Albert Haynesworth bristles over deal (1 Viewer)

[Bayhawks]

What if you signed on to a company to work sales? After being there for A YEAR, they say they now need a janitor. YOU RECIEVE A 21 MILLION BONUS, to stay with the company, and basically become that "janitor." After getting the bonus, you proceed to fail to show up to work, then when you show up, you aren't prepared to work, and then you ##### about being a janitor (conveniently forgetting about the $21 million you accepted).

In the "real word" if you dont like your employer, you can switch to another in the same profession. Employers do have the right to make changes. Employees have the right to accept the changes or find another employer. The fact that he made 21 mil is irrelevant. Many high paying employees(lawyers, investment bankers) switch jobs all the time. Professional sports need the anti-trust exemption because what they do would be considered illegal without it.The word slave may be a poor word choice but its an extreme that gets the point across.

In the "real world" Haynesworth wouldn't receive a $100M contract. Either look at this as a football contract situation, or a "real world" situation. You can't have it both ways.And the $21M isn't irrelevant. The Redskins could have cut him before April 1 and not be obligated to pay him the $21M. Haynesworth knew they were switching to a 3-4, and if they paid him the bonus, they expected him to play NT. He didn't complain and took the money. AFTER he received his bonus, he started #####ing, and is now making comments about being a "slave." If he really wanted to "switch employers," he could have said so before April 1, they could have cut him, and he could have gone on his merry way. He decided to be a greedy POS, take their $21M, and then try to force a cut or trade. He is/was wrong, plain and simple, cut & dried.

 

[Bayhawks]

Does it state specifically in his contract that he was to play only the 4-3 and not the 3-4?

No, it doesn't. The owner of the team assured him they'd use him as a tackle in a 4-3 defense before Haynesworth would sign a contract with them.

Yeah, the same way that my old boss assured me that he would be in his position for 3 years. He left 2 months after I accepted the position.

Your boss left. Haynesworth's boss is still there, still owns the team.

Haynesworth's old boss (Jim Zorn) is gone, the owner of the "company" is still the same.

 

[Bayhawks]

"We agreed upon coming to that [contract] that I'd play defensive tackle and not nose guard and all that other stuff. I was signing with a 4-3 team," he continued. "It was a lot of promises and stuff like that. But now, it's been better, dealing with [defensive coordinator Jim] Haslett, and we run a lot of 4-3 stuff and you'll see that tomorrow.

I wonder if any of these unwritten "promises and stuff" included him showing up to work on time, in shape, working hard? You know stuff like that?

 

[nysportsfan]

Love that he shows "backbone" after receiving $21 mill on April 1st

 

[fatness]

The issue here is they told him what they wanted to do and offered him the chance to leave before the big paycheck. He took it knowing full well what would be expected of him. I have no sympathy for him, he's a jerk.

They were obligated to pay him that big check. Obligated by the contract they -- the Redskins --- signed with Haynesworth. Saying words at a meeting trying to make him quit doesn't change that. Teams have contract obligations too.

So they are "obligated" to pay him $21 million, but he is not "obligated" to play where they tell him to play?

He is playing where they tell him to play.

 

[fatness]

Haynesworth's old boss (Jim Zorn) is gone, the owner of the "company" is still the same.

The owner of the company negotiated Haynesworth's contract. Zorn had nothing to do with it.

 

[fatness]

And the $21M isn't irrelevant. The Redskins could have cut him before April 1 and not be obligated to pay him the $21M.

That was guaranteed money in his contract. They were obligated to pay it by the contract they negotiated and signed. $41 million guaranteed

 

[atl3695]

Professional sports need the anti-trust exemption because what they do would be considered illegal without it.

The NFL doesn't have any special antitrust exemption on labor issues. It has the same exemption as every other employer that bargains with a union. You can't accept only the benefits of collective bargaining without accepting the rest of it.

