Is Baker Mayfield a Bust?

[dtgold88]

Classic!

Coming from the guy who speculates as if he is talking facts. Attempts to lead readers that he's in the Brownies meetings.

Got to love this forum.

Pure comedygold

Oh, the irony, as it's the complete opposite. Most of my disagreements are with those making comments as fact with my saying we don't know.

Including this one.

come on, Tommy, how about some good lies today?

 

[dtgold88]

0%? What if I told him I'd give him $160M to come to your rescue?

touche

 

[dtgold88]

How cute.

But, they "mutually" agreed BM doesn't need to be at camp.

Does the left side of your mouth know what the right side of your mouth spews out on a continuous basis?

correct because at this point we do not know how long watson is suspended. Just ask, little fella, and I can help you out when you cannot follow the discussion. In addition, just a minicamp in early June and we also don't even know what he's cleared to do.

 

[dtgold88]

So, Skippy what meeting where you in when this all came out?

Or is it just more fluff and buff speculation that you attempt to pass off as fact?

Derp.

Got to love this forum.

It's an opinion. If yours is different be an adult and say so.....would Baker accept a 4 year, $160 mil deal if offered in your opinion?

come on...it's not so scary. a simple yes, no, Y or N would do the trick.

 

[dtgold88]

He can still have zero interest, but take the money. I sure would if I was him. Doesn’t mean I’d be interested in the browns though, just interested in the money

if he'd stay on the Browns for the money that means he has more than zero interest in staying. It means if the money (and likely role) are right he has interest in staying.

Yep...ya gotta love this forum.

 

[dtgold88]

Do you think the FO thought Watson was going to get suspended for a long time when they signed Brissett?

Who else do you think that amazing FO should've signed knowing they already burnt the Baker bridge.

How many teams have three starters on their roster.

Dumb questions are fun. Don't be scared answer them without your normal dance if you would. My head already hurts.

watch me not being scared by the 3 questions.....

1) Depends what you consider "a long time". If a long time is a year or more, no, I do not think the FO expected that.

2) I think the JB signing was a good signing because I don't think they thought he'd get much more than 6-8 games and he's a solid backup

3) Not many


Can I play your game and ask how you know the Baker bridge is burnt? are you in the FO? But please tell me again how I offer opinions as fact as you offer an opinion as a fact

 

[Cincyfan78]

It's an opinion. If yours is different be an adult and say so.....would Baker accept a 4 year, $160 mil deal if offered in your opinion?

come on...it's not so scary. a simple yes, no, Y or N would do the trick.

I'll answer:

I think it really depends on how the contract is structed. If it's $160M with less than 75% guaranteed - No. The reality is, for all contracts, the overall number is just a number. It's the guarantees that make it worthwhile. Unless the Browns are going to match Baker's contract with Watson's - I don't see him being interested in a return - his long-term value is still tied up in staying healthy, and it would be clear the team would look to move on as soon as Watson is ready. I think he'd rather bank on himself with a new team that they will give him the long-term starting gig to show what he can do. Much like his college days, I think anything that is similar to what another team might offer will see him changing programs/organizations. He walked on at TT, thought he should have been the starter and put on scholarship. Didn't happen, so he walked on at OU. Very, very similar circumstances here.

Now, all of that being said - If the entire contract were guaranteed - then, Yeah, I'd say it's likely. But that's the smart move and has zero to do with wanting to be in Cleveland. At a 160M guaranteed, he can suck for 4 years, be hurt for 4 years, he's getting paid. Doesn't matter what happens over the next 4 years, because he's set. It's also likely more than he's going to get anywhere else - but, would he prefer to make less and actually be assured he's the full-time starter and not just a place holder....does he "bet on himself" by taking less and moving to another team? These are all arguments you've used, and they are the same arguments that can be made against a Mayfield return - even if he gets paid.

HOWEVER - NONE OF THIS MATTERS - because the real issue with this question is that It's an irrelevant question. The Browns can't afford to pay him that. The team can't afford to wrap up 230M guaranteed to Watson AND shell out another 160M to Mayfield. They would be, essentially, paying one guy nearly $55M against the cap, and the other $40M against the cap. One of them is being paid to sit on the bench. Even as the cap goes up - that's an enormous amount wrapped up into a position that only allows for 1 starter.

