Considering the personal tragedy this guy suffered, would it have killed them to keep him through the end of the season? Its not like we're going anywhere. And owners, front office types, fans wonder why there's no such thing as player loyalty. Its because they get treated like livestock.

bingo. fans want players to show loyalty when the FO's around the league shows zero.

King John , lol....

If anything, you question the signing to begin with and the players that were released in order to get him on the roster.

We've seen this before as of late.

#RosterTurnover

Agreed. Its makes no sense. Avery comes to mind. Nassib, etc.

Include Ogbah too if referencing just DEs.

Are we certain he didn't request it?

It's possible that he just has not been the same since his girlfriend died, and we need the roster spot for someone else. (maybe Njoku)

Then IR him with a bad heart, and at least pay him out through season's end. This just wreaks of cold, ruthless "business decisions". Like others have mentioned, it's pretty hard to build any sort of team chemistry or culture if you're just churning the roster non-stop.

He had a key play sunday.. what's up with this move?

I thought he was inactive Sunday.

There has to be a real, medical issue to IR someone.

People bring up Shazier ...... well, there's no question about the medical issues he is dealing with. I do not believe you can claim bereavement as a medical issue for a player to go on IR.

Besides, Smith's salary ... as a vested veteran player .... was guaranteed for 2019 by virtue of being on the roster for the 1st game.

The Browns will pay his salary this year. That is in the CBA. Smith will get all of the money he had coming this year.

I don't get your argument here. Should we keep him on the roster just to do so?

Why? We paid him, and now get a chance to looks another player. That's the way the NFL works.

Plainly speaking, there is a large hole in your assumptions, by assuming Smith to be part of that future plan. Givin his age alone, it is imo a far stretch to assume that he was.

Now we know that is a stawman assumption.

Given our record, it is not uncommon to see movement to the backend of our roster, with the realization that next year starts today.

We've signed a LOT of FA's. You're just so silly!

Are we certain he didn't request it?

Then IR him with a bad heart, and at least pay him out through season's end. This just wreaks of cold, ruthless "business decisions". Like others have mentioned, it's pretty hard to build any sort of team chemistry or culture if you're just churning the roster non-stop.

Where's Dee Haslam's skull cap with #50 on it?

Way to change the subject. You said we had trouble signing FA's. That's simply not true. But that's okay, now that you are wrong just change what you said. It's what I expect.

Landry. Did we trade for or sign Richardson?

Where did you read I said anything about future plans? Your Assuming what I meant.

1 roster spot on a team not going anywhere is not going to hurt the team. ESPECIALLY when that roster spot would be used to SHOW the rest of the guys that the organization had your back, the organization was supporting you, the organization cared about you.

And you guys wonder why its hard to get FA to come here, or resign the decent players we do have.

We traded for landry, then extended him.

We signed Richardson

"Why not try to build CHEMISTRY for NEXT YEAR???"

Correct.

The "big names" we signed in FA of 2018 were Chris Hubbard, Carlos Hyde, Greg Robinson & TJ Carrie. Carrie and Hubbard were the most alarming signings as they combined for $30.6M in guaranteed dollars.

In 2019, the "big names" were Hunt and Richardson.

I prefer the 2019 route in FA than the 2018 route re: spending. But round and round we go.

For 1, the chances the guy they signed being on the team next year is slim to none. Two, the players were behind Smith, and all reports were they supported him.

If you are a player in the league, on another team - and you hear that the Browns after saying they support Smith with his tragedy, now release him weeks later, are you not going to think twice about that?

If you are a player, in the CURRENT locker room, do you really want to be on a team that cuts ties with someone in a hardship so easily? I wouldn't. Actions matter, and this speaks volumes.

We made a bad move as an organization. We look horrible in the eyes of other players and media for this move. It was cold, callus, and unflattering of our organization. Was it a good business move, probably yeah. Doesn't mean it was a good move.

I am disappointed in my team. Its values are sunk to nothing IMO.

What is going on in Berea?

This team is a rudderless ship.

I don't know that I'd use the term 'chump', but I agree with the premise.
We released our bottom DE. If not for the heartstrings ploy that plays into it, this wouldn't be more than a blip. People are allowing sentimentality play a factor in things and it has no place there at all.

They all hate how corporate America operates. They sound like a bunch of socialists.