I didn't say that they get special treatment, just that it would be illegal without the exemption. That is why the players are threatening to de-certify. Haynesworth tried to use the tools at his disposal to try and get what he wanted. Where did Hanynesworth not accept the CBA? Players sitting out/not reporting isn't prohibited by CBA, and there are negotiated penalties for such actions. Hayneworth made a lot of noise, but at the end of the day showed up and honored his contract and is now playing where ever he is asked.

 

[atl3695]

And the $21M isn't irrelevant. The Redskins could have cut him before April 1 and not be obligated to pay him the $21M.

Not true. The 21 mil was guaranteed. If there was any way for the Redskins to get out of it, they would not have paid him. Hayneworth was getting his bonus regardless.

 

[The Big Guy]

I guess I live in a different world where my boss tells me to do a task and i do it, well, because he is my boss.

 

[renesauz]

First of all...there's no cap this year fellas.

Skins should suspend him (for conduct detrimental to the team), and then release him (later...when he continues to act the tool)and file a greivance to recover some of their money. He's held out and skipped mandatory team stuff with no legal cause. Haynesworth to this point has barely been worthy of a roster spot, let alone the upteen million dollars he's being paid. Skins are screwed financially no matter what they do....if a guy can't (or won't) perform, there's no reason to continue to baby him.

Those arguing that he's within his rights to balk based on his job description changing are correct to a point...but that change was known before the bonus was paid. He's not living up to the terms of his contract.

 

[renesauz]

Professional sports need the anti-trust exemption because what they do would be considered illegal without it.

The NFL doesn't have any special antitrust exemption on labor issues. It has the same exemption as every other employer that bargains with a union. You can't accept only the benefits of collective bargaining without accepting the rest of it.

I didn't say that they get special treatment, just that it would be illegal without the exemption. That is why the players are threatening to de-certify. Haynesworth tried to use the tools at his disposal to try and get what he wanted. Where did Hanynesworth not accept the CBA? Players sitting out/not reporting isn't prohibited by CBA, and there are negotiated penalties for such actions. Hayneworth made a lot of noise, but at the end of the day showed up and honored his contract and is now playing where ever he is asked.

Really? "Conduct detrimental to the team" is a pretty standard part of any contract. Haynesworth's actions have been more then "detrimental". He wasn't holding out for a new deal...he was holding out because he didn't like the coaches decisions, and he hurt his team with ZERO POTENTIAL UPSIDE to his holdout. It's disgusting.

 

[Bayhawks]

And the $21M isn't irrelevant. The Redskins could have cut him before April 1 and not be obligated to pay him the $21M.

Not true. The 21 mil was guaranteed. If there was any way for the Redskins to get out of it, they would not have paid him. Hayneworth was getting his bonus regardless.

So, the Redskins had to pay the $21 million (because of the contract), but Haynesworth doesn't have to do his job (that he signed the contract for)? You're arguing out of both sides of your mouth.But, for the record, the Skins did have to pay the option bonus to Haynesworth, UNLESS HAYNESWORTH WAIVED IT! They offered him that option, and then they would cut or trade him. He refused, took the money, and then demanded to be cut or traded.

 

[Hastur]

Dear Mr. Fatness,

Defending this scumball reflects badly on you. Being a fan of your team is admirable, but please take the blinders off and at least admit there are certain aspects of Albert Haynesworth that is not conducive to being a quality human being, even by NFL standards.

Your nemesis,

hastur

 

[gsmayes]

I agree with Haynesworth in principle...though I can't defend the guy it's coming from or using the term "slave".

Just because NFL players get paid a lot of money, it doesn't mean they should have to do whatever the coaches ask. There are lines that shouldn't be crossed, like being pressured to play with a concussion.

Just like if my boss told me I now needed to work 14 hours a day, 7 days a week for the next three months to meet a deadline. I would refuse, job be damned. At a certain point you need to stand up for yourself and have some freaking self-respect.

