Knowing that the Browns have to get rid of Mayfield, would any team actually trade for him or just wait until he's cut?
He’s a nearly $19 mill dead cap charge. Like same as Darnold at $18 mill. Both on 5th year options. No savings in releasing him. May have to eat some of the money to save some of the $19 mill.More likely to get cut.
The way they handled it has eliminated most of the trade value.
Vikings had cousins on the books for $45 mill cap charge with a $35 base salary. So a swap would have left them with $10 mill dead cap on cousins plus take on Baker at $19 mill so $29 mill on QB but a downgrade at the position but puts them in position to get out of it by end of the season.Just a rumor I've seen floated around but apparently before the Cousins' extension the Browns offered Baker and two seconds for him but the Vikings declined and that decision may have came from ownership.
If true, I woulda took that and ran from a Vikings perspective. Get out from Kirk bleeding you dry in both cash and cap space, run with Baker for a year and if KOC can't fix him you move on and find your own guy in 2023 draft.
But the Vikings rather just run back Spileman/Zimmer's aging/underachieving team just with a different coach and GM for some reason.
Vikings had cousins on the books for $45 mill cap charge with a $35 base salary. So a swap would have left them with $10 mill dead cap on cousins plus take on Baker at $19 mill so $29 mill on QB but a downgrade at the position but puts them in position to get out of it by end of the season.
Browns would end up paying $35 mill cap charge for cousins.
I think the Browns went into this knowing Baker’s negligible trade value. It sounds like this possibility is a big factor in why they re-structured both Watson and Cooper’s contracts to both have very small cap numbers this season. They might have expected they’d have to eat $19 million in dead cap money.More likely to get cut.
The way they handled it has eliminated most of the trade value.
I don't agree.If anything, the Browns are the ones that killed his trade value by continuing to play him when he clearly wasn't healthy and then spending the offseason to date throwing him under the bus. A Baker Mayfield coming off an injury-shortened season without an organizational lashing would've gotten at least something back.
Quite possibly if Baker sat and Cleveland sucked in those games, Baker might have had the proof they "needed" him. Worked out for Dak, although the situation is not entirely the same; Dak was trying to prove it too but he couldn't play through his injury while Baker could.Of course pro athletes want to play, but it's up to management to make decisions in the best interest of their player health coupled with their chances on the field. Once it became obvious that his level of play had not returned and he was dealing with lingering issues, they should've shut him down for the season (or at least until he showed marked physical improvement). Instead, they kept putting an injured guy out there and were shocked that he was substandard. They added insult to injury by trashing him publicly and more or less turned him into the persona of a locker room cancer, rightly or wrongly.
Maybe benching Mayfield would've lead to a standoff all the same, I don't know. But at least some semblance of trade value would've remained. Instead, he's a diva that causes issues in the locker room and has very pisspoor play to show for it in everyone's recent memory. That's not good for anybody, especially not the Browns.
I think the problem is the Browns aren't convinced his injury is why he was playing poorly. Baker's struggles were more about decision and not being able to read defenses.Of course pro athletes want to play, but it's up to management to make decisions in the best interest of their player health coupled with their chances on the field. Once it became obvious that his level of play had not returned and he was dealing with lingering issues, they should've shut him down for the season (or at least until he showed marked physical improvement). Instead, they kept putting an injured guy out there and were shocked that he was substandard. They added insult to injury by trashing him publicly and more or less turned him into the persona of a locker room cancer, rightly or wrongly.
Maybe benching Mayfield would've lead to a standoff all the same, I don't know. But at least some semblance of trade value would've remained. Instead, he's a diva that causes issues in the locker room and has very pisspoor play to show for it in everyone's recent memory. That's not good for anybody, especially not the Browns.
Wilson’s name was out there last year, that’s one they should’ve known to be in on, especially given Seattle was willing to take a quarterback back. Not the same contract but Mayfield is still way better than Drew Lock.I think the problem is the Browns aren't convinced his injury is why he was playing poorly. Baker's struggles were more about decision and not being able to read defenses.
Sitting him earlier in the season might have helped preserve trade value, but they were still wanting to make the playoffs. They also didn't approach games last season thinking about trading Baker. No one knew we'd see Wilson, Ryan, and Watson hit the trade market.
But Wilson had a no trade and apparently didn't have Cleveland on his list of teams he'd consider.Wilson’s name was out there last year, that’s one they should’ve known to be in on, especially given Seattle was willing to take a quarterback back. Not the same contract but Mayfield is still way better than Drew Lock.
But Wilson had a no trade and apparently didn't have Cleveland on his list of teams he'd consider.
So did Watson until they handed him a blank checkBut Wilson had a no trade and apparently didn't have Cleveland on his list of teams he'd consider.
Was that an option with Wilson? The Texans let Watson go on a roadshow where he met with multiple teams, which created this environment where the Browns came in with the blank check contract at the end. Wilson pretty much said "Send me to Denver" without talking to any teams.So did Watson until they handed him a blank check
He was entertaining other teams as well, reportedly going back to last season. I don’t know that it could’ve happened, but they probably tried, and that’s when they needed to have a plan to move Mayfield.Was that an option with Wilson? The Texans let Watson go on a roadshow where he met with multiple teams, which created this environment where the Browns came in with the blank check contract at the end. Wilson pretty much said "Send me to Denver" without talking to any teams.
Sure, but what spurred the Browns to come up with the blank check contract was having lost out on Wilson and appearing to lose out on Watson. The desperation made them come up with the blank check contract idea. They didn't go into the offseason thinking about it as a tool.He was entertaining other teams as well, reportedly going back to last season. I don’t know that it could’ve happened, but they probably tried, and that’s when they needed to have a plan to move Mayfield.
Unless they're definitely drafting a QB in round 1, there isn't really a reason not to. Whoever ends up with Mayfield really only stands to gain.Sure, but what spurred the Browns to come up with the blank check contract was having lost out on Wilson and appearing to lose out on Watson. The desperation made them come up with the blank check contract idea. They didn't go into the offseason thinking about it as a tool.
And who knows if Seattle would have taken Mayfield back. They took Lock, but Lock is also paid next to nothing.
Seattle just signed Smith to a 1 year deal for $7 million. Gives them Lock, Smith, Eason at QB for the upcoming year. Figure that they decide to use their pick either on a CB (Gardner, and OL, or a DE in round 1). If Corral is on the board in round 2 for them, I think they may select him there or trade back into round 1 to secure the 5th year option if Corral is there.Unless they're definitely drafting a QB in round 1, there isn't really a reason not to. Whoever ends up with Mayfield really only stands to gain.
Eason is a zero-sum element to that. He is a non-factor. If they like a QB at 9, that's what they're going to do. Nobody they have in the QB room will stop that.Seattle just signed Smith to a 1 year deal for $7 million. Gives them Lock, Smith, Eason at QB for the upcoming year. Figure that they decide to use their pick either on a CB (Gardner, and OL, or a DE in round 1). If Corral is on the board in round 2 for them, I think they may select him there or trade back into round 1 to secure the 5th year option if Corral is there.
Baker is either going to have to sit and wait it out or the Browns finally bite the bullet and cut him. Probably won't do that until they have to (like him being a distraction at camp or something). Since, they are on the hook for his $19 million cap hit regardless.
I think Eason's down the depth chart. They now have Lock and Smith, so I don't get the sense that they are considering a QB at 9. No one screams top pick to me this year.Eason is a zero-sum element to that. He is a non-factor. If they like a QB at 9, that's what they're going to do. Nobody they have in the QB room will stop that.