AP

Should the Browns have cut safety Donte Whitner a lot earlier than April 2? Sure. Were the Browns nevertheless operating within the confines of their contractual rights? Absolutely.

Whitner, cut only two days before the launch of the team’s offseason program, complained via Twitter about the lack of “common courtesy” reflected by the timing of the move. And he’s right. If they knew they were cutting him, they should have cut him loose earlier, when teams had more money available to sign new free agents.

Maybe they hoped to try to trade his contract, even though there has been no evidence of trade talks. Maybe they tried to get him to reduce his salary, even though there has been no evidence of that, either.

Whitner’s predicament underscores the importance of adding specific triggers to contracts, which require teams to make a decision sooner than later. A significant roster bonus due early in the league year, for example, or a large chunk of the salary becoming fully guaranteed would have forced a decision at a time when money was still available. Whitner had no such device in his contract for 2016.

And so he was at the mercy of the Browns, who presumably chose to cut Whitner now in lieu of assuming the risk that he’ll suffer a season-ending injury during the offseason program, which would have put the team on the hook for his full salary. Whitner will now be hard pressed to get anything close to $6 million range he was due to occupy in 2016.