DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Pure Football Forum cont...The Browns Front Office...ready for prime time?...

For da win. It is quite pointless to go on and on about who did what and when.
We are where we are, the past is gone and we have what we have. so let's see if we can find the right path.

J/C .... Ray Farmer stopped being in charge of anything with this team on, or before, January 3, 2016. The rest of the off-season, to date, was/is in Sashi Brown's hands. He decided, from Jan 3 forward, (at the very least) who to negotiate with, what numbers were acceptable, and whether or not the team wanted the player(s) back at all.

If I am reading some people's posts correctly, they seem to think that Browns could only do what Farmer wanted, even in this entire off-season, after Farmer was history. That makes no sense to me at all. Ray Farmer was fired before this off-season began, and it is possible that his power was curtailed even before the season ended.

Just a quick look-back...

Sashi Brown is not making financial decisions in Cleveland, imo and he would never have said the following if he was in charge...


...."it is important for us to keep our own, I think it says something to the locker room when you reward guys that do it the right way and make sure that they understand that being here in Cleveland we want to build through the draft certainly but we also need to retain our guys when we get to free agency."
link




...if Sashi was in control of making the financial decisions for this franchise, he would never have set himself up to fail so miserably. You have to feel a bit sorry for the guy because someone else pulled the rug out from underneath him and at the last moment. Someone other than Sashi made the decision for the franchise to let all of our free agents walk. Sashi is taking a lot of the heat for that failure but I believe he intended to do exactly what he said...resign some of our free agents.

Reading Forbes, I came across an article about the Browns and the general state of the franchise....



The lack of a link between performance and money is even less in the NFL. Lerner sold the Browns to Jimmy Haslam in 2012 for $987 million, or $450 million more than his father paid for the team. The Browns have been a mess under Haslam, constantly reshuffling the front-office personnel and bad play on the gridiron. Yet, thanks to the equal share the team gets from the league’s enormous television contracts, the team coins money year in, year out.
Haslam was hand-picked by the NFL, having already been “vetted” as a minority owner of the Pittsburgh Steelers. He was one of them. But Haslam’s private truck service company, Pilot Flying J, has been engulfed in lawsuits from truckers who say they have been short-changed on rebates and has had to pay steep fines. Apparently, at Flying J, Haslam wasn’t minding the store.He hasn’t been doing a good job in Cleveland either.
link



When I first read this article, I thought it was dated a couple of years ago, but the date of the story is March 12, 2016. The question must be asked, is the financial situation at Flying J affecting how the Browns are operating?

Mac: Are you inferring that money from the football team is being funnelled through to Flying J? I don't know if there is legislation to prevent this or not...

and i think he did it for the last 3 years. thats what a cap guy does.

"Realists" also said Mitchell Schwartz was bad (then back tracked that we should have kept him), Sheard was bad (then back tracked that we should have kept him), Leon McFadden was an excellent pick, we were dumb for letting Ismaii'ly (sp?) Kitchen go....

I could go on...

hey i blamed farmer mostly. the thing that is strang farmer is gone and the talent drain is still going on. well that leaves the cap guy and owner.....

Yes, Farmer should shoulder the majority of the blame with some likely attributable to Haslam as well. The talent drain? Here you are making an assumption (only time will tell) that the incoming "talent" is inferior to that of the outgoing. Remains to be seen...

I find it strange that so many here can't understand that as long as we're this bad we will always have a talent drain at the end of each season. Hopefully 2015 was the end of it.

Sashi likely had some very limited input into the decision making process as he was the contract negotiator and cap specialist. Others actually called the shots, IMO...

Typically, teams turn over 10-20% of their roster each year.

True, I get that, although losing most of our FA's ever year is a bit of a different animal than just typical turn over.

I won't dispute the "fact" that teams (us included) may lose some FA's due to possible management ineptitude. As I know you're aware, there are other reasons why FA's walk and that those who do, are not necessarily wanted to be retained by their original team...

We can look back at you season W/L predictions and see just how dynamic that you have been. How your ability to be objective has been totally lacking since you've been a poster on any board. (since you want to get personal here)



Since you can look at two players you were right about, can you even begin to count the ones you were wrong about?



Personally I lost count by about 2006.




Once again, how many players have you been wrong about Tab? You want to throw out exceptions to the rule when you've been wrong about TONS of players over the years. It's nothing but laughable.

