Baker Mayfield formally requests a trade

[MWil23]

3 minutes ago, Matts4313 said:

6 minutes ago, MWil23 said:

That said, the Browns have the majority of the negotiating power.

-------------------------------------------

 in the weakest QB class in years

Pick one. You dont get both.

I'm speaking about DRAFT CLASS.

Since this is such a weak draft class, teams that need a QB will want even an average starting QB, which is what Baker is. The Browns can effectively make a lateral move by acquiring Jimmy G or trading for Jordan Love, or they can say "Tough break Baker, you're under contract. Play or get fined, we deny your trade request."...which is what they have done so far.

[Matts4313]

1 minute ago, MWil23 said:

I'm speaking about DRAFT CLASS.

Since this is such a weak draft class, teams that need a QB will want even an average starting QB, which is what Baker is. The Browns can effectively make a lateral move by acquiring Jimmy G or trading for Jordan Love, or they can say "Tough break Baker, you're under contract. Play or get fined, we deny your trade request."...which is what they have done so far.

You dont get to say Baker is attractive because all the other girls are ugly, then also say Baker doesnt have a say in the matter.

He is literally the most attractive option or he isnt. And if he is, then he has negotiation power. 

[Tk3]

9 minutes ago, MWil23 said:

Here's the reality:

The Browns probably made a mistake in the "adult" comment, especially while pursuing Watson (and they're not wrong on Baker's maturity or lack thereof).

That said, the Browns have the majority of the negotiating power. Baker is under contract, he has underperformed with some flashes of competent to good play (he's average), and with their core roster as good as almost anyone else in the league, Baker can either demand a trade somewhere else, which the organization is under no obligation to grant him morally or otherwise, or Baker can try to leverage it by sitting out.

Is he really going to leave $18 million on the table in the weakest QB class in years after a year of bad film and try again at 27 years of age in a less advantageous overall roster situation to then go "all in" on a prove it deal?

He's playing chicken with a freight train, whether the Browns are the villains or not in this business partnership. They're well within their rights to hold him and try to move him at maximum value or keep him because he's better than anyone else they have or could get this year.

Agreed.. Browns have the leverage - and agreed that their comments were not the smart thing to do

If Browns can get an upgrade, they will. If the Browns cannot, then they will deny Baker a trade, and roll with him. That is within their right of the structure of the contract.

Baker can then counter with his options (sitting out) and then we have a standoff, and we will see who breaks

Baker will have to do the exercise of deciding

1. Is it worth the lost paychecks to sit out?
2. Is sitting out going to help or hurt his ability to get a contract next year?

I think what the Browns are banking on is that Baker decides his best route to getting what he wants is to go out and deliver in 2022. If Baker had a strong 2021, I'd say sit out, and even if that means losing a year of paychecks, there would be a big market for him. But given what I expect the market is, this is an occasion that he needs to "bet on himself" - which is a strategy that I typically am averse to in the football world, but given that he's "low" right now, I think he needs to

[MWil23]

Just now, Matts4313 said:

You dont get to say Baker is attractive because all the other girls are ugly, then also say Baker doesnt have a say in the matter.

That's exactly what I just did.

Just now, Matts4313 said:

He is literally the most attractive option or he isnt. And if he is, then he has negotiation power. 

How does he have negotiation power if he's under contract? He can:

1. Sit out and lose millions and then be back here again in 2023, in a stronger class (free agent/draft), as a 27 year old, while ending up with a worse surrounding roster

2. Shut up, play well, get paid

3. Shut up, not play well, get paid as a bridge starter somewhere else and try again

The dude is about the 11th best QB in the AFC right now and somewhere between 15-18 IRL.

[Tk3]

9 minutes ago, Matts4313 said:

You dont get to say Baker is attractive because all the other girls are ugly, then also say Baker doesnt have a say in the matter.

He is literally the most attractive option or he isnt. And if he is, then he has negotiation power. 

You're only looking at the BROWNS options, and not thinking about BAKERS options.