J/c

In terms of FA signings, Hubbard was a bad one (thank Haley for that one), especially when we coulda just still had Schwartz

Old argument as well...Schwartz turned down our better offer, but they shopped our offer. I know you and others disagree, but I am very sure none of you are in sales, but once you make the best offer and people shop it for a dime more and don't get it, you move on and tell them to pound rock salt in to granulated salt.

I am not going to be a chump even if you are.


I say that with respect. In reality I don't think you are a chump except in this line of thinking which is narrow.

Agree, but were not talking sales, were talking football. We told him to take a hike, while we had 0 answer to replace him afterward, years later now. We cut off our nose to spite our face.

We aren't talking sales, but they are. They are selling their team and making offers. End of story.

Sales run the world my friend. If you knew you made the best offer, which we knew we did once they kept shopping, and then came back, why wouldn't you pull the offer unless you are a punk?


I am not calling you a punk, I am just saying.


I would have done the same thing. They took the attitude we didn't offer enough. When they came back, they just told me I offered too much.

That guy never wanted to sign with us. He was playing with us. Screw him

We talk about building "a culture", a sense of being a part of something bigger than yourself, a team. And we know how Freddie loves slogans like "Go 1-0 this week.", or "We don't run from trouble. We run towards it together.", and so on. What do you suppose the locker room thinks of slogans now?

I heard on the radio last week that a whole bunch of Browns volunteered at a Food Bank event called "Feed The Need" that collected, boxed, and delivered donated food to needy families, and it was while they were there - on an off day - that they heard from the media that Devaroe Lawrence had been released. The report on the radio was that the players were very upset, and that Lawrence was very popular in the locker room. I'm not suggesting we should keep sub-optimum players out of a sense of charity. I know, and I'm sure the players know, its a business. But the Browns must realize that the constant roster churn takes a toll on players emotionally, and undermines Freddie's attempts to build a sense of Team. JMO.

Rooney’s are classy huh .... if t weren’t for the rapist ... I’d agree .....

BR was never charged in any wrong doing aftger being investigated.

And Baker with his obligatory not quite supporting the guy comment.

What?

Chris Smith's Ending in Cleveland Not a Happy One, But the Browns Aren't the Bad Guy

Pete Smith

There has been an outpouring of reaction to the news that the Cleveland Browns released defensive end Chris Smith. The notion that someone is in effect losing their job when they have experienced a tragedy such as the one Smith did three months ago sounds terrible. Smith, now the sole parent of an infant child after losing his partner and the baby's mother in a car accident by drunk driver, is left to pick up the pieces in his football career in addition to grieving and adjusting to life as the child's only parent.

The problem is that the Browns are competing to win games and this is their only option when it comes to adding talent; their roster is limited to 53 active players and they had to release someone else to bring in another player.

It seems cruel, but these are the rules of the sport. There have been arguments made that other players should've been released instead of Smith in an act of compassion. The solution can't be for someone else to lose their job because of this extenuating circumstance. Smith's situation is awful, but everyone is dealing with something. A player that may have gotten their first shot at an NFL roster could be cut, which would also be tragic.

The NFL doesn't have a bereavement exemption for a player in Smith's situation. Maybe it should. The Browns have said they will continue supporting Smith despite the fact he's no longer a member of the team. Part of the problem is it's not entirely clear what that means, so mentioning it makes it difficult for anyone to understand what it means they're providing for him in lieu of his remaining contract. They understand someone losing their job and that can elicit a visceral reaction from people, which it has.

On the field, Chris Smith simply didn't play well. No doubt in part due to this ongoing life-altering loss in his life, he wasn't able to offer the Browns much this season. He was better last year, but he wasn't really a factor then either.

The Browns could theoretically have just retained Smith the rest of the year, opting not to add anyone else to the roster for the remaining four games this season, short of putting players on injured reserve. Not exactly practical or the actions of a team trying to win, but they could have done it.

Smith would have been released after the season for the same reasons he was released during the season. They weren't getting the production they needed, had moved on to younger players and it provided salary savings for next season.

A player like Justin Zimmer, who was signed and had nothing to do with anything in this situation, doesn't get to contribute on an NFL roster with an opportunity to now earn a normal NFL salary as opposed to a substantially smaller one as a member of the Atlanta Falcons' practice squad. He's not making millions of dollars, will get the NFL minimum the rest of the season, but it's a huge increase for him and the family he is supporting.

