Myles Garrett requests a trade

[CincyBillsFan]

2 hours ago, ColoradoBills said:

 

Bengals have $50M in cap space before they do any restructures.

They can sign him if they want.

 

That being said, Bills should look into Tee Higgins.

As I understand it while the Bengal's have CAP space the issue is the cash that must be set aside to cover the guaranteed portion of these contracts.

Edited 9 hours ago by CincyBillsFan

[ColoradoBills]

4 minutes ago, SoonerBillsFan said:

With their cap and how its screwed, how do you get under the cap with all that mess, let alone draft or keep anyone?  I can't wrap my head around how they and N.O. get out of their cap situations. 

 

The Saints were never in a spot like this.

Watson is eating $73M in cap the next 2 years and $27M (so far) after he leaves.

The way I see it all the vets will be moving on.

 

Myles Garrett and his agent are smart trying to get out NOW.

They can start digging out of this in 2027.

[SoonerBillsFan]

1 minute ago, ColoradoBills said:

 

The Saints were never in a spot like this.

Watson is eating $73M in cap the next 2 years and $27M (so far) after he leaves.

The way I see it all the vets will be moving on.

 

Myles Garrett and his agent are smart trying to get out NOW.

They can start digging out of this in 2027.

That is beyond ugly.  I wonder how much we are going to free up?

 

[Magox]

The Bills will not be going after Tee Higgins.   That’s not where they will allocate the vast majority of their available resources nor should they.   It will primarily be about defense.

 

Corner, Safety, DT and DE.   That’s where the resources should go.

[ColoradoBills]

2 minutes ago, SoonerBillsFan said:

That is beyond ugly.  I wonder how much we are going to free up?

 

 

Beane has a lot of options.  He can sign some guys.

 

I'm just hoping any of the big money guys he goes after will be worth the money.

The Von Miller thing was a bad luck shame.

[nosejob]

26 minutes ago, GASabresIUFan said:

I was just looking at the cap hit for Garrett vs Crosby.  Am I wrong for possibly wanting Crosby?

 

Thoughts:

1) Garrett is the better player.  Maxx is an excellent player, but Garrett has been consistently better, but Crosby top output is similar to Garrett's.  Crosby might be able to get back to that higher level on a better team.

 

2) Crosby is 2 years younger

 

3) Crosby should be cheaper asset wise to acquire.  Hopefully this helps Buffalo keep more draft capital to fill other needs.  

 

4) Crosby has a bigger cap hit the next two years according to Spotrac for nearly 53 Million vs Garretts 40 million.  However, Garrett has 4 void years in his deal and Crosby none.  I think Crosby will therefore be easier and cheaper to extend thereby lowering his cap hit this coming year and probably next.

 

 

I agree and they need to clean out the DTs. (obviously other than Ed and Carter.  Maybe sign Cam Heyward to a short deal and draft the crap out of linemen.

[ColoradoBills]

7 minutes ago, Magox said:

The Bills will not be going after Tee Higgins.   That’s not where they will allocate the vast majority of their available resources nor should they.   It will primarily be about defense.

 

Corner, Safety, DT and DE.   That’s where the resources should go.

 

He will probably cost way too much.  Some needy WR team will lots of cash will pay him.

[BillsFanForever19]

6 hours ago, TheFunPolice said:

Browns GM has come out and said he isn't trading Garrett. 

 

Which means someone better be ready to go nuts with an offer. 

 

It will take 2 1sts plus other premium picks at a minimum. I don't even know if 3 1sts gets it done. 

 

If Beane offered 3 #1 picks tomorrow I think CLE still says no. 

 

Where do you see this? I can find one article that alleges it:

 

https://bleacherreport.com/articles/10154139-myles-garrett-trade-rumors-browns-stance-hasnt-changed-despite-stars-comments

 

The thing is, it's a misleading headline. When you open it, they cite something he said a month ago - before Myles made his statement. He's yet to speak on it since Garrett has made his wishes known publicly.

