Veto the Osweiller deal? (1 Viewer)

[DropKick]

If the other 30 owners could vote on it (ala a crappy fantasy league), would they veto the deal?  The NFL doesn't allow trading a player for cash...  This is on that slippery slope.  Another angle is are the Browns violating the spirit of the salary cap floor?

Personally, I love the creativity.  But does anyone cry foul?  Is this a new trend?  Or does the league take steps to prevent this in the future?

 

[FreeBaGeL]

The "creativity" of the thing that every Madden bro has done a dozen times in their franchise mode game save?

 

[GregR]

If the other 30 owners could vote on it (ala a crappy fantasy league), would they veto the deal?  The NFL doesn't allow trading a player for cash...  This is on that slippery slope.  Another angle is are the Browns violating the spirit of the salary cap floor?

Personally, I love the creativity.  But does anyone cry foul?  Is this a new trend?  Or does the league take steps to prevent this in the future?

No cash was traded between the teams, so what is the point of the bolded comment?

 

[GregR]

I should have added... the salary cap floor won't be trued up for another 4 years.   The "spirit" of the salary cap floor is that the owners pay the players an actual percentage of the allocated cap funds rather than find loopholes.  Osweiler is getting paid the same amount trade or no trade. The Texans and Browns 4 year salaries have to reach the floor or they write the players a check, trade or no trade.  So how are the Browns violating the cap floor?

 

[spider321]

It does not seem to violate the "letter of the law", but the league may look to close this loophole in the future.

 

[The Busy The Tired]

I like it. It really helped both teams tremendously. Perfect trade partners.

 

[ZWK]

I could see this sort of thing going farther.

For example, suppose that the Giants are low on cap space and they want to add FA Brandon Marshall. The Browns sign Marshall to a contract with a $5M signing bonus, and then immediately trade him to the Giants for a 2018 3rd round pick.

Net effect: the Browns paid the Giants $5M for a 2018 3rd round pick.

 

[PlasmaDogPlasma]

I could see this sort of thing going farther.

For example, suppose that the Giants are low on cap space and they want to add FA Brandon Marshall. The Browns sign Marshall to a contract with a $5M signing bonus, and then immediately trade him to the Giants for a 2018 3rd round pick.

Net effect: the Browns paid the Giants $5M for a 2018 3rd round pick.

I think there is actually a rule that prevents trading a player right after you sign him as a FA.

 

[-OZ-]

If the other 30 owners could vote on it (ala a crappy fantasy league), 

Funny you mention this, it's the first thing I thought of when I saw the deal on nfl.com (after I saw it here). My last salary cap league did veto and outlaw these trades, partly because they "weren't realistic". Partly because cap space wasn't considered valuable

 

[cockroach]

Funny you mention this, it's the first thing I thought of when I saw the deal on nfl.com (after I saw it here). My last salary cap league did veto and outlaw these trades, partly because they "weren't realistic". Partly because cap space wasn't considered valuable

absurd.

 

[Hankmoody]

They won't veto this but I bet it's a topic at the owner's meeting and the Competition Committe looks to ban it.  It's subverting the spirit of the salary cap.  I'm relatively certain no trades are actually final until the league office reviews the contract and approves it, and they could easily just reject any future attempt.  Unlike fantasy leagues it's a lot more viable to veto in this arena because, even if it's a subjective decision, the NFL Office has no bias in the decision.  Alternatively they can just have guaranteed money hit the original team's cap just like the remaining bonus allocation and make it moot.

I could see this sort of thing going farther.

For example, suppose that the Giants are low on cap space and they want to add FA Brandon Marshall. The Browns sign Marshall to a contract with a $5M signing bonus, and then immediately trade him to the Giants for a 2018 3rd round pick.

Net effect: the Browns paid the Giants $5M for a 2018 3rd round pick.

