In looking at previous transactions to ascertain an accurate projection for trade value, it’s important to take all facets of a circumstance into consideration.

Both Khalil Mack and Jalen Ramsey were unhappy in their state of affairs, and both received record-setting contracts from their new clubs. Neither left a mess of already paid money on his former team’s books.

All these aspects of player movement figure into trade value, and they all generated leverage for the acquiring team rather than the original team in those examples — that leverage is on the other side in a potential Garrett swap; it’d be with the Browns.

He isn’t disgruntled. His pact isn’t backloaded. He isn’t demanding a new contract. And even if he were given one, it wouldn’t be set to kick in until 2027.

A Garrett trade wouldn’t leave an unmanageable situation on Cleveland’s cap sheet, but they have already paid him a significant portion of money upfront in order for the cap charges to be spread into the future. That money is spent for the Browns whether he’s on the team or not (though it would count toward a different year’s cap table). But it increases his trade value because his cost in cap dollars to an acquiring team is far less than his financial market value.

Simply put, when a front office uses void years (or other proration mechanisms) in a contract, trading the player is like a divorce: one team gets custody and the other team pays child support.

Now let’s quickly break down his contract in simple terms to establish a reasonable expectation of assets for the Browns to accumulate in shipping Garrett elsewhere, in Part 4.

—@PoisonPill4