Free Agency Discussion

[Mind Character]

2 hours ago, Vee-Rex said:

If I'm not mistaken, we have a lot of rollover cap space because we carried it over. You don't gain rollover cap space back.

So let's say for example we sign Trent to 20 million for one year and let him walk next year. We will be at 24 million, not back up to 44 million.

This is why it's imperative to use that money on cornerstone pieces that we know will be here for awhile.

When you're up high enough when you fall you land on the clouds.

That's the best way to describe the Browns Salary Cap situation.

Indeed, our cap space number is high and inflated due to carryover, but it's not just smoke and mirrors carryover much like many other teams that employ the salary cap device as a trick to create spending room fiscally.

What's different about the Browns is the actual salary make-up of the roster affords bigger spending commitments even without the carry-over.

I also think your example of the salary cap not bouncing back up doesn't actually fit with how the salary cap with carryover or not actually works.

That and there are a couple of other things that I'm not sure you're attending to when it comes to carryover cap space and whether or not the Browns can afford to spend big still:

1.) The carryover doesn't automatically reset each year, but instead can be continued in the "roll-over included" total cap number for multiple consecutive years. That is exactly how we find ourselves in this position where we have so much cap space (along with the Team not paying anyone mostly).

Even if the Browns decide to cut their carry over in half they are not at risk of salary cap trouble as the only reason they carried over such record numbers was because the Browns were in danger of being at the spending floor having the league's least fiscally intensive cap commitments.

Your math doesn't really match the reality of the how the current salary cap functions. Specifically, the example given of a 1 year 20 million contract of Trent Williams deducted from a current 44 million salary cap equaling just 24 Million in remaining cap Even after the contract comes off the books isn't accurate. The salary cap would indeed reset to 44 million after the hypothetical Trent Williams contract came off the books just as the Browns Salary cap number increased after Joe Schobert's contract wasn't retained and after the Browns terminated the various contracts they decided to terminate.

That reason is because carry over or not the cap number reflects the actual contract space and parameters the Browns can function with as long as they continue to carry over even a 25% of their current carry over amounts.

Also, No one is paying a player 20 million dollars a year out-right unless it's a Franchise Tag or a QB. More realistically it would be a two year deal where the bonus is spread out over two years which in essence would make any salary cap hit negligible.

2.) The Salary Cap goes up around 10-15 Million Dollars Per Year and with the influx of new astronomical TV deals and the new 17-Game CBA, teams are expecting future increment increases to be more in the 15-22 Million Dollar Per Year Range.

3.) With the new 2020 CBA agreement, the carry over cap rules even more so benefit teams like the Browns who are not just "carrying over cap" as an accounting trick to avoid the limitations of a roster with many bloated contracts.  Instead, the Browns carry over is actually reflective of functional spending space as a look at the roster salary composition illustrates that bulk share of salaries for the team goes to 5 core players  (Joel Bitonio, JC Tretter, Austin Hooper, Jack Conklin, Odell Beckham Jr., and Jarvis Landry), as well as 2 players that will soon not be with the team at year's end (Sheldon Richardson and Olivier Vernon).

The key thing about the Jarvis and OBJ contract commitments is that they have outs in 2 years which will likely result in decisions that see they both leave the Browns at that time.

So, that just leaves Baker Mayfield, Myles Garrett, Denzel Ward and possibly 1 or 2 other players that the FO decides they want to keep as part of the team going forward (i.e., Larry Ogunjobi).

The point is nothing is lost by adding two front loaded contracts (i.e., Anthony Harris and/or Trent Williams) for the next 2 years. The Browns have the benefit so much room via carry over for multiple years that they can reduce their carry over drastically and still have plenty of cap space to accommodate ,for the big contracts coming in 2-years. They can spend big still on contracts that spread big money over a 2 year time course.

[Mind Character]

2 hours ago, Thomas5737 said:

Myles is about to get a new contract, we can't realistically pay two stud DEs long term. The carry over money will go away.

The carry over money may not be going away in the truest of senses as most CBA and salary cap analysts believe that the influx of new TV money and increase in the salary cap will in effect allow the highest carry over team to reduce their carry over by 45-60% without it causing an sort of salary cap or fiscal issue what so ever.

The Revenue and power increase margins of the NFL make it such that the Ownership groups can use all their salary cap allotments (carry over or not) every single year with no fear of any financial recourse or strain.