Good example.  Also a team could offer Marshall a 2 year deal for $15M all guaranteed with no offset, pay him 3 this year and 12 next, and if he's bad just trade him to someone to eat the big hit.  Heck they could then re-sign him the following year and let him double-dip!  Why have a salary cap if it cap be subverted so easily?  The NFL isn't a league that sits around and waits for something to be a problem (like the joke the NBA is), they get in front of these things.  Wouldn't surprise me at all.

 

[Mystery Achiever]

The league has approved.
https://twitter.com/AdamSchefter/status/840189866130444288

 

[Ilov80s]

I could see this sort of thing going farther.

For example, suppose that the Giants are low on cap space and they want to add FA Brandon Marshall. The Browns sign Marshall to a contract with a $5M signing bonus, and then immediately trade him to the Giants for a 2018 3rd round pick.

Net effect: the Browns paid the Giants $5M for a 2018 3rd round pick.

Why would Brandon Marshall go out of his way to help the Browns? 

 

[Hankmoody]

Why would Brandon Marshall go out of his way to help the Browns? 

whoosh

 

[Ilov80s]

whoosh

What's over my head? You need the player to be complicit in this move. If the player really wants to go to New York, he might go a long for this. Otherwise, it's a strange way to recruit a FA. "Hey, sign with us so we can trade you to someone else for a draft pick." 

 

[Gally]

I still don't really see anything wrong with this trade.  It was two teams seeing an opportunity to better their situation so they did.  No picks were created.  Any other team could have done the same.  I am sure it was put out there to anybody willing to take it.  I don't see why this is an issue.

 

[Hankmoody]

What's over my head? You need the player to be complicit in this move. If the player really wants to go to New York, he might go a long for this. Otherwise, it's a strange way to recruit a FA. "Hey, sign with us so we can trade you to someone else for a draft pick." 

It's the opposite.  NYG would say "hey, we want to sign you but can't, so we're going through Cleveland".  Marshall isn't doing it to help Cleveland, he's doing it to get to NYG where he wants to be.  The fact it's helping Cleveland is incidental.

 

[Rockchild]

Don't teams do this all the time by trading players they were going to cut for 6th or 7th round picks?

 

[Ilov80s]

It's the opposite.  NYG would say "hey, we want to sign you but can't, so we're going through Cleveland".  Marshall isn't doing it to help Cleveland, he's doing it to get to NYG where he wants to be.  The fact it's helping Cleveland is incidental.

If the player really wants to join a team or doesn't have many options, sure. However, it's an odd setup to tell a player you want to sign them but can't pay them.

 

[Interseptopus]

I still don't really see anything wrong with this trade.  It was two teams seeing an opportunity to better their situation so they did.  No picks were created.  Any other team could have done the same.  I am sure it was put out there to anybody willing to take it.  I don't see why this is an issue.

Houston had a problem-  they had a QB issue and could not move psat it because it was financially impossible to do so
Cleveland had a problem- their team is a ton of holes and too much cap space, but prefers to build through the draft

They solved each other's problem. 

This is brilliant... Cleveland takes on this awful salary for 2017, can cut him next year and lose nothing. They gain a 2nd round draft pick. And a QB who might be able to at least start for them next year while they develop a rookie or however they decide to go with their QB situation

Houston rids themselves of a terrible contract and opens the door to signing Tony Romo, Trading for JimmyG, or making some other move to solve their QB issue. 


I could see if this was an issue if Houston just signed Osweiler and traded him to Cleveland for draft picks, like many people have done in their Madden franchises and then you have the first 10 picks of the first round. But there are rules against that anyway

Don't teams do this all the time by trading players they were going to cut for 6th or 7th round picks?

Exactly

 

[GregR]

I could see this sort of thing going farther.

For example, suppose that the Giants are low on cap space and they want to add FA Brandon Marshall. The Browns sign Marshall to a contract with a $5M signing bonus, and then immediately trade him to the Giants for a 2018 3rd round pick.

