Drew Rosenhaus says there’s more bombshell trades coming.

[Tipster19]

https://brobible.com/sports/article/drew-rosenhaus-says-more-bombshell-trades-coming-nfl-offseason/
 

Who knows what he’s referring to but previous to this I was wondering if Baker Mayfield to the Dolphins was going to be a possibility. Reason being is after the Tyreek Hill trade it made me scratch my head. The Dolphins haven’t exactly embraced Tua since the draft and having a speed demon like Hill the Dolphins better have somebody be able to get him the ball, the long ball at that. Tua never struck me as being that kind of guy.

 

I believe that the Browns wouldn’t be looking for a lot of compensation for Mayfield. A couple of aspects stand out, the first is the guaranteed money this year, 18.8M to be exact. Also the locker room distraction would not be conducive to the Browns’ goals. 
 

As far as Miami goes they would have a year with Mayfield, who should be highly motivated this year and they would not have to be married to either QB as well. The Dolphins in turn could possibly turn to the Panthers as a trade partner for Tua, who with McCaffrey on the roster Tua would only be required to be a level or two above being a game manager, which he would be better suited for. Another possibility would involve the Bucs. All this trade talk about Brady is still not going away. Somehow some way maybe the Bucs would be willing to give up Brady for some big compensation and take on Mayfield. Supposedly Arians is a fan of Mayfield but the big compensation could be the biggest hurdle here especially after what Miami had to cough up for Hill.

 

Bottom line I do tend to believe that there is something out there still pending. Where there’s smoke there’s fire and in some way Rosenhaus is involved. He is the agent for Hill, Carolina’s WR DJ Moore and in addition has very strong ties in Miami. A 3 team trade of some sorts? 
 

This off season should still be very interesting. Any thoughts or speculations on what might still play out before the season begins?

[Big Turk]

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?

[Richard Noggin]

1 minute 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?

The obvious answer is to guarantee his acquisition. If there is more than one team interested, then a release would give the asset some control of where he goes. Giving up assets eliminates that uncertainty. Obviously. 

 

[Big Turk]

11 minutes ago, Richard Noggin said:

The obvious answer is to guarantee his acquisition. If there is more than one team interested, then a release would give the asset some control of where he goes. Giving up assets eliminates that uncertainty. Obviously. 

 

 

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

[GunnerBill]

17 minutes 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.

 

Not necessarily. Does depend what his market it. If it is a 1 team market I agree they'd wait. If multiple teams are in on him then why wouldn't they trade a late round throwaway pick to get at the head of the queue? While the contract number is big it is a 1 year deal. If teams keep being willing to take on Carson Wentz's number when he is a burning hot trash can I would imagine someone would be willing to pay Baker 1 year, $18m. 

 

Nobody is giving up major assets for him. But a day 3 pick I could see. 

[mannc]

There are still some dominoes left to fall…Mayfield and Garoppolo will both be moved…the only question is where and for how much…I have absolutely no idea.

10 minutes ago, GunnerBill said:

 

Not necessarily. Does depend what his market it. If it is a 1 team market I agree they'd wait. If multiple teams are in on him then why wouldn't they trade a late round throwaway pick to get at the head of the queue? While the contract number is big it is a 1 year deal. If teams keep being willing to take on Carson Wentz's number when he is a burning hot trash can I would imagine someone would be willing to pay Baker 1 year, $18m. 

 

Nobody is giving up major assets for him. But a day 3 pick I could see. 

The Bills got the first pick in the third round for Tyrod Taylor and the Colts got even more than that for Carson Wentz, who’s even worse…I think the Browns might be able to get a second for Mayfield.

[Doc Brown]

43 minutes 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.

Lots of ways this could play out.  If two teams are interested (say the Lions and Seahawks) they could create a bidding war and the Browns could get a pick for him.  If there's less interest the Browns can package a pick with Mayfield assuming the team he's traded to eats his salary.  The Browns can also eat a large chunk of his salary in a trade like you said.  The Browns also could wait until a starting QB goes down in training camp on another team and get something for him then.  Finally, they could just rip the band aid off and cut him eating his salary for a year.

[Matt_In_NH]

Is baker mayfield to the dolphins a “bombshell”?

1 hour ago, mannc said:

There are still some dominoes left to fall…Mayfield and Garoppolo will both be moved…the only question is where and for how much…I have absolutely no idea.

The Bills got the first pick in the third round for Tyrod Taylor and the Colts got even more than that for Carson Wentz, who’s even worse…I think the Browns might be able to get a second for Mayfield.

As others have said.  You have to consider the contract and the player not just the player.   If someone is desperate to get him then they might be willing to take it.  Not clear that is the case. 

[Donuts and Doritos]

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?

