Tag:Dan Snyder
Posted on: July 1, 2011 5:15 pm
Edited on: July 1, 2011 5:51 pm

Hot Routes 7.01.11: Dareus mows lawn for rent

Posted by Ryan Wilson
  • Bucs CB Aqib Talib has a trial date: March 26, 2012, which means that his legal suit won't be settled until after the season. This is good news for his chances of playing in 2011, but bad news because Roger Goodell likely still looks forward to suspending him.
  • Sports Illustrated's Jim Trotter tweets that the Cards will try to trade for Kevin Kolb and the name he's hearing "will surprise you." Prepare accordingly.
  • Things that won't surprise you (but make you laugh nonetheless): Washingtonian readers Redskins owner the "worst local villain." He finished ahead of Marion Barry (!). And the worst local athlete? Albert Haynesworth, who was signed by … Dan Snyder.
For more NFL news, rumors and analysis, follow @cbssportsnfl on Twitter and subscribe to our RSS Feed.
Posted on: June 15, 2011 8:52 pm
Edited on: June 16, 2011 12:11 am

Redskins need to consider life after Haynesworth

Posted by Ryan Wilson

A new labor deal may or may not be on the horizon, but when the owners and players come to an agreement, there will likely be an accelerated free-agency period followed by training camp and the regular season.

By that point, everything should be back to normal, which includes Albert Haynesworth making life difficult for some poor coach who thought he would be the one to motivate a man seemingly incapable of being motivated. Redskins coach Mike Shanahan was never under such illusions when he arrived in Washington last year. By the preseason it was clear they couldn't co-exist.

Just chalk it up as another one of Dan Snyder's high-priced personnel mistakes. (The 'Skins gave Haynesworth a $100 million deal in February 2009, including $41 million in guarantees.)

And now, even though Washington desperately needs some help along the defensive line, the rebuilding process won't include Haynesworth. NFL Network's Jason La Canfora figures "Aubrayo Franklin and Cullen Jenkins [will] get a good long look [from the 'Skins]," adding that “I think they’d trade (Haynesworth) for a seventh-round pick somewhere outside the division before they dealt him to the Eagles."

(La Canfora mentioned Philadelphia because Jim Washburn, Haynesworth's former defensive line coach in Tennessee, now coaches the Eagles' defensive line.) 

“They should have taken a fifth for him last offseason and ended the circus then,” La Canfora continued. “We shall see. Skins GM Bruce Allen has repeatedly told Haynesworth’s people that if they don’t get ‘real value’ in a trade they won’t move him, but I don’t see them getting anything better than a fifth for him, and they have wanted much more than that.”

Allen's thinking isn't unique to the Redskins. It's prevalent among teams that fork over substantial paydays for big-name free agents only to get in return substandard performances and less salary-cap wiggle room. Instead of cutting bait and moving on, they suffer from what economists call the "sunk cost fallacy." In English, it's simply throwing good money after bad.

Brian Burke of AdvancedNFLStats.com talked about the sunk cost fallacy late in the 2009 season, relating it to JaMarcus Russell.
Russell certainly isn’t the only top pick who was kept under center too long. Just about every team has had a similar experience in recent memory. General managers and coaches are the ones least willing to cut their losses with bad players because they’re the ones most attached to the sunk costs. The importance of responsibility is why it makes some sense to periodically replace senior management, whether at corporation, a government agency, or professional football team. New managers are not beholden to their predecessors’ sunk costs, and are freer to make rational decisions.
Unfortunately for the Redskins, Allen -- who inherited Haynesworth from Vinny Cerrato -- hasn't followed that advice. Presumably because in the back of Allen's mind is the fear that if he cuts Haynesworth, not only does that mean tens of millions of dollars down the drain (sunk cost!), there's the chance that another team will sign him, and worse, he will play well.

To paraphrase an an old saying: "A player is worth what somebody's willing to pay for him." Which is usually muttered right before someone else says, "It only takes one team." The problem: "one team" has historically referred to the Redskins, an outfit renown for paying well over market rates -- either in salary or draft picks -- for locker room malcontents, players on the downside of great careers or both.

Of course, if Allen promptly jettisons Haynesworth when the lockout ends, and Bill Belichick signs him for the league minimum, expect the media to hail the decision as "low-risk" and "genius." It's this thinking that got the Redskins in their current predicament.

