Haynesworth

Cool, I'll check out that column later today. That begs the question, does the agent get paid based on the whole contract or just what is actually earned? What is the benefit to the agent or player to negotiate a huge phantom contract, just bragging rights?

 

Does the funny money not hurt them down the road?

 

Mostly just bragging rights, yeah. In the column, King also talks about Chris Canty's negotiations with the Giants and made an interesting point about how Canty drew a line in the sand over one more million just to make sure he averaged $7 million per season instead of $6.83 mil. The players apparently put a lot of value in looking like they're insanely well paid, while the agents use those phony contracts to bring in new clients.

Not when composed of base salary compensation and non-guaranteed roster bonuses.

 

From the Peter King article
Seven years, $100 million. With reachable incentive bonuses, seven years, $115 million.

Everywhere -- in Washington, Nashville and in national publications -- it was written over the weekend that Haynesworth signed the first $100-million contract by a defensive player in league history, a contract that could jump to $115 million if he earned some incentives.

That could happen. I could succeed Roger Goodell as commissioner of the NFL one day, too.

Haynesworth, barring a miracle, will never see the fifth year of the contract. In essence, he signed a four-year, $48-million contract Friday with the Redskins. That will carry him through his 11th season, in 2012 (barring a work stoppage in 2011, which is a real possibility). Here is the real contract:


Year Signing Bonus Option Bonus Salary

2009 $5 million -- $6 million

2010 -- $21 million $3.6 million

*2011 -- -- $5.4 million

2012 -- -- $7.2 million

Totals: four years, $48.2 million.



The asterisk is for an additional $1 million he could earn in an offseason workout bonus before camp.

The seven-year deal calls for Haynesworth to earn $29 million in 2013, $10.8 million in 2014 and $12 million in 2015.

I am reminded of players in Washington who were scheduled to make far less and who never made it to the pay window in the later years of their contracts. Deion Sanders signed a seven-year, $56-million deal with Washington in 2000, and lasted one year. Adam Archuleta and Brandon Lloyd similarly busted in 2006.

The last three years of the Haynesworth deal are agent recruiting years. They have no bearing on reality.

21 million dollar OPTION BONUS. That's a big check to write

 

That's why I quote my salary in Taiwanese Dollars. 35 to 1. The ladies think I'm rolling in it and the guys think my Johnson is 35 times bigger than theirs.

 

JaMarcus Haynesworth

 

From ESPN Insider:
UPDATE: Though it might amaze some people, according to the folks over at Pro Football Focus, Albert Haynesworth was the third-best 4-3 defensive tackle in the NFL over the past three seasons.

"Fair to say things haven't gone exactly to plan in Washington for the former Titan," author Khaled Elsayed writes. "Staggeringly though, when he's been on the field he continues to be as good a DT as there is out there (even though he may be as scrutinized a defensive player as there is). Despite the pretty low sack totals in Washington, in his first year there, he was a top five defensive tackle and not that far off his best year. Even last year he generated pressure in the sub package defense. If you can get him playing his best then he's a bargain whatever the price."

As ESPN NFC East blogger Dan Graziano writes (see below), this occasional brilliance might be part of the reason why the Washington Redskins won't send him to a particular suitor this offseason.

---

There's a line of thinking this offseason that the Redskins' trade or release of Haynesworth isn't as much of a foregone conclusion as previously suspected. As with the Cincinnati Bengals' stoic refusal to bend to Carson Palmer's trade demands, the Redskins may want to let Haynesworth rot on their roster instead of cutting their losses and shipping him off for something in return.

But if they do decide to put him on the trading block -- or outright cut him -- Matt Williamson of ESPN's Scouts, Inc. has four teams that could be interested: the Carolina Panthers, Chicago Bears, Denver Broncos and St. Louis Rams. Williamson isn't noting that these teams are interested, per se, but rather that they could be a good fit from a scheme and coaching standpoint.

 

From ESPN Insider:

Williamson isn't noting that these teams are interested, per se, but rather that they could be a good fit from a scheme and coaching standpoint.

 

Yeah, I can't see the coaches wanting that headache here, despite the elite talent.