Miles Garrett is a legit possibility

[rkarp1]

I agree the conversation starts with 3 first rd picks. Optimistically those are in the late 20's from the Pats over the next 3 years.
Also optimistically, over the next 3-4 seasons, the Pats are looking at setting the market for contracts at CB, QB and OT.
do they want to be carrying a mid 30's year old Garrett contract as well?

 

[Rob0729]

Garrett brings money to the Browns. He is probably one of the few reasons fans show up. I feel like we'd have to part with a lot of draft capital, no? I'm not sure this team is at the point where it can sell the farm for the likes of Garrett just yet. There are still quite a few needs.

I tend to doubt that a DE, even a future HOFer like Garrett, puts people in the seats. And with revenue sharing, ticket sales and concessions aren't remotely close to the biggest share of revenue each team makes. Revenue generation is the biggest reason for keeping Garrett.

But they could get two firsts and maybe a second for Garrett. Along with the Jags' first from the trade they made to trade up to get Hunter, the Browns could generate far more fan interest with drafting three first round picks next year and two first round picks in 2027. That would most likely generate more fan interest than Myles Garrett could do alone.

 

[ErniesPinkStripes]

Myles Garrett to NE...

 

[mike_usagisan]

I definitely get the idea, and normally I'd generally agree. But in this scenario, what you'd be drafting and saving and building towards would be to try to get to a place where you could possibly get to RIGHT NOW if you had Garrett.

The AFC is so weak this year. The Pats are already a top team. Add Garrett on top of this scary IDL and they could push for an AFCCG. That gives them big time recognition, which in turn lures more talent on the open market immediately in the offseason and causes other teams to value your players more highly in trades.

I'm not usually a "go for it" guy but this one would be hard to pass up. That said, I doubt it's real.

Yes, that's a great argument, and if the team went that way, I wouldn't be upset. I Just think Vrabel and Cowden are trying to build a sustainable playoff team and have prioritized stockpiling picks rather than trading them. And I don't think they get where they want to go by giving up two R1 picks and a good player.

 

[rkarp1]

I tend to doubt that a DE, even a future HOFer like Garrett, puts people in the seats. And with revenue sharing, ticket sales and concessions aren't remotely close to the biggest share of revenue each team makes. Revenue generation is the biggest reason for keeping Garrett.

But they could get two firsts and maybe a second for Garrett. Along with the Jags' first from the trade they made to trade up to get Hunter, the Browns could generate far more fan interest with drafting three first round picks next year and two first round picks in 2027. That would most likely generate more fan interest than Myles Garrett could do alone.

yeah, agree
the financial aspect, with regards to revenue sharing, of keeping Garrett is a non factor.
the Browns ownership would need to make the call on a deal like this, with a complete rebuild, with in theory, a healthy D Watson at QB, and multiple first round picks over the next 3 years.

 

[MrBigglesWorth]

Would you trade 2 firsts and a player to Cleveland for Garrett? He could help take you on a playoff run THIS YEAR while also giving you a scary as hell DL for the next 3+ years.

He should be worth a lot more than Micah Parsons. If I'm the browns I keep him until the draft and I know what the first rounder is and who I'm going to get. I'd only trade him now if he's a malcontent. The browns need a QB. You don't need to get rid of your best player right now. Look at what the colts are doing

 

[MrBigglesWorth]

I agree the conversation starts with 3 first rd picks. Optimistically those are in the late 20's from the Pats over the next 3 years.
Also optimistically, over the next 3-4 seasons, the Pats are looking at setting the market for contracts at CB, QB and OT.
do they want to be carrying a mid 30's year old Garrett contract as well?

I say no way

 

[FreeTedWilliams]

Florio's take......

Reports: "Zero chance" Browns trade Myles Garrett

With the Browns off to a 2-6 start and showing little reason to think they can make a run over their final nine games, there's been some discussion about whether they might consider trading defensive end Myles Garrett.

www.nbcsports.com

Again, as others have said, the cap hit, combined with the cap hit when they finally release Watson would cripple the Browns

 

[Ross12]

He should be worth a lot more than Micah Parsons. If I'm the browns I keep him until the draft and I know what the first rounder is and who I'm going to get. I'd only trade him now if he's a malcontent. The browns need a QB. You don't need to get rid of your best player right now. Look at what the colts are doing

It's about leverage.

