Haynesworth - "Contract doesn't make me a slave"

[Eja117]

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=5617037

What is up with millionaires comparing themselves to slaves?

It makes me really mad. It's wrong on so many levels.

Maybe this should go to the current events place.

[fairweatherfan]

Just a roundabout attempt to justify "I don't wanna do what I don't wanna do" by trying to link it to a social issue.  Happens all the time in various ways.  Haynesworth seems pretty immature and this is another example of that.

[Roy H.]

A "slave" ...

1. Who was paid over $100 million;

2. Who was given the right to walk away from his contract, and chose not to;

3. Whose main complaint seems to be that he's asked to play in a 3-4 defense, rather than a 4-3.

Yeah, that's a pretty tough plight.  His biography will go right there beside Frederick Douglas in the annals of American history.

[boom]

Maybe Im in the minority, but I agree with Albert. It's the principle of the thing, and the amount of money shouldn't matter. He was told that he'd be playing a certain position and would be compensated for it, which Haynesworth agreed to. After he was hired, they switched his position, something he didn't originally agree to nor was part of the original package. If they told him prior, he would of had the option to negotiate the compensation. Thus, he was p---ed, and I dont blame him one bit.

If I got hired for a janitorial position at a school for a certain wage, and they asked me to start fixing roof leaks, I'd put up a fight too.

[Fan from VT]

I wish he'd use different language because by using clearly ridiculous language it undermines what otherwise could be a logical argument, namely that employers often seem to think that once someone is on the payroll they should do whatever management wants them to. However, there is clearly a spectrum of appropriate work that is not very well delineated where the acceptable/unacceptable line is.

One more points:
-His salary should not have anything to do with the legitimacy of his comments. He is making a salary proportional to his ability to provide a service that warrants such a salary; he's taking millions because he's very good at a job that earns billionaires more billions.

[Roy H.]

One more points:
-His salary should not have anything to do with the legitimacy of his comments. He is making a salary proportional to his ability to provide a service that warrants such a salary; he's taking millions because he's very good at a job that earns billionaires more billions.

I disagree.  First, not many "slaves" were paid $100 million.  Also, being the highest paid player on your team and the highest paid player at your position carries with it some implicit obligations.  One of them is that you'll be a team leader.  Another is that you'll be physically prepared to play at a high level.

Also, Haynesworth was hired as a defensive tackle.  That's the position he's playing.  I highly doubt that he was promised that the Redskins would play a 4-3 for every year of his career.  No organization would be stupid enough to handcuff a future coach like that.  

If Haynesworth cared so much about being in a 4-3, he should have made sure that contract language to that affect was worked into his deal.  He didn't, and therefore the team was well within its rights to request him to perform in a manner that many, many tackles around the NFL perform in.  It's not like the team asked him to return kicks.

[fairweatherfan]

I wish he'd use different language because by using clearly ridiculous language it undermines what otherwise could be a logical argument, namely that employers often seem to think that once someone is on the payroll they should do whatever management wants them to. However, there is clearly a spectrum of appropriate work that is not very well delineated where the acceptable/unacceptable line is.

I agree generally, and I understand Haynesworth being disgruntled to some degree; no matter what your salary grade you're gonna be frustrated if you think promises have been broken. 

But I seriously doubt the phrase "4-3 defense" appears anywhere in his contract.  I'm guessing it's more along the lines of "play football for the Washington Redskins".  No matter what he was told the new defense is consistent with the responsibilities he signed up for.  And of course the comparison is a very stupid one, which washes out everything else.

[Fan from VT]

One more points:
-His salary should not have anything to do with the legitimacy of his comments. He is making a salary proportional to his ability to provide a service that warrants such a salary; he's taking millions because he's very good at a job that earns billionaires more billions.

I disagree.  First, not many "slaves" were paid $100 million.  Also, being the highest paid player on your team and the highest paid player at your position carries with it some implicit obligations.  One of them is that you'll be a team leader.  Another is that you'll be physically prepared to play at a high level.

Also, Haynesworth was hired as a defensive tackle.  That's the position he's playing.  I highly doubt that he was promised that the Redskins would play a 4-3 for every year of his career.  No organization would be stupid enough to handcuff a future coach like that. 

If Haynesworth cared so much about being in a 4-3, he should have made sure that contract language to that affect was worked into his deal.  He didn't, and therefore the team was well within its rights to request him to perform in a manner that many, many tackles around the NFL perform in.  It's not like the team asked him to return kicks.

Well, first I said I didn't agree with the "slave" usage when I made my "one more point" comment.

But further, it's interesting that on the one hand you favor a close technical reading of the contract that haynesworth signed  when arguing in favor of management's ability to force Haynesworth into a position he wasn't told he'd play, but also say that Haynesworth's contract, because of it's size (which is purely a relative number, not sure how that's inarguable...he's being paid a portion of a huge economic pie), contains implicit obligations.

So which is it? Are contracts to be read implicitly or explicitly? It seems to me that you want contracts to include implied stuff when it favors managment but only the technical stuff should apply when employees push back.

I mean, it's just as easy to argue that, by the contract, Haynesworth is fully within his rights. Clearly he hasn't breached anything, or management would be recouping/voiding his contract. So he's fully obligation his contract to the same technical extent that management is. Additionally, Haynesworth had the option to walk away, but management also has the ability to cut ties whenever they want, saving the non-guaranteed money, with the guaranteed money being lost...which is a known risk of signing any NFL contracts, and is not a surprise at all.

Seems to me that this is two disgruntled sides doing what they can to annoy the other side, with neither willing to take a serious hit to the wallet. As such, they will continue to co-exist unhappily.

[ReggieLewis#35]

What a joke!!! All I gotta say is ... DA BEARS!!!

[GreenFaith1819]

I'm a lifelong Redskins fan and this is just more drama to me. I can see what Albert is getting at, but he is missing the point on so many levels.

I think if he really wanted to start a protest and dialogue on this whole issue, he should've began way back in April of this year - by not accepting that $21 million dollar bonus.

I love the man, and he certainly causes opposing offenses problems, but I really don't think that The Redskins Organization is asking him to do anything out of the ordinary here, especially since he did not hesitate to take that nice bonus. Mike Shanahan has won Championships, playoff games, etc...he has 14+ yrs doing this stuff. He's no rookie by any stretch.

Mike knows what he is doing. I just wish that Albert would go into silent mode and play. His team needs him. Lord knows I'd love to have a Redskins Playoff Team this year, and I believe we'll need Albert to do just that.

To directly address the Slave comment? I can't see it....at all. Maybe he needs to talk to actual descendents of slaves or some of the current Civil Rights establishment to get a History Lesson before he makes these kind of comments.

As an African American man myself, this comment is just outrageous.

[Change]

People say stupid ish all the time and that was one of the them. Here's a solution trade him and cut your loses. Otherwise they'll have to deal with this distraction all season long. Albert is beast if his head is right. C'mon Redskins trade him to the Titans. 

[kozlodoev]

He's free not to report, and the team's free to void his contract. Yes, sounds like slavery to me.

[Redz]

He's free not to report, and the team's free to void his contract. Yes, sounds like slavery to me.

"freedom" being one of the key components of slavery after all

[housecall]

Realistically once a player signs any contract with a franchise,he/she can no longer do their own thing the way he/she wants to...the owner of that franchise now "own" your thing.Albert can call it what he likes,unless he gives the money back or void his contract someway,his time and whereabouts during football season is owned by someone.

[Cman]

Haynesworth: proof that money can't buy you class.