Myles Garrett?

[remydat]

Sportrac is what I use and I just have to rely on it for accuracy.

That being said, if you can take on future cap figures to drive the price down, I would cap my offer at Bears 2nd. The OL needs a youth movement, and so if he can be had for that price, you take it and put those two higher picks on the OL. A penny more is too rich for my blood, because there is a hard cap to how much a better defense will help our QB.

As great as it is to force three and outs, it doesn't do jack if you can't convert a first down after and are punting anyway.

I wouldnt be opposed to a first as if we added him it would likely be a late first and we probably need interior OL more than anything which we can get with the 2 2nd round draft picks.

 

[gallagher]

I wouldnt be opposed to a first as if we added him it would likely be a late first and we probably need interior OL more than anything which we can get with the 2 2nd round draft picks.

See, I think that a first is too high - the opportunity cost becomes too great because you are essentially buying two years of top flight DE (presuming a cut date of 6/2/2027 to get the most out of him, maximize early savings to invest in new talent, and maximally delay the 10M dead cap) for a first rounder.

Send a second round pick, and you are trading four years of a controlled-cost rookie for two years of top-flight veteran. Send a first round pick, and now trading a potential of five years of controlled cost, which goes to a prospect that one assumes is more likely to get that next contract with your team. It is better to draft a DE in the first, in my view, than to trade a first round pick for a DE, because that player gives you a competitive window of 2026-2028 before the fifth year option is exercised. That aligns with the team interests because those are years where Williams has more experience and is more competitive than in 2025, which is likely to be Garrett's best year for the team (assuming that he experiences a decline with age).

Hell, if you send Chicago's second for him, you can still draft a DE in the first round. Garrett's contract doesn't lock the team out of looking for OL in FA, and drafting more OL with the CAR second and CHI third round picks. At the core, what I want to stress is that Garrett's current deal is not too expensive for the team. That would give our defense a competitive window that matches the early years of Williams when he is on a rookie contract, and stays competitive for the first year that Williams is expensive.

 

[maxhatter]

Wait a minute. Garrett is a five-time Pro Bowler and the reigning Defensive Player of the Year. The Browns are not trading him for a mid-second-round pick. First, I don't think they will trade him, but if they did, it would be for a deal similar to the one that Mack received: a 2025 first-round pick, a 2026 first-round pick, a 2026 third-round pick for Garrett, and a 2026 second-round pick. I would also assume that the receiving team will have to take on some of Garrett's dead cap the Browns have on the books. I'm not advocating for the trade, but the road to the playoffs is difficult with the three teams ahead of the Bears in their division. I'm sure Poles is looking to add to this team via trade before the deadline.

 

[Neckbeard]

Poles has stuck to his principles pretty well regarding trades and drafts. I imagine if a trade did happen, it'll be on Poles terms, and not a reach. Anything big probably won't happen until hours before the trade deadline.

 

[Discus fish salesman]

See, I think that a first is too high - the opportunity cost becomes too great because you are essentially buying two years of top flight DE (presuming a cut date of 6/2/2027 to get the most out of him, maximize early savings to invest in new talent, and maximally delay the 10M dead cap) for a first rounder.

Send a second round pick, and you are trading four years of a controlled-cost rookie for two years of top-flight veteran. Send a first round pick, and now trading a potential of five years of controlled cost, which goes to a prospect that one assumes is more likely to get that next contract with your team. It is better to draft a DE in the first, in my view, than to trade a first round pick for a DE, because that player gives you a competitive window of 2026-2028 before the fifth year option is exercised. That aligns with the team interests because those are years where Williams has more experience and is more competitive than in 2025, which is likely to be Garrett's best year for the team (assuming that he experiences a decline with age).

Hell, if you send Chicago's second for him, you can still draft a DE in the first round. Garrett's contract doesn't lock the team out of looking for OL in FA, and drafting more OL with the CAR second and CHI third round picks. At the core, what I want to stress is that Garrett's current deal is not too expensive for the team. That would give our defense a competitive window that matches the early years of Williams when he is on a rookie contract, and stays competitive for the first year that Williams is expensive.

You can't. There's 0 chance myles Garrett is getting traded for a 2nd round pick. He's a top 3-5 edge rusher in the game.

I love the idea of adding Garrett but people also need to realize he's playing injured. I believe he said he needs surgery on both feet after the season but is playing through that for this awful browns team.

 

[DefNextYear]

See, I think that a first is too high - the opportunity cost becomes too great because you are essentially buying two years of top flight DE (presuming a cut date of 6/2/2027 to get the most out of him, maximize early savings to invest in new talent, and maximally delay the 10M dead cap) for a first rounder.