 

6 hours ago, BADOLBILZ said:

 You guys are gonna' kill @BillsFanForever19 .

 

I don't see anything wrong with saying you'd rather include Epenesa as part of a deal for a vet like Garrett (although, yes, I don't know that Crosby is actually available).

 

I think they're going to want an Edge Rusher in return. I believe Cleveland would push for Rousseau. Which could be a no go and an obstacle if Cleveland is stubborn about that being part of the deal.

 

Epenesa could be a consolation prize that has a little bit of value. A 6-7 sack a year guy who's a journeyman starter under a journeyman starter contract. Though, obviously, you'd have to make up the value in better picks between offering a Rousseau to an Epenesa.

 

14 hours ago, NewEra said:

Give it a rest man.  Doesn’t this get old for you?  You’re like a broken record every time you quote @Warriorspikes51

 

He doesnt sounds like that at all.  He’s just saying what he wants to happen on a message board- and you’re being your typical self- 

 

I don't think that reply was all that offensive. He said Sweat was unlikely, I said it's not as unlikely as you'd think. And as for the Crosby thing, I simply pointed out that the narrative around him has changed and he doesn't appear to be the option he makes it out to be.

 

He's spoken about him in the same breath as Garrett in SIX different threads, multiple times in a number of them. If that isn't someone of the belief that Crosby is just as available, I don't know what is.

 

He barrages threads all offseason with escalating unrealisms. He wants Garrett. Cool. People talk about that as a realistic possibility and then that's not enough and moves to Garrett and Crosby. Someone agrees on that and then he'll take it further. Next thing you know it's like last year when he went from trading up, to trading up into the top 5, to trading up twice in the top 10 to draft both Marvin Harrison Jr. AND Malik Nabers or Rome Odunze.

 

If I replied to even a FIFTH of his posts, I'd have a much higher post count than I do and you'd see me speaking up against it way more. And if he posted every once in a while, you wouldn't see my responses as often, if at all. He's posted 161 times this week alone. Most of it on ideas that won't happen. But I'm the one that needs to give it a rest? That's fine. I'll just be the annoying guy poo pooing everything by talking about easy, boring, bare minimum realistic moves like obtaining Myles freakin' Garrett...

Edited 7 hours ago by BillsFanForever19

[Dr. Who]

2 minutes ago, BillsFanForever19 said:

I think they're going to want an Edge Rusher in return. I believe Cleveland would push for Rousseau. Which could be a no go and an obstacle if Cleveland is stubborn about that being part of the deal.

 

Epenesa could be a consolation prize that has a little bit of value. A 6-7 sack a year guy who's a journeyman starter under a journeyman starter contract. Though, obviously, you'd have to make up the value in better picks between offering a Rousseau to an Epenesa.

Have you been paying attention to @ColoradoBills posts in this thread? It sounds to me like Cleveland is not going to be in a position to add salary. I'm not really sure how they will absorb a cap hit for trading Garrett, but the compensation is much more likely to be draft picks alone.

[ColoradoBills]

4 minutes ago, Dr. Who said:

Have you been paying attention to @ColoradoBills posts in this thread? It sounds to me like Cleveland is not going to be in a position to add salary. I'm not really sure how they will absorb a cap hit for trading Garrett, but the compensation is much more likely to be draft picks alone.

 

I'm not the only one thinking this.  Groot with a vet contract wouldn't make sense to them when they could draft a guy under a rookie contract.

[nosejob]

3 way trade. (I'll use 2 1sts and a 2nd as a baseline.)

The Raiders send that to the Browns for MG.

 

Bills send that to the Raiders for Crosby.

 

Cleveland gets premium picks and the Raiders get them back, albeit lower.  And of course there could be a player or 2 involved.

 

Everybody wins.

[TheFunPolice]

3 hours ago, BillsFanForever19 said:

 

Where do you see this? I can find one article that alleges it:

 

https://bleacherreport.com/articles/10154139-myles-garrett-trade-rumors-browns-stance-hasnt-changed-despite-stars-comments

 

The thing is, it's a misleading headline. When you open it, they cite something he said a month ago - before Myles made his statement. He's yet to speak on it since Garrett has made his wishes known publicly.

