Myles Garrett requests a trade

[Warriorspikes51]

13 hours ago, EmotionallyUnstable said:

eeeefffffffff ffffffiivvveeee

 

June 2nd 

 

[Albany,n.y.]

15 hours ago, ColoradoBills said:

 

Exactly.

 

 

Making the trade after June 1st seems to be in everyone's best interest.

If the trade is made, they will redo the contract but yes to your point of using a player like Von's savings to sign Garrett.

The Browns best choice is to work out a deal before the draft, have the other team pick the guys that Cleveland wants and then trade the drafted guys to the Browns in June.  They are not going to trade Garrett & get nothing back in 2025. 

 

[ColoradoBills]

1 minute ago, Albany,n.y. said:

The Browns best choice is to work out a deal before the draft, have the other team pick the guys that Cleveland wants and then trade the drafted guys to the Browns in June.  They are not going to trade Garrett & get nothing back in 2025. 

 

 

I've never heard of anything like that ever happening.

[Albany,n.y.]

9 minutes ago, ColoradoBills said:

 

I've never heard of anything like that ever happening.

It has happened in the NFL before, just not with a June designation.  John Elway was traded after the draft when he wouldn't sign with Baltimore, and when the Giants drafted Philip Rivers, they did it for the Chargers to facilitate the Eli Manning trade. 

[SoTier]

4 minutes ago, Albany,n.y. said:

The Browns best choice is to work out a deal before the draft, have the other team pick the guys that Cleveland wants and then trade the drafted guys to the Browns in June.  They are not going to trade Garrett & get nothing back in 2025. 

 

 

With their cap problems, they have limited choices.  They can keep an unhappy Garrett.   If they trade Garrett before the draft to get optimal 2025 draft picks, they will take a significantly bigger dead cap hit than if they trade him after June 1.  However, the picks would have to be for 2026 and beyond because I don't think that any 2 teams would trust each other enough to cede control of their current draft's picks to another team without formal a trade.  It seems to me that this also might be considered collusion.  It would certainly be a violation of the spirit of have the salary cap.

[BuffaloRebound]

Why can you cut a guy before June 1 but put a post June 1 designation on it to spread the dead cap but not for a trade?  Dumb rule by NFL.  

[YattaOkasan]

1 hour ago, BuffaloRebound said:

Why can you cut a guy before June 1 but put a post June 1 designation on it to spread the dead cap but not for a trade?  Dumb rule by NFL.  

Cause one of these things helps the player and one helps the team.  Post June 1st cut designations help the player get to the market quicker (teams don't see the money until June 1st).  If they wanna make designation for trades they could but its only moderately helping the players (they get in the building earlier) while greatly helping the team. 

 

So whats the dumb rule? That they didnt carve out designations for trades (it honestly doesnt come up much) or that they have designations at all. 

Edited 6 hours ago by YattaOkasan

[Warriorspikes51]

1 hour ago, BuffaloRebound said:

Why can you cut a guy before June 1 but put a post June 1 designation on it to spread the dead cap but not for a trade?  Dumb rule by NFL.  

 

they want to make fans suffer 

[BuffaloRebound]

1 hour ago, YattaOkasan said:

Cause one of these things helps the player and one helps the team.  Post June 1st cut designations help the player get to the market quicker (teams don't see the money until June 1st).  If they wanna make designation for trades they could but its only moderately helping the players (they get in the building earlier) while greatly helping the team. 

 

So whats the dumb rule? That they didnt carve out designations for trades (it honestly doesnt come up much) or that they have designations at all. 

that there’s a differentiation between cutting and trading a player for purposes of spreading the cap.  Clearly it would help Garrett who wants to get traded.  You did nothing to explain the rationale behind treating it differently.  

[YattaOkasan]

1 hour ago, BuffaloRebound said:

that there’s a differentiation between cutting and trading a player for purposes of spreading the cap.  Clearly it would help Garrett who wants to get traded.  You did nothing to explain the rationale behind treating it differently.  

I dont think it comes up much, and I dont think the players asked for it like I presume they did for cut designation. 

 

Correct there is no differentiation between the two with regard to cap, but there is a big difference in who it serves.  Players didnt like waiting til June 1st when they knew they would get cut so the players association created the ability to designate 2 players for post june 1st cuts  (had minor benefit to teams so they agreed).  Noone's fighting for the same ability in trades partly cause it doesnt really come up often. 

 

So its not that theres a rationale so much as it hardly ever comes up (partly cause players dont usually wanna leave a team).  Additionally, if Garrett wanted to avoid this situation he can ask for a shorter/smaller deal with less void years.  Garret wants out but he had some control in this situation before he inked his new deal.  