[Ethan in Cleveland]

1 hour ago, Doc Brown said:

Lots of ways this could play out.  If two teams are interested (say the Lions and Seahawks) they could create a bidding war and the Browns could get a pick for him.  If there's less interest the Browns can package a pick with Mayfield assuming the team he's traded to eats his salary.  The Browns can also eat a large chunk of his salary in a trade like you said.  The Browns also could wait until a starting QB goes down in training camp on another team and get something for him then.  Finally, they could just rip the band aid off and cut him eating his salary for a year.

If a team trades for him the salary goes with him.  It's not an option.  That is why if the Bills trade Edmunds it opens $12.5 M in cap space immediately.  There is no prorated signing bonus money to apply to the cap either.  

The Browns can't eat salary in a trade. NFL trades don't work that way.  

 

And if they cut him, the Browns won't pay his full guaranteed salary either.  Assuming he signs with another team,  Baker will still get his fully guaranteed 5th year option.  The team that signs him pays him a salary, and the Browns are on the hook for the remainder of his 5th year option.   

[TBBills]

Mayfield isn't a blockbuster... it would be like signing a lesser Fitz.

[newcam2012]

2 hours ago, GunnerBill said:

 

Not necessarily. Does depend what his market it. If it is a 1 team market I agree they'd wait. If multiple teams are in on him then why wouldn't they trade a late round throwaway pick to get at the head of the queue? While the contract number is big it is a 1 year deal. If teams keep being willing to take on Carson Wentz's number when he is a burning hot trash can I would imagine someone would be willing to pay Baker 1 year, $18m. 

 

Nobody is giving up major assets for him. But a day 3 pick I could see. 

Maybe I'm in the minority. An 18 million contract for Baker doesn't seem absurd to me. The QB market salaries have continued to sky rocket. Back up QBs are getting paid well. Last year Dalton got 10 million and T. Hill got 12 million. Tribisky get 14 million to 27 million for 2 years. Mariota, Bridgewater, Jimmy G, etc...

 

Sure, I think 18 mil is a little too step but i think a talent deprived QB team will be willing to pay that price. Baker isn't elite or very good. However, he's serviceable, a little better than average, and experienced. 

[Doc Brown]

1 hour ago, Ethan in Portland said:

If a team trades for him the salary goes with him.  It's not an option.  That is why if the Bills trade Edmunds it opens $12.5 M in cap space immediately.  There is no prorated signing bonus money to apply to the cap either.  

The Browns can't eat salary in a trade. NFL trades don't work that way.  

 

And if they cut him, the Browns won't pay his full guaranteed salary either.  Assuming he signs with another team,  Baker will still get his fully guaranteed 5th year option.  The team that signs him pays him a salary, and the Browns are on the hook for the remainder of his 5th year option.   

I believe you're incorrect here.  The Browns can eat a portion of Baker's salary next year in a trade.  For example, the Panthers paid 7 million of Bridgewater's 10 million dollar contract last year when they traded him to the Broncos who paid the remaining 3 million.

 

You're right in that if they cut him and he's signed they save about a million dollars in dead cap (they'll pay him 17.7 million of his 18.8 million salary).

 

Edited March 28, 2022 by Doc Brown

[GunnerBill]

21 minutes ago, Doc Brown said:

I believe you're incorrect here.  The Browns can eat a portion of Baker's salary next year in a trade.  For example, the Panthers paid 7 million of Bridgewater's 10 million dollar contract last year when they traded him to the Broncos who paid the remaining 3 million.

 

You're right in that if they cut him and he's signed they save about a million dollars in dead cap (they'll pay him 17.7 million of his 18.8 million salary).

 

 

It is different when you are talking about players on a 5th year option which Baker and Tremaine Edmunds are. 

[Doc Brown]

15 minutes ago, GunnerBill said:

 

It is different when you are talking about players on a 5th year option which Baker and Tremaine Edmunds are. 

No.  It's not.

[GunnerBill]

9 minutes ago, Doc Brown said:

No.  It's not.

 

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. 

Edited March 28, 2022 by GunnerBill

[BarleyNY]

4 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.

Then Browns would still have to pay Mayfield his whole contract if they released him.  No way are they doing that.  It would make far more sense for them to wait for a trade partner and pick up part of his salary if they even have to do that. 

10 minutes 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. 

It would be better for Mayfield to be traded rather than sit inactive for a season.  He could agree to convert part of his salary to a signing bonus.  The Browns would pay that and his new team would pay his remaining salary.  Seems straight forward and better for all parties. 

[GunnerBill]

4 minutes ago, BarleyNY said:

 

It would be better for Mayfield to be traded rather than sit inactive for a season.  He could agree to convert part of his salary to a signing bonus.  The Browns would pay that and his new team would pay his remaining salary.  Seems straight forward and better for all parties. 

