This week we’re chugging along with the next installment in our six-part series analyzing the salary cap situations for the teams with the most work ahead in 2026 to get under the cap. We’re using Over The Cap’s effective cap space projections, which is a neat metric that accounts for how much budget teams should have next year after filling out a full roster and signing their draft class. Per OTC, six teams have deficits in the neighborhood of $25 million or more in effective cap space in 2026. 

• Chiefs (-$62.7M)
• Cowboys (-$60.3M)
• Vikings (-$51M)
• Dolphins ($-31.1M)
• Browns (-$27M)
• Saints (-$23.6M)

The NFL mandates all teams stay below the salary cap at all times, so these six teams have to get back in the black by the time the 2026 league year starts in March. That means each squad has some decisions to make, and those implications are what we’re exploring in this series. 

Next up, the Cleveland Browns, who handle their contracts in much the same way the Eagles do. Unlike Philadelphia, it hasn’t worked out nearly as well. 

Cleveland Browns: -$26,946,969

As far as getting under the cap, it’s simple for the Browns. Restructuring the contract of QB Deshaun Watson saves $35.7 million in cap space, wiping out Cleveland’s deficit with a little extra spending margin to boot. The Browns have restructured Watson’s deal each season as a way to ease as much as possible the crushing weight of the $230 million guaranteed deal they gave him back in 2022, kicking the can into the future when the salary cap will be higher and paying Watson tens of millions in dead money won’t cripple Cleveland’s ability to field a team. 

The Browns could conceivably turn the page and cut Watson with a June 1 cut after restructuring him this spring, but at this point, the word seems to be that the team plans to keep him on the roster. With Dillon Gabriel, Shedeur Sanders and quite possibly a first-round rookie also coming in, that once again gives the Browns a crowded quarterback room to sort through. 

As far as other moves, the Browns can and probably will restructure the contract of CB Denzel Ward to create an additional $13.5 million in cap space. All told, that will give them around $20 million to spend, enough that they won’t be required to fill out the roster with solely rookies and minimum contract players — though there will be plenty of those. The Browns have just 35 players under contract in 2026 at the moment, near the bottom of the league. 

However, those two moves are the only traditional levers the Browns have available to create space this offseason because of the particular way they structure their contracts, different from most of the other 31 teams. 

How The Browns Treat The Cap Differently

For most teams, cuts and restructures are the primary two ways to create cap space. NFL contracts can be incredibly complex, but generally speaking, they can be boiled down to three parts — base salary, signing bonuses and conditional bonuses. Base salary is self-explanatory, while conditional bonuses are tied to meeting certain prerequisites, like performance incentives, workout bonuses or per-game active roster bonuses. Those apply to specific years, while signing bonus money is spread out equally over the remaining years of the contract as dead money. 

When teams restructure a contract for a player, they typically take base salary and convert it into a signing bonus, lowering the hit for the current year and spreading the money out over the rest of the deal. Sometimes teams will add void years to stretch it further, with a maximum of five years that dead money can be stretched. The catch is that when a player is cut or traded, all the prorated dead money accelerates to the current season, so most teams treat restructuring cautiously. 

What some have started doing is basically pre-restructuring contracts via option bonuses, which are accounted for on the salary cap the same way as signing bonuses. The money is due to the player after whatever date the contract specifies for the option. The contract for Browns DE Myles Garrett is a good example. 

Garrett’s base salaries for the next three years are minimal before shooting up. Instead, his primary compensation comes from three option bonuses due on March 27 each year ($29.2 million, $39.3 million and $21.4 million). Those are either guaranteed now or become guaranteed a year before they’re due. Despite being on a deal worth $40 million a year, Garrett’s cap hits over the next three years don’t exceed $30 million. 

Overall, it’s a way for teams to bake in more short-term flexibility, taking advantage of how the salary cap goes up each season. A dollar today is worth more than a dollar tomorrow because it represents a bigger percentage of the overall pie that’s the same for each team. As long as a team is willing to spend more cash up front — and not all teams/owners are — it can be a way to earn a competitive advantage. 

The Eagles are an excellent example of the success that can be had using this strategy, and it’s no coincidence that Browns GM Andrew Berry apprenticed under Eagles GM Howie Roseman before arriving in Cleveland. But the downside is this approach can constrain roster flexibility, which can be risky in a game like football with a 100 percent injury rate or wild performance swings from year to year. 

Roseman has his share of misses, but on balance, the Eagles have been successful with their evaluations. It’s led to three Super Bowl appearances in the last decade. The Browns have not evaluated players as well — to put it mildly. This is why even though there are four teams with bigger deficits as of today, the Browns are easily in the worst financial position of any team we’ve discussed so far. Even the Dolphins have a lot more flexibility and choices open to them. 

Charting A Way Out

Necessity is the mother of invention. Cleveland’s misses, like the whole Watson situation, have forced some creative salary cap accounting measures, including the persistent restructures of Watson’s deal and pursuing insurance policies that could result in future salary cap credits. Another way the Browns could create a little bit more breathing room is by extending players who are on voiding contracts. 

Take TE David Njoku as an example. His contract is currently set to void this offseason which will accelerate all of the remaining $24.3 million in dead money from the various restructures the Browns have done to 2026. But if the Browns sign him to a new contract and convert the void years to actual years, they can keep that dead money spread out. A three-year, $30 million deal, for instance, with an $8 million signing bonus and $2 million 2026 salary would net out with a cap hit of $13.5 million in 2026 — $10.8 million less than if Cleveland lets him leave. 

Njoku is one of nine Browns with voiding deals. Dead money hits are in parentheses:

• G Joel Bitonio ($23.5M)
• G Wyatt Teller ($19.4M)
• RT Jack Conklin ($12.7M)
• C Ethan Pocic ($4.3M)
• DT Shelby Harris ($2M)
• OT Cam Robinson
• OL Teven Jenkins ($1.2M)
• LB Devin Bush ($1.4M)

Extending players on voiding deals would also help Cleveland round out the roster with guys who are already proven in their roles. However, it would also mean committing more money to keep pieces from a team that has six wins over the past two years. Several players here have major age and injury concerns, too. 

There are pros and cons for keeping each player on the list here, but the Browns should be judicious about who they keep and avoid overpaying just to save money in the short term. Unfortunately, losing teams often end up paying a de facto tax on contracts. Money remains the most important factor, but all else being equal, players want to play for winning organizations. 

Realistically, the Browns are probably still a year or two of stringing good decisions together from truly being in a position to compete again. Most of their moves this past offseason seemed to be made with that self-awareness in mind. That should be the expectation for the coming year as well, but pressure can make NFL decision-makers act in ways that are better for their short-term job security, not necessarily the long-term outlook of the team.