Schefter: Myles Garrett Requests Trade
Moderator: wab
- wab
- Mod
- Posts: 32175
- Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2008 12:49 pm
- Has thanked: 258 times
- Been thanked: 3381 times
He'll be 30 at the end of next season but he's been healthy since 2019. And he's automatically good for 15 sacks a year.
He's also a perfect fit for Allen's defense.
I just don't think you can convince me to give up a R1, even next season. I'd do #41 for him right now though. Or if Cleveland wanted to do 33 and Garrett for 10, that might be worth it.
He's also a perfect fit for Allen's defense.
I just don't think you can convince me to give up a R1, even next season. I'd do #41 for him right now though. Or if Cleveland wanted to do 33 and Garrett for 10, that might be worth it.
-
- MVP
- Posts: 1183
- Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 3:54 pm
- Has thanked: 530 times
- Been thanked: 645 times
I'd give up this year and next years first. He's going to the Hall of Fame and has shown no sign of slowing down at 29.
- wab
- Mod
- Posts: 32175
- Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2008 12:49 pm
- Has thanked: 258 times
- Been thanked: 3381 times
I also think there is a 100% chance that Garrett is a Brown next season. Not only does it not make financial sense for the Browns (especially given the mess they are in with Watson's contract), the new team would probably have to tear up his deal and give him a new one worth a bajillion dollars.
- wab
- Mod
- Posts: 32175
- Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2008 12:49 pm
- Has thanked: 258 times
- Been thanked: 3381 times
He can demand anything he wants, Cleveland doesn't have to do jack squat. If they trade him they have to eat like 70 million dollars.cblaz11 wrote: Mon Feb 03, 2025 12:02 pm Wait…100%? You don’t think that there’s any chance he leaves? After demanding a trade ?
- wab
- Mod
- Posts: 32175
- Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2008 12:49 pm
- Has thanked: 258 times
- Been thanked: 3381 times
It’s possible. They are definitely in a real pinch and are probably going to be one of the 2 or 3 worst teams in the NFL next year.
- HisRoyalSweetness
- Hall of Famer
- Posts: 9329
- Joined: Thu Dec 27, 2012 7:20 pm
- Has thanked: 131 times
- Been thanked: 3626 times
His current contract looks really complicated.wab wrote: Mon Feb 03, 2025 11:58 am I also think there is a 100% chance that Garrett is a Brown next season. Not only does it not make financial sense for the Browns (especially given the mess they are in with Watson's contract), the new team would probably have to tear up his deal and give him a new one worth a bajillion dollars.
There's a really low base salary for the next 2 years of around $1.2m and no remaining signing bonus proration, but there are option bonus prorations of $18.5m and $19m. Assuming the new team would pick up those options as part of the trade he'd still only cost $20m for each of the next two seasons, which for a player of his calibre would be a bargain.
However there are also a whopping 4 void years on his contract with more option bonus proration. These are $12.25m for the first two and then $8.5m and $4.7m. What happens with those if he's traded? If he stays with the Browns his cap hit for the first of those void years is a massive $37.7m.
Arise Sir Walter: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YXdXRP6Hi-U
-
- MVP
- Posts: 1183
- Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 3:54 pm
- Has thanked: 530 times
- Been thanked: 645 times
Its only 36 million in dead cap.
They should be dumping every resource they have into finding a QB in the 2026 or 2027 draft. As much as Garrett seems like a luxury for the Bears - he is even more so for the Browns now that the Watson deal has officially blown up in their faces (not unlike a Watson trip to the trainer's table) - they would do well to trade him now and get as many picks in the next two years as they can. Maybe they luck into Arch in 2027.
- dplank
- Hall of Famer
- Posts: 15194
- Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2016 9:19 am
- Has thanked: 2102 times
- Been thanked: 3598 times
Not sure I agree with this, and even if I did I don't like the logic. You can't restrict your additions of elite talent to only when you are "one player away". First, how do you actually know if you are one player away or not? And second, who's to say that player isn't a multiplier that enhances what you already have? And third, just add talent and keep adding talent and don't stop adding talent. It's a two year deal left on his contract, it's not a 5 year decision being made, risk is mitigated.artbest01 wrote: Mon Feb 03, 2025 12:54 pm The Bears, imo, have too many needs to surrender picks. They are not one player away
- Arkansasbear
- Hall of Famer
- Posts: 6057
- Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2020 10:41 am
- Has thanked: 616 times
- Been thanked: 1055 times
I don't see it happening. But if it did, I could get behind #10 for him and #33. That basically has us addressing DE with our first. We then have 3 picks at the top of the second round to address OG, DT and one more spot.wab wrote: Mon Feb 03, 2025 11:30 am He'll be 30 at the end of next season but he's been healthy since 2019. And he's automatically good for 15 sacks a year.