I'll bet you're wrong about more players in this draft alone than the two examples you threw up. Your attacks are bigger jokes than you realize.



It seems your observations now include name calling. Quit acting like a jerk Tab. It makes you look like a petulant child.

You're the one who predicts double digit wins EVERY year. You're the one who speaks about how every draft we've had has been so great right after it's over. You're the one who has blindly supported every FO and coaching staff since 1999.

People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. Grow up Tab.

Browns' Sashi Brown says 'no offer pulled' for Mitchell Schwartz

Mary Kay Cabot, cleveland.com

BOCA RATON, Fla. -- Browns Executive Vice President of Football Operations Sashi Brown denied a report that he yanked his offer for right tackle Mitchell Schwartz.

"No offer pulled,'' he said at at the NFL Annual Meeting here Monday morning.

Asked to explain what happened, he said, "I think enough has been said about it. I think a lot of players left their teams. I've seen a lot of their agents mouth off in the media, and I'll just leave it at that.''

Schwartz ended up signing a five-year, $33 million deal with the Chiefs after his agent, Deryk Gilmore, went back to the Browns to accept their original pre-NFL Combine offer and discovered it was no longer on the table.

The Browns, a source said, felt that Gilmore didn't engage with their original offer, believed to be about $7 million a year, and opted to test the waters. The average was more than the $6.6 million he ultimately received from the Chiefs.

When Schwartz shopped his offer in the days leading up to free agency, the right-tackle market turned out to be worse than originally anticipated. Several teams were interested, but none matched or exceed the Browns' $7 million offer.

On Wednesday morning, the first day of free agency, a source told cleveland.com that Schwartz planned to return to the Browns because their deal was the best and he wanted to remain in Cleveland.

But when Gilmore went back, the original deal was no longer there. The Browns thought Schwartz was gone when he didn't engage with the original offer, and moved on. They would've taken him for less, but not the $7 million. Kansas City's offer was the best one remaining.

"I'm not getting into a back and forth,'' said Brown. "Looking forward not driving in the rear-view mirror. We did have discussions with every single one of our guys. And we always will.''

He did acknowledge that the Browns can't keep losing their homegrown talent.

"We obviously can't put ourselves in position where we've got four starters going in free agency,'' he said. "It'll be a key part of our strategy to not just draft but also to keep them on our roster. So we're looking forward to adding at least 10 more young talented guys and get a core nucleus of guys. We had 12 last year in the draft, 10 more this year.

"And that'll be the core of our strategy. Once you get into in March in free agency, you're effectively in free agency with your own guys. We respect the guys that were here, but we'll move forward with building in the draft and feel good about our opportunity to do that.''

Brown stressed that he's not taking the team down to the studs and eradicating all the 30-and-over players on the team.

"Not at all,'' he said. "It's not a scorched-earth policy or a policy just making decisions on a guy's age. We want to look at who can contribute to us. Those guys may come in all different packages and all different ages.''

So they pulled the offer but don't want to call it pulling the offer. Got it.

It's semantics, perhaps, but not really.

The offer expired, and they knew not only that it would, but precisely when it was going to expire. Then, after it did, they complained that the offer was pulled.

That being what it is, they had ample opportunity to keep Schwartz and chose not to. For that, this year's replacement had best pan out.

And that's pretty much were I am with this. You can say the offer expired, they pulled the offer or any term that bolsters your opinion. But the net result is still the same. They made him an offer and kind of held it up for ransom. "Sing this by such a time or else."

The way I see it, and yes it's just my opinion, is that if that player was worth your offer on March 1st, he was worth is on March 30th. You either want that player or not. It was well before the draft and the options weren't any different. They just pulled a power move.

And just like you, they made their decision. If it was the wrong one, they are accountable for that.

How ever you want to twist the words to make then fit your view.

You could say they didn't pull the offer, they just were not going to pay $7 mil. after they knew no one else thought he was worth $7 mil. they would have signed him for LESS.

Like a player in the draft projected to go in the first ...at this point teams think he worth a first but information comes out that changes teams minds the player drops to the third round. Should a team still use their first or wait until later rounds for that player?

I've never heard "teams" announce where players are slotted in the draft. What I have seen is the media give their opinions and they change the closer to the draft they get as they gain more information. But the teams themselves? I've never actually seem any evidence to support that.

