has been doubleteamed the majority of the past two years, hes taken a beating. DEs dont take as much of a beating, so their careers can usually last longer, but make no mistake - Haynesworth has either already hit his peak or he will hit it in the next year or two. After that, history suggests his play will steadily decline... but we'll still have to keep him on board because of his huge contract. I'm convinced there WILL be a salary cap at some point in the next few years, even if it goes away in 2010 and 2011.

But even if the salary cap goes away and stays away, and even if Haynesworth repeats his performance from last year in 2009, he isnt worth a 15-16M salary cap figure in 2009. If we can free up 16M or more in cap space this year, the money should be used to address several of our multiple positions of need - CB, LB, DT, DE, RG, LG, OT, WR, RB... you get the idea. If we sign Haynesworth and give him that much money in 2009, we may help our D-line but it will be at the expense of nearly every other position fo need we have. Its simply not worth it.

[redskins5044]

Report: Redskins Will Land Haynesworth; Is This Tampering? - NFL FanHouse

he is a link about haynesworh

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by BigHairedAristocrat

Ok, found your post, sorry i missed it earlier.



I guess this is how i look at it:

1) Through what means do you think a salary floor could be established without involving the owners? I ask this because:
2) The owners would NEVER agree to a salary floor without a salary cap. They have no financial reason to do so.

here is my logic on the series of events as i see them unfolding:

2010
1. Assuming the CBA expires, there will be no salary floor or salary cap in 2010. Since there will be very few players eligible for unrestricted free agency (due to players needing to have 6 years of NFL service to become eligible), very few players will be able to sign big money deals. That, combined with the declining economy means there will not be that much money thrown around in free agency in 2010. BOTTOM LINE: The huge payday many players are foolishly expecting simply won't happen.

2. While few players will be seeing signicant salary increases in 2010, a large number of players will not get the modest pay increases they are used to. Thats because there will be no salary floor. Ever year, small market teams like Greenbay, Arizona, and Detroit are well under the salary floor. Instead of pursuing big-name free agents, these teams typically extend contracts and pay their own players more money in that year. Its pretty much the exact opposite of what the skins do - we constantly push money off and backload contracts to free up cap space. Well these teams give their players money up front just to meet the salary floor. If you hadnt guessed, players really really like this. However, in 2010, teams will have no incentive to do this, and players wont get paid. BOTTOM LINE: Players on small market teams will not get the "raises" they are accustomed to.

3. Since 2010 is uncapped, it means teams that cannot release aging, underperforming veterans due to the cap hit it would normally create... will get to release all those aging, underperforming veterans. And how are these aging, underperforming veterans going to feel when they are released and on the market and no one is going to pay them anywhere near the money they would have been making if they had stayed on their former team? Not too happy, i imagine. BOTTOM LINE: These players will be screwed by the capless year.

2011
4. Ok, 2010 was rough on players with less than 6 years of NFL service but now everyone who would have been a free agent in 2010 plus those players who were normally scheduled to become free agents in 2011 are eligible for free agency in a capless year... but will they get the payday they are hoping for? No, because the owners are preparing for a lockout and they arent going to sign players to huge contracts only to have them sit. Lockouts arent good for anybody. BOTTOM LINE: Players will finally realize that the CBA with its salary cap and salary floor rules was really a good system. Now that they arent getting paid, they are going to make sure the Union and the Owners work something out.

How does all this get resloved? I dont know exactly. But a salary cap/salary floor system is in the players interest and its in the owners interest. The main reason the owners voted to void the current CBA is because guys like Dan Snyder and Jerry Jones dont think that they should have to give their hard earned money to lazy owners of small market teams. So the big market teams voted to get rid of the CBA.

So why did the lazy owners of small market teams want to cancel the CBA? Well, they are lazy and they like getting free money from guys like Snyder and Jerry jones, and that want more of that money. However, if they cant get that money, then the next best thing is to get rid of the salary floor, so they can stop incurring those pesky expenses like multi-million dollar player salaries.