So, it raises the interesting question of "Why do teams scale back their carry over after operating at inflated "Adjusted Salary Cap" numbers for multiple years?

This is a question that has been taken up by many reporters, agents, and insiders over the years with the answers being that 1.) There is an unwritten, collusion-based and agreement between Team Owners to control how much money they give to players versus keeping revenue for themselves, 2.) The carry over stop when Teams decide they are in a prolonged Tanking rebuild, 3.) The Teams Owners are just greedy, and 4.) The Carry stops due to mismanagement of the monolopy salary cap money game by incompetent salary cap magicians/ numbers illusionists.

As long as the species doesn't face prolonged pandemic extinction threat, there's going to be so much money pouring in to the NFL and with the new CBA and forthcoming TV deals the Browns paying Myles Garrett, Baker Mayfield, Austin Hooper, Joel Bitonio, Jack Conklin, JC Tretter, and maybe Denzel Ward or a few others will not cause the Browns to face any salary cap peril at all so long as various contract commitments are spread out over long courses of time while others are strategically condensed over time to stagger cap commitment strain.

Salary cap management is a deceptive art. The Browns still have the room and leeway to give out some big contracts over the next few years without undercutting their longterm building strategy.

Edited March 30, 2020 by Mind Character

[BleedTheClock]

2 hours ago, buno67 said:

Not well enough to be considered a core player  at the moment

I agree, but he’s going to be a high end #2. 

[Thomas5737]

19 minutes ago, Mind Character said:

As long as the species doesn't face prolonged pandemic extinction threat, there's going to be so much money pouring in to the NFL and with the new CBA and forthcoming TV deals the Browns paying Myles Garrett, Baker Mayfield, Austin Hooper, Joel Bitonio, Jack Conklin, JC Tretter, and maybe Denzel Ward or a few others will not cause the Browns to face any salary cap peril at all so long as various contract commitments are spread out over long courses of time while others are strategically condensed over time to stagger cap commitment strain.

OBJ, Landry, Chubb... I know not everyone is staying but no team can have 10 players getting top 5 money at their positions in the long run no matter what the cap is because they will merge together no matter what the numbers are. There may be a few year gap but I don't know if you want to bet the farm on it and if something happens and that cap number barely goes up and you end up 30 million over you are gonna have to make some tough choices down the road. Especially if you are adding another top paid CB and DE.

[Mind Character]

 

10 hours ago, Thomas5737 said:

OBJ, Landry, Chubb... I know not everyone is staying but no team can have 10 players getting top 5 money at their positions in the long run no matter what the cap is because they will merge together no matter what the numbers are. There may be a few year gap but I don't know if you want to bet the farm on it and if something happens and that cap number barely goes up and you end up 30 million over you are gonna have to make some tough choices down the road. Especially if you are adding another top paid CB and DE.

Indeed, no team can be structured that way.

To me, the league is a 2 year league where what is today will certainly not be 2 years from now.

I guess I don't get these 10 guys who are all going to paid like that On the Browns in concurrent timeframes or in general this fear that we are on the precipice of salary cap doom mainly bc it's inconceivable to me that such high contract number players will all be on the team longer than 2 years from now. 

Even for those that remain, the time scale of and certain money hits vs not is likely to be staggered in such a way that it's not going matter especially for a team looking to build through the draft.

It's a certainty that OBJ & Jarvis will not get new long-term big money in there 29-31 year old seasons. These next 2 years are it and that's an analytical consensus based on roster building history. They'll both be sent to other teams in the off-season when new money is desired a la Stefon Diggs and Nuk Hopkins.

That would leave Chubb, Myles, Baker, Bitonio, Hooper, Conklin, Denzel, Unknown Big money player 1, Unknown Big money player 2.

Baker and Myles are 2 years away from the cash out; Denzel/Greedy may never get there.

The market blueprint is clear and set for top RBs.

That is, when their contracts run out franchise them for a max of 2 years after the rookie deal and find a replacement. That applies to the amazing Nick Chubb as well. The tag creates cost certainty to work around and top RBs will no longer get big money unless a team is in SB contention.

Bitonio's big money is hay in the barn; Conklin's will be after year 1 as will Hooper's in year 2.

The cap hits for Myles and Baker will be insane.

But there's a 2 year window to spend big and structure the money to come off the books by year 2.

Be it a Trent Williams contract and/or Anthony Harris contract Berry and co have the safety net to get sold on we facto 2 yr deals and see how high the team can ascend.

