I agree, there is no value in cutting Baker Mayfield other than a roster spot. That is the only thing to gain. Berry works on better margins than that. 100% sure the Browns would be on the hook for about $17.6M of the $18.8M since that would be a veteran minimum and Baker is making $18.8M this year no matter what his situation is, so he isn't going to cash strap his next team to make them sign him to a bigger deal. The Browns will receive a compensatory pick if he ends up in free agency in 2023. So.. there is no incentive to pay 94% of his salary AND receive no compensation in return. It obviously isn't ideal, but only 47-48 players on the 55 man roster are active on gameday anyway. This changed from the way it used to be when there were 46 active on a 52 man roster. Taking one of the 55 roster spots really isn't much of a competitive disadvantage for the team in comparison to losing out on a possibly 3rd round compensatory pick. We've already seen the Browns pay over $16M for a second round draft pick from Houston for Osweiler.. This would be a bargain in comparison. It isn't about the roster, Baker Mayfield's attitude, or any other explanation than a business decision. IN NO WAY DOES CUTTING BAKER MAYFIELD MAKE SENSE TO THE BROWNS.
I'm starting to think you really have an issue with posts that don't seem favorable for the Browns, especially coming from non-Browns fans. I never said Baker "will" be cut. I never said that I think he'll be cut. Here's the "ridiculous" post you responded to: "There are teams interested. Problem is they don't want to pay his salary. The Browns also don't want to pay his salary so there's no negotiating to be made. Especially when those teams assume he'll eventually be cut anyway" In your above quote, you said the Browns don't want to pay his salary to be on another team. I said that above (in bold). You said you can show where Carolina was interested. I said teams were interested (underlined). So all this is because I said teams are assuming he'll be cut? Would it have made you feel better if I said "teams will wait until Baker is no longer under contract with the Browns to sign him"?
There's a lot of moving parts to the compensatory reward scale. For starters, if the Browns kept him on the roster and didn't play him but just held him there until the end of the 2022-23 season, he'd hit free agency in 2023. Baker would only count towards a pick in the 2024 season, so we're already looking two years down the road. The scale also takes playing time (which would be zero in this case) and overall net gain/loss of qualifying free agents. Lastly, the new contract value is also used in the weighting process. The NFL saw Baker play very poorly through injury in 2021, have a tumultous off-season (to put it mildly), and now we're talking about stashing him on a roster for a full season and then hitting free agency? I'm guessing any team signing him after that is going to apply a backup QB contract to him... one, maybe two years, at maybe 5-7 million a year? Browns are also set to lose the following players in 2023 free agency: Jadeveon Clowney, Jack Conklin, Kareem Hunt (if he's not traded in-season), Anthony Walker, Chris Hubbard, Greedy Williams, D'Ernest Johnson, and Taven Bryan. You mention a third rounder, but add all that up and weight it and Cleveland's looking at maybe a round five through seventh selection - best case. Realistically, if they don't keep them, Clowney, Conklin, and Williams are in line to make more on a per-year basis.
We will agree to disagree. I was taking into account the free agents lost, but that will be offset by the free agents we sign. We will definitely lose more than gain next year with Watsons money kicking in, but not enough to where Baker won’t come into play for compensatory, which also takes into account the contract he was currently on when becoming a free agent. There is ZERO chance Baker Mayfields next contract is $5-7M. Does Cali have legal MJ laws there because you are hanging out in the San Diego environment a little too much. He has started all but 2 games the past 3 seasons, with a winning record, a playoff appearance and playoff win. That alone gets a GMs attention. But his potential is what will get him another $16M prove it deal next offseason. Baker Mayfield is not a backup QB no matter how you try to make this story end.
