The Cleveland Browns recently made the decision to trade star wide receiver Odell Beckham Jr. to the Los Angeles Rams. This move has sparked much debate about whether the Browns should still have to pay OBJ despite the trade.

Many argue that the Browns should indeed have to pay Beckham, as they are the ones who signed the contract with him. Just because he is no longer on the team does not necessarily mean they can avoid their financial obligations to him. Others believe that since the trade was a mutual decision, the Browns should not have to pay OBJ anymore.

The situation is further complicated by the fact that the trade deadline has already passed. This means that the Browns cannot trade or release Beckham and his contract, so they may have to honor it for the remainder of the season.

There is also the issue of Beckham's conduct on and off the field. Some argue that his behavior and performance do not warrant the high salary he is receiving, and therefore the Browns should not be obligated to pay him. However, others argue that his talent and potential impact on the field mean that he should still receive his full payment.

Ultimately, the decision about whether the Browns have to pay OBJ will likely come down to the specifics of his contract and any negotiations that took place during the trade. It may also involve the NFL and the players' union in determining what is fair and just for both parties.

Regardless of the outcome, it is clear that the trade has brought to light the complexities of athlete contracts and the financial implications of trades in professional sports. The Browns will have to carefully navigate this situation to ensure they are compliant with league regulations while also making the best decision for their team and its financial future.