The Rams are back in “eff them picks” mode.
According to ESPNFL Network, the Rams will send three picks to the Browns for defensive end Myles Garrett, along with defensive end Jared Verse.
The picks consist of a 2027 first-rounder, a 2028 second-rounder, and a 2029 third-rounder.
Given that Verse was a 2024 first-round pick who panned out, that’s a massive haul for arguably the best defensive player in the NFL.
The Rams are obviously trying to close the small gap between themselves and the Seahawks at the top of the entire league, while the Browns will continue to build for a future that always seems to remain in the future. Given the young nucleus of talented players the Browns have been compiling, they could finally be moving in the right direction.
And here’s the key — by the time they get there, Garrett may have been beyond his prime years. And Verse, a two-time Pro Bowler and the 2024 NFL defensive rookie of the year, could be smack dab in the middle of his own.
Is Myles Garrett really headed to the Rams?
At this point, everything indicates the answer to that question is a resounding yes.
But the trade is not complete quite yet.
Browns General Manager Andrew Berry spoke to assembled media at the organization’s charity golf event on Monday, just after reports of the deal surfaced on social media.
“Real quick, obviously we wanted today to be about the Browns foundation and everything that we’re doing, the good work we’re doing there. Not naive that there’s a lot in the social media sphere, media sphere regarding Myles. Nothing is final at this point,” Berry said, via Daryl Ruiter of 92.3 The Fan. “We are in discussions of a potential transaction including him. I’ll have a lot more to say about it once it is final — if it does become final. And I’ll discuss the details at that point. But we are in negotiations. We’re hopeful that we close something here in the next several hours. But nothing is final right yet.
“Like I said, I’ll have an update for you guys maybe as soon as tomorrow when there’s resolution.”
Berry did not answer a couple of follow-up questions to his statement, noting that was all he had to say on the matter right now.
The fact that reports surfaced on social media is an indication that the deal is, as a practical matter, going to be executed. But it will not be completely official until compensation is agreed to and Garrett passes his physical.
There’s no reason to believe Garrett would not pass a physical at this point.
At present, reporting indicates the Browns will trade Garrett to the Rams in exchange for edge rusher a 2027 first-round pick, edge rusher Jared Verse, and additional draft compensation.
Yes, the arrival of June 1 could mean a trade of veterans other than A.J. Brown.
Per multiple reports, the Browns are trading defensive end Myles Garrett to the Rams. Cleveland will receive defensive end Jared Verse, a first-round pick, and more.
The deal will happen after 4:00 p.m. ET on Monday, allowing the Browns to divide the cap charge over two league years.
Yes, the Browns had said they won’t be trading Garrett. But words are merely words. The most significant action taken this offseason was the agreement to delay a $29.2 million option bonus from March until September.
Earlier in the day, Mary Kay Cabot of the Cleveland Plain Dealer planted a flag regarding a potential trade: "[I]t now seems as though there might be some fire where the smoke is coming from in regards to the possibility of Garrett being moved.” She cited the Rams, Cowboys, and Eagles are teams “rumored to have interest” in Garrett, “but nothing has been substantiated.”
It now has been.
The transaction would likely include a new deal for Garrett. When he signed his latest contract in 2025, he set a new bar with a new-money average of $40 million annually. That has since shot to $50 million, thanks to the Will Anderson Jr. deal in Houston.
Either way, the 2025 defensive player of the year will get what he has always wanted — a chance to compete for a Super Bowl run.
With the calendar flipped to June, there is more smoke around the possibility that the Browns could trade NFL sack king Myles Garrett.
Head coach Todd Monken noted recently that he had not yet spoken with Garrett since being hired in January. Garrett customarily does not attend Cleveland’s offseason program, but after he and the team agreed to modified language in his contract that makes it easier for the club to trade him, there’s reason to speculate that more could be going on here.
Monken was asked about Garrett and whether or not he’s been guaranteed the defensive end would be on the roster in 2026.
“No, I wasn’t assured that when I took the job,” Monken said, via Daryl Ruiter of 92.3 The Fan. “I was never assured of anything when I took the job, other than once I signed my contract, whatever my contract said — that’s what I was assured. No matter what, any of us coaches sign up for is we show up every day and we coach the guys in the building like we’ve done since we’ve been here. That hasn’t changed.
“He’s not [unlike] any other player. I’m never told who’s going to be on the team, who’s not going to be on the team,” Monken added. “If that’s a question, I mean, every day we evaluate the roster — Andrew [Berry] evaluates the roster, management evaluates the roster. And, like I said, he’s no different than any other player we’ve got. So, I don’t know how to respond to that, because it’s really no different today than it’s been for the last however many months I’ve been the head coach.”
Garrett, 30, requested a trade during the 2025 offseason before electing to re-sign with the Browns on a lucrative new deal. He then proceeded to set the single-season sack record at 23.0, winning his second AP defensive player of the year award in the last three seasons.
Not only did Garrett lead the league in sacks, but he was also No. 1 with 33 tackles for loss.
We’ll see if the speculation turns into a reality with a Garrett trade over the coming days.
They have to install playing surfaces that meet exacting standards. They have to change the names of the facilities. They have to shut down all other business (such as major concerts) for the duration of the World Cup.
Given the hoops through which the 11 NFL stadiums will have to jump in order to placate FIFA, it’s fair to ask whether it’s worth it.
Ben Volin of the Boston Globe recently took a look at that question. Said an NFL official from a team that won’t be hosting any of the World Cup games, “I know more than a few teams weren’t disappointed to lose the bid.”
That could be sour grapes, because those who won the right to host the matches are crowing about it.
“Can’t sleep,” Cowboys owner and G.M. Jerry Jones said recently, per Volin. “This is a great chance to associate with the worldwide love with soccer, and lets us put a little notch on our belt and share it with what soccer’s about, too. They’ll never be able to take away that we held those games in that stadium.”
Cowboys executive Stephen Jones echoed the sentiment: “We’ll be shut down all summer. But it’s worth it. I mean, this is about brand and, you know, being a part of something special.”
The Joneses wanted to host the matches badly enough to give up their suite for the matches.
“I think I’ve got to go someplace else, but that was a part of it,” Jerry Jones said. “We did a lot of things to make this work.”
The Cowboys, Patriots, Falcons, Texans, Chargers/Rams, Giants/Jets, Chiefs, Seahawks, 49ers, Dolphins, and Eagles will be hosting World Cup games in their stadiums.
The total revenue is projected, per Volin, to be roughly $11 billion. FIFA will pay rent for the stadiums, while keeping the revenue from sponsorships, tickets, suites, merchandise, concessions, and parking.
So how much will the teams get for hosting the World Cup? Per Volin, the terms “have been kept under wraps.”
Given that folks like Jones are not known for doing bad deals, they’ll surely be making more money to host the World Cup matches than they would have made in a normal summer.
Still, it’s a headache. Extra work, extra expenses, extra hassles.
Not to mention the P.R. bruise that comes from the perception/reality that NFL owners who are giving FIFA the surfaces it demands while stubbornly refusing to do the same for pro football players.