This makes sense IF it's your opinion that the Browns will take the approach that they aren't going to pay 18M and not get anything out of it. If that's their thought process (and it may be), then it's a reasonable conclusion. But if the Browns see Mayfield and the bad blood from March as too toxic to for the '22 locker room they may have little choice but to cut him. We simply don't know the full extent of what happened last season. We don't know how Stefanski feels. If he tells Andrew Berry under no circumstances does he want Baker on the 2022 Browns, Baker could be cut. And one last thing... I can almost guarantee you the Panthers and Seahawks have a pretty good idea whether or not the Browns are willing to let Baker walk back into that locker room. There are 53 guys on a roster and about 25 coaches. They all have former coaches, teammates, college teammates, etc. spread around the league. They know what happened last year. They know (or have a really good idea) what the Browns intentions are.
I couldn't disagree more. 2022 is a new season. I'm pretty certain no one in that locker room, coaches, players or staff wants a redo of 2021. And now Baker has 10x more ammunition to hold a grudge. Not only does it make sense to turn the page, it quite possibly could be something they've already decided is happening - trade or no trade.
Yes R#1, that is literally the only part of your post that I quoted. Not sure what "all this" is, other than you being mad at me for saying you have good takes followed by ridiculous takes, and for that I apologize. I should have just said it's ridiculous to think that Cleveland will cut him. Or that would be ridiclous for Cleveland to cut him..Sorry, I was in a rush and should have worded it better. As I explained, we've gone over this quite a bit on this thread as to all the why's. (See Irish's recent post).
This is a great point. The award is set up to reward a team for loss of production. In the above scenario they would have lost nothing. I don't believe they would be awarded anything if he didn't play.
I don't know. You have to remember that these teams will compare Baker's performance to those of his peers in a similar situation. : Baker Mayfield - 46 games, 23-23 record, 60.8%, 10,840 total yards, 70 total TDs, 62 total turnovers. Mitch Trubisky - 39 games, 26-13 record, 65.4%, 9,225 total yards, 63 total TDs, 47 total turnovers. This is the last three years as a starter for both players. Mitch has more wins, with 7 less games played, a higher completion percentage, yards per game, TDs per game, and lower turnovers per game. He's been flat out more productivity and less of a liability than Mayfield. Yet he's getting a 2 year, 14M salary. Mitch being a backup last year could have affected that, but Mayfield is a backup now so all that evens out. Under the scenario SAS presented where Baker doesn't play this year, I'd be shocked if he doesn't get a contract in that $5-7M range
I never looked it up, but thank you RR for the stats. Now that you presented the fact that Trubisky is better than Mayfield I find that there is good reason to not pay mayfield. Trubs is making less in two seasons with the Steelers than mayfield is due this season. Trubs is better than him so teams want Mayfield to fall in line with Trubs salary. Now it makes more sense why no one will pull the trigger on him. The Browns should just agree to pay his salary and get what they can for him. If Trubs couldn’t land a starting possibility last season what makes any one think that Baker can get traded for a pick better than a fifth? Trubs is better than Mayfield and that says all you need to know about it.
Mitch has more NFL ability than Baker. He was in a terrible situation in Chicago. But he really doesn't have any holes in his game and the year in Buffalo with Daboll and Dorsey was huge for him. There is no reason he won't have a really good year in Pittsburgh. I'm excited.
I really thought that TopDawg would've made the dumbest comment in this thread, but beachbum just came in with this doozy. Masterful stuff from the "dumbest comment" veteran.
Now this is true. I get that Pickett may have the hype now, but I think Trubisky will really have a chance to be successful. Whether or not he's the long-term answer remains to be seen, but I don't think the QB spot for the Steelers is a problem and definitely not the weakness a lot of folks are saying.
This is getting good... I'm a Trubisky fan. Everyone knows that. The only reason I can't root for him now is because of the helmet he's wearing. How many people in NFL history have thrown 6 TD's in a game? The most famous is Steve Young in the 95 SB against Stan Humphries and the Chargers. Steeler fans remember Stan..... But anyway Mitch Trubisky is on the list. He's way more athletic than people give him credit for. Pickett is in for serious challenge.
Ravens fans remember a 6 TD game from Ben, which followed one that the Colts remember. Mitch is keeping good company
