Analysis: Browns say they won't trade Myles Garrett after renewed speculation … and they shouldn't

What would an offseason be without discussion of a potential Myles Garrett trade?Last year the uproar came when Garrett publicly requested a trade, only to be rebuffed by the Browns. He eventually relented and was rewarded with a four-year, $160 million contract, which was a record for a defensive player.This week the talk resurfaced when ESPN reported the Browns and Garrett agreed to modify the language in the contract. One of the key changes was shifting the date for option bonuses to be paid from March until a week before the regular season from 2026-28.Zone Coverage PodcastThis immediately set off alarm bells across the league. Such a move would greatly benefit the Browns financially, and with the salary cap, if they traded Garrett after the March date but before the season.I was told, as well as other reporters, the Browns aren't trading Garrett and the changes were made for long-term salary cap flexibility for the team with Garrett also benefiting. General manager Andrew Berry is sure to be asked about his intentions this weekend at the owners meetings in Arizona.The Browns knew what the reaction would be and quickly sought to quiet the noise.No such luck.With the draft weeks away and no games for more than five months, speculation sells.Especially when it comes to Garrett.He's a superstar with global recognition. He set the NFL season sack record in 2025 with 23, earning his second NFL Defensive Player of the Year award in three seasons. He's dating Olympic snowboarder Chloe Kim. He was a guest on "The Tonight Show Starring Jimmy Fallon."In addition, many analysts and fans believe the Browns should trade Garrett.Cleveland isn't a Super Bowl contender in 2026 — probably not even a playoff contender — and is in Year 2 of a major roster transition nobody within the organization wants to call a "rebuild." So why not get a haul for Garrett — the best defensive player in franchise history — and turn complete attention toward the future?While I understand the argument, I haven't changed my stance. Trading Garrett is the wrong move for the Browns. It was last year and I feel even more strongly now.The Browns would've saved themselves a ton of money and salary cap space if they acquiesced to Garrett's trade request a year ago. After refusing and giving him the extension, a trade would make even less sense. He's also coming off arguably the greatest defensive season in NFL history and was one of the few reasons to watch the Browns.Defensive end ranks behind only quarterback on the list of most important positions. Garrett might play it as well as anyone … ever. The idea the Browns would be better without him is foolish. They would likely spend the next two decades — at least — in search of someone to fill the void.There are two logical reasons to trade Garrett. First, the belief he will be too old when the Browns are in a position to again contend. Second, the "haul" they'd get in return would accelerate the rebuilding process.Garrett turned 30 on Dec. 29. He's only gotten better in recent years, takes immaculate care of his body and has been durable, playing at least 16 games a season for the last five years. The Browns' plan is to be positioned to contend in 2027. Garrett will still be the NFL's best defensive player and will remain elite for the duration of his contract that runs through 2030.As for the great return in a trade, let's assume the Browns could get three first-round picks, which seems like one too many. They'd come from a team expecting to compete for a Super Bowl, so they would be at the bottom of the first round. Are those three players going to combine to have the impact of Garrett? If the Browns hit three home runs, sure. What are the odds of that?The only way a Garrett trade would get my approval is if landing a franchise quarterback were guaranteed in return. Would the low first-round picks enable the Browns to move up high enough in the draft? Would they pick the right quarterback even if they did?The Browns submitted a rules proposal to the league that would allow teams to trade first-round picks up to five years into the future, as opposed to three. Maybe this and the Garrett contract changes are connected, but it feels farfetched.The proposal isn't for one year, it would be a permanent change to the bylaws. But this is connect-the-dot season, so anything goes.While I would never rule out anything when it comes to the NFL, or the Browns, I believe them when they say they aren't trading Garrett. And I believe that's the right decision.But as long as the Browns are irrelevant when it comes to the playoffs, the Garrett trade talk won't be silenced. The post Analysis: Browns say they won't trade Myles Garrett after renewed speculation … and they shouldn't first appeared on BrownsZone with Scott Petrak.