Owls0325

New development: Trent Williams wants to be traded/released

Recommended Posts

There are a lot of good points being made on here.

 

I'm bummed about this as all of you are.  And quite frankly, if he doesn't want to be here, I want him gone....as painful as that is to say.

 

I am not sure if Haskins is our guy.  I certainly hope that he is.  There's a lot of reason to think that he will be.  The way I see it, when you take a QB 1:15, you're essentially ushering in a new era for your team.  It's a very delicate time.  And I suppose if you look at it from that perspective, any time for an NFL franchise could be looked at as a delicate time.  But when you draft a QB like we did...well, the focus and the pressure is magnified.

 

If I am management, if I'm Jay, Bruce, or any other decision maker, I want guys who want to be here.  I want guys who want to be a part of what we're building, from a guy like Guice who has his whole career ahead of him to a guy like Trent who's a veteran, on the downside of his career but still can be effective and bolster the O-line.

 

So if Trent doesn't want to be here, get rid of him.  Get rid of him before he influences some of the younger core guys like Allen, Payne, Scherff, etc.  Let those guys step up and be leaders.

 

It's a new era and if he doesn't want to be here, so be it.  Thank him for his time, give him what he wants and focus on the guys who want to be here.  It sucks to say that because he's an all time great but I hope the Skins don't drag this out and make it an embarrassing situation, try to exert leverage and play games.  Just focus on the guys that want to be here.  

 

 

 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, thesubmittedone said:

"Figure out how to make it work". :ols: 

 

Tom. Brady.

Well, that is a lot of it.  But I think you are taking some credit away from Bellichick, who is one of the best coaches/GMs in his own right.  Don't forget, early on with the Pats, before Brady really became Brady, they were still winning superbowls.  Brady was there, but he wasn't what he has become.  A lot of the early success was Bellichick and the defense.

 

Here's the other thing: In the superbowl they lost to the Eagles, their best cover corner, Malcolm Butler, for what turned out to be some type of rules violation.  Is that why they lost the SB?  Maybe not, but when you bench one of your best players for the SB because of a rules violation, it shows that you are willing to sacrifice short term for long term accountability.  

 

That's what I was getting at.  Now, since I wrote the post, the entire story changed, and it has little if anything to do with money, so my initial post doesn't really hold true regardless.  

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If he wants to be traded or released do to the way the team handled his medical care, i’ve got to agree with him.  This team has a record of being terrible with preventive care and medical training.  Or at least it seems that way. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, BatteredFanSyndrome said:

I wasn’t arguing that all contracts be damned.  I was merely making the point that it makes no sense that teams should be able to not pay guys for not meeting expectations if the player can’t do the same.

 

I see what you are saying.  Theoretically, a player could negotiate for a provision that gives them an option to void their contract if a team doesn't meet benchmarks such as making the playoffs, I guess.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Spaceman Spiff said:

And quite frankly, if he doesn't want to be here, I want him gone....as painful as that is to say.

 

Something Cooley said about Gibbs, he told everybody, "if you don't want to be here, come see me, I'll make that happen for you." He did it for Coles.  

 

I agree, if you don't want to be on the team for any reason, you shouldn't be forced to be on the team.  As painful as that is.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

16 minutes ago, NewCliche21 said:

 

. . . he didn't potentially have cancer a decade ago?

 

What is with you people?

 

The guy is unhappy because the team he has given his body for, endured pain that others simply couldn't, wouldn't take care of his body.  I don't see how that's so hard to conceptualize.

 

Man, can you believe that guy got pissed at his mechanic because his mechanic did a bad job with his car?  What a jackass.

He had a benign tumor, are you saying the team covered it up or it's acceptable to go off the rails on your employer because at one time you were scared you had a cancerous tumor?  What am I missing?  If they found the tumor during the season and told him not to worry about it then you have a major issue but I haven't heard that being said.

 

 

10 minutes ago, BatteredFanSyndrome said:

I wasn’t arguing that all contracts be damned.  I was merely making the point that it makes no sense that teams should be able to not pay guys for not meeting expectations if the player can’t do the same.

The team has all the risk, what risk do the players have, that they can get cut and picked up 2 days later like Swearinger.

 

There is a health risk but they know that the day they start playing football, way before they make it to the NFL.

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, JSSkinz said:

 

He had a benign tumor, are you saying the team covered it up or it's acceptable to go off the rails on your employer because at one time you were scared you had a cancerous tumor?  What am I missing?  If they found the tumor during the season and told him not to worry about it then you have a major issue but I haven't heard that being said.

 

 

Not much has been said at all though, which is why I can’t really comprehend anyone taking a hard line on any of it.  None of us have any idea what really took place.  We are merely arguing against people’s ideas of what they think happened.

 

But to just assume that our perennial pro bowler that everyone previously championed as a core Redskin is the a-hole vs. the team being inept in some manner, doesn’t seem very logical.

