So, remember back in March when the Cleveland Browns made a proposal ahead of the Annual League Meeting, which was held in Phoenix from March 29 to April 1? No? It was introduced as a method for teams to allow draft selections to be traded up to five seasons in the future.
Ring a bell? Yes? No? Maybe?
RELATED: BROWNS PROPOSE A DOPEY DRAFT PICK TRADE IDEA
The Browns offered a new proposal to change a league rule. Currently, clubs are only allowed to ship off draft picks in trades for up to three years
in advance. What Cleveland was proposing was to change that to being able to offer draft picks five years in advance.
The reasoning behind the change was to allow a larger vehicle for roster building. This, in turn, would give teams some flexibility from their current status.
However, at the end of March, the Browns withdrew the proposal. What transpired instead was chatter among owners and GMs about whether teams should be able to use four or five years’ worth of trading draft picks.
While the proposal was still alive, it got traction and approval from, wait for it……the Los Angeles Rams.
Now, the story comes out that the Rams and the Browns have been working on the deal to send pass rusher Myles Garrett to the Rams since the Combine, which was held February 23 to March 2. Which means, the Combine came and went, and then the Browns had this great idea to be able to shift draft picks further into the future than what was currently being done. The Rams agreed to back it since they were most likely the ones who wanted to offer Cleveland draft picks down the line in order not to affect their current roster as little as possible.
Which makes sense. The Deshaun Watson deal that the Browns made with the Houston Texans decimated Cleveland’s future roster for three years and elevated the Texans to becoming a playoff club. Lessons learned. If the Rams could agree to send more draft picks in the Garrett deal that are five years down the road, then there might not be any roadblocks involved.
As it turned out, the Rams agreed to three draft picks: #1 in 2027, #2 in 2028, and #3 in 2028. If LA could have extended any of these picks any further down the tracks, perhaps it would have.
Cleveland realized that it would be difficult to get 24 yay votes and then shelved the proposal. But it begs to ask the question: If the proposal had passed, would the Rams have added draft picks? Would they have simply taken the three they agreed upon and pushed some or all of them backwards?
The Garrett trade might explain why Browns GM Andrew Berry might have wanted to shift draft picks back two more years, and why the Rams were on board from the beginning. Or the proposal could have been all about having options to make sure they can draft QB Arch Manning.
Yes? No? Maybe?
We may never know for sure.