 

 

I don't see anything wrong with saying you'd rather include Epenesa as part of a deal for a vet like Garrett (although, yes, I don't know that Crosby is actually available).

 

I think they're going to want an Edge Rusher in return. I believe Cleveland would push for Rousseau. Which could be a no go and an obstacle if Cleveland is stubborn about that being part of the deal.

 

Epenesa could be a consolation prize that has a little bit of value. A 6-7 sack a year guy who's a journeyman starter under a journeyman starter contract. Though, obviously, you'd have to make up the value in better picks between offering a Rousseau to an Epenesa.

 

 

I don't think that reply was all that offensive. He said Sweat was unlikely, I said it's not as unlikely as you'd think. And as for the Crosby thing, I simply pointed out that the narrative around him has changed and he doesn't appear to be the option he makes it out to be.

 

He's spoken about him in the same breath as Garrett in SIX different threads, multiple times in a number of them. If that isn't someone of the belief that Crosby is just as available, I don't know what is.

 

He barrages threads all offseason with escalating unrealisms. He wants Garrett. Cool. People talk about that as a realistic possibility and then that's not enough and moves to Garrett and Crosby. Someone agrees on that and then he'll take it further. Next thing you know it's like last year when he went from trading up, to trading up into the top 5, to trading up twice in the top 10 to draft both Marvin Harrison Jr. AND Malik Nabers or Rome Odunze.

 

If I replied to even a FIFTH of his posts, I'd have a much higher post count than I do and you'd see me speaking up against it way more. And if he posted every once in a while, you wouldn't see my responses as often, if at all. He's posted 161 times this week alone. Most of it on ideas that won't happen. But I'm the one that needs to give it a rest? That's fine. I'll just be the annoying guy poo pooing everything by talking about easy, boring, bare minimum realistic moves like obtaining Myles freakin' Garrett...

 

Schefter on Pat McAfee today said Cleveland is adamant they're not trading him.

 

Doesn't mean that can't change but Cleveland is dumb and might want to dig in. 

[Low Positive]

1 minute ago, TheFunPolice said:

 

Schefter on Pat McAfee today said Cleveland is adamant they're not trading him.

 

Doesn't mean that can't change but Cleveland is dumb and might want to dig in. 

People have to have a reason to go to games and buy jerseys. NFL teams don't strip themselves to the bone like MLB and NHL teams. 

[BADOLBILZ]

3 hours ago, BillsFanForever19 said:

I don't see anything wrong with saying you'd rather include Epenesa as part of a deal for a vet like Garrett (although, yes, I don't know that Crosby is actually available).

 

I think they're going to want an Edge Rusher in return. I believe Cleveland would push for Rousseau. Which could be a no go and an obstacle if Cleveland is stubborn about that being part of the deal.

 

Epenesa could be a consolation prize that has a little bit of value. A 6-7 sack a year guy who's a journeyman starter under a journeyman starter contract. Though, obviously, you'd have to make up the value in better picks between offering a Rousseau to an Epenesa.

 

 

 

I'm more talking about thinking that adding Epenesa adds any value in trade.    At $6.5M, coming off a bad season and entering a walk year.......why would the Browns want that?  

 

If they aren't getting back a win-now package of players with the likes of Rousseau, James Cook, O'Cyrus Torrence(Bittonio may retire) and RVD (to play tackle where they are hurting).........and instead the trade is mostly headlined by picks.........why do they want to waste $6.5M on Epenesa when they are tanking?   Just give those snaps to cheap players with team control.

 

If you are going to be so dismissive of potential trades you should probably START with looking at it from the other teams perspective.    