That doesn't even get into the whole "What happens when one guys sucks, and everyone is calling for the backup". Or how that hamstrings the ability to pay for other positions. You know the old saying "When you have 2 QB's, you have none".

 

[dtgold88]

I'll answer:

I think it really depends on how the contract is structed. If it's $160M with less than 75% guaranteed - No. The reality is, for all contracts, the overall number is just a number. It's the guarantees that make it worthwhile. Unless the Browns are going to match Baker's contract with Watson's - I don't see him being interested in a return - his long-term value is still tied up in staying healthy, and it would be clear the team would look to move on as soon as Watson is ready. I think he'd rather bank on himself with a new team that they will give him the long-term starting gig to show what he can do. Much like his college days, I think anything that is similar to what another team might offer will see him changing programs/organizations. He walked on at TT, thought he should have been the starter and put on scholarship. Didn't happen, so he walked on at OU. Very, very similar circumstances here.

Now, all of that being said - If the entire contract were guaranteed - then, Yeah, I'd say it's likely. But that's the smart move and has zero to do with wanting to be in Cleveland. At a 160M guaranteed, he can suck for 4 years, be hurt for 4 years, he's getting paid. Doesn't matter what happens over the next 4 years, because he's set. It's also likely more than he's going to get anywhere else - but, would he prefer to make less and actually be assured he's the full-time starter and not just a place holder....does he "bet on himself" by taking less and moving to another team? These are all arguments you've used, and they are the same arguments that can be made against a Mayfield return - even if he gets paid.

HOWEVER - NONE OF THIS MATTERS - because the real issue with this question is that It's an irrelevant question. The Browns can't afford to pay him that. The team can't afford to wrap up 230M guaranteed to Watson AND shell out another 160M to Mayfield. They would be, essentially, paying one guy nearly $55M against the cap, and the other $40M against the cap. One of them is being paid to sit on the bench. Even as the cap goes up - that's an enormous amount wrapped up into a position that only allows for 1 starter.

That doesn't even get into the whole "What happens when one guys sucks, and everyone is calling for the backup". Or how that hamstrings the ability to pay for other positions. You know the old saying "When you have 2 QB's, you have none".

are you serious? If they offered him, say, the same deal as Allen he says thanks, but no thanks? 6 years, $258 mil, $150 mil guaranteed.

 

[Cincyfan78]

are you serious? If they offered him, say, the same deal as Allen he says thanks, but no thanks? 6 years, $258 mil, $150 mil guaranteed.

No. Because I think he wants to 100% be the starter. Period. Is that a part of the deal? If so, then what do they do with Watson? You can't have both QB's on the same roster, and the Browns can't afford to move him because of the cap. So, again - the question is irrelevant.

Or, to use your own argument - do you think he bets on himself - wants to be guaranteed the full time starter, even if it means less in the short-term? Maybe he bets on himself with a 3 year deal that is less now, but parlays that into much more for the following contract. You were very hellbent on him betting on himself, so why not in this scenario? He bets on himself, takes less now, ends up with more later. Not unreasonable.

But, again - answer my question - how can the Browns afford this? They can't. They would have nearly $100M guaranteed wrapped up in the QB position, which is DOUBLE the highest per year average at QB (Rodgers $50M per year average). The cap would have to nearly double for the Browns to be able to absorb that. That's not including if Mayfield hits markers that drive that $150 closer to $200M if he were the starter...

So, it's a great "What if" question, but you can't put it into actual practicality because even if the answer to the above question were to be 100% yes, it's 100% not doable - so what does it matter. It's just a way to obfuscate from reality by playing a bunch of "what if" scenarios that are untenable.

 

[HaroldSeattle]

Your last comment is your agenda based opinion. If Baker was going to be "traded for whatever they can get" he'd be gone already.