He's also a perfect fit for Allen's defense.
I just don't think you can convince me to give up a R1, even next season. I'd do #41 for him right now though. Or if Cleveland wanted to do 33 and Garrett for 10, that might be worth it.
- wab
- Mod
- Posts: 32175
- Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2008 12:49 pm
- Has thanked: 258 times
- Been thanked: 3381 times
Trading Garrett puts them at like 46 million over the cap. I have no idea what they are going to do. They probably have to dump both guards, Conklin, and half of their defense.Magilla_Gorilla wrote: Mon Feb 03, 2025 12:43 pmIts only 36 million in dead cap.wab wrote: Mon Feb 03, 2025 12:06 pm
He can demand anything he wants, Cleveland doesn't have to do jack squat. If they trade him they have to eat like 70 million dollars.
They should be dumping every resource they have into finding a QB in the 2026 or 2027 draft. As much as Garrett seems like a luxury for the Bears - he is even more so for the Browns now that the Watson deal has officially blown up in their faces (not unlike a Watson trip to the trainer's table) - they would do well to trade him now and get as many picks in the next two years as they can. Maybe they luck into Arch in 2027.
- Arkansasbear
- Hall of Famer
- Posts: 6057
- Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2020 10:41 am
- Has thanked: 616 times
- Been thanked: 1055 times
It's worse than that isn't it?wab wrote: Mon Feb 03, 2025 1:04 pmTrading Garrett puts them at like 46 million over the cap. I have no idea what they are going to do. They probably have to dump both guards, Conklin, and half of their defense.Magilla_Gorilla wrote: Mon Feb 03, 2025 12:43 pm
Its only 36 million in dead cap.
They should be dumping every resource they have into finding a QB in the 2026 or 2027 draft. As much as Garrett seems like a luxury for the Bears - he is even more so for the Browns now that the Watson deal has officially blown up in their faces (not unlike a Watson trip to the trainer's table) - they would do well to trade him now and get as many picks in the next two years as they can. Maybe they luck into Arch in 2027.
https://www.pff.com/news/nfl-2025-nfl-s ... ap%20space.
This shows then already $30M over and another $36M puts them $66M over. I may hope on the 100% chance he isn't traded bandwagon (I'll go 99.999%)
- IotaNet
- MVP
- Posts: 1918
- Joined: Tue Jan 15, 2013 11:04 am
- Location: Minneapolis (Chicago Native)
- Has thanked: 599 times
- Been thanked: 524 times
But wouldn’t this be like Khalil Mack all over again?Arkansasbear wrote: Mon Feb 03, 2025 1:00 pmI don't see it happening. But if it did, I could get behind #10 for him and #33. That basically has us addressing DE with our first. We then have 3 picks at the top of the second round to address OG, DT and one more spot.wab wrote: Mon Feb 03, 2025 11:30 am He'll be 30 at the end of next season but he's been healthy since 2019. And he's automatically good for 15 sacks a year.
He's also a perfect fit for Allen's defense.
I just don't think you can convince me to give up a R1, even next season. I'd do #41 for him right now though. Or if Cleveland wanted to do 33 and Garrett for 10, that might be worth it.
(But wow … it would be one helluva splash!)
“Avoid having your ego so close to your position that when your position falls, your ego goes with it.”
- Gen. Colin Powell
- Gen. Colin Powell
- wab
- Mod
- Posts: 32175
- Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2008 12:49 pm
- Has thanked: 258 times
- Been thanked: 3381 times
I have no interest in trading multiple R1 picks though like they did for Mack.IotaNet wrote: Mon Feb 03, 2025 1:09 pmBut wouldn’t this be like Khalil Mack all over again?Arkansasbear wrote: Mon Feb 03, 2025 1:00 pm
I don't see it happening. But if it did, I could get behind #10 for him and #33. That basically has us addressing DE with our first. We then have 3 picks at the top of the second round to address OG, DT and one more spot.