There are few happy endings in the NFL. Careers are short, teams are cut throat and any money not guaranteed is potentially money that won't be paid. Most players don't retire. They simply stop getting called and move on with the rest of their lives unceremoniously. Chris Smith's situation is commonplace, unfortunately. That doesn't mean people shouldn't empathize. That doesn't make the move seem any less calculated, heartless
And while no one is going to accuse John Dorsey of being particularly sentimental, this isn't his failing either. This is the NFL. Rosters are limited. Contracts aren't guaranteed. Clearly, they should be, so even though Smith would still lose his roster spot, he wouldn't lose any money in his contract, but making that happen is a different conversation entirely.

The Browns as an organization are supporting Smith in the ways they are allowed, but they aren't willing to sacrifice an ability to compete on the football field to do it, nor should they. The one aspect of this that's completely fair game for criticism is releasing a player like Smith while also bringing in players with the respective off field baggage they have. That goes to the people the Browns have representing their organization.

No one is suggesting people should be happy about the situation with Chris Smith, but the Browns aren't the bad guys here.

Which of the rapes are you talking about, the one in Lake Tahoe that he settled out of court or the other one in GA where the victim's family begged the prosecutor not to go to trial due to the emotional stress....even though 3 eye witnesses gave statements supporting the charges and it was proven he had a bodyguard standing watch outside of a bar BR while he did whatever to that poor girl in there? I can't believe anybody outside of pukesburgh would support that pig, especially a Browns fan.

The usual folks ranting earlier this season about Baker and why can't he act like a professional when talking to media? Now here he is and the criticism is still coming. This type of criticism affects credibility, imo.

I don't think there's ever really been any issues with what Mayfield has said at press conferences.

There's just people who don't like Mayfield for whatever reason.

Actually I think he's been doing much better as of late. Hopefully it's a sign of things to come.

I agree, which is kinda the reason for the irritated post.

device,
I disagree with you, but I also never thought it was as bad as some made it out to be.

Which of the rapes are you talking about, the one in Lake Tahoe that he settled out of court or the other one in GA where the victim's family begged the prosecutor not to go to trial due to the emotional stress....even though 3 eye witnesses gave statements supporting the charges and it was proven he had a bodyguard standing watch outside of a bar BR while he did whatever to that poor girl in there? I can't believe anybody outside of pukesburgh would support that pig, especially a Browns fan.

Cool, so you think the police department and DA are crooked? Is that your take?

I think your hyperbole is off the charts.

Do you have any idea the standard it takes to get a rape conviction? From the sounds of it you certainly don't. That's not about anyone being crooked. It's often times as simple as the victim being scared and waiting too long to report it. That destroys any physical evidence that may have been collected.

I suppose him paying off one of the victims doesn't mean anything.

In no interpretation of what I posted can you non-ignorantly come to the conclusion that I said the police department and the DA were crooked. Why on earth are you defending this creep?

And bro ... the rooney’s did not support him ... they were in MAJOR TURMOIL over what to do ... MAJOR ... that’s why they were real close to trading him ...

They never once gave a statement supporting him ... not even close ...

I think your hyperbole is off the charts.

Do you have any idea the standard it takes to get a rape conviction? From the sounds of it you certainly don't. That's not about anyone being crooked. It's often times as simple as the victim being scared and waiting too long to report it. That destroys any physical evidence that may have been collected.

I suppose him paying off one of the victims doesn't mean anything.

Relative to Roethlisberger’s earnings, a settlement in the mid-six-figure range won’t hurt very much, and it could ultimately be even less than what it would have cost to fully litigate the case through trial, especially if Roethlisberger wanted a scorched-earth Cadillac defense.

While Roethlisberger surely admitted to no wrongdoing as part of the settlement, plenty of people will presume that he wouldn’t have paid money if he was innocent. The reality, however, is that the passage of time likely allowed him to view it dispassionately as a business proposition, and to make a smart decision independent of whether he believes he would have been vindicated after spending as much or more on legal fees, with the ever-present possibility that he’d lose at trial and pay a lot more.

You'll buy any excuse to pay off a rape victim won't you?

Sometimes, the other guy in a sales transaction has the upperhand and you have to pony up.

He did. We tried to play tough, and we lost. The smart money would have been to get it done, as we were not and are still not in a position to have told him to take a hike.