Net effect: the Browns paid the Giants $5M for a 2018 3rd round pick.

I assume you're saying the Giants and Browns collectively agree on the course of action with each other.  If so then they would have committed three counts of Collusion as defined by the CBA in Article 17.

By entering into agreements on whether to negotiate with Marshall, on whether to offer a contract to him, and on the terms offered. All of those are not allowed. So no, that's not likely to ever happen, and if it did it would be expected to be squashed harshly.

Edit to add the revelevant CBA parts:

Section 1. Prohibited Conduct:
(a) No Club, its employees or agents shall enter into any agreement, express or implied, with the NFL or any other Club, its employees or agents to restrict or limit individual Club decision-making as follows:

  (i) whether to negotiate or not to negotiate with any player;

  (iii) whether to offer or not to offer a Player Contract to any player;

  (v) concerning the terms or conditions of employment offered to any player for inclusion, or included, in a Player Contract.
 

 

[Borden]

I still don't really see anything wrong with this trade.  It was two teams seeing an opportunity to better their situation so they did.  No picks were created.  Any other team could have done the same.  I am sure it was put out there to anybody willing to take it.  I don't see why this is an issue.

This trade in itself probably isn't a "veto" but the idea and potential long term impact across the league is an issue. I assume that is why most people here are saying that it is something that the league will have to look into. 

It sets up a lot of potential issues. For the owners/league there's a parity issue if one or some teams are taking up aren't putting the best product they can on the field because they have cap space tied up in players they don't want/have (if Os were to be cut). For players and PA, it creates a problem because Free Agency isn't really them picking a team if (as in the theoretical Marshall example above) they are just going to be traded to somewhere else. Say Alshon didn't want to stay with the Bears but the Eagles had the cap space (or just needed to get to the floor) so Alshon thinks he's choosing a team but really the he isn't. 

 

[Gally]

This trade in itself probably isn't a "veto" but the idea and potential long term impact across the league is an issue. I assume that is why most people here are saying that it is something that the league will have to look into. 

It sets up a lot of potential issues. For the owners/league there's a parity issue if one or some teams are taking up aren't putting the best product they can on the field because they have cap space tied up in players they don't want/have (if Os were to be cut). For players and PA, it creates a problem because Free Agency isn't really them picking a team if (as in the theoretical Marshall example above) they are just going to be traded to somewhere else. Say Alshon didn't want to stay with the Bears but the Eagles had the cap space (or just needed to get to the floor) so Alshon thinks he's choosing a team but really the he isn't. 

Could it also be a perfect storm of a crappy team that nobody wants to sign with having a ton of cap space so they see a way to better their draft position to acquire useful players?  I just don't see this as a typical situation that will happen all the time.  As other's have said, signing a FA and immediately trading them is not allowed so the Marshall example is not realistic.  I think this is a situation of people trying to make a problem where there isn't one. 

It's not like Cleveland is just taking on salary with no benefit to their future.   They want to build in the draft (because they have a hard time getting free agents interested in signing there) and this kind of deal is a big help in doing so.  Houston didn't sign Osweiller with the intention of giving away a draft pick to get rid of him.  They thought he was the future for them at QB and it turned out he is terrible so they found a way to move on from him without completely hurting their future.  This helps the competitive balance because it helps Houston out of salary cap hell so they have room to get better.  

I just don't see the potential issues actually being issues. 

 

[Interseptopus]

This trade in itself probably isn't a "veto" but the idea and potential long term impact across the league is an issue. I assume that is why most people here are saying that it is something that the league will have to look into. 

It sets up a lot of potential issues. For the owners/league there's a parity issue if one or some teams are taking up aren't putting the best product they can on the field because they have cap space tied up in players they don't want/have (if Os were to be cut). For players and PA, it creates a problem because Free Agency isn't really them picking a team if (as in the theoretical Marshall example above) they are just going to be traded to somewhere else. Say Alshon didn't want to stay with the Bears but the Eagles had the cap space (or just needed to get to the floor) so Alshon thinks he's choosing a team but really the he isn't. 

