Cleveland Browns owner Jimmy Haslam and general manager Andrew Berry.
Getty
Cleveland Browns owner Jimmy Haslam and general manager Andrew Berry.
The Cleveland Browns pulled their proposed rule change at the NFL owners meetings in Phoenix before it ever came to a vote.
Per NFL Network’s Tom Pelissero, the Browns withdrew the proposal — which would have allowed teams to trade draft picks up to five years in advance rather than the current three-year window — on Monday morning.
Browns general manager Andrew Berry argued that the expansion would create a more active trade market and give teams greater roster-building flexibility, citing the NBA’s seven-year window as a comparable model.
Browns Took Heat Over Proposal
Los Angeles Rams head coach Sean McVay — a member of the NFL Competition Committee — made it clear before the Browns even pulled the plug on the proposal that it would be very unlikely to pass.
“I would say this: There’s a zero percent chance that it gets through,” McVay said on the Up & Adams with Kay Adams on Monday. “I respect the courage for Andrew to have a very sound reasoning of what’s behind it. Hey, if there’s one thing you can bet Vegas odds on, there’s no chance that thing’s getting through. I’m not backing that. Competition committee was 11-0. I’m on the competition committee.”
Up & Adams
Rams HC Sean McVay says the Browns’ proposed draft pick trading rule change has a “zero percent chance” of passing at the NFL’s Annual League Meeting 👀 @heykayadams
Rich Eisen was equally skeptical. On The Rich Eisen Show, he called the proposal “the dumbest thing I’ve ever heard.”
“Maybe the Browns are playing 4D chess with this proposal,” Eisen said.
NFL Network insider Ian Rapoport noted the Browns at least achieved their stated goal: creating a league-wide discussion on the matter. Nothing is preventing Cleveland — or another team — from bringing the proposal back in a future cycle.
How the Rule Could Have Helped Cleveland
Whether the Browns intended it or not, their rule change proposal put a spotlight on the kind of blockbuster deal Cleveland could ultimately be positioning for. The Myles Garrett situation remains a defining subplot of their offseason.
Had the proposal passed, it would have significantly expanded the trade landscape — giving teams more flexibility in how they structure offers. Franchises reluctant to part with immediate draft capital could have been more inclined to engage by shifting compensation further into the future, where those picks feel less costly.
Speculation around the proposal centered heavily on Garrett from the start. NFL Network’s Mike Garafolo reported the Browns were adamant they aren’t trading Garrett, and Berry has said the reigning AP Defensive Player of the Year will be with Cleveland for the rest of his career. But the fact that the rule change and Garrett trade chatter overlapped so neatly was hard to ignore.
The same flexibility would have applied to Cleveland’s quarterback situation. The Browns still don’t have a proven long-term answer under center. If Cleveland were to pursue an established signal-caller via trade, the ability to spread that cost across five years rather than three could have softened the blow and opened the door to more creative deal structures.
But none of that will come to pass now. The proposal is dead, the owners meetings will move on, and the Browns head into the 2026 NFL Draft holding the sixth and 24th overall picks.