 

He couldn't. 5th year option rules forbid it. It cannot include any bonus money. It is all salary and 100% guaranteed. It goes where the player goes. The only way out of that is to actually extend the contract. And why would Baker do that? Because at the moment he is guaranteed $18m this year, he gets a go at FA next year and in reality the Browns cannot keep him on the roster as a malcontent. So he might get released, paid his $18m and then become a FA this spring as well. 

[Dopey]

5 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.

Your opinion aside, he did answer your question and it was sensible.

[BarleyNY]

34 minutes ago, GunnerBill said:

 

He couldn't. 5th year option rules forbid it. It cannot include any bonus money. It is all salary and 100% guaranteed. It goes where the player goes. The only way out of that is to actually extend the contract. And why would Baker do that? Because at the moment he is guaranteed $18m this year, he gets a go at FA next year and in reality the Browns cannot keep him on the roster as a malcontent. So he might get released, paid his $18m and then become a FA this spring as well. 

I know that’s not correct.  I think you’re mixing up some of the rules for franchise tags.  And even if it was, then the team could just extend the contract using void years.

 

5th year options are fully guaranteed, but the contract can be altered (unlike the franchise tag after a certain date).  Allen’s was altered.  It wasn’t just extended, but the salary in his his fifth year option year was reduced substantially.  Obviously he got a big signing bonus before then, but that’s not substantially different than what I was talking about with Mayfield.

[GunnerBill]

19 minutes ago, BarleyNY said:

I know that’s not correct.  I think you’re mixing up some of the rules for franchise tags.  And even if it was, then the team could just extend the contract using void years.

 

5th year options are fully guaranteed, but the contract can be altered (unlike the franchise tag after a certain date).  Allen’s was altered.  It wasn’t just extended, but the salary in his his fifth year option year was reduced substantially.  Obviously he got a big signing bonus before then, but that’s not substantially different than what I was talking about with Mayfield.

 

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. 

Edited March 28, 2022 by GunnerBill

[Doc]

Yeah, trading Mayfield doesn't count as a "bombshell."  It's pretty much expected he'll be gone from the Browns soon and unlikely to be traded anyway.

[Southern_Bills]

6 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?

 

If I'm not mistaken doesn't Cleveland have to pay Baker even if they cut him?

[GunnerBill]

1 minute ago, Southern_Bills said:

 

If I'm not mistaken doesn't Cleveland have to pay Baker even if they cut him?

 

yep

[HOUSE]

Except the trade that brings CB James Bradberry to Buffalo

[filthymcnasty08]

Saquan and McCaffrey come to mind.

[H2o]

I wonder if the other trades that Rosenhaus is speaking of are going down during the draft? 

[Ridgewaycynic2013]

6 hours ago, Richard Noggin said:

The obvious answer is to guarantee his acquisition. If there is more than one team interested, then a release would give the asset some control of where he goes. Giving up assets eliminates that uncertainty. Obviously. 

 

Heard over the headphones:

"So, two cheese and pepperoni, original crusts ready for 4:30.  Got it, Mr. Marrone!"

Edited March 28, 2022 by Ridgewaycynic2013
Seeing double!

[Ed_Formerly_of_Roch]

7 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?

 

You guarantee you having him for one thing.

 

But to me the bigger reason is there's alot of uncertainty around him as to whether he's any good or not.  I highly doubt if he's released and now and a FA he'll sign a one year contract anywhere.  Likely will ask for a 4 year minimum, maybe someone can get it down to 3 years, but certainly be a large signing bonus. By the time you factor those things in, if you can afford the one year cap hit he'd play on, it's not such a bad deal to trade for him. 

 

The 5th year option will cost more this year, but if you sign him to a 3 to 4 year contract and he flops and you cut him, likely the cost the years he's cut will be as high as the 5th year option.

 

But because it is only a one year deal and his questionable abilities, likely Cleveland won't get too much in return.

[SoTier]

3 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 used to be a big Mayfield fan, but I don't think that Mayfield is that much of an upgrade over Tua at this point, especially when it comes to maturity and growth on and off the field.  Tua seems to have made more progress as a QB on the field.  Mayfield seems to keep making a lot of the same mistakes he was making in his first or second seasons.   Both of them had to deal with the possibility of being replaced by Deshaun Watson, and Tua handled it as an adult while Mayfield handled it as a whiny, entitled brat.

 

20 minutes ago, Southern_Bills said:

 

If I'm not mistaken doesn't Cleveland have to pay Baker even if they cut him?

 

I think that the money is less of an issue with Cleveland than having an aggrieved Baker Mayfield sulking in the locker room.  One way or another, I think the Browns are sending Mayfield packing before the season starts.

[simpleman]

51 minutes ago, GunnerBill said:

(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. 