In the end, the current CBA structure is the best thing in the history of sports, but its not perfect. It needs to be tweaked. And the only way the players and owners can continue making money is to work something out. I personally think the players will cave in first.

once they see they arent getting paid as much as they thought in an uncapped 2010 and they owners threaten a lockout in 2011, theyll make sure the union gets something done. And that something will have to include a salary cap and a salary floor. 2010 will be uncapped. If nothing is worked out prior to the 2011 lockout, that season may be uncapped too. But the NFL cannot afford to go without a season for more than one year, so you can better beleive it will be back by 2012 and it will be capped. (Unless of course, the large market teams form their own capless league and the small market teams join the UFL, but thats another post entirely)

1) Even if a floor can't be established, there will be teams (including the Redskins) willing to spend over the existing cap limit that it will more than offset the loss in player salary payments made by teams dropping below the floor. I don't see how the lack of a salary floor hurts the players when evaluated in concert with the lack of a cap.

2) You vastly overestimate the impact of the declining economy on the NFL. The NFL's TV contract calls for a fixed revenue stream and cannot be negotiated. While jersey and merchandise sales are certainly on the decline, they represent too small a piece of the pie to cause a major overall contraction in league-wide revenues. In 2010, if there is a salary cap in place, it WILL BE HIGHER than in 2009. The growth in TV revenues ensures this. It just might not grow quite as fast as it has in years past.

[SmootSmack]

Originally Posted by Nflnick11

If we sign haynesworth, does this mean we won't be able to sign D Hall and or Jason brown??

We should be able to re-sign Hall. I don't expect we'll be major players for Brown

[SmootSmack]

Originally Posted by Ruhskins

Well, restructuring a deal helps with the immediate issue of being under the cap and true it hurts further down the road. However, with the possibility of the demise of the salary cap, there may not be any repercussions at all. Although you may want to check out some of the posts by Schneed on this issue.

44ever: My answers are always better. LOL. :smashfrea

BTW, where's SmootSmack when we need him, we need some type of inside info about this Haynesworth rumor.

Well here's the latest that I've heard. It's looking good...or not so good, depending on whether you want Haynesworth or not. I'd put it at around 85% right now that he'll be a Redskin on Saturday. Not too surprising, a lot of people have been testing the waters of this marriage from both camps since Cerrato and Campbell were down at the Senior Bowl. As far as numbers, well I mentioned a couple of weeks ago that he was looking for a minimum of $35 million guaranteed and the rumor is he could get exactly that. As far as the $100 million, I haven't heard anything about that. More like 6 years/$80 million. This won't affect the Hall negotiations from what I've heard but may coincide with Springs and one other veteran (no clue who) being let go this weekend. I think the $100 million must be considering player and team bonuses that could be added on (such as: If Albert Haynesworth is Super Bowl MVP...)

Anyway that's what I know as of right now, but it's only Tuesday

[SmootSmack]

By the way, the "Houston Blogger" is no slouch. He's got some solid connections in the league. Just wanted to put that out there.

[That Guy]

Originally Posted by DirtyLandry

This is exactly what is wrong. You directly correlate numbers and stats with how good a player is. You should try watching film of this guy. It's no coincidence that when I woke up this morning and flipped on ESPN, Merril Hoge was talking about how A.H. doesn't have the #'s, but he is a beast and consistently draws double teams anywhere he is lined up, thus freeing up OTHER players for mismatches and sacks, etc... If all he does for us is draw double teams and makes opposing D coordinators game plan against him, I don't care if he has 1 sack a year, he's doing his job and is well worth the money. It's not always about whats on paper, but what a player can do for your team.

gotta agree, measuring a DT's performance solely by sack totals is backwards and completely inaccurate. the best way to judge his impact would be to check the titans and skins total sack numbers from last year and this year (if he were to come)... you might see a 100%+ increase (from 24 to 50ish) here.

I mean, it really would be that drastic. but again, you'd basically have to cut everyone that's cuttable to get him here, and you'd lose some of our FAs as well (and jason/etc wouldn't get new deals since there'd be no money this year or next for it unless the cap goes away, which again, is 50/50).