Eh,i would say giving someone a 100 million dollars and making them the face of your franchise is support.

Sorry. In sales, when you make the best offer and tell them this offer stands this long, which we did, and they come back after the fact, sorry, that just doesn't work.

We had already moved on to the next guy. You keep dorking around with people like that who just keep shopping your offer, screw them. At some point it is more than signing the player or selling the ink jet printer, it's about being a strong man or woman and ethics.

When I went to HS, Ethics was a half year class you had to take along with Civics. Nobody teaches that anymore, and look at the state we are in.....pitiful.

Heck, not to point a finger, but you don't even know what I am talking about.

As far as negotiations and making a deal, there are some differences of opinion on that. I personally find, as a customer, the idea that I'm not supposed to shop around for the best deal to be preposterous.

Sorry. In sales, when you make the best offer and tell them this offer stands this long, which we did, and they come back after the fact, sorry, that just doesn't work.

I don't recall us putting a time limit on the whole thing. I could be wrong, so don't jump down my throat but please correct me if so. I also don't recall these extended Schwartz negotiations dragging on all that long (a couple of days). I don't believe we had signed anybody in the time it took him to shop around and then come back.

While it's true that the uncertainty of whether or not you have to scramble to replace your starting RT is exacerbated by waiting, that's part of the game and why these FO guys get paid the big bucks. By jerking Schwartz around, we only hurt ourselves. Dorsey seems to have made a career off of ding dongs like the people we've employed in our FOs making dumb personnel decisions.

We didn't "...jerk Schwartz around...". Screwed the pooch? Yes, we did. But we didn't jerk him around.

We made an offer and apparently said "take it or leave it...it expires the second you walk away." The agent called our bluff and lost his client $$$. We ended up losing too.

The offer expired when he went shopping. Bad move on our part, but that's what happened. Schwartz' agent came back wanting the expired deal. We should have agreed to it. We didn't, bad move on our part again.

Both sides lost.

Schwartz agent gambled and lost. We got all puffy-chested and lost.

Schwartz didn't lose. Guy is playing for one of the best franchises in the NFL with a transcendent QB and an annual trip to the playoffs.

Schwartz very much won.

j/c

I'm not a fan of the way the Schwartz thing went down. Had he have returned trying to squeeze us for more money then my opinion may be different. But that's not what happened. You see, then Schwartz would have been trying to negotiate something. Instead he was willing to accept what the Browns had offered him.

I'm not sure why some people think it's a bad thing when someone who has a skill set tests out the market to see what he can get for his skills. They are worthy of getting what the market will bear.

I have never been one who believes that the world of business should hold all the cards. I've never ever allowed someone to use an ultimatum against me and would never side with someone who tries to use such leverage against me. In such a case I would be happy to accept a little less to work elsewhere.

To say both sides lost is technically accurate, but (imo) also kinda misleading (and I'm not saying that to get on yours or anyone's case). This is kinda part of the reason why I blame our FO.

Yes, Schwartz missed out on an extra million or two... maybe. He still got a lucrative contract on a team that clearly knows what it's doing. He should get paid again before his career is over.

We are STILL looking for his replacement.

So to say both sides lost just doesn't feel correct.

Schwartz was signed in March of 2016. Mahomes was drafted in 2017...he didn't play a down until the end of the year in 2017.

If it's all about the $$$ with professional athletes, then Schwartz most-absolutely lost.

ummm, the Chiefs were in the playoffs in 15, 16, 17 and 18. . . . he absolutely won, as he left here to play with one of the best coaches in NFL. And guess what, hell get a heck a lot more after his last contract blocking for Mahommes than he will if he had stayed here.

You are suggesting that he may be better-off there than here...and team-ability wise I would agree with that...but that's not what we are discussing. He lost a TON of money in that deal and he cannot ever get that back. Period.

There is no value in debating whether his next contract would be greater there than here. None. There is no way to know that.

We lost too. We should have acquiesced and didn't. Bad decision.

There is no value in debating whether his next contract would be greater there than here. None. There is no way to know that.

Or you could say he's still playing for a ton of money while we still don't have a real answer at RT.

Come on now, pitt. No one in the league has ever taken a discount to play for a playoff team. That's nonsense.

Chiefs, RT Mitchell Schwartz agree to 1-year contract extension

The Chiefs have agreed to terms with right tackle Mitchell Schwartz on a contract extension that will keep him in Kansas City through the 2021 season.

