In the NFL, there are certain players who are so highly regarded and locked into their teams that it seems unimaginable they could ever be traded. Yet, there are other times when the possibility of a trade becomes all too real, especially when a team faces tough financial decisions or a player’s future with the team is in question. Over the past few weeks, two of the league’s brightest stars, Micah Parsons and Myles Garrett, have found themselves at the center of trade rumors, sparking speculation about what their futures might look like. These are players at elite positions, and in a league where salary caps and roster management are as much a part of the strategy as player performance, the conversation is inevitable.

Stephen Jones, the Dallas Cowboys’ COO, executive vice president, and director of player personnel, shared some thoughts about the complexities of building a successful roster in today’s NFL. According to Jones, it’s all about balance—particularly when it comes to the challenge of managing the financial commitment to top-tier players. “I think that’s a balancing act that you always got to look at,” Jones said. “Especially when your good, good players get hurt and are not on the field. It totally magnifies the issue if you lose guys like Dak, and Diggs misses games, Zack Martin misses games, and it’s going to magnify something like that. You’re going to say, ‘God, are we smart having this much money tied into the top five to 10 players?’”

In a similar vein, Myles Garrett, the Cleveland Browns’ standout defensive end, recently made it clear that while he is committed to staying loyal to the team that drafted him, the Browns must be committed to winning now. “I want to stay loyal to a team that showed loyalty to me and faith in me by drafting me. But we have to do, at the end of the day, what’s best for us,” Garrett said. “So, if we have that alignment where this is something that is still possible in the near future—winning, going deep in the playoffs, putting a great defense out there—I think that would really keep my mind at rest and keep me settled.”

With these two marquee players in the mix, one might wonder: Could the Green Bay Packers get involved in these trade talks? After all, they’ve been here before.

The Packers’ History with Big Trades

Back in 2018, during Brian Gutekunst’s first offseason as general manager, the Packers made a serious push to acquire a top-tier defensive talent: Khalil Mack. The former NFL Defensive Player of the Year was traded from the Oakland Raiders to the Chicago Bears in a blockbuster deal that included two first-round picks. While it’s debatable whether the Bears ultimately got their money’s worth, Mack performed at a high level in Chicago for several years before being traded again to the Los Angeles Chargers for a second-round pick two years ago.

The Packers’ interest in such high-profile players isn’t new. As of 2025, Green Bay is projected to have $62.7 million in cap space, which increases to $68.3 million in 2026. With manageable veteran contracts, the Packers are in a position to free up even more room if necessary. And they still have all of their high- and mid-round draft picks intact, which could be used in a trade package for a player of this caliber.

The Packers have the financial flexibility, the draft capital, and the history of executing bold trades. So, could they make a move for an elite defensive player like Garrett or Parsons? It’s entirely possible.

Pros and Cons of Making a Big Trade

Acquiring an elite player at a premium position, such as a top-tier pass rusher, could be a game-changer for the Packers’ defense. Both Garrett and Parsons are accustomed to playing in 4-3 defensive schemes, and their skill sets would seamlessly translate into defensive coordinator Joe Barry’s system. These players could elevate Green Bay’s pass rush to a level that could make them a serious contender in the NFC.

However, there is a downside to making such a trade. Using both high draft capital and a large portion of the salary cap for a single player is risky. The Chicago Bears, for instance, acquired Khalil Mack but eventually paid a heavy price when they couldn’t sustain the success of the trade. While Mack played at an elite level, the lack of high draft picks and young, cost-controlled talent hindered Chicago’s long-term roster building. The Packers would have to consider whether trading for a player of this caliber would set them back in other areas, particularly with regard to their salary cap and draft assets.

The Packers may not have received the immediate production they expected from young players like Rashan Gary and Lukas Van Ness, both of whom were first-round picks. If those players continue to develop at a slower pace, it could make a trade for an elite pass rusher even more enticing. However, Gutekunst would need to carefully weigh the long-term impact on the team’s future and balance the investment in a superstar player with other roster needs.

The Packers’ Approach: Stockpiling Draft Capital

One of the hallmarks of the Packers’ recent success has been their ability to accumulate and wisely utilize draft picks. This strategy has allowed them to build a deep, young roster without overcommitting to expensive veteran contracts. Acquiring a player of Garrett or Parsons’ caliber would require a significant investment in both draft capital and cap space. While this could potentially elevate the Packers in the short term, it would also limit their flexibility in the future. For Green Bay, this means that if a deal is made, it would have to be a calculated decision to ensure they don’t sacrifice their long-term prospects for a quick fix.

At the end of the day, the Packers have shown they’re willing to make bold moves to strengthen their roster. Whether or not they choose to pursue a trade for a top defensive player remains to be seen, but with the team’s current position and cap flexibility, it’s clear that Green Bay could make a move if the right opportunity arises. Time will tell if they make another blockbuster trade, but the possibility is certainly on the table.