Drew Rosenhaus says there’s more bombshell trades coming.

[BarleyNY]

2 hours ago, GunnerBill said:

 

I am not, I promise you, 5th year options are precluded from including bonus money. They are fully guaranteed on signing and they have to be 100% salary. The only way out of those rules is for a team to extend the player (as the Bills did with Josh). The Browns are not allowed by rule to do what Carolina did with Bridgewater. I guarantee you that is correct. 

 

From the CBA:

 

"(ii) Without limitation on any other operation or interpretation of Section 3(c) of this Article (Other Permissible Terms), any Rookie Contracts executed on or after April 24, 2018 may not contain any individually negotiated provision that:

 

(A) grants a Club the unilateral right to convert any form of Salary to signing bonus (i.e., “automatic conversion” provisions are prohibited);

(B) conditions a player’s entitlement to earn any performance incentive described in Section 6 of this Article (Performance Incentives) upon (i) being in a particular roster category (e.g., Active/Inactive, Reserve/Injured, etc.) on any particular date; or (ii) the applicability or priority of statistical sources listed or enumerated in the contract provision."

 

There you have it. No conversion allowed, must be all salary. And no performance escalators allowed. The only way out of that is an extension because the 5th year option is then no longer considered by the league to be part of a rookie contact. 

You should note the part you bolded.  NO UNILATERAL RIGHT.  It is something that both sides have to agree to and is permissible under that circumstance. 

[BarleyNY]

44 minutes ago, Rochesterfan said:

 

I believe @GunnerBill has said that.  The issue is the Browns can not just decide to do it - as we did with Diggs last year and as was done to Bridgewater.

 

The Browns need to have Baker agree to an extension to change the equation.  The question is why would Baker do that.  
 

Currently he get 18+ million this year and is a FA next year to choose a team.  Why extend unless he is getting a big fat paycheck from someone and postpone the FA.

 

 

No extension is required.  If the Browns want to convert some of Mayfield’s salary into a signing bonus, he has to agree to it.  That effectively gives him the ability to chose whether he will go to a specific team or not.  Obviously if no salary conversion is needed, the Browns can trade him wherever they want. 

[The Jokeman]

8 hours ago, Big Turk said:

Why would any team trade for that contract when they know the Browns have to release him and they can get a much more favorable one?

because you can be secure in knowing that you have Mayfield as if he gets cut he could go anywhere he wants, case in point of Mitch Trubisky. Did anyone really expect him to sign to backup Allen last year? I know I didn't and who knows what ramifications it had on other teams that wanted him. 

[GunnerBill]

18 minutes ago, BarleyNY said:

You should note the part you bolded.  NO UNILATERAL RIGHT.  It is something that both sides have to agree to and is permissible under that circumstance. 

 

No because the 5th year option is non-negotiable by the player. That is a unilateral team option. The only way it can happen is with an extension. 

[quinnearlysghost88]

He has a vested interest to create a false market for his clients. 

[Florida Bills Fanatic]

5 hours ago, Donuts and Doritos said:

Thought Phin's owner Stephen Ross, was All In on Tua. It's the reason he says he fired Flores, & they wanted to build around him. They have Teddy Bridgewater backing up. Why do we think they're interested in Baker? Wouldn't Seattle or Saints be more in the mix here?

I don't think the Saints have any interest in Mayfield after they signed Winston.  Just after the draft where Mayfield went first overall, there was talk that most of the teams were down on Mayfield and considered him as a likely bust.  Right now he isn't much of an upgrade over the guys that are projected starters on teams with bad QB situations.  Because of that I don't see much interest in spending the extra money and draft picks to acquire him.

[Solomon Grundy]

If Rosenhaus told me the sky was blue, I’d look up to make sure

[BarleyNY]

10 minutes ago, GunnerBill said:

 

No because the 5th year option is non-negotiable by the player. That is a unilateral team option. The only way it can happen is with an extension. 

That’s just not true.  It isn’t in the CBA anywhere.  While Allen got a longer contract, his fifth year option is no longer in place.  In other words, his contract was not extended, it was replaced by a longer one.  Also even if an extension was required (and it’s not) there would be nothing stopping a team from using automatically (or easily) voided seasons to do that.

[auburnbillsbacker]

8 hours ago, Big Turk said:

 

No team is taking that contract when they can wait for him to be released, unless the Browns eat a large chunk of it.

There isn't a guarantee that you will get him if he is cut.  If you have the cap space trading a late round pick guarantees his services.