 

[Neil Beaufort Zod]

In the "real word" if you dont like your employer, you can switch to another in the same profession. Employers do have the right to make changes. Employees have the right to accept the changes or find another employer. The fact that he made 21 mil is irrelevant. Many high paying employees(lawyers, investment bankers) switch jobs all the time. Professional sports need the anti-trust exemption because what they do would be considered illegal without it.The word slave may be a poor word choice but its an extreme that gets the point across.

Not if you signed a contract and a non-compete clause. The NFL isn't doing anything illegal. If you don't like the terms of the contract...don't sign the contract or retire. The only point that got across is that Haynesworth is out of touch with reality and needs a history lesson to understand what slavery entailed. Some of his supporters should go with him.

 

[atl3695]

In the "real word" if you dont like your employer, you can switch to another in the same profession. Employers do have the right to make changes. Employees have the right to accept the changes or find another employer. The fact that he made 21 mil is irrelevant. Many high paying employees(lawyers, investment bankers) switch jobs all the time. Professional sports need the anti-trust exemption because what they do would be considered illegal without it.The word slave may be a poor word choice but its an extreme that gets the point across.

Not if you signed a contract and a non-compete clause. The NFL isn't doing anything illegal. If you don't like the terms of the contract...don't sign the contract or retire. The only point that got across is that Haynesworth is out of touch with reality and needs a history lesson to understand what slavery entailed. Some of his supporters should go with him.

Non competes are to protect trade secrets and get struck down in court all the time. Not relevant to this. Who said the NFL is doing anything illegal? I will repeat this is not just Hayneworth saying this. Multiple books have been written on this subject. This argument was brought up even when LeBron James left Cleveland. I never even said I agree with it and that using the word slave is not the best choice, but I do understand the argument.Again, what did Haynesworth do besides holding out a few days, which multiple players do every year?

 

[atl3695]

And the $21M isn't irrelevant. The Redskins could have cut him before April 1 and not be obligated to pay him the $21M.

Not true. The 21 mil was guaranteed. If there was any way for the Redskins to get out of it, they would not have paid him. Hayneworth was getting his bonus regardless.

So, the Redskins had to pay the $21 million (because of the contract), but Haynesworth doesn't have to do his job (that he signed the contract for)? You're arguing out of both sides of your mouth.But, for the record, the Skins did have to pay the option bonus to Haynesworth, UNLESS HAYNESWORTH WAIVED IT! They offered him that option, and then they would cut or trade him. He refused, took the money, and then demanded to be cut or traded.

Who in their right mind would waive 21 mil? How is Haynesworth not honoring his contract? Is he not on the team playing where ever he is asked. All he did is complain. He no longer has that right either?

 

[fatness]

Skins should suspend him (for conduct detrimental to the team), and then release him (later...when he continues to act the tool)and file a greivance to recover some of their money. He's held out and skipped mandatory team stuff with no legal cause.

Really? "Conduct detrimental to the team" is a pretty standard part of any contract. Haynesworth's actions have been more then "detrimental". He wasn't holding out for a new deal...he was holding out because he didn't like the coaches decisions, and he hurt his team with ZERO POTENTIAL UPSIDE to his holdout. It's disgusting.

They've tried since he reported to training camp (a day early by the way) to get him to act up and give them some reason to recoup some of the guaranteed money. But he hasn't done that and won't. He's done what they've asked since reporting.What he skipped was the voluntary OTA's, voluntary minicamps, and one mandatory minicamp. The NFL doesn't permit trying to recoup his guaranteed money for skipping that minicamp. Had he failed to show up for training camp, that would have been different. But there are rules to all this, not just owner and coach whims, and he hasn't given them any reason to recoup the bonus money.

So I understand your idea, but it doesn't fly. It was the Redskins' idea for awhile, it failed, and meantime he's doing nothing detrimental to the team despite people bandying about that idea. He's done what they've asked of him and has caused no problems in the locker room according to the players and the local beat reporters.

