Myles Garrett reached the top of the mountain in average per year money with his new, four-year contract extension for $160 million. He was the big winner of the ordeal finally resolved on Sunday.
Editor’s note: Tony Grossi is a Cleveland Browns analyst for TheLandOnDemand.com and 850 ESPN Cleveland. He has covered the Browns since 1984.
A deal the magnitude of Myles Garrett’s $160 million, four-year contract extension with the Browns has many repercussions on the franchise.
On the surface, there are instant public relations benefits.
It resolves an impasse that could have grown much uglier. It removes a major negative distraction. It makes fans feel good that the team and its best player are on the same page again.
But will it lead to attracting a quality veteran quarterback or improving the sport’s most vital position in the draft?
Does it make rebuilding the team easier or harder in the long run?
Does it mean the Browns are closer to the 11-7 playoff team of 2023 or the 3-14 disaster of 2024? Garrett was good in both seasons, so what does that say about his individual impact?
The mega-deal has its share of winners and losers.
Winner: Garrett.
No fan or teammate cares that Garrett put everyone through an emotional ringer.
He said he didn’t align with management’s plan to build a winning team. He said his trade request wasn’t about money, but about competing for championships. He didn’t disparage teammates, but his career desire certainly came across as selfish, not selfless.
But his four changes of heart throughout this process ended with him staying with the team. So all’s well that ends well, right?
Garrett was booed soundly when a recorded video message in honor of Dan Gilbert’s son, Nick, was played over the Rocket Arena video board at a recent Cavaliers game. The public heel turn against Garrett was palpable. As a professed lover of the Northeast Ohio community, that had to hurt him some.
Now Garrett is cast as a returning hero. He can safely return to the Cavs’ floor seats for the NBA team’s championship run without the embarrassment of being booed further.
Although Garrett most likely would have gotten the same financial deal without even requesting a trade, what he did win in the ordeal – a no-trade clause – could prove significant.
If things turn sour between Garrett and the Browns in the future – if his frustration boils over again if the team doesn’t compete for a championship in his remaining career – the no-trade clause improves his leverage to force what he failed to accomplish this time.
Garrett is 29 and has said he might need surgeries to correct a congenital problem with both feet. While he outplayed his last contract, it’s inconceivable that he will outplay this one through the age of 35.
At some point over the next six years, he will be a liability at his cost more than an asset. If the Browns ever do see the value in trading him, Garrett’s no-trade clause gives him control over the situation.
Winner: Jim Schwartz.
The Browns’ defensive coordinator was saved the task of manufacturing a pass rush without the best pass rusher in the NFL. He has to be the happiest person in Cleveland next to Garrett.
Loser: The Browns future.
At first, I thought this new deal could be manipulated to result in a lower salary cap number for Garrett in 2025. I was wrong.
The details will come out soon, but I’ve been told by a league source that Garrett’s cap number actually will go up – further reducing available cap room for GM Andrew Berry to add free agents.
“This wasn’t done for cap savings,” texted a Browns official. “This was done because we wanted to keep our best player with the organization for years to come. He was under-paid and due an extension.”
Obviously, Berry must have a plan to increase salary cap space before Wednesday’s first day of the new NFL business year. There must be more moves on tap to improve the team substantially beyond the Garrett extension.
I maintain that assets acquired in a blockbuster Garrett trade – if used wisely — would have done more to improve the team than keeping Garrett. Not in 2025, perhaps. But certainly in seasons after that.
The Browns have to have a quarterback on a rookie contract starting and winning by the 2027 season. That’s the season the Browns are projected to have a $90 million salary cap charge for Deshaun Watson. If they separate from Watson in 2026, as I and others have suggested, it would be the final dead-cap charge of the Watson contract.
They couldn’t afford a veteran quarterback salary that season if the cap inflates year after year, as expected. The piper will be paid in 2027.
By failing to acquire an extra first-round pick in 2026 – which would have been the bare minimum perk of a Garrett trade – Berry reduced his margin for error in the upcoming draft. He has to nail the quarterback pick for the Browns to have any hope of competing for a title in Garrett’s remaining career.
Losers: Cincinnati Bengals and Dallas Cowboys.
Jimmy Haslam’s generosity in giving Watson a fully-guaranteed, $230 million contract in 2022 provoked many other team owners. This Garrett deal will do the same because it raises the bar significantly for non-quarterbacks.
The $40 million-a-year in new money smashes the $35.5 million APY (average per year) set by Raiders defensive end Maxx Crosby last week.
The Bengals already publicly stated they intend to make receiver Ja’Marr Chase the highest-paid non-quarterback in the league. They never anticipated having to surpass $40 million APY to do it.
Also, the Cowboys are engaging in extension talks with edge rusher Micah Parsons, who is in the last year of a rookie deal that averages about $4.3 million a year. Some reports indicated the Cowboys were looking at about a $35 million APY for Parsons. That probably won’t get it done now.
Yes, it’s probably preferable to have an owner that errs on the side of spending too much rather spending too little. But money alone does not win championships in the NFL. And money spent often digs a deeper hole than money not spent.
