A shockwave was felt around the league when Cleveland Browns pass-rusher Myles Garrett requested a trade.
Every team will evaluate whether acquiring the four-time first-team All-Pro makes sense. While the Green Bay Packers fit Garrett's desire to play for a contender, it's not in their best interests to pay the price the Browns will command for his services.
Let's make one thing clear: this is not about Garrett's talent or the state of the Packers roster, as his addition would make a huge impact on their defense. It is about weighing the cost of what they will have to send to Cleveland against how the assumed haul of draft picks could further benefit their team.
Browns general manager Andrew Berry has previously stated he would turn down a trade offer of two first-round draft picks for Garrett. Granted, that was before Garrett made his trade request public and before the Browns had accepted the reality that the relationship between the two sides was broken beyond repair.
Packers would risk it all by trading premium draft capital for Myles Garrett
Assuming that two first-rounders are the baseline of any deal for Garrett, as well as additional draft capital or even players, which would the Packers be better off with right now on their competitive timeline? Is acquiring Garrett really the move that would make the Packers genuine Super Bowl contenders?
Sure, it would help get them closer, but this is a high cost for a player who would not put them over the top, and that must be taken into account here. Using this much draft capital on just one player is the type of move that, if it were to backfire for any reason, could set a franchise back half a decade, if not more (Cleveland swinging and missing on Deshaun Watson being clear evidence of exactly that).
Hanging on to their draft picks and using them on multiple players on cost-controlled contracts, rather than putting them all together for Garrett, is the better path to take. Not only would it help elevate the roster's talent floor, but it would also help keep the Packers' salary cap situation manageable.
Having as many productive and inexpensive players on the roster becomes paramount once a quarterback is extended, which is precisely the situation the Packers find themselves in. As tempting as adding Garrett to their defense would be, Green Bay's decision-makers must understand they have multiple needs that must be addressed this offseason beyond simply adding a pass-rusher.
Trading for Garrett would fast-forward their timeline and make them all in when they should be taking a slightly more patient approach. Perhaps next offseason is the time to make a move like this, but for now, the Packers are better off waiting and improving multiple areas of their roster rather than only one.