The Redskins signed a contract they later regretted. Boo hoo.

 

[Polar Dude]

In the "real word" if you dont like your employer, you can switch to another in the same profession. Employers do have the right to make changes. Employees have the right to accept the changes or find another employer. The fact that he made 21 mil is irrelevant. Many high paying employees(lawyers, investment bankers) switch jobs all the time. Professional sports need the anti-trust exemption because what they do would be considered illegal without it.The word slave may be a poor word choice but its an extreme that gets the point across.

There are at least two other professional football leagues that he can turn to if he doesn't like his present employment. He has options, just like he had the option not to sign with the Redskins.

 

[Neil Beaufort Zod]

In the "real word" if you dont like your employer, you can switch to another in the same profession. Employers do have the right to make changes. Employees have the right to accept the changes or find another employer. The fact that he made 21 mil is irrelevant. Many high paying employees(lawyers, investment bankers) switch jobs all the time. Professional sports need the anti-trust exemption because what they do would be considered illegal without it.The word slave may be a poor word choice but its an extreme that gets the point across.

Not if you signed a contract and a non-compete clause. The NFL isn't doing anything illegal. If you don't like the terms of the contract...don't sign the contract or retire. The only point that got across is that Haynesworth is out of touch with reality and needs a history lesson to understand what slavery entailed. Some of his supporters should go with him.

Non competes are to protect trade secrets and get struck down in court all the time. Not relevant to this. Who said the NFL is doing anything illegal? I will repeat this is not just Hayneworth saying this. Multiple books have been written on this subject. This argument was brought up even when LeBron James left Cleveland. I never even said I agree with it and that using the word slave is not the best choice, but I do understand the argument.Again, what did Haynesworth do besides holding out a few days, which multiple players do every year?

They're also held up in court all the time. What's your point? You're the one who made the real-world comparison, and I showed you that what the NFL does is not unusual at all. It's relevant because you chose to claim that if you don't like your employer, you can choose to go to another employer in the same profession-- and that's not necessarily true at all.I understand that the argument comes from someone who has no understanding of what slaves actually went through, else they wouldn't make the comparison. James' ignorance doesn't make him right. Haynesworth's ignorance doesn't make him right.

I understand their point in the sense that everyone has things about their job they don't like. They feel under-appreciated, they don't like their boss, they don't like their role in the company, whatever. Too bad. But if you don't like the job, quit. Nobody feels sorry for you, so no sense whining in public. He has a union and he signed a contract. The NFL is acting like a normal company in this instance.

 

[Bayhawks]

Who in their right mind would waive 21 mil? How is Haynesworth not honoring his contract? Is he not on the team playing where ever he is asked. All he did is complain. He no longer has that right either?

Who in their right mind would expect that he wouldn't have to do what his boss tells him to when he is paid $21M?As for not honoring his contract, that was when he refused to report for MANDATORY team functions.I believe the young kids would say you have been pwned.

 

[atl3695]

Who in their right mind would waive 21 mil? How is Haynesworth not honoring his contract? Is he not on the team playing where ever he is asked. All he did is complain. He no longer has that right either?

Who in their right mind would expect that he wouldn't have to do what his boss tells him to when he is paid $21M?As for not honoring his contract, that was when he refused to report for MANDATORY team functions.I believe the young kids would say you have been pwned.

Think you better let the kids have it to themselves. Lots of pro players sit out after being paid millions. So they don't feel that they HAVE to do what their "boss" tells them. The reason can range from wanting a better opportunity to play somewhere else, playing for a winning team, or wanting a new contract. Players holding out is a regular part of sports. Most recently and famously was Revis. What Haynesworth did is no different. He didn't show up for a little while and then reported. Happens all the time.