On the upside, Washington gets a $41 million paperweight out of it. So there's that.

For more NFL news, rumors and analysis, follow @cbssportsnfl on Twitter and subscribe to our RSS Feed.
Posted on: June 4, 2011 2:36 pm

Hot Routes 6.4.11: Snyder not impressing Congress

Posted by Josh Katzowitz

  • Redskins owner Dan Snyder’s decision to sue Washington City Paper has attracted the attention of at least one member of Congress. Rep. Steve Cohen – a Democrat from Tennessee – will try again to pass a bill through the House of Representatives that prevents people from filing “strategic lawsuits against public participation.” Which basically means that a rich dude can’t file a meritless lawsuit simply for the purpose of obtaining revenge.
  • This, I believe, qualifies as good news. The Bills players are donating $10,000 to support the help efforts being made in Joplin, Mo. Punter Brian Moorman also said the players are uniting with New Era, which will provide 10,000 pieces of clothing. Hopefully, they’re not all Bills hats.
  • If you’re looking for the top ex-con athletes playing pro sports today, it should be no surprise to you that many of them are football players. From Plaxico Burress to Michael Vick, Forbes.com has you covered. Nice to see a jockey and a darts player (thrower?) in there, as well.
  • Among the newsy items in this transcript of Patriots QB Tom Brady from his charity football game Friday: his surgically-repaired foot feels good; his newest haircut looks good; and he’s confident a solution to the lockout is forthcoming.
  • In case you’ve forgotten about the NFL strike of 1987, CBSSports.com’s own Chuck Finder is here to remind you about how crazy it was.

For more NFL news, rumors and analysis, follow @cbssportsnfl on Twitter and subscribe to our RSS Feed.

Posted on: May 16, 2011 2:19 pm

Skins, Sirius say Snyder never did interview

Posted by Will Brinson

Over the weekend, Jim Wexell of Steel City Insider dropped an interesting little nugget on Twitter about a hypothetical draft-day deal between the Redskins and Steelers that would have had Pittsburgh hopping up to the No. 16 overall spot, presumably to grab Mike Pouncey out of Florida. Turns out, not only was the deal entirely misconstrued, so was the Snyder radio interview.

I spent about 300 (too many) words breaking down why I believed it was Pouncey the Steelers were chasing. On Monday, Peter King did something similar, although in the first published edition of "Monday Morning Quarterback," King didn't have a link to Wexell.

In an updated version, King's blurb ("Brother and Child Reunion?") contains the phrase "Dan Snyder reportedly said on Sirius Radio" and then mentions that "Redskins spokesman Tony Wyllie denies Snyder says this."

Wyllie did exactly that, as did a spokesman for Sirius, per Dan Steinberg of the Washington Post, who also notes that Chris Mortensen tweeted a report of the possible trade, also sans a citation to Wexell's original note.

Since then, Wexell has apologized in tweet form and also deleted the original tweet.

So, what's the real story here? Well, it doesn't seem like Wexell was playing a Mike Wise-style "social experiment" via Twitter. At any rate, affable prankster isn't really his style. And if this were any team other than the Redskins, it might make more sense. (Or less? I'm not sure which way that goes, honestly.)

But the scrambling from various members of the media to attribute the story to Wexell (now that it's fake) is odd, especially given that in several different instances, an apparently fabricated radio interview was sourced, separately, by multiple outlets.

Whatever, at some point Wexell will probably get asked how it came about and there's probably some sort of rationalization as to why this all happened.

In the meantime, can you tell there's a lockout going on in the NFL?

For more NFL news, rumors and analysis, follow @cbssportsnfl on Twitter and subscribe to our RSS Feed.
Posted on: May 14, 2011 6:24 pm
Edited on: May 16, 2011 2:21 pm

Skins, Steelers had draft deal, but guy was gone

Posted by Will Brinson

UPDATE (Monday, 11:00 AM): So, this is weird: the Redskins are saying now that Dan Snyder never appeared on Sirius. Which makes Wexell's tweet really odd. Read the anatomy of a rumor post right here.

The 2011 NFL Draft has come and gone, but here's an interesting little nugget about something that could have happened, involving a Redskins-Steelers trade for the No. 16 overall pick.

Per Jim Wexell of Steel City Insider, Dan Snyder, appearing on Sirius Radio this past week, said that Washington and Pittsburgh had a deal in place for the No. 16 overall pick, but "the player was gone."