I agree that Baker is probably the Browns best option

I also think that playing/proving himself/getting paid is Baker's best option

As far as what both sides are GIVING UP if Baker sits, I think Baker loses MUCH larger than the Browns lose, which is why I agree with @MWil23 that the Browns hold the power

Edited March 18, 2022 by Tk3
you're

[Matts4313]

2 minutes ago, MWil23 said:

How does he have negotiation power if he's under contract? He can:

Because he is a QB. Which makes him somewhere between the 2nd and 4th most powerful person in deciding what happens to the browns org. 

You think FAs will sign there if Baker lobbies against it?

You think sponsor will keep hiring him if he is a holdout? Browns see at least a little of that revenue since the commercials are at the stadium.

 

upsetting your QB is stupid as hell. It never pays off. Never. Ask the Commies and Kirk. Ask the Cowboys and Dak. Ask the Eagles and Wentz. It always makes your franchise worse. 

[Tk3]

7 minutes ago, Matts4313 said:

Because he is a QB. Which makes him somewhere between the 2nd and 4th most powerful person in deciding what happens to the browns org. 

You think FAs will sign there if Baker lobbies against it?

You think sponsor will keep hiring him if he is a holdout? Browns see at least a little of that revenue since the commercials are at the stadium.

 

upsetting your QB is stupid as hell. It never pays off. Never. Ask the Commies and Kirk. Ask the Cowboys and Dak. Ask the Eagles and Wentz. It always makes your franchise worse. 

You think sponsors will keep paying Baker all his money when he isn't playing / embattled in a fight with his team? It's insane that you think loss of sponsorship for Baker not playing is going to hurt the Browns more than Baker

Edited March 18, 2022 by Tk3

[JetsCrash]

The Browns really burned their bridge with Baker. I can see him going to the Colts or Seahawks if the Browns do end up trading him. Overall, just a bad look for everyone. 

[MWil23]

6 minutes ago, Matts4313 said:

Because he is a QB. Which makes him somewhere between the 2nd and 4th most powerful person in deciding what happens to the browns org. 

So behind the owner, GM, and HC who hold his rights. Got it.

6 minutes ago, Matts4313 said:

You think FAs will sign there if Baker lobbies against it?

Yeah he endeared himself a lot to the players in the league (See: Duke Johnson's tweets and the lines in the sand of the OBJ drama)

6 minutes ago, Matts4313 said:

You think sponsor will keep hiring him if he is a holdout?

No that's my point

6 minutes ago, Matts4313 said:

Browns see at least a little of that revenue since the commercials are at the stadium.

Yeah a billion-something dollar organization with a billionaire owner cares about a certain cut of his peanuts in the hundreds of thousands to small millions range.

6 minutes ago, Matts4313 said:

upsetting your QB is stupid as hell. It never pays off. Never. Ask the Commies and Kirk. Ask the Cowboys and Dak. Ask the Eagles and Wentz. It always makes your franchise worse. 

This I agree with. Literally the ONLY thing that the Browns should have done differently is replace

"They want a grown up"

with

"We appreciate all that Baker does and has done for the Browns organization"

...while actively shopping him.

[Matts4313]

1 minute ago, Tk3 said:

You think sponsors will keep paying Baker all his money when he isn't playing / embattled in a fight with his team? It's insane that you think loss of sponsorship for Baker not playing is going to hurt the Browns more than Baker

Someone will rehire baker. If he becomes a cancer, he is going to lose 1 year. Maybe 1.5.

The Browns will be set back the better part of a decade if they cant fix this. And with the size of Bakers ego, they probably cant salvage this. 

[MWil23]

1 minute ago, Matts4313 said:

Someone will rehire baker. If he becomes a cancer, he is going to lose 1 year. Maybe 1.5.

The Browns will be set back the better part of a decade if they cant fix this. And with the size of Bakers ego, they probably cant salvage this. 

So, to be clear, you think that the Browns NEED Baker to be their future and franchise QB or they're going to be set back almost a decade with the roster they have?

Why can't they draft a guy? Why can't they trade for one? Why can't they sign a free agent?

Baker is average, and if he leaves a year earlier than expected, oh well. If the Browns fail, it won't be because Baker leaves in 2022 as opposed to 2023.

[Matts4313]

3 minutes ago, MWil23 said:

So behind the owner, GM, and HC who hold his rights. Got it.

