The St. Louis Rams Must Do the Deal for Albert Haynesworth
Tonight on NFL Total Access, Jason La Canfora reported that the Washington Redskins are more than certain that they want to part company with their $100m defensive tackle Albert Haynesworth.
They are going to a 3-4 front under former Ram DC Jim Haslett, and Haynesworth does not want to be the nose tackle. Rather than deal with a disgruntled and expensive prima donna who didn't perform particularly well last year, they are ready to cut their losses and move forward with the master plan.
So how much are they asking? A king's random? Do they want the absolute No. 1 pick? Nope, not at all. Hold on to your hats folks. Get ready for a shocker. Jason La Canfora reports that the Redskins are willing to part with Albert Haynesworth for the price of simple third round pick.
Yeah, uh-hun. You gotta be kidding me!?!? Nope. Have a look here.
It gets better than that. His massive contract was front-loaded. This means there is far less $100m left to pay on his contract. Specific figures are not known, but it is known that the Redskins will take a financial bath on this one. Let's profit from their misfortune.
So what do we have to lose? You are not going to draft a better DT than Haynesworth in the third round. If you have plans to pass on Ndamukong Suh—and only a fool would do such a thing—you can redeem yourself by swapping a simple third rounder to Washington for Albert Haynesworth. Haynesworth will allow both Chris Long and Adam Carikker to prosper in much the same fashion Suh would have.
For the Rams, swapping a third to Washington for Haynesworth yields a license to pass on Suh and select Bradford. Even if the clandestine plan is to select Suh, I would swap the third to Washington for Haynesworth anyhow. Can you imagine the damage Suh and Haynesworth would do side-by-side? The level of violence found there would be almost mind-boggling.
Frankly folks, Billy Devaney is crazy if he doesn't do this. I hope I will awaken tomorrow morning to news of this trade.
What is the duplicate article?
Why is this article offensive?
Where is this article plagiarized from?
Why is this article poorly edited?