As you probably recall, the Redskins traded down from 10th to 16th via a deal with Jacksonville where the Jaguars picked up Blaine Gabbert.

The logical guess is that the Steelers wanted Mike Pouncey, brother of their center, Maurkice Pouncey. Can we be sure though?

Well, not positive, but pretty close. Hopping in the not-so-way-back machine and taking a look at our Draft Tracker, we can pretty much reach that conclusion.

We have to make the assumption that the player in question was taken in between the 11th and 15th picks, as Washington had access to both the 10th and 16th picks and Pittsburgh didn't make a move.

Scratching the one quarterback taken in that range, Gabbert and Christian Ponder, off the list isn't a reach, considering that the Steelers still have Ben Roethlisberger.

J.J. Watt and Robert Quinn were both strong picks, but it seems unlikely that Pittsburgh would trade valuable assets for a defensive end in a year when there was depth at the position. Additionally, Cameron Heyward -- the guy they got -- fits their scheme nicely.

Nick Fairley could have been under consideration, as he would have represented outstanding value, but, I'm not so sure that what he does best would necessarily equate to making him the long-term answer at DT for Pittsburgh, assuming they don't make a scheme shift once (if??) Dick LeBeau retires.

And then there's this: many people thought the Dolphins would take Alabama running back Mark Ingram, but went with Pouncey right before the 'Skins 16th pick instead. So it seemed like Pouncey might be there at 16; clearly the Steelers are fans of that family, and wouldn't need to play him at center, as many teams felt they might.

And with their second-round pick, the Steelers nabbed Pouncey's linemate at Florida, Marcus Gilbert. That's not to say they loved the other Pouncey just because he's related to one of their players, or because he's from the same school.

And it's tough to guarantee that's what they were hoping for, but it sure does seem like a strong possibility.

For more NFL news, rumors and analysis, follow @cbssportsnfl on Twitter and subscribe to our RSS Feed.
Posted on: April 27, 2011 4:24 pm
Edited on: April 28, 2011 11:53 am

Could an NFL owner break rank mid-draft?

Posted by Will Brinson

Could an NFL owner break rank during or just before the NFL Draft and decide that it's time to make a trade or sign a free agent? That's a legitimate question, because I'm not positive I -- or anyone -- know the answer. But I'm fairly certain it could happen.

Of course, first, a few things have to go down. One, Judge Susan Nelson has to rule -- between now and the beginning of the Draft on Thursday -- in favor of the players on the stay issue as well as clarification of her original ruling . If she does, and it's not a stretch to think that she will, the league may be forced to open its doors immediately and begin the league year.

Pandemonium unlike we've known it could erupt. Or, alternately, teams could take their sweet time making moves to sign players. The latter seems like the most likely situation, because the NFL will still be pushing to get their appeal into the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals. Also, making a case for collusion, based on the fact that teams didn't sign any free agents amid the hectic few days of the NFL Draft could be a stretch.

NFL Draft
NFL Draft Coverage More NFL Draft Coverage
Mock Drafts | Risers/Fallers
Prospects | Full Draft Coverage
Although you could argue teams should be pursuing all of their options during that time, particularly if they want to shore up their respective rosters. And this, to me, is where things get interesting, should the league "begin the season" some time on Thursday.

Because there are some teams more in need in of making certain moves than others. The Eagles obviously would like to end up moving Kevin Kolb; our own Clark Judge recently pointed out just how coveted Philly's backup remains around the league.

And the Redskins, for example, would probably like to receive some sort of value for Donovan McNabb -- or Albert Haynesworth! -- before they're forced to cut him rather than paying him a roster bonus before he's due, when football actually starts. And they just so happen to need draft picks, thanks to the very trade they made last Easter to bring McNabb in.

And let's not put it past Dan Snyder to "go rogue" either; this is a man currently embroiled in a ridiculous lawsuit with a small-time Washington, D.C., newspaper because he didn't like the way he was portrayed publicly. He'll need someone to play along, should the rank-breaking be a trade and not a free-agent signing, of course. While it seems unlikely Jerry Richardson will bail on his role as lead negotiator to pick up a quarterback, there's nothing to say that another owner running one of the many quarterback-desperate teams wouldn't.

Of course, it seems like the owners are unified. Whereas reports about players splintering into factions have made their way into the public, we've not yet heard anything too concrete about owners arguing amongst themselves. But did you see the utter disorganization that went down on Tuesday when players attempted to make their way into team facilities?