Garrett can go for less for two reasons:
- He has a no trade clause, so he can refuse offers from teams he doesn't like, even when they offer more. This causes the bidding market to shrink and offers to lower
- Cleveland is incentivized to trade him because if they keep him then they are saddled with paying his option bonus next year. This can be used against them

 

[Brotherblues]

Is there a single player in the league who'd move the needle more by joining the Pats?

Sadly it's just very unlikely to happen.

 

[Hugepatsfan]

If they trade him now it's fine for this year because all the 2026 and on bonus proration hits next year's cap. Browns take on a $41.1M dead money charge next year instead of his $23.7M cap hit. If they do want to trade him for a godfather pick package, it's doable but combined with the Deshaun Watson contract monstrosity they'd have to REALLY commit to rebuilding because the dead money of Garret and de facto dead money of Watson is crippling to team building next year if they're trying to be good. But trading Garrett is kind of by definition committing to a rebuild of sorts so not entirely out of order that they'd handle that.

 

[rkarp1]

If they trade him now it's fine for this year because all the 2026 and on bonus proration hits next year's cap. Browns take on a $41.1M dead money charge next year instead of his $23.7M cap hit. If they do want to trade him for a godfather pick package, it's doable but combined with the Deshaun Watson contract monstrosity they'd have to REALLY commit to rebuilding because the dead money of Garret and de facto dead money of Watson is crippling to team building next year if they're trying to be good. But trading Garrett is kind of by definition committing to a rebuild of sorts so not entirely out of order that they'd handle that.

why is it a foregone conclusion they would trade or cut Watson?

 

[mayoclinic]

I'll play.

Why Cleveland Would Never Trade Garrett:

1. He is the face of their franchise, and their best player by far.

2. Their defense is all they have, and he is the heart and soul of ir.

3. Their dead money hit would be huge, on top of that for Watson.

4. It would probably be the end for Stefanski and Berry.

Why Cleveland Should Consider Trading Garrett:

1. He is their most traceable asset.

2. They are years away from competing, by the time they have a competitive QB Garrett will be around 32.

3. Berry and Stefanski are walking corpses.

4. They need the draft capital to draft players who will be peaking in 3 years.

5. He is unhappy.

Why New England l Should Consider Trading for Garrett:

1. He is the best defensive player in the NFL.

2. A DL of Landry-Williams-Barmore-Garrett would be the best in the NFL.

3. Drake Maye is elite now. Add Garrett, and the Pats could win multiple SBs while Maye is still on his rookie deal.

4. The Pats have the cap space to absorb Garrett's massive salary, at least through 2028.

Why New England Should Not Trade for Garrett:

1. Mike Vrabel just said 2 months ago that they did not seriously consider trading for Micah Parsons because they are not 1 player away.

2. The investment in cap space and draft picks would be enormous.

3. Garrett will be 30 in 2 months.

4. They have huge contracts coming down the road.

5. Garrett has a reputation for being a "me first" locker room guy who assumes the normal rules don't apply to him.

 

[maust]

So, actually, digging into it, it's actually a very tradeable contract.

Almost all of the big money, while mostly guaranteed, is tied up into option bonuses, which are unique because unlike signing bonuses, they can be traded to other teams. So it looks like this:

Option A - traditional:
- $100M signing bonus on a 5 year deal
- $20M signing bonus pro-ration on each year's cap
- Player is traded after 2 years
- Remaining $60M in signing bonus pro-rations accelerates and hits the cap in the 3rd year as dead money - that's bad!

Option B - option bonuses (what Garrett mostly has):
- $100M "guaranteed" but it's separated into annual $20M option bonuses
- $20M option bonuses is paid out at start of each league year
- Player is traded after 2 years
- Instead of having any dead money, the future option bonuses that need to be paid become the responsibility of the new team to pay - wow! No dead money!

Garrett has option bonuses of:
2026: $29M
2027: $39M
2028: $21M
These would all be transferred to NE and Cleveland would get out of paying them completely.

Garrett has a vet minimum salary through end of 2028 as well. If anything, if Garrett wants out, they are incentivized to trade him now and get out of these bonuses while they can. BTW, the same sort of situation applies to AJ Brown.

FWIW, Myles Garrett also has a full no-trade clause, so he would need to sign off on any destination first.