Send a second round pick, and you are trading four years of a controlled-cost rookie for two years of top-flight veteran. Send a first round pick, and now trading a potential of five years of controlled cost, which goes to a prospect that one assumes is more likely to get that next contract with your team. It is better to draft a DE in the first, in my view, than to trade a first round pick for a DE, because that player gives you a competitive window of 2026-2028 before the fifth year option is exercised. That aligns with the team interests because those are years where Williams has more experience and is more competitive than in 2025, which is likely to be Garrett's best year for the team (assuming that he experiences a decline with age).

Hell, if you send Chicago's second for him, you can still draft a DE in the first round. Garrett's contract doesn't lock the team out of looking for OL in FA, and drafting more OL with the CAR second and CHI third round picks. At the core, what I want to stress is that Garrett's current deal is not too expensive for the team. That would give our defense a competitive window that matches the early years of Williams when he is on a rookie contract, and stays competitive for the first year that Williams is expensive.

Unfortunately, a guy like Garrett would never go for just a 2nd rounder. I get what you're saying, but the going rate for a premiere edge like Garrett is high. If we make the playoffs, our 1st is a mid to late one. And cost controlled or not, there's a big roll of the dice if that player will ever be remotely good. The guy may only start for a couple seasons before being forced out of the league. Garrett is a known commodity and a damn good one.

My guess is they want at least a 1st and 2nd.

I don't know what I'd be willing to give up, but he's worth the gamble. I can also live with keeping the picks since it's an edge heavy draft. I imagine we can find a nice one with our 1st or Carolina's 2nd.

 

[didshereallysaythat]

I wouldn't give up a 1st. The Bears are improving but let's not get ahead of ourselves. Keep building up the roster and let Caleb get a year under his belt where next year he can really take off into an elite QB that can help this team get to a Super Bowl.

 

[hyatt151]

That wasn’t question. You “Lions” fans always try to shorten up the time span to attempt to benefit the Lions organization. We get all you have ever had to cheer for are these last couple seasons.

So can you answer my question or will you beat around the bush again?

yes I know your history of 50 years ago is greater than the Lions at that time, sorry if you choose to ignore the recent history of the teams, but whatever floats your boat

 

[hyatt151]

Unfortunately, a guy like Garrett would never go for just a 2nd rounder. I get what you're saying, but the going rate for a premiere edge like Garrett is high. If we make the playoffs, our 1st is a mid to late one. And cost controlled or not, there's a big roll of the dice if that player will ever be remotely good. The guy may only start for a couple seasons before being forced out of the league. Garrett is a known commodity and a damn good one.

My guess is they want at least a 1st and 2nd.

I don't know what I'd be willing to give up, but he's worth the gamble. I can also live with keeping the picks since it's an edge heavy draft. I imagine we can find a nice one with our 1st or Carolina's 2nd.

problem is, bears might be better off using those picks on the OL

 

[DefNextYear]

problem is, bears might be better off using those picks on the OL

For sure... I get it. But teams find ways to be competitive without using only 1sts and 2nds on the OL. It's hard to pass up on a HOF type player at a premiere position for the hypothetical guy we can draft in a year. The Bears have historically taken a lot of duds on the OL in the early part of drafts, so it's far from a guarantee that those picks amount to anything.

 

[Discus fish salesman]

I wouldn't give up a 1st. The Bears are improving but let's not get ahead of ourselves. Keep building up the roster and let Caleb get a year under his belt where next year he can really take off into an elite QB that can help this team get to a Super Bowl.

Anyone that isn't a moron would be willing to give up 1 single first for Garrett, the question is would it be worth it for this team to give up more.

 

[gallagher]

You can't. There's 0 chance myles Garrett is getting traded for a 2nd round pick. He's a top 3-5 edge rusher in the game.

Unfortunately, a guy like Garrett would never go for just a 2nd rounder.

On these accounts, I completely agree. I was stating my upper limit on a trade. I do not think that is obtainable to get him within my bargaining range unless we are the only buyer. There is a second weight to this balance that seldom gets considered - we have the ability to take on Garrett's cap figures while the Browns are overinvested in a rapist person who settled allegations (significant in the number, severity, and cost) out of court.

If the Browns are so desperate in their need for cap relief, and the Bears are the only buyer, I sit them and tell them that a second rounder was perfectly reasonable for Sweat, who's contract over the next two years are just as expensive, and what the Bears got in return for Mack, which was also a move for cap relief. And then I sit back with my feet up, and only return calls that ask for future mid round draft picks in addition to the second to make their feelings less hurt for losing the best player they have drafted since the Browns returned to the league. Consider my new max to be 2025 Bears 2nd, 2026 Bears 3rd (because Garrett is certainly better than Mack), but I make the Browns have to come back to me for the future picks to aid in driving the price away from first rounders.

If it is that or cut him (or a combo of players), in their stead I would have to take that one. If the Browns goal is to be competitive while Watson is on their team, they have to cut somewhere, and in their place I would have to have 1OA for the best QB in the draft I cut weight from the offense (because then you cut the rapist accused sexual deviant). But the Bears are so unlikely to be the only buyer, that I will not get my wish.