 

[atl3695]

In the "real word" if you dont like your employer, you can switch to another in the same profession. Employers do have the right to make changes. Employees have the right to accept the changes or find another employer. The fact that he made 21 mil is irrelevant. Many high paying employees(lawyers, investment bankers) switch jobs all the time. Professional sports need the anti-trust exemption because what they do would be considered illegal without it.The word slave may be a poor word choice but its an extreme that gets the point across.

Not if you signed a contract and a non-compete clause. The NFL isn't doing anything illegal. If you don't like the terms of the contract...don't sign the contract or retire. The only point that got across is that Haynesworth is out of touch with reality and needs a history lesson to understand what slavery entailed. Some of his supporters should go with him.

Non competes are to protect trade secrets and get struck down in court all the time. Not relevant to this. Who said the NFL is doing anything illegal? I will repeat this is not just Hayneworth saying this. Multiple books have been written on this subject. This argument was brought up even when LeBron James left Cleveland. I never even said I agree with it and that using the word slave is not the best choice, but I do understand the argument.Again, what did Haynesworth do besides holding out a few days, which multiple players do every year?

They're also held up in court all the time. What's your point? You're the one who made the real-world comparison, and I showed you that what the NFL does is not unusual at all. It's relevant because you chose to claim that if you don't like your employer, you can choose to go to another employer in the same profession-- and that's not necessarily true at all.I understand that the argument comes from someone who has no understanding of what slaves actually went through, else they wouldn't make the comparison. James' ignorance doesn't make him right. Haynesworth's ignorance doesn't make him right.

I understand their point in the sense that everyone has things about their job they don't like. They feel under-appreciated, they don't like their boss, they don't like their role in the company, whatever. Too bad. But if you don't like the job, quit. Nobody feels sorry for you, so no sense whining in public. He has a union and he signed a contract. The NFL is acting like a normal company in this instance.

This my last post on this issue as it is just becoming repetitive. When players are unhappy in profession sports, they dont just quit. They complain to the media, hold out, demand trades, etc. These are the tools at their disposal. More often than not, these tactics get the players what they want. I am not a fan of Haynesworth, but he has every right to do what he did and it is standard in professional sports given their limited options.

 

[Bayhawks]

Lots of pro players sit out after being paid millions. So they don't feel that they HAVE to do what their "boss" tells them. The reason can range from wanting a better opportunity to play somewhere else, playing for a winning team, or wanting a new contract. Players holding out is a regular part of sports. Most recently and famously was Revis. What Haynesworth did is no different. He didn't show up for a little while and then reported. Happens all the time.

Just because it happens doesn't make it right. Haynesworth is/was wrong, and you know it, otherwise you wouldn't pull out the "it happens all the time" card.

 

[atl3695]

Lots of pro players sit out after being paid millions. So they don't feel that they HAVE to do what their "boss" tells them. The reason can range from wanting a better opportunity to play somewhere else, playing for a winning team, or wanting a new contract. Players holding out is a regular part of sports. Most recently and famously was Revis. What Haynesworth did is no different. He didn't show up for a little while and then reported. Happens all the time.

Just because it happens doesn't make it right. Haynesworth is/was wrong, and you know it, otherwise you wouldn't pull out the "it happens all the time" card.

Every player that holds out or demands a trade is wrong? I dont think so. If you do, we just have to agree to disagree on that one.

 

[Neil Beaufort Zod]

In the "real word" if you dont like your employer, you can switch to another in the same profession. Employers do have the right to make changes. Employees have the right to accept the changes or find another employer. The fact that he made 21 mil is irrelevant. Many high paying employees(lawyers, investment bankers) switch jobs all the time. Professional sports need the anti-trust exemption because what they do would be considered illegal without it.The word slave may be a poor word choice but its an extreme that gets the point across.

Not if you signed a contract and a non-compete clause. The NFL isn't doing anything illegal. If you don't like the terms of the contract...don't sign the contract or retire. The only point that got across is that Haynesworth is out of touch with reality and needs a history lesson to understand what slavery entailed. Some of his supporters should go with him.

