Myles Garrett is on a tier of his own. The career-long Cleveland Browns defensive end is already a first-ballot Hall of Famer in waiting. Those don't grow on trees in the NFL, and teams typically hold onto those types of generational players for as long as possible.
That's why the idea of trading Garrett has always seemed so far-fetched. Of course, teams have traded stars countless times, but Garrett isn't like any star. He's the undisputed best player at his position and a top-three overall player in the game, at worst.
However, given the Browns' perennial struggles and his recently reworked contract, trade rumors simply won't go away. The post-June 1 trade window is officially upon us, and GM Andrew Berry's apparent refusal to trade Garrett won't stop the media from speculating or other teams from trying to get him.
So, let's be pragmatic and objective for a second here. Even knowing that there's almost no logical argument to move on from Garrett, let's just pretend there is.
As Zac Jackson of The Athletic pointed out, if the Browns were to move on from Garrett, they should only do so for an absolute haul.
"If they can find a team that’s willing to give two first-round picks plus something else of substance, absolutely. Garrett’s value almost certainly will never be higher than it is now, and multiple contending teams might at least explore giving up future assets for a chance to get Garrett now," Jackson wrote. "Would any of them actually give up three first-round picks? Or two first-rounders plus a young player the Browns covet? That’s hard to say, but interested teams have known of Garrett’s March contract modification since it happened."
Only a historic trade package should tempt the Browns to move Myles Garrett
This might sound like the most lukewarm and obvious take there is, but sometimes, things are as simple as that. There's no actual reason to trade a generational player and the greatest defensive force in the game. So, if the Browns do it, they might as well get more than enough to speed up their rebuild.
Granted, having Garrett wreaking havoc on defense hasn't necessarily translated into winning seasons, and as Jackson wrote in his article, his value will never be higher than it is right now. Also, Garrett doesn't seem too interested in meeting with Todd Monken or shutting down all these rumors by simply going on the record to say that he doesn't want to leave.
Still, this should only be an absolute last resort. He has a no-trade clause in his contract, so he'd have to sign off on any potential trade. The Browns shouldn't move on from him just for the sake of it or to do him a favor. Unless they get a franchise-changing haul, they should just hang up the phone.
The Baltimore Ravens were about to give up two first-round picks to get Maxx Crosby, who, with all due respect, can't hold a candle to the reigning Defensive Player of the Year. So how much should the Browns ask for Garrett? At least twice as many first-rounders.
The reality is that if the Browns are ever going to trade Garrett, now is probably the best time to do so, or at least no further than this year's November 3 trade deadline. Then again, other teams should have to make quite the compelling argument to engage in these talks, or Garrett would have to flat-out request to be traded (again).
You don't trade Michael Jordan or Tom Brady. You laugh at the idea and go on with your day. But if there was simply no way to keep them in town for any longer, and if the relationship has already reached a breaking point and they don't want to stay, you just have to squeeze every last ounce of value possible for your generational player.
Add us as a preferred source on Google