 

[nc0gnet0]

On these accounts, I completely agree. I was stating my upper limit on a trade. I do not think that is obtainable to get him within my bargaining range unless we are the only buyer. There is a second weight to this balance that seldom gets considered - we have the ability to take on Garrett's cap figures while the Browns are overinvested in a rapist person who settled allegations (significant in the number, severity, and cost) out of court.

If the Browns are so desperate in their need for cap relief, and the Bears are the only buyer, I sit them and tell them that a second rounder was perfectly reasonable for Sweat, who's contract over the next two years are just as expensive, and what the Bears got in return for Mack, which was also a move for cap relief. And then I sit back with my feet up, and only return calls that ask for future mid round draft picks in addition to the second to make their feelings less hurt for losing the best player they have drafted since the Browns returned to the league. Consider my new max to be 2025 Bears 2nd, 2026 Bears 3rd (because Garrett is certainly better than Mack), but I make the Browns have to come back to me for the future picks to aid in driving the price away from first rounders.

If it is that or cut him (or a combo of players), in their stead I would have to take that one. If the Browns goal is to be competitive while Watson is on their team, they have to cut somewhere, and in their place I would have to have 1OA for the best QB in the draft I cut weight from the offense (because then you cut the rapist accused sexual deviant). But the Bears are so unlikely to be the only buyer, that I will not get my wish.

The Bears are not the only buyer, so what is even the point of this discussion?

 

[MikeDitkaPolishSausage]

yes I know your history of 50 years ago is greater than the Lions at that time, sorry if you choose to ignore the recent history of the teams, but whatever floats your boat

If you are going to compare playoffs wins for two different organizations then you do so by looking at the entirety of their existence. You don’t pick and choose what suits your organization best.

 

[dennehy]

A Garrett trade would be an investment for this year and the next two, at least. He's got a reasonable deal. CLE has already paid him the signing bonus $, so there is no more $ the Bears could take on outside the option bonus. So at most he'd cost almost nothing this year and around $20m per over the next two years. If you have a healthy Garrett, one big OL signing like Connor Williams or Trey Smith, and two second round OL, that makes for a very dangerous team next year.

I don't think there's much chance of this happening though. I don't think he'll be available and if he is I don't think Poles is the kind to get into the type of bidding that it will take to get him.

 

[gallagher]

For sure... I get it. But teams find ways to be competitive without using only 1sts and 2nds on the OL. It's hard to pass up on a HOF type player at a premiere position for the hypothetical guy we can draft in a year. The Bears have historically taken a lot of duds on the OL in the early part of drafts, so it's far from a guarantee that those picks amount to anything.

I am definitely with you that a great deal of emphasis should be placed on things that are more certain. Garrett is certainly more certain than the best prospect in next year's draft simply because Garrett has beaten the pants off of every NFL OT he has faced for years.

However, the same argument exists where OT are premier positions (and the Bears OTs are underperforming - an unfortunate fact). OT block premier pass rushers like Garrett, and Chicago is in need of using those top picks on the guys that block for our (hopefully) top QB. That is why it is important to put a hard limit on what you will pay, so that those top picks are being invested in premier positions. Garrett, no matter how good, would need to agree to a salary reduction to be on the team beyond 2026; I can only justify first rounders in the trade if we were absolutely in contention for the Super Bowl during the entire time that he is here. I expect Detroit to be willing to outbid Chicago simply because they are absolutely in contention for the trophy today and through 2026. Detroit is not in need of many investments during that period because every key star is tied up in that period, and are in the same cap position we are. Your argument should be more persuasive to Detroit than Chicago.

 

[DefNextYear]

On these accounts, I completely agree. I was stating my upper limit on a trade. I do not think that is obtainable to get him within my bargaining range unless we are the only buyer. There is a second weight to this balance that seldom gets considered - we have the ability to take on Garrett's cap figures while the Browns are overinvested in a rapist person who settled allegations (significant in the number, severity, and cost) out of court.

If the Browns are so desperate in their need for cap relief, and the Bears are the only buyer, I sit them and tell them that a second rounder was perfectly reasonable for Sweat, who's contract over the next two years are just as expensive, and what the Bears got in return for Mack, which was also a move for cap relief. And then I sit back with my feet up, and only return calls that ask for future mid round draft picks in addition to the second to make their feelings less hurt for losing the best player they have drafted since the Browns returned to the league. Consider my new max to be 2025 Bears 2nd, 2026 Bears 3rd (because Garrett is certainly better than Mack), but I make the Browns have to come back to me for the future picks to aid in driving the price away from first rounders.