Non competes are to protect trade secrets and get struck down in court all the time. Not relevant to this. Who said the NFL is doing anything illegal? I will repeat this is not just Hayneworth saying this. Multiple books have been written on this subject. This argument was brought up even when LeBron James left Cleveland. I never even said I agree with it and that using the word slave is not the best choice, but I do understand the argument.Again, what did Haynesworth do besides holding out a few days, which multiple players do every year?

They're also held up in court all the time. What's your point? You're the one who made the real-world comparison, and I showed you that what the NFL does is not unusual at all. It's relevant because you chose to claim that if you don't like your employer, you can choose to go to another employer in the same profession-- and that's not necessarily true at all.I understand that the argument comes from someone who has no understanding of what slaves actually went through, else they wouldn't make the comparison. James' ignorance doesn't make him right. Haynesworth's ignorance doesn't make him right.

I understand their point in the sense that everyone has things about their job they don't like. They feel under-appreciated, they don't like their boss, they don't like their role in the company, whatever. Too bad. But if you don't like the job, quit. Nobody feels sorry for you, so no sense whining in public. He has a union and he signed a contract. The NFL is acting like a normal company in this instance.

This my last post on this issue as it is just becoming repetitive. When players are unhappy in profession sports, they dont just quit. They complain to the media, hold out, demand trades, etc. These are the tools at their disposal. More often than not, these tactics get the players what they want. I am not a fan of Haynesworth, but he has every right to do what he did and it is standard in professional sports given their limited options.

I think I understand now. You're saying it's just standard practice with NFL players, no matter how ridiculous it is. That's true. I thought you said you saw his point. I don't and I explained why, using real-world examples to show he had no valid point. Thanks for clarifying.

 

[Bayhawks]

Lots of pro players sit out after being paid millions. So they don't feel that they HAVE to do what their "boss" tells them. The reason can range from wanting a better opportunity to play somewhere else, playing for a winning team, or wanting a new contract. Players holding out is a regular part of sports. Most recently and famously was Revis. What Haynesworth did is no different. He didn't show up for a little while and then reported. Happens all the time.

Just because it happens doesn't make it right. Haynesworth is/was wrong, and you know it, otherwise you wouldn't pull out the "it happens all the time" card.

Every player that holds out or demands a trade is wrong? I dont think so. If you do, we just have to agree to disagree on that one.

No, but a player who is offered the opportunity to be cut/traded, turns that down in order to get $21M, then IMMEDIATELY after he cashes the check demands to be cut/traded is wrong. You're either incredibly dense or just being difficult for the sake of being difficult to argue otherwise.

 

[atl3695]

I think I understand now. You're saying it's just standard practice with NFL players, no matter how ridiculous it is. That's true. I thought you said you saw his point. I don't and I explained why, using real-world examples to show he had no valid point. Thanks for clarifying.

Reading comprehension is obviously not one of your strengths.

 

[Hagger]

Seriously? I can now see why people are saying the Shark Pool is declining. Going from a 4-3 defensive tackle to a 3-4 nose tackle is not even close to the equivalent of being switched from sales to janitorial work. It would be closer to asking a math teacher to switch from teaching algebra to algebra 2. Besides, Haynesworth isn't comparing the position change to a career change. He's comparing it to being made a slave! Also, how do you figure a nose tackle is more likely to be injured than a 4-3 defensive tackle? Any player on the field is one play away from it all ending. Haynesworthless has no point whatsoever. None.

First off, this actually shouldn't even be in the shark pool. It should be FFA as the point of the post is just whining about someone making lots of money and complaining about doing something some think is a dream job. You say going from 3-4 to 4-3 is no big deal. How would you know? Ever played NFL football? Your lack of understanding regarding the roles and risk of a tackle in 3-4 vs. 4-3 makes me think that you never played football on any level. You think Tom Brady would be excited if Billichek thought the best chance for them to win is to run the option? Its still playing qb right?The slave analogy is not new or uniuque to Haynesworth. Forty Million Dollar Slave by respected sportswriter Will Rhoden (http://www.amazon.com/Forty-Million-Dollar-Slaves-Redemption/dp/0609601202)gives the same argument and is just one of many. Don't confuse the messenger with the message. The "Shut up and do what your told" tone of these posts just reinforces his point.

