Myles Garrett requests a trade

[Low Positive]

59 minutes ago, Royale with Cheese said:

Not really a good comparison because I don’t know when the last time an MVP caliber pass rusher in the prime of his career was traded.

Khalil Mack was traded to Chicago after his 4th season, when he had 10.5 sacks. 

[Royale with Cheese]

49 minutes ago, Low Positive said:

Khalil Mack was traded to Chicago after his 4th season, when he had 10.5 sacks. 

 

Good call and he was traded for two 1st round picks.

So that's the minimum for Garrett will command.

[Buffalo716]

1 minute ago, Royale with Cheese said:

 

Good call and he was traded for two 1st round picks.

So that's the minimum for Garrett will command.

For sure 

 

Garrett probably is the only player alive who with his physical talent and work ethic can realistically make a play for Bruce's record 

 

If he plays Til he 37-38 etc he has the chance to close in on200 sacks

[DrDawkinstein]

Just now, Royale with Cheese said:

 

Good call and he was traded for two 1st round picks.

So that's the minimum for Garrett will command.

 

I think its a good equivalent since Mack was entering the prime of his career and Garrett is at the tail end.

[Buffalo716]

5 minutes ago, DrDawkinstein said:

 

I think its a good equivalent since Mack was entering the prime of his career and Garrett is at the tail end.

Myles Garrett has a lot of football left.. he's a specimen who relies on power and technique not speed

 

He's going to be effective well into his mid to late 30s like Bruce Smith.. as I said one post above he's the only guy who can ever Chase 200 because he can have 13 sacks at 35

 

It's not like he's relying on his speed rush and he has two years left... He literally has 8+ good years of football if he wants to play... His technique and work ethic and his frame all point to a guy who will dominate into his thirties 

 

He just doesn't rely on dipping and ripping

Edited Monday at 10:09 PM by Buffalo716

[DrDawkinstein]

38 minutes ago, Buffalo716 said:

Myles Garrett has a lot of football left.. he's a specimen who relies on power and technique not speed

 

 

Oh, I didnt mean to imply he doesnt. I'm all about getting Garrett. He's "much" (football wise) younger than even Von was when we signed him.

 

But there is a difference between trading for a 25yr old and trading for a 29yr old. With that, I think it evens that comparison, even with inflation.

[Buffalo716]

3 minutes ago, DrDawkinstein said:

 

Oh, I didnt mean to imply he doesnt. I'm all about getting Garrett. He's "much" (football wise) younger than even Von was when we signed him.

 

But there is a difference between trading for a 25yr old and trading for a 29yr old. With that, I think it evens that comparison, even with inflation.

Ofc there is a massive difference between 25 and 29

 

You don't see a lot of Superstars like mack getting traded in legit there prime 

[DrDawkinstein]

15 minutes ago, Buffalo716 said:

Ofc there is a massive difference between 25 and 29

 

You don't see a lot of Superstars like mack getting traded in legit there prime 

 

Classic Mark Davis

[jkeerie]

I don't want to give up the draft capital or the contract money for Garrett...as much as I like him as a player.  Everyone is thinking the ideal scenario.  We get Garrett and he plays lights out and stays injury free.  We didn't get that with Von... albeit he was older when we signed him.  I'd rather spend the money resigning a lot of our young players, signing some free agents that we won't break the bank, and use this draft to build the defense and pick up a young WR or two.

[BADOLBILZ]

45 minutes ago, jkeerie said:

I don't want to give up the draft capital or the contract money for Garrett...as much as I like him as a player.  Everyone is thinking the ideal scenario.  We get Garrett and he plays lights out and stays injury free.  We didn't get that with Von... albeit he was older when we signed him.  I'd rather spend the money resigning a lot of our young players, signing some free agents that we won't break the bank, and use this draft to build the defense and pick up a young WR or two.

 

 

Free agency always produces more failures than successes.   But you can't get anymore consistent that Garrett.   He's more consistent than Reggie White or Bruce Smith were.......and they both could still play well late into their 30's.   Von was an outside linebacker type.   Too much is made of that deal not working out.   Lot's of free agents in that pay range don't work out.   It just seemed like a big deal because Beane got the Bills in such a cap bind that he want from throwing around $6M for backup CB's and LB's like Josh Normal and AJ Klein to throwing nickels around like manhole covers.   Fans weren't critical enough when he was wasting money and now are too critical when he isn't.

[tigerthelion]

1 hour ago, jkeerie said:

I don't want to give up the draft capital or the contract money for Garrett...as much as I like him as a player.  Everyone is thinking the ideal scenario.  We get Garrett and he plays lights out and stays injury free.  We didn't get that with Von... albeit he was older when we signed him.  I'd rather spend the money resigning a lot of our young players, signing some free agents that we won't break the bank, and use this draft to build the defense and pick up a young WR or two.

