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

No, but it certainly shows that Haslam isn't cheap.

Schwartz REFUSED OFFERS made by Haslam or his people.

-Which refutes your statement...

""

Hmmmif he"RETURNED" he must have REFUSED the original offer.

Try seeing the truth rather than TWISTING it.


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

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. (<--- Refused offer )The average was more than the $6.6 million he ultimately received from the Chiefs.

The one to blame is Schwartz agent for taking less money.

https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=+Schwartz+refused+browns+offer

We're still debating "facts" that Noone knows are true facts. Fact is, Mack and Mitchell are gone... good luck to them. They probably don't even think about us anymore, so why is this debate still happening?

On March 7 at 12 pm, the two day window for teams and agents to discuss UFA contract offers began. Schwartz's agent did participate in the legal tampering period, but Schwartz decided to stay in Cleveland and the Browns were informed hours before the free agency period began at 4pm on Wed, March 9, 2016.

When Schwartz's agent contacted the Browns to convey Schwartz's desire to remain in Cleveland...Browns management said their offer was off the table.

Call it what you want..bait and switch, rescind, pulled the offer..no matter how you slice it, the Browns decided they no longer wanted Schwartz. At 4pm Schwartz entered Free Agency and was quickly signed by the Chiefs.

Schwartz and his agent operated according to league rules and for that, Schwartz was punished by the Browns.

So tell me, what do the Browns win for most cap space available?...anyone?


The legal tampering period...

Free agency officials kicks off at 4 p.m. ET on Wednesday. But the courtship process can begin well before that under league rules.

Yes, we're talking about the so-called "legal tampering" period of free agency, or as the NFL officially refers to it, the negotiating period for prospective unrestricted free agents.

The NFL tweaked this phase of the league calendar for 2016, cutting this negotiating period from three days to two. The period began at noon Monday and ends at 4 p.m. ET on Wednesday. Additionally, the league has loosened restrictions on how teams and agents can negotiate during this period.

We thought it might be helpful to to offer up a refresher on the specifics of the "legal tampering period". We provide information straight from the source, specifically an internal memo obtained by NFL Media Insider Ian Rapoport.

During the two-day period, all teams have the right to negotiate "all aspects of an NFL player contract" with the certified agent of an impending free agent. Figures can be exchanged on a deal, but nothing can be agreed to or announced before the start of free agency on Wednesday.

There are restrictions to this process. A free agent is not permitted to visit with a team other than their current team. Furthermore, a player cannot be in contact with a team that is not their own. Only the agent can communicate on the player's behalf during this period. If a player acts as his own agent, he's out of luck -- the NFL does not allow communication with another team before Wednesday.

In the memo, the NFL also reminds teams that breaking the rules of the negotiating period could be considered conduct detrimental to the league as well as a violation of the league's anti-tampering policy. Translation: Play by our rules or we're coming for your wallet and/or draft picks.

So while the big announcements won't come until Wednesday afternoon, consider the next two days the process of prepping the meal and setting the table before dinner is served.

link

You just prove your original augment wrong that...

"

If Haslam made an OFFER the original offer was REFUSED to test the market than he didn't REFUSE to spend cap dollars. Which puts all kinds of holes in your conspiracy theory.

Ask yourself why you clicked the thread you have your answer.

We paid just over $141 million in salary last year (between our active spending and dead money). That is just about middle of the road. People who think Haslam doesn't spend have no understanding of how the cap works.

http://overthecap.com/salary-cap-space/

On this we can agree, mac. Flying J is Haslam's "bread-n-butter" while the Browns, surely important to him, do not approach his primary focus...

j/c

While most will not agree with this, I'll say that Haslam does not have a dime in this(no pun intended)

Reason being, I think this new FO sat down together and laid out the plan, and with it, showed JH that spending on FA's right now wouldn't be in the cards. They want to set up a foundation first, and then add a few maybe next year and if things get going, then bring in 1 or 2 high priced guys to get us over the hump in year 3.