If too many talented players require big money commits, I think a lot of people's fears don't take into account trades that prioritize keeping some players over others.

Edited March 30, 2020 by Mind Character

[Thomas5737]

20 minutes ago, Mind Character said:

t's a certainty that OBJ & Jarvis will not get new long-term big money in there 29-31 year old seasons. These next 2 years are it and that's an analytical consensus based on roster building history. They'll both be sent to other teams in the off-season when new money is desired a la Stefon Sighs and Nik Hopkins.

Maybe, but do you plan for cutting or trading OBJ when he still has a couple years left on his contract? Landry is a probability but if salary increases like you suggest he may not be as overpaid and maybe they will want him for the final three years of his contract.

22 minutes ago, Mind Character said:

That would leave Chubb, Myles, Baker, Bitonio, Hooper, Conklin, Denzel, Unknown Big money player 1, Unknown Big money player 2.

Baker and Myles are 2 years away from the cash out; Denzel/Greedy may never get there.

Garrett's deal should get done this offseason, that's how you keep the player happy, Baker next offseason and the new money starts in 2021 for Garrett and 2022 for Baker. We could drag our feet and ride out the 5th year option but that doesn't always work out because sometimes you upset the player (or agent) and there is a short term holdout and then you could be forced into a tag situation which usually makes it worse. I'd try to get Garrett's deal done asap and the same with Baker if he does what he should this season

26 minutes ago, Mind Character said:

The market blueprint is clear and set for top RBs.

That is, when their contracts run out franchise them for a max of 2 years after the rookie deal and find a replacement. That applies the amazing Nick Chubb as well. The tag creates cost certainty to work around and top RBs will no longer get big money unless a team is in SB contention.

That's a wait and see. Maybe Chubb is the best in the league at that point do you really want to cut ties with him because of overspending elsewhere? I don't.

 

27 minutes ago, Mind Character said:

Bitonios big money is that in the barn; Conklin's will be after year 1 as will Hooper's in year 2.

Bitonio is 10 per. Hooper is cheap this year then goes to 8.25 next and 13.25 the following two years. Conklin is 8, 13 and 15.

 

Sure we won't hold on to all of them but I don't want spending in areas that don't appear to be a priority to be the reason.We're fine this year and next but things could start getting blurry after that We're 7 million under the cap heading into 2020 if we were to ignore the carryover. With the big contracts eventually coming that carryover is going to be gone most likely. Browns had the 2nd highest cap overall last year at 212m and the 6th highest active player cap. That's before Ward, Garrett and Baker even sniffed their first deal after their rookie contract. We have a few more contracts that we can remove (vernon/Richardson) to help carryover future but if you replace them with a high contract player you lose that.

I haven't done the math, it just looks like there could be issues in the future if we start signing players to huge deals at positions where we don't need a huge impact player. I don't want to sacrafice ex: Chubb/Greedy/O-Line in a couple years so we can have Clowney. It would be fun if he and Garrett stayed on the field (Vernon and Garrett was supposed to be fun too) but we also don't want to cut a high contract player and start getting into dead cap hell if things go bad.

[candyman93]

Just my own prediction, but we will draft OBJ and Jarvis replacement in 1-2 years. However, that depends on Baker.

 

It’s why what the Chiefs are doing is the smartest way to build a franchise. Dedicate most of your resources to maximizing your QB. You can have 2-3 really good to great defensive players, but the rest can only be JAGs. 

[Vee-Rex]

I'll trust the actual analytics guys and their evaluation on whether or not we should be blowing everything within the next 2 years. You don't build your team through risky mega contracts in free agency, you use FA to infuse a much needed part or two and build through the draft. The more your team is built through big free agency contracts, the more holes you'll be looking to fill each draft year.

Everyone seems to be acting omniscient about how things will play out in the next two years and it's clouding their judgment, IMO. The point in having a decent chunk of cap space is to act as a contingency plan in case something goes differently or an brand new opportunity arises. People are suggesting we'll be replacing Jarvis and OBJ in 1-2 years: well the reason we have them right now is to give us a shot. What if in 2020 we reach the playoffs and win a playoff game or two on the backs of some tremendous efforts by those 2? Will we be ready to reset the WR position and give Baker rookies? How would that affect Stefanski's offense that usually requires 1 or 2 really good receivers? Or would it be a harder decision to just let them both walk? Point is - if we're strapped for cash at this time then it really makes that a one-way decision.