Yeah he endeared himself a lot to the players in the league (See: Duke Johnson's tweets and the lines in the sand of the OBJ drama)

No that's my point

Yeah a billion-something dollar organization with a billionaire owner cares about a certain cut of his peanuts in the hundreds of thousands to small millions range.

This I agree with. Literally the ONLY thing that the Browns should have done differently is replace

"They want a grown up"

with

"We appreciate all that Baker does and has done for the Browns organization"

...while actively shopping him.

Okay - Bakers clearly a hot head narcissist so I will concede maybe he doesnt do much for getting FAs. But I still dont understand how anyone can look at this scenario and not think "The browns messed up". 

You called your grown arse man QB not an adult. How can that ever be fixed? He is going to go lead the steelers to a superbowl and then pee on Paul Browns tombstone. Because he is both a manchild and really talented.  

[Matts4313]

4 minutes ago, MWil23 said:

So, to be clear, you think that the Browns NEED Baker to be their future and franchise QB or they're going to be set back almost a decade with the roster they have?

Yes. I think the Browns without Baker drop straight into the toilet. 

4 minutes ago, MWil23 said:

Why can't they draft a guy?

Because in 60 years, you never have. You arent getting lucky this go around. 

4 minutes ago, MWil23 said:

Why can't they trade for one? Why can't they sign a free agent?

We are still talking about the Browns, right?

4 minutes ago, MWil23 said:

Baker is average, and if he leaves a year earlier than expected, oh well. If the Browns fail, it won't be because Baker leaves in 2022 as opposed to 2023.

Im not even saying Baker is great. What I am saying is that he does the most to affect your w/l column and he is in the black when you consider the previous decades. 

[Techbert]

1 hour ago, H2ThaIzzo said:

we lost six games last year by one score or less. In two of them, we put up 29, and 42 points. Our horrible kicking game cost us in losses against Green Bay (missed PAT then a terrible coaching decision to go for 2 way too early in the game) LV (missed a FG and lost by 2) and Baltimore (missed FG, Landry fumble when we were driving inside Bal territory). There were so many mistakes made from coaching to kicking to pass catching to turnovers. YES, Baker absolutely didn't play good football, but the outcome of more than a third of our games could have been different if coaches coached better, or other players did their jobs better. This is all being placed on Baker unfairly. If he wasn't injured last year, do we really think he plays as bad as he did? He surely didn't start the season off playing that way. 

They do not call it the Factory of Sadness for nothing.

I did not say I blame the quarterback. I said they always get the blame or praise. And you do not really expect the coaches to tap their chests and say My bad.

The devils advocate position is teams take on the quarterback's personality and that needs to be a winner personality, whatever that means.

You are going to move on, one way or another, right away or next year. Baker is not my style, although I respect his abilities. I think I like Desmond Ridder from this draft class.

 

[MWil23]

2 minutes ago, Matts4313 said:

Okay - Bakers clearly a hot head narcissist so I will concede maybe he doesnt do much for getting FAs. But I still dont understand how anyone can look at this scenario and not think "The browns messed up". 

I think it's a classic situation of saying both sides have messed up.

2 minutes ago, Matts4313 said:

You called your grown arse man QB not an adult.

https://brobible.com/sports/article/baker-mayfield-browns-jimmy-haslam/

Let's take a look:

Baker got his feelings hurt (understandably).

The Browns asked for a meeting to patch things up.

He refused and went crying to social media for a dramatic farewell and removed all Browns everything. What is tough to decide in all of this is if:

The Browns then said they needed an adult because he is acting like the petulant child he's been since OU, and while that Watson being an adult thing is hypocritical and hilarious, they aren't wrong that Mayfield isn't acting like an adult here.

OR

The Browns leaked the "adult" thing before this.

Both are bad, one is worse. They're right, but they shouldn't have said it.

2 minutes ago, Matts4313 said:

How can that ever be fixed?

I agree, but you know what would have been a good start: Agreeing to meet instead of saying farewell and removing things from social media when Jimmy Haslem is your owner.

2 minutes ago, Matts4313 said:

He is going to go lead the steelers to a superbowl and then pee on Paul Browns tombstone. Because he is both a manchild and really talented.  

Being talented and not improving has been his montra for 4 years. Maybe he does, and maybe he's the next Jared Goff or Jeff George.