It was with a great deal of interest that I saw Albert Breer suggest “this could just be time” for the Browns to negotiate a Myles Garrett trade.
Breer is connected. He isn’t explicitly saying here that Garrett will be moved — but it’s at least a little bit of a separation from the persistent media messaging that the Browns are not interested in a deal.
When his contract was adjusted earlier this year, it didn’t take a rocket scientist to realise the situation had shifted. There was no obvious reason for doing that, other than it made it easier to trade him if they wanted to.
It would make sense for the Browns to consider this the right time.
They are reaching the point of no return in terms of trade value. Garrett turns 31 in late December. His value is still very strong off the back of a record-breaking 23-sack season in 2025. They can realistically still expect to get multiple first round picks in return for Garrett, despite his age.
This might be the final time they can do it, though. Even if he had, say, a 12-15 sack season this year, the numbers would be declining as the age grows. The Browns will never again have as much leverage as they have right now.
Multiple teams have positioned themselves to plan for the 2027 draft. It is expected to be rich in talent at the top end with depth at quarterback too. The Jets have three first round picks. Others, like the Cardinals and Dolphins, appear to be embracing a struggle in 2026 to benefit in the long term.
The Browns have 10 picks next year but they only own their original selections in the first three rounds. Seven of their picks are set for day three.
They have an uncertain future at quarterback and multiple needs across the roster. With a new Head Coach, they appear to be embracing a reset of sorts.
Trading Garrett would secure additional stock. They could use their most tradable asset to set themselves up for the long haul. Moving Garrett would also — if we’re being honest — sufficiently weaken the team to give it the best chance of being bad enough to pick very early.
They’re planning to open a new stadium in 2029. Surely the goal has to be to spend the next three seasons preparing to enter the new arena with a strong overall roster? Keeping Garrett, continuing to be a bad team with one legendary player, and not gaining additional draft stock makes no sense.
Setting the table for a trade this summer would be entirely appropriate for the Browns, even if it would be painful for a long-suffering fan-base. They have to do it though. They have to at least try and build a new, younger foundation with 2029/2030 in mind.
Heck, look at the Seahawks. They embraced trading Russell Wilson. That worked out well, even if many fans feared the worst at the time.
Curtis Allen brilliantly laid out a blueprint for why a move to Seattle is possible and could be appealing to Garrett. I would highly recommend reading that article.
There are pro’s and con’s to the Seahawks making this deal.
On the one hand, acquiring Garrett would terrify the NFL. A defense as excellent as Seattle’s gaining a player of his quality would be a mouth-watering prospect for the Seahawks. Imagine the unit suddenly having an unstoppable force working the edge — one of the all-time great game-wreckers.
That’s also part of the dilemma. I think you can forget his age. This would be a rare opportunity to acquire one of the best players to ever feature in the NFL. Even if you’re only possibly guaranteeing another 3-4 years of top-end performance, the price-tag in a deal will be astronomical.
I think it’ll take three first rounders. So you then have to weigh up the idea of gaining three cost-effective young players over the next three seasons, when you’ll need to replace some key ageing elements of the roster, versus having one proven, sure-thing, legendary talent who can maximise a wide-open Championship window.
Would a Godzilla-sized trade have a negative impact on the carefully crafted, ‘MOB’ mindset the Seahawks have? Would inviting in one the biggest of big names, not to mention biggest contracts, upset the dynamic at all? After all, the Seahawks won a Super Bowl without Garrett and will expect to be strong again in 2026 without any further additions.
Alternatively, a move for Garrett could be as exciting for his new team-mates as it would be for fans. It’d certainly make life easier for the other defenders who get to play with him — and would give the players in Seattle further opportunities to both win and max-out their own earning potential.
You also have to think about another team in the NFC getting him instead, and how you’d feel about that. The Browns will very likely want him out of the AFC.
I think Garrett being as good as he is, and with sufficient talent already on the roster, plus a front office capable of finding players in the draft outside of the first round, the Seahawks could justify making a huge splash.
I’d look at it this way. The 49ers blew three first round picks on Trey Lance and survived. They remained competitive.
I think the Seahawks could do the same even if a move for Myles Garrett ultimately didn’t pan out. They have a quarterback, weapons, young talent on both lines and good defensive players at every level. They could be unstoppable with him — and still really good if he got injured or if his play suddenly regressed.
With that in mind, I’d seriously consider it if the Browns really are thinking it’s time to do a deal.
They’d be creating a 3-5 year window to try and add at least one more Super Bowl, creating a legendary era of Seahawks football.
There’s no other trade that could move the needle quite like this would.