(But wow … it would be one helluva splash!)
-
- MVP
- Posts: 1495
- Joined: Sat Apr 25, 2009 7:02 pm
- Has thanked: 3 times
- Been thanked: 188 times
Also,..I believe that if you add a player like him to our defense, he fixes a lot. He makes our other linemen better, our linebackers, and our secondary.wab wrote: Mon Feb 03, 2025 12:39 pm It’s possible. They are definitely in a real pinch and are probably going to be one of the 2 or 3 worst teams in the NFL next year.
It then allows us to use most assets on offense and depth.
- Arkansasbear
- Hall of Famer
- Posts: 6057
- Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2020 10:41 am
- Has thanked: 616 times
- Been thanked: 1055 times
Way less costly than Mack. The year after the Mack trade, we gave up a first and got back a second (ended up being pick 19 for 43 which is bit less in value than 10 to 33, but close), we also threw in pick 24 and spent a huge amount of money to rework his contract. in this case we don't lose any picks (number wise) and given much of his contract will get eaten up by the Browns, it doesn't have have same financial impact on us.IotaNet wrote: Mon Feb 03, 2025 1:09 pmBut wouldn’t this be like Khalil Mack all over again?Arkansasbear wrote: Mon Feb 03, 2025 1:00 pm
I don't see it happening. But if it did, I could get behind #10 for him and #33. That basically has us addressing DE with our first. We then have 3 picks at the top of the second round to address OG, DT and one more spot.
(But wow … it would be one helluva splash!)
As Wab pointed out, I don't think the Browns can make it happen.
- Arkansasbear
- Hall of Famer
- Posts: 6057
- Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2020 10:41 am
- Has thanked: 616 times
- Been thanked: 1055 times
So we give them #10 and we get Garrett, #33, both their OGs, Conklin and half their defense. Gives us lot of flexibility in the draft and don't have to sign any FA to fill out the roster.wab wrote: Mon Feb 03, 2025 1:04 pmTrading Garrett puts them at like 46 million over the cap. I have no idea what they are going to do. They probably have to dump both guards, Conklin, and half of their defense.Magilla_Gorilla wrote: Mon Feb 03, 2025 12:43 pm
Its only 36 million in dead cap.
They should be dumping every resource they have into finding a QB in the 2026 or 2027 draft. As much as Garrett seems like a luxury for the Bears - he is even more so for the Browns now that the Watson deal has officially blown up in their faces (not unlike a Watson trip to the trainer's table) - they would do well to trade him now and get as many picks in the next two years as they can. Maybe they luck into Arch in 2027.

- G08
- Hall of Famer
- Posts: 22530
- Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2008 12:34 pm
- Has thanked: 640 times
- Been thanked: 1478 times
I hope he ends up in Buffalo
LG - Trey Smith: 5 yr/$110M || OC - Drew Dalman: 5 yr/$80M


- wab
- Mod
- Posts: 32175
- Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2008 12:49 pm
- Has thanked: 258 times
- Been thanked: 3381 times
OTC has them at 30mil over. His contract is weird though and according to OTC it adds 16,494,100 to that number. That's where I got the 46mil.Arkansasbear wrote: Mon Feb 03, 2025 1:08 pmIt's worse than that isn't it?wab wrote: Mon Feb 03, 2025 1:04 pm
Trading Garrett puts them at like 46 million over the cap. I have no idea what they are going to do. They probably have to dump both guards, Conklin, and half of their defense.
https://www.pff.com/news/nfl-2025-nfl-s ... ap%20space.
This shows then already $30M over and another $36M puts them $66M over. I may hope on the 100% chance he isn't traded bandwagon (I'll go 99.999%)
https://overthecap.com/calculator/cleveland-browns
- southdakbearfan
- Head Coach
- Posts: 4969
- Joined: Wed Jul 20, 2011 11:23 pm
- Location: South Dakota
- Has thanked: 1063 times
- Been thanked: 482 times
Maybe for a third, otherwise no way. He will definitely be a June trade for cap purposes, and unless Deshawn gets his contract voided, they may not be able to trade him at all.