Edited 4 hours ago by YattaOkasan

[BillsFanForever19]

4 hours ago, Albany,n.y. said:

The Browns best choice is to work out a deal before the draft, have the other team pick the guys that Cleveland wants and then trade the drafted guys to the Browns in June.  They are not going to trade Garrett & get nothing back in 2025. 

 

 

3 hours ago, Albany,n.y. said:

It has happened in the NFL before, just not with a June designation.  John Elway was traded after the draft when he wouldn't sign with Baltimore, and when the Giants drafted Philip Rivers, they did it for the Chargers to facilitate the Eli Manning trade. 

 

Neither of these situations are what you're alluding to though. No one is going to make Draft picks for another team for a Trade that may or may not come later. Even if they verbally agree, anything could happen in the time between the Draft and June 1st. They could get a better offer from someone else that they can't refuse, Garrett could get injured in Offseason training, the Browns could randomly decide they don't want to trade him, Garrett could on a whim decide "I don't want to go to Buffalo", or shockingly decide I want to stay, etc. And then we'd be stuck with players that we Drafted for the Browns. That's just not something teams do.

Edited 4 hours ago by BillsFanForever19

[Kirby Jackson]

[TheFunPolice]

Imagine Carter and Garrett on the same DL....

 

Totally doable contract wise for 3-4 years too, with one guy paid and the other on a rookie deal. 

[Aussie Joe]

Just can’t grasp him coming here ….

 

Reminds me of dreaming about winning Powerball …. Would be absolutely fantastic but you just have doubts of it ever happening…

 

Hope I’m wrong about both things …

[Riverboat Ritchie]

I really don’t care what it takes.  He’s a generational talent who is an athletic freak. I’d sell the future for him.

[4merper4mer]

5 hours ago, SoTier said:

 

With their cap problems, they have limited choices.  They can keep an unhappy Garrett.   If they trade Garrett before the draft to get optimal 2025 draft picks, they will take a significantly bigger dead cap hit than if they trade him after June 1.  However, the picks would have to be for 2026 and beyond because I don't think that any 2 teams would trust each other enough to cede control of their current draft's picks to another team without formal a trade.  It seems to me that this also might be considered collusion.  It would certainly be a violation of the spirit of have the salary cap.

If they were living in reality they’d be fine with a huge 2025 cap hit because regardless of what they do, they are 100% going to suck.

[Kirby Jackson]

34 minutes ago, Riverboat Ritchie said:

I really don’t care what it takes.  He’s a generational talent who is an athletic freak. I’d sell the future for him.

Yeah, this is why he’s his own conversation. There are other good to great players who’ve been mentioned as trade candidates (Crosby, DK, Deebo, Hendrickson) but only Garrett is generational. Any of those guys would help the Bills (or would have in Deebo’s case) but there’s a line for the others. There’s basically no line that they shouldn’t cross for Garrett.

Edited 2 hours ago by Kirby Jackson

[BillsFanForever19]

1 hour ago, TheFunPolice said:

Imagine Carter and Garrett on the same DL....

 

Totally doable contract wise for 3-4 years too, with one guy paid and the other on a rookie deal. 

 

Abdul Carter? How is that "totally doable"?

 

He's going Top 5. Even if his needing surgery wasn't recanted as it was - it would be a 2 month recovery. Nothing that's dropping him from where he was to anywhere where we could trade up to.

 

And even if we could get a team to drop down to where we are from the range in which Carter will be Drafted (which almost never happens) - it would require picks in this year's Draft and coming Drafts, which we'll need to spend to get Garrett.

[Low Positive]

15 minutes ago, BillsFanForever19 said:

 

Abdul Carter? How is that "totally doable"?

 

He's going Top 5. Even if his needing surgery wasn't recanted as it was - it would be a 2 month recovery. Nothing that's dropping him from where he was to anywhere where we could trade up to.

 

And even if we could get a team to drop down to where we are from the range in which Carter will be Drafted (which almost never happens) - it would require picks in this year's Draft and coming Drafts, which we'll need to spend to get Garrett.

I assume he's talking about the Browns. They could totally do that.

[Bills aPHILLYate]

1 hour ago, Aussie Joe said:

Just can’t grasp him coming here ….

 

Reminds me of dreaming about winning Powerball …. Would be absolutely fantastic but you just have doubts of it ever happening…

 

Hope I’m wrong about both things …

We got Mario Williams to come here albeit under a FA aspect, but considering we meet the qualifications of being contenders I don't think anything is impossible. 

 

Imagine it...It very well could happen

11 minutes ago, Low Positive said:

I assume he's talking about the Browns. They could totally do that.

I thought he was talking about our DT Dewayne Carter that we drafted last year lol