Defensive end Myles Garrett’s trade from the Cleveland Browns to the Los Angeles Rams has sparked debate over financial implications, with the player reportedly taking a pay cut due to California’s higher state income tax rates, according to news.google.com. The deal, finalized in 2026, leaves Garrett owing $179 million from 2026 through 2030, a figure unchanged from his Browns contract. However, the 13.3% tax rate in California—compared to Ohio’s 3.125%—means he will lose 10% of his gross pay, though the exact impact remains complex due to game-location taxation and bonus structures. “It’s not a straight and complete 10 percent,” the article notes, adding that Garrett received a $6.5 million bump in 2026 but faces a net loss over the five-year term.
Strategic Trade for the Rams: A Super Bowl Contender?
The Rams’ acquisition of Garrett, ranked the top move of the 2026 offseason by The Boston Globe, represents a calculated risk. The team surrendered a 2027 first-rounder, 2028 second-rounder, 2029 third-rounder, and rookie pass rusher Jared Verse to secure the 30-year-old. Despite the cost, the move elevates Los Angeles into Super Bowl contention, with Garrett’s 125.5 sacks and 83 tackles for loss over the past five seasons underscoring his value. “Garrett racked up 125.5 sacks on some lousy Browns teams, and it’s scary to think what he can do when the Rams are playing from ahead in the fourth quarter,” the Globe writes. His $36 million annual average also positions him as a relative bargain compared to the $50 million market rate for top pass rushers.
Garrett’s Stats: A Game-Changer on the Field
According to NFL.com, Garrett’s on-field impact is unparalleled. He recorded an NFL-record 23 sacks in 2025, earning his second Defensive Player of the Year award, and averaged a 0.7-second get-off—the fastest in the league. His 31 quick QB pressures and 28 run stops from edge alignment outpaced most of the league, with only Maxx Crosby and T.J. Watt exceeding his tackles for loss. “Garrett’s 28 run stops from edge alignment were fourth-most, behind Crosby, T.J. Watt, and Young,” the article states. This performance could redefine the Rams’ defense, which struggled with a 0.96-second average get-off in 2025, the second-slowest in the NFL.
For more on this story, see Denzel Ward reaffirms commitment to Browns after Myles Garrett trade.
Financial Nuances: Tax Implications and Contract Details
The financial intricacies of Garrett’s move highlight the disparity between state tax policies. While the Browns’ $179 million deal remains intact, California’s 13.3% rate creates a significant burden. “Garrett will lose 10 percent of his gross pay that, in Cleveland, he would have kept,” the news.google.com article explains. However, the calculation is nuanced: 10 of 20 games are played at home, and bonus money is taxed in the team’s state. The Rams, meanwhile, secured a star without increasing his base salary, a move critics argue undercuts his market value. “It’s no small issue; the difference is in the millions,” the article adds, noting that Garrett’s 2026 raise from $30.5 million to $37 million only partially offsets the tax hit.
Broader Implications: A Shift in NFL Power Dynamics
The trade signals a broader shift in the NFL, with the Rams investing heavily in elite talent to challenge the Kansas City Chiefs and Buffalo Bills. Garrett’s arrival complements a defense already featuring Leonard Floyd and Dante Fowler Jr., while his presence could elevate quarterback Matthew Stafford’s performance. “Garrett brings many of the same strengths to the Rams that Verse did, while adding aspects of the pass-rush game L.A. was lacking,” NFL.com reports. For the Browns, the deal accelerates their rebuild, trading a star for future assets and young talent like Verse, the 2024 Defensive Rookie of the Year.
As the 2026 season approaches, the financial and strategic ramifications of Garrett’s move will shape both teams’ trajectories. For the Rams, it’s a bold step toward contention; for Garrett, a trade-off between financial sacrifice and a chance to win a Super Bowl. “He wanted a fresh start with a contender, and he was willing to give up a significant chunk of cash to make that happen,” the news.google.com article concludes, capturing the high stakes of the decision.
Keep reading