On the Bears side of this we just spent the last decade prior to poles continuously trading away all the teams early picks like we were one player away from being a dynasty, then proceeded to watch awful patchwork offensive lines destroy any hope of a QB performing even mediocrely. Historically not many good to great offensive lineman hit FA and we need an Oline investment like crazy. There is one to two good to great FA olineman that 1/2 the nfl will be chasing this year so there is no counting we get either.
We think we have the right QB to lead us to the future, #1 is going to be get a stud O-line in front of him. Any other use of resources is just sliding back into the old wishful thinking and hopeful bad habits. Would Miles Garrett be a beast, yes, but would it matter if we go into the season with a similar offensive line?
A Miles Garrett type move is at least a season away, if not two.
On the Bears side of this we just spent the last decade prior to poles continuously trading away all the teams early picks like we were one player away from being a dynasty, then proceeded to watch awful patchwork offensive lines destroy any hope of a QB performing even mediocrely. Historically not many good to great offensive lineman hit FA and we need an Oline investment like crazy. There is one to two good to great FA olineman that 1/2 the nfl will be chasing this year so there is no counting we get either.
We think we have the right QB to lead us to the future, #1 is going to be get a stud O-line in front of him. Any other use of resources is just sliding back into the old wishful thinking and hopeful bad habits. Would Miles Garrett be a beast, yes, but would it matter if we go into the season with a similar offensive line?
A Miles Garrett type move is at least a season away, if not two.
- wab
- Mod
- Posts: 32175
- Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2008 12:49 pm
- Has thanked: 258 times
- Been thanked: 3381 times
On the plus side, the Bears could add Garrett with almost zero impact to the current cap numbers...which would allow them to still go after any OL they want in FA.
And they could cut Walker to make it a wash.
And they could cut Walker to make it a wash.
- Z Bear
- MVP
- Posts: 1961
- Joined: Fri Apr 13, 2018 10:45 am
- Has thanked: 61 times
- Been thanked: 294 times
This is all a pipe dream, Cleveland has already come out and said they are not entertaining trade offers for Garrett. There is no way for them to make it happen without totally wrecking their cap and not have their fans burn down their facilities.
-
- MVP
- Posts: 1109
- Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2022 2:39 pm
- Has thanked: 1 time
- Been thanked: 320 times
The issue imo is the picks the team would have to surrender to land him - even if it's their first 3 picks in 2025 and nothing else, that leaves the roster - across the oline, defensive tackle, etc. awfully thin. We've seen this play out before with Khalil Mack, who was younger than Garrett is now when the Bears acquired him. Mack is approaching an age when injuries start to creep in.
dplank wrote: Mon Feb 03, 2025 12:58 pmNot sure I agree with this, and even if I did I don't like the logic. You can't restrict your additions of elite talent to only when you are "one player away". First, how do you actually know if you are one player away or not? And second, who's to say that player isn't a multiplier that enhances what you already have? And third, just add talent and keep adding talent and don't stop adding talent. It's a two year deal left on his contract, it's not a 5 year decision being made, risk is mitigated.artbest01 wrote: Mon Feb 03, 2025 12:54 pm The Bears, imo, have too many needs to surrender picks. They are not one player away
- Grizzled
- Hall of Famer
- Posts: 6695
- Joined: Sun Dec 08, 2019 3:55 pm
- Has thanked: 817 times
- Been thanked: 781 times
Just say 'no' to making a trade save and excepting maybe one of this year's 2nds and a 2026 3rd. If he was the one missing piece for a championship, maybe. No 1st this year, no 1st this and next year. Grow the talent. Keep the flexibility with draft picks.
- wab
- Mod
- Posts: 32175
- Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2008 12:49 pm
- Has thanked: 258 times
- Been thanked: 3381 times
Merging/Updating Threads
- alexwilkins
- MVP
- Posts: 1090
- Joined: Fri Dec 23, 2016 2:00 am
- Location: North Pole, AK
- Has thanked: 19 times
- Been thanked: 82 times
Still all in. 2 firsts. Youngest player to hit 100 sacks. First player with 4 straight 14+ sack seasons. He’s literally doing the opposite of “slowing down”.