You want to quibble about the wording? That's so you. They traded for Watson, they signed Brissett and been shopping Mayfield. Would you prefer I word it as they are looking for the maximum return? LOL

 

[dtgold88]

No. Because I think he wants to 100% be the starter. Period. Is that a part of the deal? If so, then what do they do with Watson? You can't have both QB's on the same roster, and the Browns can't afford to move him because of the cap. So, again - the question is irrelevant.

Or, to use your own argument - do you think he bets on himself - wants to be guaranteed the full time starter, even if it means less in the short-term? Maybe he bets on himself with a 3 year deal that is less now, but parlays that into much more for the following contract. You were very hellbent on him betting on himself, so why not in this scenario? He bets on himself, takes less now, ends up with more later. Not unreasonable.

But, again - answer my question - how can the Browns afford this? They can't. They would have nearly $100M guaranteed wrapped up in the QB position, which is DOUBLE the highest per year average at QB (Rodgers $50M per year average). The cap would have to nearly double for the Browns to be able to absorb that. That's not including if Mayfield hits markers that drive that $150 closer to $200M if he were the starter...

So, it's a great "What if" question, but you can't put it into actual practicality because even if the answer to the above question were to be 100% yes, it's 100% not doable - so what does it matter. It's just a way to obfuscate from reality by playing a bunch of "what if" scenarios that are untenable.

I mean, if they offered him that it means he's the starter.

Yes, I get that wont happen as we have Watson but the point is if made the starter for the right money he'd happily sign. Because he'd happily sign under those circumstances the Q is not irrelevant as if you agree he would then he has more than 0% interest in staying.

If he said he has 0% interest in staying as Watson's backup with no guarantee to stay past this season? No disagreement. I also think he'd be fine staying if watson was out to be the starter under his current deal. But if someone disagreed with that I'm sure they could make that case.

 

[dtgold88]

You want to quibble about the wording? That's so you. They traded for Watson, they signed Brissett and been shopping Mayfield. Would you prefer I word it as they are looking for the maximum return? LOL

I'd prefer you not word it to support your agenda which is either anti-Baker or anti-Browns.

Yes, wording it as looking for maximum return is more accurate and I agree. Can you really not see how that is different (pretty much the opposite) of "traded for whatever they can get"?

That's definitely deserving of a ya gotta love this forum.

 

[HaroldSeattle]

I'd prefer you not word it to support your agenda which is either anti-Baker or anti-Browns.

Yes, wording it as looking for maximum return is more accurate and I agree. Can you really not see how that is different (pretty much the opposite) of "traded for whatever they can get"?

That's definitely deserving of a ya gotta love this forum.

Trade for what ever they can get is not really different then saying they are seeking the best deal possible. I don't have a agenda and before this off season didn't give much thought about the Browns or Mayfield. Not a fan of the Watson trade and not a fan of Mayfield abilities, but only a defensive homer would get riled by the blow back the Browns, Watson and Mayfield trade market value are receiving because it's all well deserved. I do think the Browns missed out on a better return for Mayfield because they were aiming high early on, but that's just IMO for now. Maybe later more details come out on what the Browns were seeking and what was offered, for now all we know is a bit about what the Panthers had in mind as far Mayfield salary was concerned and the Browns not agreeing to pay that much of Mayfield salary. Also we know most teams have made moves to fill their QB corps since the Watson trade, which has narrowed the market for Mayfield.

 

[dtgold88]

Trade for what ever they can get is not really different then saying they are seeking the best deal possible. I don't have a agenda and before this off season didn't give much thought about the Browns or Mayfield. Not a fan of the Watson trade and not a fan of Mayfield abilities, but only a defensive homer would get riled by the blow back the Browns, Watson and Mayfield trade market value are receiving because it's all well deserved. I do think the Browns missed out on a better return for Mayfield because they were aiming high early on, but that's just IMO for now. Maybe later more details come out on what the Browns were seeking and what was offered, for now all we know is a bit about what the Panthers had in mind as far Mayfield salary was concerned and the Browns not agreeing to pay that much of Mayfield salary. Also we know most teams have made moves to fill their QB corps since the Watson trade, which has narrowed the market for Mayfield.