In your analogy, what if the teacher didnt want to teach algebra 2? They are free to go to another school is they choose. Professional sports are the only profession where employees can be drafted, traded, and given take it or leave it below market pay(Vincent Jax). Haynesworth wasnt comparing the position switch to slavery, but the fact that he almost no options to do anything about it and the overall structure of professional sports.

First off, who cares what forum it's in? This is an NFL issue and is in the correct forum. Secondly, you didn't answer my question. How is he more likely to get injured? Instead you go to the usual sophmoric response of 'How would you know? You're clueless about football, man!' Please enlighten me Coach Lombardi.OK, so you support the idea that Haynesworth is comparing his situation to slavery? Clarify that for me.

Your idea that a teacher can simply quit his job and get a job at any other school because he's asked to switch positions shows your lack of understanding of the career of teaching and makes me think you've never taught on any level. A teacher is under contract with his district. Teachers are asked to change grade levels and/or subjects all the time. Yes, the teacher can complain and even request a move to a different school. Their employer can choose to honor that request or not. However, if they want to just up and quit then they have to leave the district that employs them and get a job with a different district due to the contract they have with their current district. So no, they're not free to just go to any school they want. They have to change districts. Sort of like Haynesworthless can't play for any team he wants but he can go to a different league if he really wants to.

 

[Neil Beaufort Zod]

I think I understand now. You're saying it's just standard practice with NFL players, no matter how ridiculous it is. That's true. I thought you said you saw his point. I don't and I explained why, using real-world examples to show he had no valid point. Thanks for clarifying.

Reading comprehension is obviously not one of your strengths.

Since you said the previous post was your last... consistency isn't one of your strengths. Guess you couldn't help yourself. I can now see why you can relate so easily to Haynesworth. You share similar traits.Back on topic, it's pretty clear he has no point because he doesn't understand the difference between his situation and a slave's. He also doesn't understand the business world, where even non-compete clauses are common and unions dictate terms for their members. Everything the team did was above-board, and he doesn't have a good grasp as to what power he does or does not have. It's a shame he either has poor reasoning skills, a poor agent or both.I would encourage Haynesworth and anyone who thinks they can see his point to learn about slavery, business and how contracts work. It might be eye-opening, not that Haynesworth cares. He sees himself as a victim and will likely retire in the future with the same sentiment. he makes an unsympathetic victim and a flawed example of a "slave."

 

[Neil Beaufort Zod]

Seriously? I can now see why people are saying the Shark Pool is declining. Going from a 4-3 defensive tackle to a 3-4 nose tackle is not even close to the equivalent of being switched from sales to janitorial work. It would be closer to asking a math teacher to switch from teaching algebra to algebra 2. Besides, Haynesworth isn't comparing the position change to a career change. He's comparing it to being made a slave! Also, how do you figure a nose tackle is more likely to be injured than a 4-3 defensive tackle? Any player on the field is one play away from it all ending. Haynesworthless has no point whatsoever. None.

First off, this actually shouldn't even be in the shark pool. It should be FFA as the point of the post is just whining about someone making lots of money and complaining about doing something some think is a dream job. You say going from 3-4 to 4-3 is no big deal. How would you know? Ever played NFL football? Your lack of understanding regarding the roles and risk of a tackle in 3-4 vs. 4-3 makes me think that you never played football on any level. You think Tom Brady would be excited if Billichek thought the best chance for them to win is to run the option? Its still playing qb right?The slave analogy is not new or uniuque to Haynesworth. Forty Million Dollar Slave by respected sportswriter Will Rhoden (http://www.amazon.com/Forty-Million-Dollar-Slaves-Redemption/dp/0609601202)gives the same argument and is just one of many. Don't confuse the messenger with the message. The "Shut up and do what your told" tone of these posts just reinforces his point.