[Big Turk]

3 minutes ago, auburnbillsbacker said:

There isn't a guarantee that you will get him if he is cut.  If you have the cap space trading a late round pick guarantees his services.

 

Who wants him??

[Einstein's Dog]

I don't want any QBs going Miami's way, Baker or especially Brady.  

 

Blockbuster is subjective, I wouldn't mind seeing Bradberry moved to the Bills.  That would be blockbuster enough for me.

[Don Otreply]

What else would anyone expect Drew Rosenhause to say???   Just drumming up business for his clients. 

[Malazan]

If Rosenhaus told me the sun was gonna come up tomorrow, I would not bet my bottom dollar. 

[blacklabel]

6 hours ago, Donuts and Doritos said:

Thought Phin's owner Stephen Ross, was All In on Tua. It's the reason he says he fired Flores, & they wanted to build around him. They have Teddy Bridgewater backing up. Why do we think they're interested in Baker? Wouldn't Seattle or Saints be more in the mix here?

 Teddy B said last week that he hasn’t been told he’s the clear QB2, which lends to the idea that they might be looking at a competition for the starting job, Tua vs Teddy. 

[MiltonWaddams]

21 minutes ago, Malazan said:

If Rosenhaus told me the sun was gonna come up tomorrow, I would not bet my bottom dollar. 

Come what, May?

[Alphadawg7]

4 hours ago, GunnerBill said:

 

It is. You can't restructure an option year. It is non-negotiable. You have to extend the deal. So the only way Cleveland could do it is to extend Baker and then trade him (and why would Baker do that?). They can't just move money from salary to bonus in the way that the Panthers did with Bridgewater before trading him. 

$18M for a starting QB is a bargain.  Why are people acting like his deal is out of whack?

 

 

[qwksilver]

Any chance he was referring to Murray from the Cardinals?

 

Baker is just not news, unless the Browns somehow manage to actually get good draft picks in return.

[Alphadawg7]

When someone says bombshell moves, obvious moves don’t come to mind.  Everyone knows Baker is leaving Cleveland, that’s not bombshell news.  IMHO, he’s not referring to Baker.  
 

I think there are teams like the Jets who are still trying to swing some of their assets for a premier WR.  Targeting players like DK, Deebo, AJ, etc that are all in line for big extensions and it’s not clear if their current teams will want to pay those guys what the new market seems to be. Doesn’t mean any of those guys go anywhere, but the Jets seem to be looking for a top one end target still and willing to use a lot of assets and cap space to make it happen.  Wouldn’t surprise me if they are inquiring with the Vikes about Hunter too.  

 

Then there are still guys like Saquan and CMC who very much could still be moved.  And some guys on the defensive side like Hunter and Bradberry could quite possibly be on the move.  
 

Not to mention, both Chiefs and Packers are armed with extra picks, they could still make some moves after losing some key pieces.  Less likely probably given their cap constraints and are probably eying the draft to use those picks, but not out of the question either given both are focused on making another SB run this year.  

[GunnerBill]

1 hour ago, BarleyNY said:

That’s just not true.  It isn’t in the CBA anywhere.  While Allen got a longer contract, his fifth year option is no longer in place.  In other words, his contract was not extended, it was replaced by a longer one.  Also even if an extension was required (and it’s not) there would be nothing stopping a team from using automatically (or easily) voided seasons to do that.

 

It is in the CBA. When you take together the non-negotiable 5th year option together with the provisions posted above that is the effect it has.

 

Allen's option was replaced. That is permitted. But if you are playing on the option you are playing on the full salary as base salary because you are not permitted to do anything else. 

 

I agree an extension is possible to allow them to make him more attractive for trade. But that is only going to happen IMO in order to facilitate a deal for Baker's preferred spot and that really depend where the relationship between him and the Browns is at. 

Edited March 28, 2022 by GunnerBill

[Saxum]

10 hours ago, Big Turk said:

Why would any team trade for that contract when they know the Browns have to release him and they can get a much more favorable one?

 

Baker will not be released.  All talk of him being cancer, etc. does not matter. Browns must know 2022 season is shot as soon as they signed him.  This is not like LA Rams who made a trade and got to win Superbowl.

 

Baker is talking like he is going to sit out which for Browns means they do not need to pay salary when he is not playing and will be to fine him for practices / games he will not attend.   If he chooses to go to camp / games that will probably work out for their new franchise QB ,may be suspended part of season.