But there is a rule against trading someone right after they sign with you. 

You say there are potential issues for this that the league should look into. I see it from the opposite perspective. If the league starts telling teams when they can/cannot trade players that's a slippery slope. So what, you can't trade a player for 2 years after you sign them? That's crazy. What's stopping the league from saying you can't trade anyone you ever sign as a FA? 

Osweiler sucked. He was not performing to his contract. 

If players want to pick the team they want to be on, and don't want to be traded the solution is easy- put a no-trade-clause in the contract for 2-3 seasons and then that player isn't going anywhere. It anyone is to blame for this it's Osweiler's agent for creating the deal as is that allowed for this. 

Also, it's not like Cleveland can't use a starting QB. Who are you to say Osweiler won't do well in CLE so CLE can't trade for him

 

[GregR]

By the way, the only rules restricting trades of recently signed players that I found... it was a tough read, but if I read it right, it mainly had to do with vested veterans on 1 year minimum salary contracts, and they could not be signed and then traded back to their old club that either cut them or had let their contracts expire. I'm not even really sure why either NFL or players would want the rule, but like I said it was a tough section to follow.

Not saying there is not a rule that you cannot sign and immediately trade. Just if there is I didn't spot it. But even if you can, you definitely can't have the two teams planning the action together.

Edit to add:  I should have added, there is a rule that for RESTRICTED free agents, if you tender and sign them, you have to get approval of the player and NFLPA to trade them during the Signing Period for restricted free agents. Also if a tendered player gets an offer from another team, and the original team refuses to match, the player cannot be traded back to the original team for one calendar year unless the player consents.

 

[Interseptopus]

By the way, the only rules restricting trades of recently signed players that I found... it was a tough read, but if I read it right, it mainly had to do with vested veterans on 1 year minimum salary contracts, and they could not be signed and then traded back to their old club that either cut them or had let their contracts expire. I'm not even really sure why either NFL or players would want the rule, but like I said it was a tough section to follow.

Not saying there is not a rule that you cannot sign and immediately trade. Just if there is I didn't spot it. But even if you can, you definitely can't have the two teams planning the action together.

I can't find a written rule either. I would be in favor of such a rule for just that 1st season, but after that I think all bets are off. 

I know there is not a rule that states you cannot trade for a player and then trade him immediately again. I remember GB put a clause in the trade with the Jets that they could not trade Favre to MIN. 

 

[GregR]

Yeah, I added a bit to my previous post, there are rules about trading restricted free agents in different situations... could be those are getting confused and thinking they apply to any free agent.  Or, could be the rule is out there but I'm just not seeing it.

 

[Borden]

@GregR

Nice work on digging into the CBA. If I read that CBA section correctly, it only refers to offering, negotiating and contract details. Basically, the Eagles can't tell the Raiders what to do with their contracts/offers. Correct?

 

[GregR]

@GregR

Nice work on digging into the CBA. If I read that CBA section correctly, it only refers to offering, negotiating and contract details. Basically, the Eagles can't tell the Raiders what to do with their contracts/offers. Correct?

That would apply. Also, "we won't sign X if you don't sign Y". Two teams agreeing how either will conduct their signings.

Now Cleveland could sign Marshall without ever talking to NY in advance, offer the trade, and that wouldn't be collusion. They can't agree too much on what each will do.

But a team doing that would probably make other FAs wary of signing with them lest the same happen.

 

[Hankmoody]

I assume you're saying the Giants and Browns collectively agree on the course of action with each other.  If so then they would have committed three counts of Collusion as defined by the CBA in Article 17.

By entering into agreements on whether to negotiate with Marshall, on whether to offer a contract to him, and on the terms offered. All of those are not allowed. So no, that's not likely to ever happen, and if it did it would be expected to be squashed harshly.