I think they got his blessing. If they thought spending money now would put us over the hump, then I have no doubt JH would say go for it, but since were starting over, it's gonna take a couple of years to get there.

I think JH is spending more time on the Browns right now but knows he has to get back to selling fuel.

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.

http://www.cleveland.com/browns/index.ssf/2016/03/what_happened_with_mitchell_sc.html

not sure why we have to keep going over the same topic over and over...but yup hope this helps a lil
Schwartz waited until the last possible second to try and take the Browns' better offer by then we moved on...nothing to blame the F.O. or the owner for...lesson learned next time he'll take the fair offer...which is what we offered him...

I think this the more likely sequence of events. I also think it more likely that Schwartz's agent was the one who let HIS ego get in the way and. I mean, if the hype was that he could command $10+ million a year, and the Browns proposed only $7 mil, I think it's wholly possible that his agent gave the FO the finger and was colorful about how much of an insult that offer was. I mean, does anyone else notice that there wasn't exactly a bidding war for Schwartz either? Signing with the Chiefs for what isn't quite as good an offer as the Browns did so quickly almost smacks of desperation.

Everyone who keeps saying the FO acted in bad faith over this deal have offered zero motivation to treat ONE player like that other than blaming it on their ego, something that they have no prior reputation for, and in fact have a reputation of NOT allowing their ego to get in the way of dealings.

IMO there are many more plausible reasons why Schwartz's camp (at least his agent) would act in bad faith than the FO.

This topic is no longer interesting. Mack and the RT are gone, for whatever reasons.
Bye bye fellas.

You are absolutely correct, at least from my perspective.

Like most everyone, I wish we could have retained Mack and Schwartz at least. But we didn't for various reasons. So be it.

101...We keep going over this in an attempt to paint the proper picture of events, especially events that pertain to the loss of Mitchell Schwartz, who wanted to return to Cleveland.

From the article: 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.


101..you say Schwartz waited until the last possible "second" to inform the the Browns that he wanted to return. The fact is, Schwartz notified the Browns "hours" before the 4pm deadline on Wed. March 9. I believe I read something about the agent notifying the Browns Wed morning that Schwartz wanted to return to Cleveland, many hours before the 4pm deadline.

To paint the proper picture...Schwartz's agent used the NFL's established policy referred to as "the legal tampering period", in an attempt to determine what the market for RTs would be this year. The 52 hour period began at noon Monday and ends at 4 p.m. ET on Wednesday. Some NFL analysts (NFL network) believed the going rate for a free agent RT would increase to the $10 mill per year range in 2016, but when Schwartz's agent checked the market, that was not the case.

Schwartz contacted the Browns hours before the 4pm deadline on Wed, March 9, but were told the Brownd offer of $7 mill per year had been rescinded. The Browns claimed they were moving on, in a different direction but they did not sign anyone in the hours after the free agency period began at 4pm Wed.

It was not until Friday, March 11 that the Browns signed Alvin Bailey, a backup offensive lineman, who the Seahawks did not re-sign. Bailey was a much "cheaper option" for the Browns signing a 3 year contract at $2 mill per year.

So, Jimmy Haslam goes the "cheap route" once again, in an effort to replace a RT drafted by the Browns, who developed into one of the best RTs in the NFL. Schwartz was everything Jimmy Haslam claims he wants in a Browns player, but Haslam refused to sign Schwartz to the deal the Browns had offered him at the combine. That makes absolutely NO SENSE.

Schwartz and his agent did nothing wrong by checking the market and returned long before teams could make binding offers to other free agents, had the Browns been shopping for Schwartz's replacement. To punish Schwartz and his agent for following the NFL rules makes NO SENSE.

The Browns drafted two offensive linemen, 3rd rounder (13th pick) Coleman and 5th rounder Drango, plus the signing of free agent Bailey, hoping that one of these players will replace Schwartz at RT.