I understand where you are coming from on not spending like crazy on one big signing.  Thing is, though, re-signing a guy like Benford for 20 million would be a risky signing with his injury history.  Bernard has an injury history, also.  Garrett could be a home run signing or maybe it isn't.  Some days I feel like I would rather have an inside disruptor even more than an edge.  Dexter Lawrence or someone like that.  Makes for good discussion.  I would lean towards signing proven talent on the defensive line  though, if possible. 

Edited Tuesday at 12:49 AM by tigerthelion

[Brianmoorman4jesus]

13 hours ago, Royale with Cheese said:

I would quickly say that is very little value….because it is.

We’ll let’s see what he goes for and reconvene 

[Brianmoorman4jesus]

13 hours ago, cle23 said:

 

2 late 2nd rounders, and a 1st the following year?  Which essentially equates to another late 2nd rounder.  Even if they end up with late first rounders, that's the difference of 30ish picks.  A world of difference in the players available.

Do you understand how much value is behind a first? The nfl is crazy when it comes to first. And I’m adding two 2nds. Obviously I’m trying to come up with a scenario that’s better for us. Don’t forget he wants out. That absolutely takes their leverage away

[cle23]

4 minutes ago, Brianmoorman4jesus said:

Do you understand how much value is behind a first? The nfl is crazy when it comes to first. And I’m adding two 2nds. Obviously I’m trying to come up with a scenario that’s better for us. Don’t forget he wants out. That absolutely takes their leverage away

 

Yes,  but the first is next year,  which greatly reduces its value. If it was this year, that increases the value.  

 

Also,  while Garrett wants out,  he also doesn't have a lot of leverage. If he sits out,  he would lose out on $25M+ in salary,  plus he could lose out on previously paid bonuses,  so it would get very costly.

[Royale with Cheese]

1 hour ago, Brianmoorman4jesus said:

We’ll let’s see what he goes for and reconvene 

Khalil Mack was traded for 2 - 1st rounders.  Was Khalil Mack a significantly better prospect than Myles Garrett is now?

[Buffalo716]

2 minutes ago, Royale with Cheese said:

Khalil Mack was traded for 2 - 1st rounders.  Was Khalil Mack a significantly better prospect than Myles Garrett is now?

I would still give up two

[MiracleAtRich1393]

6 hours ago, Royale with Cheese said:

 

Good call and he was traded for two 1st round picks.

So that's the minimum for Garrett will command.

Bears got a second & fifth rounder back too so I'd say the headline of "two first rounders" is misleading. It's the value equivalent of a first & a third. I'd gladly trade 2026 & 2027 firsts alongside some 2025 capital if we're getting 2026 & 2027 2nd rounders back from Cleveland. Especially if it would finesse the Browns into thinking they'd be able to win the press conference. Myles Garrett Traded For Three First Rounders

[TheWeatherMan]

2 hours ago, Royale with Cheese said:

Khalil Mack was traded for 2 - 1st rounders.  Was Khalil Mack a significantly better prospect than Myles Garrett is now?

Look at the compensation for Mack again, it wasn’t as simple as two #1s for KM.  

[Thrivefourfive]

8 hours ago, jkeerie said:

I don't want to give up the draft capital or the contract money for Garrett...as much as I like him as a player.  Everyone is thinking the ideal scenario.  We get Garrett and he plays lights out and stays injury free.  We didn't get that with Von... albeit he was older when we signed him.  I'd rather spend the money resigning a lot of our young players, signing some free agents that we won't break the bank, and use this draft to build the defense and pick up a young WR or two.

This may be seen as a retreat. With how things stand, let’s say Cook comes back no problem, some could claim we are one Miles Garrett away from the whole damn thing, and I think they be right. Gotta go for this thing right now, every year. Stop with the draft and middling free agents. Unfortunately we need free agents to outperform AND a string of first and second round picks to come up roses. If one of those doesn’t happen, we probably lose ground. With Garrett, we gain ground next season. I want to see the focus season by season at this point. Something has to sting McBeane in the arse to make better things happen… because they’re on a three year losing streak in the first round, and keep losing to the chiefs. In case nobody’s heard. 

[Royale with Cheese]

5 hours ago, TheWeatherMan said:

Look at the compensation for Mack again, it wasn’t as simple as two #1s for KM.  

After seeing this, you really don’t think 2 late 2nd round picks and our late 1st round pick isn’t low for Garrett? The Bears gave up a lot more for Mack.  
 

You asked me to name a non-QB traded for more and here it is.

 

Edited Tuesday at 11:12 AM by Royale with Cheese