Edit to add the revelevant CBA parts:

Section 1. Prohibited Conduct:
(a) No Club, its employees or agents shall enter into any agreement, express or implied, with the NFL or any other Club, its employees or agents to restrict or limit individual Club decision-making as follows:

  (i) whether to negotiate or not to negotiate with any player;

  (iii) whether to offer or not to offer a Player Contract to any player;

  (v) concerning the terms or conditions of employment offered to any player for inclusion, or included, in a Player Contract.

They are neither restricting nor limiting their decision-making though. 

This isn't a whole lot different than trading a player already under contract but getting him to re-do the deal before it happens.  Say the Browns wanted to trade Osweiler to the Jets for a 5th but the Jets don't want the cap hit of his guaranteed money.  Browns restructure Brock to a $1M salary and a $13M restructure (signing) bonus.  Once the trade happens CLE now eats the bonus allocation just like HOU did on the first one.

 

[GregR]

They are neither restricting nor limiting their decision-making though. 

This isn't a whole lot different than trading a player already under contract but getting him to re-do the deal before it happens.  Say the Browns wanted to trade Osweiler to the Jets for a 5th but the Jets don't want the cap hit of his guaranteed money.  Browns restructure Brock to a $1M salary and a $13M restructure (signing) bonus.  Once the trade happens CLE now eats the bonus allocation just like HOU did on the first one.

It would be different to the NFLPA who would be the ones contesting it. They don't want offers to free agents to be limited by teams working collectively.

They are not likely to object to your example because the player had power over if he let's them restructure the existing deal and only will accept it if it is to his benefit. I think the Browns - Giants example is one they won't want to set.

 

[beef]

I love the trade.  Simply brilliant for both teams.

I only wish the Patriots were involved.  That would have really blown up the twitterverse.

 

[Thunderlips]

I like it. A teams cap space should be able to be used creatively.  Plus, HOU gets out from something that doesn't hamstring them for the next year and enables them (in theory) to become a better team .

 

[menobrown]

Trust the process

 

[Hankmoody]

It would be different to the NFLPA who would be the ones contesting it. They don't want offers to free agents to be limited by teams working collectively.

They are not likely to object to your example because the player had power over if he let's them restructure the existing deal and only will accept it if it is to his benefit. I think the Browns - Giants example is one they won't want to set.

The Browns-Giants one works to the player's satisfaction, at a minimum, and maybe even to their benefit.  If NYG are the only team offering $5M, it's Marshall's benefit that CLE is willing to get involved.

It can't really be different to the NFLPA.  The clause is pretty cut and dried.  Taking out the clauses, the provision reads " (a) No Club shall enter into any agreement to restrict or limit individual Club decision-making as follows".  There's no agreement to restrict or limit here, it's just the opposite.  CLE is creating an opportunity for the player that's not otherwise there, if anything.

Now other owners might object to high hell.  I do agree, it's pretty clearly subverting the intention of the salary cap, and I believe it will be addressed by the next Competition Committee.

 

[Guest]

A win win win for the parties involved. Brock gets his guaranteed money, Brock has a dead cap value of 9 million that goes against Hou's salary cap. Clev gets a 2018 2nd round draft pick which they covet for a 16 million cap hit. Since they save about half that on cutting RG III, it's not bad. Clev only has backup level QBs on their roster so Brock fits in.

 

[DropKick]

Could it also be a perfect storm of a crappy team that nobody wants to sign with having a ton of cap space so they see a way to better their draft position to acquire useful players?  I just don't see this as a typical situation that will happen all the time.  As other's have said, signing a FA and immediately trading them is not allowed so the Marshall example is not realistic.  I think this is a situation of people trying to make a problem where there isn't one. 