Some teams, like the Giants, let players work out on Tuesday. (But not on Wednesday !) Other teams, like the Seahawks, said no. Jerry Jones stepped up to the mic and provided a not-too-crafted statement about why Cowboys players couldn't come in.

That's the very definition of "factions" -- if the NFL owners were all on a singular page, a concrete policy would have been in place across the league.

Which brings us back to the day of the Draft. Perhaps the NFL is forced to open its doors to players and "get back to work." And perhaps, hypothetically, owners are advised that it's better to wait and see how the appeal process shakes out before making personnel moves.

Do you think, though, that the Eagles front office can resist the possibility of landing a top-10 pick for tomorrow night in this quarterback-desperate landscape that exists? And do you think that anyone can predict what Snyder will do in relation to his payroll and roster decisions when he desperately needs draft picks?

Certainly not. And what would the repercussions be if an NFL owner started wheeling and dealing? The league could fine that team or take away draft picks ... except that would amount to admitting collusion.

In fact, aside from Roger Goodell giving someone a dirty look the next time they were in the same room, the only thing that might happen is the rest of the league following suit and opening up the floodgates for other signings and draft-day trades of players.

And if and/or once that happens, it might be kind hard to bring back the lockout.

For more NFL news, rumors and analysis, follow @cbssportsnfl on Twitter and subscribe to our RSS Feed .

Posted on: February 10, 2011 1:15 pm

Readers donate $18K for Snyder lawsuit defense

Posted by Will Brinson

Just how popular is Dan Snyder in Washington? Well, if the $18,000 that a group of Washington City Paper readers donated to defend the paper from Snyder's lawsuit is any indication, "not very" seems like a good answer.

18 grand isn't going to keep Snyder from flexing his financial muscle, of course, but it's at least a pretty crazy indication of how much people love those printed hipster words.

"The amount is "pretty puny by serious-litigation-cost standards," Washington City Paper editor Michael Schaffer told the Washington Post. "[But]it's a sign of the bond between a free paper and its readers."

Or it's a sign that a bunch of people banded together to fight Snyder's lawsuit because they hate the way he runs the 'Skins.

Either way: Dan Snyder's not doing himself any favors by bringing a lawsuit against a low-circulation paper, especially when the legal bomb he dropped was for an article that was much older and had probably already been dismissed as "more complaining against our owner."

In D.C., that's far from the most surprising news and probably would have floated far under the radar if Snyder hadn't brought attention to it.

For more NFL news, rumors and analysis, follow @cbssportsnfl on Twitter and subscribe to our RSS Feed.
Posted on: January 11, 2011 9:58 am

Snyder on worst money spent: 'You all know'

Posted by Will Brinson

Over the past six months (or so), we've written 277 post (or so) about the Washington Redskins. They're full of the crazy and it results in a lot of blogging. 

A lot of that crazy might come from owner Dan Snyder, who was part of a candid D.C. Sports Leaders Summit (or, to be more precise: An Event in Which Washington Sports Owners Answered Questions for Reporters) on Tuesday morning, where he spoke kind of candidly about the worst money he's ever spent.

"I don't have to answer this, you all know," Snyder said, per Dan Steinberg of the Washington Post.

Okay, so that's not so much candid as it is vague, but it's pretty obvious that what Snyder is telling the fans and reporters is "I wasted a TON of money on Albert Haynesworth and I'd really appreciate it if you didn't bring it up again."

Either that or he knows that the Redskins are picking up Donovan McNabb's option in 2011 and is just refusing to tell anyone.

Also interesting was that Snyder said that the Redskins would not participate in HBO's "Hard Knocks" because it would be too much of a distraction.

"My impression is when you see that Hard Knocks," Snyder said, via Steinberg. "It's almost like you're creating a situation where the coaches, knowing there's a camera in that room, are acting. And as an owner, as a fan, you really want them to work, go get that work done and coach up the team and win. And I think it's a distraction."

Which is probably accurate, just not any different from normal Redskins training camp, except for the cameras taking everything public instead of reporters.

For more NFL news, rumors and analysis, follow @cbssportsnfl on Twitter and subscribe to our RSS Feed.
The views expressed in this blog are solely those of the author and do not reflect the views of CBS Sports or CBSSports.com