What if in 2021 we have an opportunity to acquire an all-pro but we're stuck paying Trent freaking Williams? Maintaining flexibility is important here too, and I don't think we should just go blowing cap space on risky players just because we have it.

We got 43 million (ish) in cap space right now - this is before the draft. We need to cool our jets and not go spending a huge chunk of it on a risk as big as Trent Williams. I could go with an Anthony Harris if that's what our front office felt comfortable with but the players like him that are available are few and far in between.

Edited March 30, 2020 by Vee-Rex

[Vee-Rex]

7 hours ago, Thomas5737 said:

Maybe, but do you plan for cutting or trading OBJ when he still has a couple years left on his contract? Landry is a probability but if salary increases like you suggest he may not be as overpaid and maybe they will want him for the final three years of his contract.

Garrett's deal should get done this offseason, that's how you keep the player happy, Baker next offseason and the new money starts in 2021 for Garrett and 2022 for Baker. We could drag our feet and ride out the 5th year option but that doesn't always work out because sometimes you upset the player (or agent) and there is a short term holdout and then you could be forced into a tag situation which usually makes it worse. I'd try to get Garrett's deal done asap and the same with Baker if he does what he should this season

That's a wait and see. Maybe Chubb is the best in the league at that point do you really want to cut ties with him because of overspending elsewhere? I don't.

 

Bitonio is 10 per. Hooper is cheap this year then goes to 8.25 next and 13.25 the following two years. Conklin is 8, 13 and 15.

 

Sure we won't hold on to all of them but I don't want spending in areas that don't appear to be a priority to be the reason.We're fine this year and next but things could start getting blurry after that We're 7 million under the cap heading into 2020 if we were to ignore the carryover. With the big contracts eventually coming that carryover is going to be gone most likely. Browns had the 2nd highest cap overall last year at 212m and the 6th highest active player cap. That's before Ward, Garrett and Baker even sniffed their first deal after their rookie contract. We have a few more contracts that we can remove (vernon/Richardson) to help carryover future but if you replace them with a high contract player you lose that.

I haven't done the math, it just looks like there could be issues in the future if we start signing players to huge deals at positions where we don't need a huge impact player. I don't want to sacrafice ex: Chubb/Greedy/O-Line in a couple years so we can have Clowney. It would be fun if he and Garrett stayed on the field (Vernon and Garrett was supposed to be fun too) but we also don't want to cut a high contract player and start getting into dead cap hell if things go bad.

This is very well said and probably put more eloquently than I could put it. We'd be fools to pretend like we KNOW how every piece is gonna fall within the next two years, "thus we should go ahead and blow our money on guys like Williams and Clowney because we know exactly how everything is going to play out"

If Garrett has a full year and dominates (like we expect), we'll be looking to pay him after this year. And he'll either match or surpass Aaron Donald as the highest paid defensive player.

[Mind Character]

7 hours ago, Thomas5737 said:

We're fine this year and next but things could start getting blurry after that We're 7 million under the cap heading into 2020 if we were to ignore the carryover

You're right that the picture gets blurry 2 years from now.

Indeed, the 2-year window for big spending to see how high the team can fly was my point.

Berry and co have already telegraphed that understanding by structuring all 1-year deals for the free agent class or 2-year out deals. They know what's coming.

Guys like Anthony Harris who are already 28 and Trent Williams who is already 31 are going to get big money only within the de-facto 2-year contractual time frame even if the deal is publicized to have a longer contractual period.

7 hours ago, Thomas5737 said:

Garrett's deal should get done this offseason,

It definitely could and should get done this off-season. We have the plethora of space to sign Myles without it effecting many other plans.

7 hours ago, Thomas5737 said:

That's a wait and see. Maybe Chubb is the best in the league at that point do you really want to cut ties with him because of overspending elsewhere? I don't.

The Nick Chubb thing hurts to think about, but I think the league has stepped into a new norm for RBs and that applies to even the best RBs in the league as well as the one's fan-bases love and respect. I don't want to see Nick Chubb ever leave the Browns, but I don't see any RBs getting those Leveon Bell, Todd Gurley, Devonta Freeman, or Zeke Elliot deals anymore. Those days are done and now it's going the way of the Derrick Henry "we love him and he's the core of our team but we're just going to franchise him for 2 years straight until we find his replacement." The true test case will be Christian McCaffrey and Alvin Kamara as both players provide both passing game impact. Even with them I expect them to be franchised.