It's not like Cleveland is just taking on salary with no benefit to their future.   They want to build in the draft (because they have a hard time getting free agents interested in signing there) and this kind of deal is a big help in doing so.  Houston didn't sign Osweiller with the intention of giving away a draft pick to get rid of him.  They thought he was the future for them at QB and it turned out he is terrible so they found a way to move on from him without completely hurting their future.  This helps the competitive balance because it helps Houston out of salary cap hell so they have room to get better.  

I just don't see the potential issues actually being issues. 

No one is really complaining about it.  I threw it out there because it is on the edge of the rules and I knew the Shark Pool would have some interesting takes on the precedence this sets and the implications.  Lots of interesting perspectives so far...

I can see the league being caught off guard by this one and doing something to preempt this type of thing tomorrow. On the other hand, I can see teams building on the precedent and finding innovative ways to work things to their advantage in the future.

 

[ghostguy123]

Great trade for both teams. 

I see absolutely nothing about this deal that would make the league look into it and have to change any rules.  It was a perfect storm of thing leading up to it.  Brock happened to sign a huge deal and suck after one year, the Browns happened to be rebuilding and have 100+ million in cap space, and a really good FA QB like Romo is going to be available which is probably the rarest part of this.

Teams are not going to start doing this all the time.  It needs the right combination of things to happen for the situation to even present itself.  It's not like teams are lining up to trade good picks to create some cap space.  It not only means you lose picks, but also means you screwed up.

In this case, if this move allows Houston to get Romo, they go from a middle of the road team to a contender right away.  Teams aren't going to be giving away picks to create cap room unless this type of opportunity presents itself, and this is a pretty rare opportunity.

 

[-OZ-]

The Browns-Giants one works to the player's satisfaction, at a minimum, and maybe even to their benefit.  If NYG are the only team offering $5M, it's Marshall's benefit that CLE is willing to get involved.

It can't really be different to the NFLPA.  The clause is pretty cut and dried.  Taking out the clauses, the provision reads " (a) No Club shall enter into any agreement to restrict or limit individual Club decision-making as follows".  There's no agreement to restrict or limit here, it's just the opposite.  CLE is creating an opportunity for the player that's not otherwise there, if anything.

Now other owners might object to high hell.  I do agree, it's pretty clearly subverting the intention of the salary cap, and I believe it will be addressed by the next Competition Committee.

What's subverting the intent of the cap?  The intent of the cap is to prevent teams from stocking up on a load of top players because they happen to be in a better position to do so.  If anything players taking hometown discounts to play with a team is violating the intent, at least from the owners perspective.  The intent of the floor is to prevent total tanking  (maybe this is where you're saying they violated the intent? )

 

[ghostguy123]

If for some reason the league decided to make a future rule change (which I highly doubt they do) over ONE deal like this, then they are being rather ridiculous. 

 

[GregR]

I would think they'll discuss it but probably nothing comes of it.

I think the league is more concerned about parity from a standpoint of equal chance to compete despite the different financial situations from one location to another. The Bills shouldn't be at a competitive disadvantage on the field compared to a New York, Dallas, etc, just because they have less population to draw revenue from. They don't want a cash-rich team to be able to dominate competition by spending actual cash to make things happen competitively. Which is why they have revenue sharing. When the rule says you can't exchange cash in a trade, that is what the rule is aimed at, I think.

That isn't going on here. The cap and draft pick structure is equal for all teams. This is two teams doing solely within that structure that is equal-for-all what they think will improve their roster best in the way they need. I don't imagine this should be worrisome to the league when they sit down and think about it. Just like the NBA and MLB didn't find a reason these kind of trades should be prevented despite them happening more frequently because they have all of those god-awful fully guaranteed contracts.

 

[ghostguy123]

Maybe the Browns should do something similar with Romo.  Get Romo for a 7th, absorb a lot of the cap hit, then trade him to Denver or Houston for a 2nd or 3rd or whatever

 

[ghostguy123]

Question.  When trying to deal BO, the Browns are saying they will eat half the salary.  How does that even work?  Are they giving actual money or is that something for salary cap implications?