 

Edited 5 hours ago by BADOLBILZ
spelling

[Figster]

https://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/other/bills-pro-bowler-makes-impassioned-sales-pitch-to-myles-garrett/ar-AA1yM2MK?ocid=xboxntp&pc=U531&cvid=832415835c124f56e9250693512d0335&ei=13

 

In case this wasn't posted already

[SoTier]

7 hours ago, Buffalo716 said:

Baum was a one-year $3 million contract 

 

At the time he was considered mid to low level free agent not a significant signing 

 

He outplayed his contract

 

When the Bills signed Poyer and Hyde in 2017, neither was considered "significant" signings, either.  It's not what fans or the media think of any FA signing, it's how that player plays for his new team.

 

My main point, however, was that it's not "too late" to build a significantly better defense over the next two years as the poster I respond to claimed.  In 2023, Philly's defense was worse than the Bills defense.  The Bills D in 2025 doesn't have to be as good as the Eagles D in 2024.  It needs to be significantly better than it was in 2024, and that's doable.

[Buffalo716]

2 minutes ago, SoTier said:

 

When the Bills signed Poyer and Hyde in 2017, neither was considered "significant" signings, either.  It's not what fans or the media think of any FA signing, it's how that player plays for his new team.

 

My main point, however, was that it's not "too late" to build a significantly better defense over the next two years as the poster I respond to claimed.  In 2023, Philly's defense was worse than the Bills defense.  The Bills D in 2025 doesn't have to be as good as the Eagles D in 2024.  It needs to be significantly better than it was in 2024, and that's doable.

Exactly so for all the fans who say we can't develop talent and this and that 

 

We took a cast off from an 0-16 NFL team and turned him into an all pro safety 

 

But at the end of the day you get paid what the GM thought of you.. the eagles didn't think they were getting a All-Pro type player 

 

Neither did the Bills 

 

But we both developed players

Edited 4 hours ago by Buffalo716

[Low Positive]

4 hours ago, CincyBillsFan said:

As I understand it while the Bengal's have CAP space the issue is the cash that must be set aside to cover the guaranteed portion of these contracts.

People who don't live here like us have no idea about what's going on. The Bengals are a "cash to the cap" team, the last one in the NFL. They never restructure contracts to free up cap space. There is zero way that they pay Burrow, Chase, Higgins, and Hendrickson. 

3 minutes ago, SoTier said:

 

When the Bills signed Poyer and Hyde in 2017, neither was considered "significant" signings, either.  It's not what fans or the media think of any FA signing, it's how that player plays for his new team.

 

My main point, however, was that it's not "too late" to build a significantly better defense over the next two years as the poster I respond to claimed.  In 2023, Philly's defense was worse than the Bills defense.  The Bills D in 2025 doesn't have to be as good as the Eagles D in 2024.  It needs to be significantly better than it was in 2024, and that's doable.

Exactly this. They have to get a little bit better. But in reality, we lost to the Chiefs this year because we left two close first down calls in the hands of the refs. If either of this had been clearly over the line. the Bills probably win that game. It was that close. I know that fans don't like that because there is no way to analyze a roster or coaching for being a quarter of an inch short of the Super Bowl, but that is reality. 

[TheFunPolice]

27 minutes ago, Low Positive said:

People who don't live here like us have no idea about what's going on. The Bengals are a "cash to the cap" team, the last one in the NFL. They never restructure contracts to free up cap space. There is zero way that they pay Burrow, Chase, Higgins, and Hendrickson. 

Exactly this. They have to get a little bit better. But in reality, we lost to the Chiefs this year because we left two close first down calls in the hands of the refs. If either of this had been clearly over the line. the Bills probably win that game. It was that close. I know that fans don't like that because there is no way to analyze a roster or coaching for being a quarter of an inch short of the Super Bowl, but that is reality. 

 

When I heard the Bengals sold naming rights to the stadium in order to pay for Burrows contract I thought it was a fake story but sounds like they are legitimately broke 

 

 

[Solomon Grundy]

On second thought, if the Bills can't get Garrett I'd be okay with them selecting Kenneth Grant and Mason Graham with their first two picks to pair with Rousseau and Epenesa on the edge