JMHO, but it would have made more "football sense" if Haslam had re-signed Schwartz and used the the two draft picks on the defensive side of the ball. But hey, my #1 concern is seeing the Browns owner build the Browns into a "winning franchise"...not being "cheapest franchise" in the NFL or one of the teams with the most cap space going into the 2016 regular season.

101...answer this question...how is Schwartz and his agent supposed to find out what "a fair offer IS", if they don't utilize the NFL's legal 52 hour negotiating period to check with other teams to see what Schwartz's value is ??

Schwartz and his agent followed the NFL rules pertaining to free agency and for that, Haslam looks to be punishing them by pulling/rescinding the Browns offer. That would be the act of someone with some serious emotional problems, imo.

I seriously question whether the Haslam ever intended to resign Schwartz based on the reasoning of this owner. Could have just been a ploy to make Browns fans believe Haslam was serious about re-signing Schwartz.

The problem with the Browns continues to be the owner, Jimmy Haslam and the mess he created at Flying J.

jmho...mac

As the Browns did nothing wrong by not signing him at a rate NO ONE else thought he was worth. Where Schwartz and his agent made their mistake was thinking the team they slighted and expect to get the same amount. And no just because he was worth 7 mil before as he found out he wasn't worth 7 mil after. The Browns did nothing wrong by saying we've decided to go in another direction, it seems to be OK for the agent to try to extract as much money as he can so why shouldn't the Browns try to save as much as they can?

Where the team went wrong, IMO, is adamantly and with blinders on taking a "we've moved on" stance.

Plans are flexible; you had a quality starter with experience that wanted to be here at a number you were content with - they could have made it work.

There's no way for us as fans to know which side ultimately burned the bridge there, but there was clearly an opportunity to make things work that both parties failed to capitalize on.

It's hilarious to see how much the narrative of Schwartz's value on this team has changed in the last 8-10 months.

So it WAS a conspiracy! The ultimately above market offer we made to him was just a feignt. Haslam was sitting in his office with his fingers and toes crossed hoping against hope that he wouldn't sign the deal so his master plan could come to fruition!!! Brilliant!

Give it up Mac, we made the guy a higher than market offer, he decided to test the market, found out what he was worth and then tried to come back. We said no, now that we too know what the market is, our previous offer is no longer good and he bailed.

Haslam has shown nothing to indicate that he's running this team on the cheap beyond your theory about our own free agents. I did notice that you stopped comparing keeping our own to signing other team's free agents because it doesn't fit your narrative right? If he was truly just interested in spending the lowest amount possible he would just have a team full of street free agent's right?

Well, perhaps... or is it hilarious that way too many people simply parroted others when they spent so much time trashing him just because he didn't play like Joe Thomas?

I think it's less hilarious, more enlightening.

Perhaps you're right...it was parroting others' comments. I find that even more hilarious.

I don't think the negative comments were based on comparing him to JT then it was about who drafted him. I'll leave it at that.

Why is it Macks people had no problems with the Browns like Schwartzs people did?

"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."

Because he was out of here no matter what the Browns offered. (unless it was some obscenely out of line deal)

Can't be...doesn't fit macs conspiracy theory.

mac... what you fail to consider in this conspiracy theory is that each team has to pay 89% of it's salary cap. If they fall short of doing that the remainder must be paid directly to the players.

That means that the cheapest team can only save 11% of the cap. Any other "savings" must be paid directly to the players.

So fielding a "cheap" team does not put more money into Haslem's pocket, money that he could use say, to bolster his Flying J business.

It does a team no good to spend below 89% of the cap other than to insure they have future money to pay their own FAs or to sign new FAs. Either way the money gets paid directly to the players, not to Haslem so he can buy ice cream.

I agree. So many thought he was so great. Now, people are acting like it was no big loss and that we'll actually be better off w/out him.

Heck, look at a guy like you. You wanted to have his child. Now, you don't give the poor guy a second thought. So sad..........

Why do you people feed this troll?

I don't know, but perhaps because if everybody had like minds, we would never learn.

So you don't know how the cap works?