 

 

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is not going to end well. I don't see any way back from this, I think he'll be traded. The timing of Trent's decision shows a bogus underlying motive. This is simply a tactic to get more money, plain and simple. I cannot imagine a scenario where we would let go of Ty and not be more aggressive through either the draft or free agency in addressing the left tackle position if we knew this was his stance prior to. He knows he has Us by the balls and is extorting the organization for more money. If he gets traded, he's going to get paid more regardless , so either way he wins and gets paid more money.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, BatteredFanSyndrome said:

The team pays the player based on what they’ve done and project they will do for their team. 

 

If every team could just cut whoever they want and not pay them because the player didn’t perform to whatever set of expectations there are, guys like Bruce Allen might actually not be as much of a loser and damn near everyone would make a good GM.

 

I say fandom is wild because folks regularly leave rationale at the door, and exhibit major bias whenever it comes to team/player issues.

I get that, that is why the team's side of the contract is giving them millions of dollars based on that. Like I said, the agreement terms are money (from team)  for work (from player). You're basically saying that in the contract there should be a section of it that says btw "If the team is absolute ass, you can leave, no questions asked and we'll still pay you". Teams rarely cut actual good players that are performing well even if the contract is high. Why should an employer not be able to do what you're saying? Like I said, if you get injured, that's one thing, it's not the players fault. If you come in fat and out of shape or fail a drug test, you deserve to be canned, period. I mean realistically you or I would be held to similar employment standards, should players be excluded from it? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Voice_of_Reason said:

Something Cooley said about Gibbs, he told everybody, "if you don't want to be here, come see me, I'll make that happen for you." He did it for Coles.  

 

I agree, if you don't want to be on the team for any reason, you shouldn't be forced to be on the team.  As painful as that is.

 

Yep, it's one thing if you're a dumbass like Su'a Cravens and easily replaceable and not looked at as an essential cog of the machine.  

 

This really, really hurts but whatever.  I am not sure if it's been reported, if Trent's unhappiness is something that was tried to be handled in-house before this story broke and now he's airing out dirty laundry in the press.  Whatever, it doesn't matter.  He's already made up his mind that he wants out for whatever reason...I'm not sure what the truth is here, if he's using this medical issue as a smokescreen or if this is the truth.  But whatever he's made up his mind.  There's no coming back from it.  

 

I've been super fortunate to be around the team for awhile now, I get to see these guys up close...and as bad as they have been, as ****ty as things have gone, believe me when I say there are guys here that want to be here, that want to win and take all the losing stuff seriously.  Guys like Chris Thompson, Kerrigan, Norman, Allen, AP...those guys hate losing, they want to be a part of something special.  And, IMO, they don't deserve to have guys around them who don't want to be here, no matter if they're the best player on the team or the 53rd man on the roster.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, JSSkinz said:

 

The team has all the risk, what risk do the players have, that they can get cut and picked up 2 days later like Swearinger.

 

There is a health risk but they know that the day they start playing football, way before they make it to the NFL.

 

 

The risk of what, making less millions of dollars per hour?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Burgundy Yoda said:

I get that, that is why the team's side of the contract is giving them millions of dollars based on that. Like I said, the agreement terms are money (from team)  for work (from player). You're basically saying that in the contract there should be a section of it that says btw "If the team is absolute ass, you can leave, no questions asked and we'll still pay you". Teams rarely cut actual good players that are performing well even if the contract is high. Why should an employer not be able to do what you're saying? Like I said, if you get injured, that's one thing, it's not the players fault. If you come in fat and out of shape or fail a drug test, you deserve to be canned, period. I mean realistically you or I would be held to similar employment standards, should players be excluded from it? 

Comparing our every day joe jobs to the NFL is entirely apples to oranges. I don’t know about you, but millions of people can do my job.  

 

And I never said that teams should have to pay the players if they opt to leave.  My point was if the team is fat, out of shape and fails, the players should be able to leave just the same as teams could do them in your scenario.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, BatteredFanSyndrome said:

The risk of what, making less millions of dollars per hour?

 

Everyone's got risk.  This tit for tat, owners vs. players and who's got it worse stuff doesn't move the needle and doesn't solve anything.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Spaceman Spiff said:

 

This really, really hurts but whatever.  I am not sure if it's been reported, if Trent's unhappiness is something that was tried to be handled in-house before this story broke and now he's airing out dirty laundry in the press.  Whatever, it doesn't matter.  He's already made up his mind that he wants out for whatever reason...I'm not sure what the truth is here, if he's using this medical issue as a smokescreen or if this is the truth.  But whatever he's made up his mind.  There's no coming back from it.  

 

 

Honestly, the reports are so vague, and inconsistent, I think it is unfair to say he is airing dirty laundry to the press.  I have not seen anything that has been said being attributed to Trent or his agents.  As far as we know, he has not given any information to the press.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Nerm said:

 

Honestly, the reports are so vague, and inconsistent, I think it is unfair to say he is airing dirty laundry to the press.  I have not seen anything that has been said being attributed to Trent or his agents.  As far as we know, he has not given any information to the press.