According to Schwartz’s agent, Mike McCartney of Priority Sports, the deal is for one year.

Schwartz joined the Chiefs during the 2016 season, signing a five-year deal worth $33 million. Since arriving in Kansas City, Schwartz has consistently been one of the best players along the offensive line. His original contract has often been viewed as a bargain and this one-year extension likely seeks to reward Schwartz for his great play.

During the 2018 season, Schwartz extended his consecutive snap streak above 7,000. He also received recognition from Pro Football Focus as the NFL’s most outstanding offensive lineman for the 2018 NFL season. Schwartz has been available and extremely consistent during his time with the Chiefs.

Schwartz had two years remaining on his initial deal and a $16 million cap hit in both of those seasons. We don’t yet have the exact details of the extension for Schwartz, but it will be interesting to see what the Chiefs do with those first two years. It’s possible Brett Veach decided to dip into Kansas City’s 2019 cap space in order to free up some room in the future.

We’ll update you as soon as we know more details about the extension.

https://chiefswire.usatoday.com/2019/06/...ract-extension/

I don't know. If I'm going to be rich either way, winning may mean more than a little more money.

It looks like he got rewarded for his deal in KC. It appears that winning is paying off now.

What Schwartz' agent did had zero to do with taking a discount to play for a playoff team. If that were the case, he would have just signed with KC rather than coming back to Cleveland for the expired offer.

He LOST million(s) of dollars that he cannot ever get back...we do not have time travel.

Than why did his agent come back looking for the expired offer? Why didn't he just stay in KC?

The answer: $$$

He looked at KC because his brother played there, and begged him to at least look at a winning team. His (at the time) fiancee was from Cleveland, and wanted him to stay in Cleveland, until Brown screwed with him.

Bear in mind that he returned to take the Browns deal on the 1st day or so of free agency .... or maybe even during the legal tampering period. It wasn't a week or more into the process.

You may wish to look at RT pay across the league. Even with his new extension, Shwartz is the sixth highest RT in average pay over the length of his contract.

What does that have to do with the debate about the fact that both sides lost in that non-deal/debacle?

Did you intend to click/quote me? I'm not in disagreement with anything you posted there.

j/c:

I remember how so many people were bashing Schwartz for the majority of his time after Heckert drafted him.

To see this debate now...... warms me heart.

Not this guy! I was elated when we selected him and saddened to see him leave...

j/c:

I remember how so many people were bashing Schwartz for the majority of his time after Heckert drafted him.

To see this debate now...... warms me heart.

It sure wasn't me.

Schwartz was signed in March of 2016. Mahomes was drafted in 2017...he didn't play a down until the end of the year in 2017.

If it's all about the $$$ with professional athletes, then Schwartz most-absolutely lost.

Brown didn't screw with him, Sashi made his best offer to Schwartz's agent to keep Schwartz from testing the Free Agent waters and the agent was told that if they did then the offer would be pulled, the agent then set up a meeting with KC and when the agent found out that KC's money was less then what Sashi offered he tried to come back to the Browns and Sashi did exactly what he said and told the agent that original offer was no longer in play.

j/c:

I remember how so many people were bashing Schwartz for the majority of his time after Heckert drafted him.

To see this debate now...... warms me heart.

Dumb response.

Look, it's not my fault that you either can't understand what I'm saying or are all butt-hurt because I've destroyed your argument. Sorry, that's on YOU.

You're such a homer it's hard to take you seriously sometimes.

Please see above response. Making it personal proves your defeat.

It's always everyone else's fault except the Browns organization and Baker.

At least four times in this derailed thread I have stated that the Browns messed this up and unnecessarily made themselves a loser in the deal...and TWICE in this very quoted-post by you. I bolded it above to help you understand.

Baker must be your hero.

No...he's not. But you are most-certainly a Baker-hater. In any event, what's that got to do with BOTH Schwartz and the Browns losing out on the Schwartz non-deal? Deflect and derail when you've been beaten in a debate is not very becoming.

If history repeats itself...as is often said...we would have paid him more on his newest deal because we valued him at a higher number than did his current team the last time we were in competition for his services. We did it then, reasonable to say we'd do it again.

I guess we don’t need DE’s?
No Myles.
No Smith.
Vernon’s on a bum knee.