Riled? Most of the comments - especially this last one - make me laugh. Trading for whatever they can get and looking for maximum return are not really different?

Priceless.

 

[HaroldSeattle]

Riled? Most of the comments - especially this last one - make me laugh. Trading for whatever they can get and looking for maximum return are not really different?

Priceless.

Now you want to quibble about the word "riled"? What would be a better word? Obsessed maybe? You do have 230 posts in this thread alone and without you arguing about every single thing, this thread would have gone quiet long ago.

 

[Schmoopy1000]

Now you want to quibble about the word "riled"? What would be a better word? Obsessed maybe? You do have 230 posts in this thread alone and without you arguing about every single thing, this thread would have gone quiet long ago.

Doesnt really matter. Because when the season starts. We will all be right & he will be wrong. Mayfield wont be a Brown.

 

[dtgold88]

Now you want to quibble about the word "riled"? What would be a better word? Obsessed maybe? You do have 230 posts in this thread alone and without you arguing about every single thing, this thread would have gone quiet long ago.

Not quibbling about the word, riled, you were just wrong that I'm riled.

I mean, I cannot argue with myself. Seems I can make you dance nearly every time I comment if I want.

It's true I should remind myself I cannot argue with irrational and people like you are not capable of admitting they are wrong. I love how you just tried to gloss over you thinking "trading for whatever they can get" and "looking for maximum return" are the same. That's priceless.

 

[dtgold88]

Doesnt really matter. Because when the season starts. We will all be right & he will be wrong. Mayfield wont be a Brown.

I mean, I did say my guess is he wont be here. So there's that?

Do you agree with him that "trading for whatever they can get" and "looking for maximum return" have a similar or the same meaning?

 

[Cincyfan78]

I mean, if they offered him that it means he's the starter.

Yes, I get that wont happen as we have Watson but the point is if made the starter for the right money he'd happily sign. Because he'd happily sign under those circumstances the Q is not irrelevant as if you agree he would then he has more than 0% interest in staying.

If he said he has 0% interest in staying as Watson's backup with no guarantee to stay past this season? No disagreement. I also think he'd be fine staying if watson was out to be the starter under his current deal. But if someone disagreed with that I'm sure they could make that case.

For how long? Until the guy that makes more returns?

Really, though, the crux of the issue is that the "right" contract isn't viable - so it's a moot point. I mean, if they offered him 300M fully guaranteed, he'd 100% stay, and likely be happy, but it's not even in the realm of possible.

So, I mean if your point is to say that in some made-up scenario that could never exist, could Mayfield return and be happy - sure.

However, in reality - is there a contract that they can legit offer him that would make him happy to stay - I think the answer to that is no. 0% chance. That's my opinion based on the fact that the Browns can not afford to offer him the kind of contract that would take.

TLDR: So, in fake made up scenario that could never exist - Yes, he'd be happy to stay.

In reality based world where the Browns cannot afford to offer that kind of contract - No, 0% chance he'd be happy to stay.

 

[dtgold88]

For how long? Until the guy that makes more returns?

Really, though, the crux of the issue is that the "right" contract isn't viable - so it's a moot point. I mean, if they offered him 300M fully guaranteed, he'd 100% stay, and likely be happy, but it's not even in the realm of possible.

So, I mean if your point is to say that in some made-up scenario that could never exist, could Mayfield return and be happy - sure.

However, in reality - is there a contract that they can legit offer him that would make him happy to stay - I think the answer to that is no. 0% chance. That's my opinion based on the fact that the Browns can not afford to offer him the kind of contract that would take.

TLDR: So, in fake made up scenario that could never exist - Yes, he'd be happy to stay.

In reality based world where the Browns cannot afford to offer that kind of contract - No, 0% chance he'd be happy to stay.

I'm not so sure he would not be fine staying on his current deal if he knew Watson was out for the season. Is that his first choice? Probably not...but its better than sitting or playing for a bad team as a stopgap or as a backup somewhere else

That said, if I ever said there was a 0% chance someone wanted to be with a team it would mean under any circumstance. That's why I don't like to make extreme comments like that just to support an agenda.