Schefter: Myles Garrett Requests Trade

For all non-Bears happenings in the National Football League

Moderator: wab

cblaz11
MVP
Posts: 1495
Joined: Sat Apr 25, 2009 7:02 pm
Has thanked: 3 times
Been thanked: 188 times

Requests trade from Cleveland.

I’d love him..I just don’t know what id be willing to nice up. He’s 29 but doesn’t show signs of slowing down.

I’d give maybe a 2026 first..thoughts?
User avatar
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.
Magilla_Gorilla
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.
User avatar
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.
cblaz11
MVP
Posts: 1495
Joined: Sat Apr 25, 2009 7:02 pm
Has thanked: 3 times
Been thanked: 188 times

Wait…100%? You don’t think that there’s any chance he leaves? After demanding a trade ?
User avatar
wab
Mod
Posts: 32175
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2008 12:49 pm
Has thanked: 258 times
Been thanked: 3381 times

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 ?
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.
User avatar
IotaNet
MVP
Posts: 1918
Joined: Tue Jan 15, 2013 11:04 am
Location: Minneapolis (Chicago Native)
Has thanked: 599 times
Been thanked: 524 times

Per Schefter …

“Avoid having your ego so close to your position that when your position falls, your ego goes with it.”

- Gen. Colin Powell
cblaz11
MVP
Posts: 1495
Joined: Sat Apr 25, 2009 7:02 pm
Has thanked: 3 times
Been thanked: 188 times

No, I get all that.

That said, they are in a major rebuild..especially with the Watson injury. Eating the cap space might be worth adding two young players on rookie deals.
User avatar
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.
User avatar
HisRoyalSweetness
Hall of Famer
Posts: 9329
Joined: Thu Dec 27, 2012 7:20 pm
Has thanked: 131 times
Been thanked: 3626 times

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.
His current contract looks really complicated.

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.
Magilla_Gorilla
MVP
Posts: 1183
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 3:54 pm
Has thanked: 530 times
Been thanked: 645 times

wab wrote: Mon Feb 03, 2025 12:06 pm
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 ?
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.
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.
artbest01
MVP
Posts: 1109
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2022 2:39 pm
Has thanked: 1 time
Been thanked: 320 times

The Bears, imo, have too many needs to surrender picks. They are not one player away
User avatar
dplank
Hall of Famer
Posts: 15194
Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2016 9:19 am
Has thanked: 2102 times
Been thanked: 3598 times

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
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.
User avatar
Arkansasbear
Hall of Famer
Posts: 6057
Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2020 10:41 am
Has thanked: 616 times
Been thanked: 1055 times

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.
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.
User avatar
wab
Mod
Posts: 32175
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2008 12:49 pm
Has thanked: 258 times
Been thanked: 3381 times

Magilla_Gorilla wrote: Mon Feb 03, 2025 12:43 pm
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.
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.
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.
User avatar
Arkansasbear
Hall of Famer
Posts: 6057
Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2020 10:41 am
Has thanked: 616 times
Been thanked: 1055 times

wab wrote: Mon Feb 03, 2025 1:04 pm
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.
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.
It's worse than that isn't it?

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%)
User avatar
IotaNet
MVP
Posts: 1918
Joined: Tue Jan 15, 2013 11:04 am
Location: Minneapolis (Chicago Native)
Has thanked: 599 times
Been thanked: 524 times

Arkansasbear wrote: Mon Feb 03, 2025 1:00 pm
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.
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 wouldn’t this be like Khalil Mack all over again?

(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
User avatar
wab
Mod
Posts: 32175
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2008 12:49 pm
Has thanked: 258 times
Been thanked: 3381 times

IotaNet wrote: Mon Feb 03, 2025 1:09 pm
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 wouldn’t this be like Khalil Mack all over again?

(But wow … it would be one helluva splash!)
I have no interest in trading multiple R1 picks though like they did for Mack.
cblaz11
MVP
Posts: 1495
Joined: Sat Apr 25, 2009 7:02 pm
Has thanked: 3 times
Been thanked: 188 times

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.
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.

It then allows us to use most assets on offense and depth.
User avatar
Arkansasbear
Hall of Famer
Posts: 6057
Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2020 10:41 am
Has thanked: 616 times
Been thanked: 1055 times

IotaNet wrote: Mon Feb 03, 2025 1:09 pm
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 wouldn’t this be like Khalil Mack all over again?

(But wow … it would be one helluva splash!)
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.

As Wab pointed out, I don't think the Browns can make it happen.
User avatar
Arkansasbear
Hall of Famer
Posts: 6057
Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2020 10:41 am
Has thanked: 616 times
Been thanked: 1055 times

wab wrote: Mon Feb 03, 2025 1:04 pm
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.
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.
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. :welcome:
User avatar
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
Image
User avatar
wab
Mod
Posts: 32175
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2008 12:49 pm
Has thanked: 258 times
Been thanked: 3381 times

Arkansasbear wrote: Mon Feb 03, 2025 1:08 pm
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.
It's worse than that isn't it?

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%)
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.

https://overthecap.com/calculator/cleveland-browns
User avatar
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.
User avatar
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.
User avatar
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.
artbest01
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 pm
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
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.
User avatar
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.
User avatar
wab
Mod
Posts: 32175
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2008 12:49 pm
Has thanked: 258 times
Been thanked: 3381 times

Merging/Updating Threads
User avatar
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”.
Post Reply