Not if you plan the possibility of replacing him through FA which started March 9. (Schwartz signed that day with KC). Not saying this is the case, but...

Maybe, maybe not. Schwartz signed the first day of FA. The offer was on the table for an unknown (to me) length of time during which MS had ample time to sign...

"teams" announce those are your words no where in my post did I use them.

You made it plain that you felt that it was the draft board of NFL teams were changed. Yet the only evidence we have of any draft boards changing are those in the media.

After the combines, the media needs to change their draft boards for the sake of internet clicks and attention.

Like I said, I've seen no evidence this happens on NFL draft boards. And honestly, neither do you.

Also want to add to what bbrowns32 said...

Do not get into a bidding war with yourself.

If do let agents get away with shopping your offer around to other teams and jacking the price up, that is exactly what each and every agent is going to do with you until you stop allowing it.

Apparently this agent was thinking the Browns would wait at the alter even after the church closed.

It was an example scenario just as there is no evidence it happens there is no evidence it doesn't happen.

If he was worth $7 mil. why did his Agent accept less from another team but wouldn't take less from the Browns?

There's also no real evidence that unicorns don't exist. So yeah, there's that. lol

And I would expect that we'd never have access to any such evidence, Pit. I'd be shocked if teams never adjusted their boards based on new significant information coming to light...

Not that it matters, but I see it a touch different.

Here's our offer. You have until X date to sign. Player says thanks, I'm checking around. I'll get back to you.

After the "expiration" date, player says "well, that's the best offer I had, I'll sign."

Team says "it's past the offer time. We've gone another direction. Sorry."

The NFL is a business. I get that players want as much as possible. But it's also life: Take this opportunity, within this time limit, or don't.

Doesn't much matter, he's gone, for less than the Browns offered. If anyone has egg on their face, it's him and his agent.

Mac: Can you clarify when MS returned to Cleveland to accept the offer? Was his agent present?

Just to refresh everyone's memory about what happened on the first day of free agency, per reports.


What happened with Mitchell Schwartz, Alex Mack and the Browns on 1st day of free agency


By Mary Kay Cabot, cleveland.com
Follow on Twitter
on March 09, 2016 at 11:01 PM, updated March 10, 2016 at 11:04 AM
link

CLEVELAND, Ohio -- On the first day of free agency, the Browns lost two-fifths of their offensive line in center Alex Mack and right tackle Mitchell Schwartz, their starting free safety in Tashaun Gipson, and their speedy receiver and returner in Travis Benjamin.

Along the way, the front office, led by Executive Vice President Sashi Brown, got hammered from coast-to-coast for botching the day. NFL Network analysts blasted them all afternoon, and words like "debacle" and "disaster" described them on social media. In addition to losing some of their own free agents, they also failed to land any of the big-name players they had been linked to, such as Bengals receiver Marvin Jones.

But Brown and coach Hue Jackson had made it clear that they wouldn't panic, that they'd be disciplined and that they'd build through the draft. Jackson went so far as to say "it will not be disappointing" if we lose the big-four free agents.

Here's a behind-the-scenes look at what happened on the challenging first day:

1. Mitchell Schwartz: The Browns made Schwartz an offer shortly before the NFL Combine that was far below what he felt he could get on the open market. Sources said it was somewhere in the $7 million-a-year range. His agent, Deryk Gilmore, told the Browns that the former second-round pick would test free agency. Schwartz' goal was about $8 million to $10 million a year, taking into account the growing importance of the position against the Von Millers of the world. When Schwartz opted to test the market, the Browns assumed he was gone and turned their attention to other players.

But Gilmore told cleveland.com Thursday that Schwartz wanted to return to Cleveland and wishes he could've stayed. His fiancee is from here, he purchased a house here and he's entrenched in the community. After testing the market, which wasn't good for right tackles, Schwartz went back to the Browns in the hours before free agency and ultimately planned to accept their pre-combine offer. But they were informed by Cleveland that the offer no longer stood, at least not at $7 million a year. It may have been posturing on the Browns' part, but any hopes of reaching a deal were apparently dashed when NFL Network reported Wednesday morning that the Browns had pulled their offer.

Feeling Cleveland was no longer an option, Schwartz opted to sign a five-year, $33 million deal with the Chiefs, including about $15 million guaranteed. His brother, Geoff Schwartz, congratulated him on the deal after the "nonsense'' he endured during the day, presumably from the Browns. NFL Network's Mike Silver reported that the Browns didn't negotiate in good faith.