Not sure exactly what you are arguing about. As long as the Browns can get Mayfield to agree to it, they definitely CAN extend and convert. They can bargain with Mayfield and compromise with him to give him something he wants in exchange for making the trade more attractive for the team he is traded to. Mayfield indeed has control on where he wants to go and the circumstances, and cant be unilaterally forced to accept the listed limitations on his contract rights.. This rule is designed to protect the player from being pressured into accepting the extend and conversion, not to forbid it from being done.

 

[2003Contenders]

2 minutes ago, SoTier said:

 

I used to be a big Mayfield fan, but I don't think that Mayfield is that much of an upgrade over Tua at this point, especially when it comes to maturity and growth on and off the field.  Tua seems to have made more progress as a QB on the field.  Mayfield seems to keep making a lot of the same mistakes he was making in his first or second seasons.   Both of them had to deal with the possibility of being replaced by Deshaun Watson, and Tua handled it as an adult while Mayfield handled it as a whiny, entitled brat.

 

 

I think that the money is less of an issue with Cleveland than having an aggrieved Baker Mayfield sulking in the locker room.  One way or another, I think the Browns are sending Mayfield packing before the season starts.

 

Agreed. Also, especially given all the QB moves that have been made around the league thus far, it is noteworthy that every move that the Dolphins have made has been to bolster the supporting cast around Tua. It appears that they want to give him every opportunity to succeed before deciding to move on at the QB position.

[DCofNC]

7 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?

I wonder if the Browns won’t hold on him for the first half of the year when it’s likely their new jackass will be suspended.

[GunnerBill]

7 minutes ago, simpleman said:

Not sure exactly what you are arguing about. As long as the Browns can get Mayfield to agree to it, they definitely CAN extend and convert. They can bargain with Mayfield and compromise with him to give him something he wants in exchange for making the trade more attractive for the team he is traded to. Mayfield indeed has control on where he wants to go and the circumstances, and cant be unilaterally forced to accept the listed limitations on his contract rights.. This rule is designed to protect the player from being pressured into accepting the extend and conversion, not to forbid it from being done.

 

 

They CAN extend and convert. Never disputed that. What they can't do is simply convert part of the 5th year option to signing bonus because the 5th year option is a unilateral power the team has. A player is not allowed to negotiate the 5th year option. It is non-negotiable. So any amendment to it would be unilateral and that is prevented. 

 

So if they want to convert Mayfield's 5th year option into signing bonus they need to extend him first. It is possible, maybe they find a way to do an extension with a single dummy year to help get him traded to his preferred spot. But it isn't as straight forward as it would be on a normal contract. 

 

[LabattBlue]

5 hours ago, 13 Second Prevent Defense said:

Is baker mayfield to the dolphins a “bombshell”?

 

My initial reaction also. 

[78thealltimegreat]

Considering Steven Ross made his money owning “Blockbuster” Baker to the Dolphins makes sense…but Bakers talent level is the equivalent of buying a bunch of Blu Rays and getting a Betamax machine to play them. 

[Rochesterfan]

28 minutes ago, simpleman said:

Not sure exactly what you are arguing about. As long as the Browns can get Mayfield to agree to it, they definitely CAN extend and convert. They can bargain with Mayfield and compromise with him to give him something he wants in exchange for making the trade more attractive for the team he is traded to. Mayfield indeed has control on where he wants to go and the circumstances, and cant be unilaterally forced to accept the listed limitations on his contract rights.. This rule is designed to protect the player from being pressured into accepting the extend and conversion, not to forbid it from being done.

 

 

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.

 

 

[Charles Romes]

I think Baker would have to sign off on a trade and re-sign where the new club would have him for about 2 years 36/18 per which is about his current FMV. No one is going to pay 18 for a one year look and then have to start all over if he plays well.  

[Hapless Bills Fan]

7 hours ago, Richard Noggin said:

The obvious answer is to guarantee his acquisition. If there is more than one team interested, then a release would give the asset some control of where he goes. Giving up assets eliminates that uncertainty. Obviously.

 

This.  Plus the trade partner can negotiate for the Browns to keep part of his salary as the Rams did with Von Miller, and they can even try to renegotiate as part of the trade.

1 hour ago, Southern_Bills said:

 

If I'm not mistaken doesn't Cleveland have to pay Baker even if they cut him?

 

Yes, his salary is fully guaranteed.

[NewEra]

1 hour ago, simpleman said:

Not sure exactly what you are arguing about. As long as the Browns can get Mayfield to agree to it, they definitely CAN extend and convert. They can bargain with Mayfield and compromise with him to give him something he wants in exchange for making the trade more attractive for the team he is traded to. Mayfield indeed has control on where he wants to go and the circumstances, and cant be unilaterally forced to accept the listed limitations on his contract rights.. This rule is designed to protect the player from being pressured into accepting the extend and conversion, not to forbid it from being done.

 

You’re not comprehending this correctly.