I don't believe in just overspending for the sake of spending cap space, but I don't think that paying a Left Tackle for 2 years now well before Chubb's contract decision is overspending nor do I think it would limit the abiity to sign Nick Chubb to a longer term deal later.

7 hours ago, Thomas5737 said:

Sure we won't hold on to all of them but I don't want spending in areas that don't appear to be a priority to be the reason.

Of course. And Agreed.

It's just spending now on de facto 2 year deals at priority positions like LT (Trent Williams) or FS (Anthony Harris) which is what kind of sparked off a lot of these conversations and discussions in my analysis of things has no bearing or true impact on what is to come when Baker's contract and all the other major key contractual decisions come down the line (outside of maybe Myles this upcoming off-season).

 

[mtmmike]

14 hours ago, Mind Character said:

 

Indeed, no team can be structured that way.

To me, the league is a 2 year league where what is today will certainly not be 2 years from now.

I guess I don't get these 10 guys who are all going to paid like that On the Browns in concurrent timeframes or in general this fear that we are on the precipice of salary cap doom mainly bc it's inconceivable to me that such high contract number players will all be on the team longer than 2 years from now. 

Even for those that remain, the time scale of and certain money hits vs not is likely to be staggered in such a way that it's not going matter especially for a team looking to build through the draft.

It's a certainty that OBJ & Jarvis will not get new long-term big money in there 29-31 year old seasons. These next 2 years are it and that's an analytical consensus based on roster 

 

B

 

 

The cap hits for Myles and Baker will be insane.

But there's a 2 year window to spend big and structure the money to come off the books by year 2.

 

 

As i understand it Myles and Mayfield final rookie year contracts will be 16,000,000

Mayfields second contract will not go north of 30 mill

the expected pay for Myles is 24 million this represents only a 22 million dollar in raises against are salary cap

The expected raises for the salarycap over the next 3 years will be 20 million per year.

[Thomas5737]

9 hours ago, Mind Character said:

ndeed, the 2-year window for big spending to see how high the team can fly was my point.

Yeah, if the goal is to win now It would be a good move. Not saying that we can't win now without big acquisitions but if they made splash signings because they thought we could get to the championship game in the next two or three years I would understand it even if it wasn't successful. It it was successful it would obviously be the right move, pretty much whatever it takes would be.

[candyman93]

I really do appreciate what Berry has tried to do.
 

Make it difficult as possible for Baker to fail. I don’t care if it’s an overkill, just do it.

 

If Baker needs another WR, get him another WR. If he wants a RB, get him a RB. Leave no excuses.

[NateDawg]

I’m not down on Greedy Williams. He was a rookie and wasn’t great but he was adequate. I’m not sure how he will be going forward but the attributes are there. I had my doubts coming out. We shall see. Along those lines though, it is madness to say that one would pass on Jeffrey Okudah because we have Greedy Williams. Madness. In a league where there is always a shortage of solid coverage cornerbacks and typically three CBs on the field at the same time.   Factor in injuries, it’s a no brainer. Not that I think he will be there by any means. But good grief if he is there it’s simple. In the perfect world, we take an elite tackle at 10. If you don’t like what is there though and an elite player is out there, you take him.

[Mind Character]

3 hours ago, Thomas5737 said:

Yeah, if the goal is to win now It would be a good move. Not saying that we can't win now without big acquisitions but if they made splash signings because they thought we could get to the championship game in the next two or three years I would understand it even if it wasn't successful. It it was successful it would obviously be the right move, pretty much whatever it takes would be.

Indeed.

Even if the team doesn't get to the Ship, the chase up the mountain to winning and high leverage playoff competition experience has benefits and far reaching effects of their own on creating an enduring winning organizational culture.

I don't believe in going "all in" throwing money any and everywhere in some haphazard attempt to get to the Superbowl.

To me, that's an unsustainable ill-conceived plan for failure that likely leads to longterm negative consequences on sustained winning and organizational culture.

All I'm saying is a move for Anthony Harris plus a de-facto 2-year contract here and/or a move for Trent Williams plus a de-facto 2-year contract there would not alter any longterm plans but it might help ensure that the team have a chance at gaining deep playoff run experience. That's valuable.

Ultimately, Berry and co would likely rather save their draft capital and hopefully just select future cornerstones at LT and Safety but I'm sure they are thinking about the benefits of potentially adding Trent and Anthony as well as the drawbacks.