 

[ZWK]

I could see this sort of thing going farther.

For example, suppose that the Giants are low on cap space and they want to add FA Brandon Marshall. The Browns sign Marshall to a contract with a $5M signing bonus, and then immediately trade him to the Giants for a 2018 3rd round pick.

Net effect: the Browns paid the Giants $5M for a 2018 3rd round pick.

I was googling around for more info on this, and apparently Bill Barnwell had the exact same idea 2 years ago. There is some discussion of it in this Football Perspective post, which I might have read at the time and forgotten about.

 

[-OZ-]

Question.  When trying to deal BO, the Browns are saying they will eat half the salary.  How does that even work?  Are they giving actual money or is that something for salary cap implications?

No idea but there's something funny about him being a brown BO.

 

[Hankmoody]

What's subverting the intent of the cap?  The intent of the cap is to prevent teams from stocking up on a load of top players because they happen to be in a better position to do so.  If anything players taking hometown discounts to play with a team is violating the intent, at least from the owners perspective.  The intent of the floor is to prevent total tanking  (maybe this is where you're saying they violated the intent? )

The intent of the cap (and revenue-sharing) is to prevent any teams from being able to out-spend the others based on raw economic power.  The intent of having guaranteed money count against the cap is to prevent offering a guy like Manning $2M the first year and $30M the second year guaranteed then cutting him to avoid that cap hit.  Manning gets paid, team gets their Super Bowl and no cap hit. 

The example of Brandon Marshall earlier does the same.  Dallas offers their 1st to SFO to have them sign Hightower to a 4 year deal with a $50M signing bonus and salaries of $5M per year.  SFO trades him to Dallas and eats the $50M.  Dallas now has a guy cheap for 4 years way below cap value.

 

[Hankmoody]

Question.  When trying to deal BO, the Browns are saying they will eat half the salary.  How does that even work?  Are they giving actual money or is that something for salary cap implications?

They can restructure his current contract.  $8M salary, $8M check today as a bonus.  Anyone takes that deal, and now when the Browns trade him the $8M bonus hits them right away and the new team only has to pay the salary.

 

[ghostguy123]

They can restructure his current contract.  $8M salary, $8M check today as a bonus.  Anyone takes that deal, and now when the Browns trade him the $8M bonus hits them right away and the new team only has to pay the salary.

Ok, I was thinking it had to be with some sort of restructure.

 

[ZWK]

Question.  When trying to deal BO, the Browns are saying they will eat half the salary.  How does that even work?  Are they giving actual money or is that something for salary cap implications?

They can restructure his current contract.  $8M salary, $8M check today as a bonus.  Anyone takes that deal, and now when the Browns trade him the $8M bonus hits them right away and the new team only has to pay the salary.

Do restructures like this happen? If so, it sounds a lot like the Brandon Marshall example that I gave earlier. In both cases, the player, the Browns, and another team all reach an agreement on a contract for the Browns to give to the player, followed by a trade for the other team to make with the Browns. The difference between this example and the Marshall example is that Osweiler had a different contract with the Browns beforehand, whereas Marshall was an unrestricted FA beforehand.

I know that it's somewhat common for players to restructure their contract as part of a trade. Usually that happens after the trade, though; in this case it would come before the trade.

 

[Captain Quinoa]

If the draft were happening and the Browns were on the clock at #142, and the Texans wanted that pick, they might offer something like this year's 6th and next year's 4th and nobody would blink. In this case they need the deal to happen now, so they pay a premium - a 2nd and their backup QB instead of a 4th to clear the space right now.

And there's no subversion or cap shenanigans. The Browns are paying the full negotiated salary of the player they traded for. Just because most believe they are going to cut or trade him doesn't change that. It's not like they're paying a retired or injured player or something.