 

Fair point.  But it's out there and being discussed.  As usual, there's a lot of noise to sift through here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Redskins do need medical staff help, but isn't James Andrews the guy who does the surgeries?  He's regarded as one of the best.  And can a medical staff do anything to prevent injuries?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, BatteredFanSyndrome said:

Comparing our every day joe jobs to the NFL is entirely apples to oranges. I don’t know about you, but millions of people can do my job.  

 

And I never said that teams should have to pay the players if they opt to leave.  My point was if the team is fat, out of shape and fails, the players should be able to leave just the same as teams could do them in your scenario.

It's the millions of dollars that separate our job from the NFL. The millions of dollars these players get by signing the contract. 

 

Okay, so a player can just opt out of a contract and leave whenever they want. I hope that player would enjoy making a significant amount less on that contract. If players had that option, teams would be extremely cautious as they would be taking ALL the risk. The player takes absolutely no risk at all. Free agency wouldn't exist because you can just leave whenever you want. You're getting paid to work, I still don't understand why the team's competitiveness even matters. That's something you should consider before you even sign, we're the Redskins, you already know we suck before you even sign lol. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, BatteredFanSyndrome said:

The risk of what, making less millions of dollars per hour?

Why does that bother you, get your hands out of their pockets and worry about your own money.  If I have to type out the risks involved with running a billion dollar company then I quit this discussion.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Spaceman Spiff said:

 

Everyone's got risk.  This tit for tat, owners vs. players and who's got it worse stuff doesn't move the needle and doesn't solve anything.

 

I didn’t bring up risk though.  It was merely a response to it being brought up.

 

Ultimately the owner/team prez/GM are the primary risk managers for the organization.  Good ones make more good calculated decisions than not, bad ones don’t.  Ours stink, here we are.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, BatteredFanSyndrome said:

 

I didn’t bring up risk though.  It was merely a response to it being brought up.

 

Ultimately the owner/team prez/GM are the primary risk managers for the organization.  Good ones make more good calculated decisions than not, bad ones don’t.  Ours stink, here we are.

 

I know you didn't, I'm just saying.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, JSSkinz said:

Why does that bother you, get your hands out of their pockets and worry about your own money.  If I have to type out the risks involved with running a billion dollar company then I quit this discussion.

A billion dollar company that prints money due to profit sharing and can be absolutely atrocious and still thrive financially.

 

Modern day NFL is apples to oranges vs. any other industry.

 

Ironic that the guy who hates on millionaire players utilizing their leverage tells me I need not hate on billionaires. Can’t make this stuff up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
9 minutes ago, BatteredFanSyndrome said:

A billion dollar company that prints money due to profit sharing and can be absolutely atrocious and still thrive financially.

 

Modern day NFL is apples to oranges vs. any other industry.

 

Ironic that the guy who hates on millionaire players utilizing their leverage tells me I need not hate on billionaires. Can’t make this stuff up.

I hate on millionaire players?  I wrote in this same thread yesterday that if the knee checks out then extend him 2 more years but now the goal posts are moving and its no longer about the money according to the reports.

 

But in general yes I side with ownership not just in sports but in general, I don't get mesmerized by individual players, its always been about the team for me but I'm probably the minority in that aspect.

 

The NFL is not apples to oranges vs any other industry, the amount of money that's being paid is apples to oranges but the shenanigans that employees pull are the same, it could be someone making $200k a year instead of $20 M per year but they pull the same ****.

 

 

Edited by JSSkinz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

If he wants to be traded or released do to the way the team handled his medical care, i’ve got to agree with him.  This team has a record of being terrible with preventive care and medical training.  Or at least it seems that way. 

These guys make MILLIONS. They can afford to get 2nd opinions and/or HIRE their own doctor. It is THEIR Body..they should act accordingly. If I got an opinion that effected my health significantly..I world corroborate it. We've all done it. I'm callin BS. Just looking for a foil for leverage IMHO

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, JSSkinz said:

 

But in general yes I side with ownership not just in sports but in general, I don't get mesmerized by individual players, its always been about the team for me but I'm probably the minority in that aspect.

 

 

Do you pay money to watch Dan do whatever Dan does or to watch the best of the best play football?

 

I totally get respecting business owners that work hard, make great decisions all the while treating people right, that leads to them making billions of dollars.

 

I can’t for the life of me understand having any ounce of respect for some doofus that made a good investment and makes himself a ton of money all the while being really poor at his job.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Looks like this thing is going south real quick.  I really though Trent was going to be a Skin for life.  Trent could had been that guy that retired a skin and opened up a chain of restaurants in DC but if he exits like this then it will leave a sour taste in my mouth.

 

If Trent wants out then I would send him on his way for a 2nd round pick, nothing less than that. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now