All of a sudden, the Cleveland Browns offseason became interesting. After the Browns fired HC Kevin Stefanski and had an extended search that ended with Todd Monken taking over the top job for the first time at the NFL level, things around Berea have been mostly stable. GM Andrew Berry made moves to change the team’s offensive line while OL Wyatt Teller found a new team, TE David Njoku said goodbye to Cleveland, and OL Joel Bitonio seems likely to retire.

Then, news came that the Browns and DE Myles Garrett adjusted his contract in a way that would make a trade possible, even if complicated. If Garrett was traded, CB Denzel Ward could follow him on the way out the door, especially with an interesting contract decision earlier in the offseason.

Now, sources from the team side have entered the discussion of the last 36 hours, starting with ESPN Cleveland’s Emmett Golden:

CBS Sports’ Jonathan Jones echoed Golden’s statement based on what he heard from NFL sources:

Jones noted that the change meant Garrett got money sooner and Cleveland would have more salary cap flexibility.

In an article talking about why a Garrett trade would make sense and suggesting 12(!!!) possible destinations, Conor Orr of Sports Illustrated shared where Berry may have gotten the idea for the contract change:

Most likely, it is a move to modernize the structure of Garrett’s deal. Jason Fitzgerald of Over the Cap noted that this contract structure was pioneered by Eagles GM Howie Roseman’s front office because it allows for the “lowest possible cap charge for the player but at the same time still hold the rights to send that money to another team via trade or potentially escape things entirely [if] a guarantee void occurs for any reason.” Berry’s brother, Adam, is the Eagles’ vice president, and the team’s head of football operations and strategy. I’d like to think of this move like a bunch of tax professionals sizing up their returns at the big convention and high-fiving over the discovery of the same loophole (that’s how tax stuff works, right?).

At a base level, Cleveland’s salary cap does not have to account for the bonuses until the new due date, right before the season. That could allow the Browns more flexibility to sign players, trade players, or release players later in the offseason instead of being forced to make those decisions near the start of the NFL’s league year.

Cleveland will still need to be cap-compliant when Garrett’s bonuses are due, so they would not have extra cap space, just more time to make decisions.

With denials from at least one Browns source and denials from NFL sources, and at least one practical reason for the contract change, the Garrett rumors should die down soon. That could be a short-lived pause if the NFL approves Cleveland’s proposal about trading draft picks five years down the road, instead of the current rule of three seasons.

Do you believe Golden and Jones’ sources? Is the contract move just as simple as flexibility on when things are paid, or do you think Myles Garrett is really on the market?

Share your thoughts in the comment section below