In your analogy, what if the teacher didnt want to teach algebra 2? They are free to go to another school is they choose. Professional sports are the only profession where employees can be drafted, traded, and given take it or leave it below market pay(Vincent Jax). Haynesworth wasnt comparing the position switch to slavery, but the fact that he almost no options to do anything about it and the overall structure of professional sports.

First off, who cares what forum it's in? This is an NFL issue and is in the correct forum. Secondly, you didn't answer my question. How is he more likely to get injured? Instead you go to the usual sophmoric response of 'How would you know? You're clueless about football, man!' Please enlighten me Coach Lombardi.OK, so you support the idea that Haynesworth is comparing his situation to slavery? Clarify that for me.

Your idea that a teacher can simply quit his job and get a job at any other school because he's asked to switch positions shows your lack of understanding of the career of teaching and makes me think you've never taught on any level. A teacher is under contract with his district. Teachers are asked to change grade levels and/or subjects all the time. Yes, the teacher can complain and even request a move to a different school. Their employer can choose to honor that request or not. However, if they want to just up and quit then they have to leave the district that employs them and get a job with a different district due to the contract they have with their current district. So no, they're not free to just go to any school they want. They have to change districts. Sort of like Haynesworthless can't play for any team he wants but he can go to a different league if he really wants to.

Obviously, teachers are modern-day slaves. Can't you see their point?

 

[PatsFanCT]

I missed the part where he offered to give all that money back to the Redskins so he could sign with another team for the same amount of money to play the position he really wanted to play.

 

[scoobygang]

Everyone complained when Kurt Flood compared himself to a slave as well.

Obviously, Haynesworth is getting the benefit of his bargain. He's not slave. But I don't get why people get so steamed that he said it. His point wasn't that he was being treated literally as a slave. It was that he's not necessarily obligated to play (he could always just sit out) and he's not obligated not to make a fuss. Yes, he earned a lot of money. Sports is a meritocracy that way. Similarly, it's a meritocracy in that keeping Albert Hayneworth happy is likely more important than keeping Lorenzo Alexander happy.

Mike Shanahan knows more about coaching in the NFL than I do. Maybe he really does need to send a message. Beats me. But it's at least a possibility that he's cutting off his nose to spite his face. Because even with Haynesworth not trying, that terrible defense is slightly less terrible when he's in the game.

 

[LMF]

Skins should suspend him (for conduct detrimental to the team), and then release him (later...when he continues to act the tool)and file a greivance to recover some of their money. He's held out and skipped mandatory team stuff with no legal cause.

Really? "Conduct detrimental to the team" is a pretty standard part of any contract. Haynesworth's actions have been more then "detrimental". He wasn't holding out for a new deal...he was holding out because he didn't like the coaches decisions, and he hurt his team with ZERO POTENTIAL UPSIDE to his holdout. It's disgusting.

They've tried since he reported to training camp (a day early by the way) to get him to act up and give them some reason to recoup some of the guaranteed money. But he hasn't done that and won't. He's done what they've asked since reporting.What he skipped was the [voluntary OTA's, voluntary minicamps, and one mandatory minicamp. The NFL doesn't permit trying to recoup his guaranteed money for skipping that minicamp. Had he failed to show up for training camp, that would have been different. But there are rules to all this, not just owner and coach whims, and he hasn't given them any reason to recoup the bonus money.

So I understand your idea, but it doesn't fly. It was the Redskins' idea for awhile, it failed, and meantime he's doing nothing detrimental to the team despite people bandying about that idea. He's done what they've asked of him and has caused no problems in the locker room according to the players and the local beat reporters.

The Redskins signed a contract they later regretted. Boo hoo.