In the end, the Browns had moved on before Wednesday when Schwartz opted to test the market without engaging with their $7 million offer. For Schwartz' part, it's common for a player to shop a team's number in hopes of making more.

Ultimately, he didn't, at least not in terms of yearly average. The $6.6 million a year average makes him the second-highest paid right tackle in the NFL, but it's short of the payday he was hoping for. The Browns now have to hope that Austin Pasztor can step in, or they need to find a replacement. Bottom line: It didn't have to come to this. The Browns were willing to pay Schwartz $7 million a year, more than he's getting from the Chiefs. His $15 million guaranteed from Kansas City is more than what the Browns were offering, but a deal could've been struck had things not gotten ugly on Wednesday. It's unfortunate for both sides.

2. Alex Mack: The Browns wanted to keep Mack, but only at the right price, and he knew he could make more on the open market. Peter King of Sports Illustrated reported that Mack will average $9.5 million a year, and that he turned down $500,000 more per year from the Browns to join Kyle Shanahan in Atlanta. I'm told that the $9.5 million represents the maximum value of the contract, with every incentive being hit and that the actual average is more like $9 million a year.

As for Mack taking less money to play for the Falcons, the Browns never actually made him a concrete offer after he voided the final three years of his contract (at $8 million a year) last week. Mack's representatives agreed to keep the Browns in the loop, but it was generally assumed that Mack, 30, would make more than the Browns wanted to pay. As for the Mack team, they found the Browns to be extremely professional and easy to work with and they look forward to doing business again in the future.

3. Travis Benjamin: The Browns wanted Benjamin back and made him an offer, but it wasn't close to what he could get in free agency. The Browns viewed him more as a situational player and returner, and didn't want to go as high as the Chargers did: four years, $24 million, $13 million guaranteed and $18 million over the first three years. The Chargers paid him like a No. 2 receiver, and will likely use him as such.

4. Tashaun Gipson: The Browns did not aggressively pursue Gipson and basically let him walk. He signed a five-year deal with the Jaguars worth $35.5 million, including a $12 million signing bonus. Incentives push it to $36 million. The Browns made him a multi-year offer before last season and he opted to play out his $2.356 million tender. He also skipped some voluntary workouts in an apparent contract statement, and then missed three games because of a sprained ankle. Gipson never seemed to recover from the contract issues of last year. The Browns will likely count on Jordan Poyer to replace him.

5. Marvin Jones: The Browns threw out a number for Jones, but it wasn't competitive and they weren't viewed as serious contenders. A source said if Jackson had really pushed it, the Browns may have gone after him harder. But Jackson probably knew the Browns wouldn't match what Jones got from the Lions: five years, $40 million including an $8 million signing bonus and $20 million guaranteed.

The Browns will have to keep looking for receivers, because they don't have nearly enough weapons. They can't count on Josh Gordon coming back from suspension to save the day, and they're not. If he's reinstated, they'll go from there. But hanging out with Johnny Manziel is not the way to make a good first impression.

Ask his agent he signed him elsewhere for less, great agent ya think?

So is what you're saying is that the team decided if a player decides to even look at his options for a day, they should pull an offer? That what is offered one day, is suddenly not the same the next day. Because someone sets some arbitrary date, that makes them right?

You see, the Browns didn't have time to go in another direction. Nobody was signed on the FA market to replace Schwartz. This FO just decided to play hard ball and one day he was worth it and the next day he wasn't.

The message sent was a simple one. "We refuse to let our players test or even entertain the open market. Sign what we offer before the FA period or else."

Not a smart way to do business or attract FA's to your team. I'd say if anything, it will only increase the desire to leave here by players in the future.

No, I don't believe the Browns ever said ""We refuse to let our players test or even entertain the open market. Sign what we offer before the FA period or else."

What was the exact time frame from the initial offer? I don't know, do you?



Regardless, it appears to have cost Mitchell money. What it may cost the Browns is yet to be determined, and really, there's no concrete way to prove WHAT it may have cost the Browns.



Pit - here's a deal: Sign by next week, it's yours.

Pit says "Oh, I'm gonna check around first." Fine.

1 day after the offer expired, or 2 weeks after, pit comes back and says "hey, I didn't get any better offers, so I'll take yours."

Uh - there was a deadline.