If it is that or cut him (or a combo of players), in their stead I would have to take that one. If the Browns goal is to be competitive while Watson is on their team, they have to cut somewhere, and in their place I would have to have 1OA for the best QB in the draft I cut weight from the offense (because then you cut the rapist accused sexual deviant). But the Bears are so unlikely to be the only buyer, that I will not get my wish.

Unfortunately, we'd definitely be in a bidding war... just in our division at minimum, I'd definitely expect the Lions to take those calls. If anything, it's great leverage for the Browns to use us against each other to keep a stud off a division rival.

 

[gallagher]

Unfortunately, we'd definitely be in a bidding war... just in our division at minimum, I'd definitely expect the Lions to take those calls. If anything, it's great leverage for the Browns to use us against each other to keep a stud off a division rival.

If I am running the Lions, I would absolutely bid a 2025 1st with 2026 picks (that remain below a second rounder). Without him, they are a strong bid to be in the NFCC game in each of those years. Garrett would put them in a duel with KC for the next three years.

EDIT - Oh man, with Minnesota's 0-4 SB record... if Detroit got one ring in that period, which burns to the ground first, Minneapolis or St Paul?

 

[DB012031]

Unfortunately, we'd definitely be in a bidding war... just in our division at minimum, I'd definitely expect the Lions to take those calls. If anything, it's great leverage for the Browns to use us against each other to keep a stud off a division rival.

There will be a bidding war, that's fair, but when you also look at the teams bidding, its all-Playoff caliber teams. So, that means that the draft picks are going to be lower in every round, so they are not as valuable so they would in theory have to give up more.

Take the Lions for example, for the 2025 draft they have a 1st and 2nd but then don't pick again until the 4th. That 1 and 2 pick are going to be at the bottom of both rounds because the Lions are most likely making the playoffs. So now they are going to have to dip into the 2026 picks, which again, are also probably going to be very low in their respective rounds because the Lions are built to win for a couple of years.

The Bears do have an inherent advantage over most teams because they have that Carolina pick in the 2nd round which, let's face it, is probably going to be the 33rd Pick since most think Carolina probably finishes dead last, again. So, if the Bears were so inclined they could still keep their own 2nd round pick and flip the Carolina pick along with say a 1st this year and either a 1st or 2nd next year. The reason that the Bear's picks are more valuable is that, again in theory, the Bears may very well miss the playoffs this year with a rookie QB, thus Cleveland would get a higher pick, coupled with that Carolina 2nd rounder.

Bears have quite a bit of Cap Room and have some larger contracts they can get off the books (Keenan Allen for example) and they can punt on having to lock up their QB for another 3 years as well as Odunze.

Also, I know everyone wants to keep the picks and build, and honestly, I am not against that either. But lets also keep in mind that outside of the Chiefs (Because of Mahoes and Reid) and the Brady Patriots, no one really has had a 10 year window to win by keeping their picks. Drafting is just as big as a crap shoot as FA signings. I mean come on, the Jags are already thinking of getting rid of the #1 pick from just a couple of years ago. If you have a chance to get the #1 defensive player, at a position of need and they are on the right side of 30, I say absolutely pull the trigger. We have seen so many 1st round busts over the past 5+ years that holding onto a 1st round pick doesn't really mean anything anymore.

 

[gobullschi]

You’re kneecapping the ability to replace those players by taking our two most valuable picks in the next two years and trading them away.

If you draft 2 above average starters with those first rounders at different positions, then it outweighs Garrett’s contributions and that’s without taking the massive cap hit associated with Myles Garrett in mind.

And I hear that argument every time a trade like this is proposed. It doesn’t change the fact that you are dealing your two most valuable picks over the next two years for 1 player. Why not hang onto all of the draft capital and keep drafting players our awesome GM likes? Unlike previous Bears GMs, Pace seems to be good at drafting the first three rounds.

I’ve seen this team trade multiple draft picks for players several times. It didn’t work with Jay Cutler. It didn’t work with Khalil Mack. It won’t work with Myles Garrett.

Usually, I would agree with what you are saying, but the Bears are in a unique financial position with Caleb Williams being as talented as he is while being on a rookie contract. In addition, the Bears own CAR 2nd, which is damn close to being a 1st.

60% of 1st round picks are busts, so there is no guarantee that the Bears get 2 above average starters - even with the all powerful Chef Poles. Also, the odds that either of those players are even in the same stratosphere talent-wise as Myles Garrett is basically 0.

I understand why you would be hesitant after the trades you sited (Jay Cutler & Khalil Mack), but IMO, the Bears are in a much different position today than those teams. With Jay Cutler, the defense got old and fell apart. With Khalil Mack, the Bears had a dominant defense. The problem was that Mitch Trubisky was a bust.

IMO, it ultimately comes down to your evaluation of Caleb Williams. If you think had the talent to lead the Bears to a Super Bowl in the next 2.5 years, Myles Garrett is a no-brainer.