Multiple sources (CBS, PFT, BSPN) have the Browns cap hit of a Garrett trade at $68M in dead money.

 

[DW Toys]

On listening to the Pat Macafee show I learned some stuff that makes a solid case for the Pats trading for Garrett.

1. The Pats have a league leading 55MM and probably NEED to add cap to avoid being UNDER the cap floor

2. and probably the key fact to me, Garrett's cap number for the next 3 years start small and maximize to something just in the mid TWENTIES in 2028, and THEN explode to 2 years in the 50's starting in 29. Bottom line for the next 2 and a half years Miles Garrett is a real cap BARGAIN for the rest his prime (until he's 32).

An important aspect of any trade is that it affects us LONG TERM and 2.5 years is LT in the NFL. That is easily worth a #1 that will likely be in the mid 20's at best. I would gladly make that deal for the 2026 #1+ for Miles Garrett.

A key for me was a podcast I listened to which included a guy who used to evaluate for PFF who said what he saw when he watched Garrett vs the Pats, was the SAME effect he saw in EVERY game he watched Garrett, even in games he went sackless. The difference was Maye held on to the ball a bit longer than most QB's.

Think about the impact to the Defense that kind of pressure and effort would bring game to game until 2029, and then at that point you restructure if you want to keep him.

So I never really thought Garrett was even a possibility because of his contract, but that isn't an issue until 2029 and I'll likely be dead then, so what do I care.

Cousin, It would almost be impossible. His Dead Money would be about $64mm to go along with Watson's $46mm.
I would love to have him. He's still young 2 First Rounders is fair compensation but the Dead Money.......
I automatically improves our defense about 20%

DW TOYS

 

[Ross12]

Multiple sources (CBS, PFT, BSPN) have the Browns cap hit of a Garrett trade at $68M in dead money.

As far as I can read the deal on spotrac, that's not right. But I'm no expert.

 

[DW Toys]

Cousin, It would almost be impossible. His Dead Money would be about $64mm to go along with Watson's $46mm.
I would love to have him. He's still young 2 First Rounders is fair compensation but the Dead Money.......
I automatically improves our defense about 20%

DW TOYS

Cousins, We would be in a more realistic position of trade if we went for Hendrickson. Is that a fair statement?
DW TOYS

 

[RobertWeathers]

No chance.

 

[mayoclinic]

Nope. Hendrickson is not the player Garrett is, is older, and is injured. Hard pass.

 

[patfanken]

If they trade him now it's fine for this year because all the 2026 and on bonus proration hits next year's cap. Browns take on a $41.1M dead money charge next year instead of his $23.7M cap hit. If they do want to trade him for a godfather pick package, it's doable but combined with the Deshaun Watson contract monstrosity they'd have to REALLY commit to rebuilding because the dead money of Garret and de facto dead money of Watson is crippling to team building next year if they're trying to be good. But trading Garrett is kind of by definition committing to a rebuild of sorts so not entirely out of order that they'd handle that.

Isn't what you posted a REAL good reason for the Browns to trade him. Looks liked they are pretty much ****ed regardless with the Watson contract.

They have a lot of very good young players and already a number of high picks coming in rather than going out. All they need really are a QB and some WR's and a few upgrades on the OL. Biting the bullet and picking up more high end assets over the next 2 years seems to be the smartest way to go.

I probably underestimated what it would take to beat others to get him. It would have to be a bold move requiring at least 2 firsts and a 2nd day pick. But it's the kind of asset that would make us an INSANT superbowl contender and a legit one for the next 2 years after at a minimum.

Now it MIGHT be possible to find someone that impactful in the mid to late 20's next season, but I'd settle for someone who would eventually turn into a solid starter, which is a lot more likely. Garrett is a PROVEN unicorn, not just an all pro, who has played on bad teams for all but one season.

Now, I don't know anything about dead money, how it works in general and how it would affect this particular deal, so I acknowledge that it could kill this deal. But until 11/4 or if he goes somewhere else, I remain hopeful. It would make April less exciting, but I'd trade boring Aprils for thrilling January's and February's

And as for the no trade clause, I think he'd LOVE to be in the atmosphere he saw on Sunday. He respects Maye. He has a good relationship with Vrabel. And he'd play on a contender for the rest of his career, so his extraordinary play would actually matter. He'd jump at the chance to play here.