Los Angeles Chargers QB Trey Lance Thread

Originally posted by CharlieSheen:
Another thing that puts us in position is signing a solid backup…….which they have also done

I think that was a smart football move, regardless of whether Lance is traded or not. I think this type of move could theoretically work against a trade of Lance because it doesn't paint a positive picture of our confidence in Lance at least in the immediate future. Having said that, I do think we'd pitch Lance's value based on the idea that we still believe in his potential and can't afford to develop him. That's really his only appeal... long term potential.

Originally posted by dj43:

Originally posted by CharlieSheen:

Originally posted by dj43:

Originally posted by SmokeyJoe:

Originally posted by dj43:
After six years of Lynch/Shanahan and York making a big deal of no leaks, this info did NOT come from the 49ers.

At this time of the year, teams are expected to put up all kinds of smokescreens to conceal their true intentions. There are too many scenarios to list on one page of why a team would want to tell Rap that they are calling the 49ers to ask about TL. Of course, Lynch will listen if only because he is diligent about maintaining a cordial relationship with other GMs around the league.

Yep, I flat out disagree with you. The inclusion of language that they were fielding calls but not making them, beyond the information that multiple teams are interested, serves nobody but SF. It is exactly the type of information a team would put out in the hopes of generating interest, or a bidding war, for a player they were willing to move.

I stand by the observation that the FO would not break with a major point of Lynch coming on board in the first place - STOP THE LEAKS. Remember the chaos of the Baalke days?

All it takes is for an agent, perhaps even Lance's agent, to call Rapaport and say the 49ers have been fielding calls about Lance. It puts pressure on other teams to try to make a deal for his (Lance's) client. That would fit with Lynch having said they will always talk about improving the team but it does not mean he is affirming the rumor.

I'll stay with that until proven otherwise.

The leaks are a good thing when you're trying to drive up player interest and trade value. The front office is playing this right

There is no evidence that the 49er FO has initiated any of those calls. All IR reported was that the 49ers were fielding calls - the FO was answering the calls from others.

They are "playing this right" by maintaining the 6-year history of no leaks.

They made it known at the combine they were open for buisness as far as trading Lance goes they welcome these calls,when they said stop the leaks this isn't what they were talking about this is a common practice all teams use to drive up player or pick value.

Originally posted by SmokeyJoe:

Originally posted by CharlieSheen:

Another thing that puts us in position is signing a solid backup…….which they have also done

I think that was a smart football move, regardless of whether Lance is traded or not. I think this type of move could theoretically work against a trade of Lance because it doesn't paint a positive picture of our confidence in Lance at least in the immediate future. Having said that, I do think we'd pitch Lance's value based on the idea that we still believe in his potential and can't afford to develop him. That's really his only appeal... long term potential.

Yea but with the Brock situation getting a backup like Darnold was imperative to being in position to let Trey go. If you're trying to sell an asset you don't believe in some of your actions will have to be contradictory lol

Originally posted by SmokeyJoe:

Originally posted by BOI49er:
When they announced Brock has earned the right to start and is the leader in the clubhouse, they absolutely Knew that would result in teams calling and asking, what do you want for the other guy then. It's perfect. What are you offering? We'll log that, and see who's put in the highest bid by draft time, and make a decision if we want to let him go then.

We're not leaking, and we're not initiating calls. Once you talk to other teams and don't reject the conversations outright, that get's too disseminated for it to stay away from other teams and out of the press. And it puts us in the better bargaining position of receiving offers instead of trying to make a sale to someone that can feign disinterest. We can feign disinterest, and they must make the sale.

Stanford didn't raise no fool in Lynch.

Dissemination of that information only benefits us. It does not benefit a team actually trying to trade for him. It doesn't necessarily benefit Lance if he wants out.

Start with the assumption that we want to trade Lance and work backwards. What would be the types of things we'd do to put us in the best position to trade him.

- Let it be known in some fashion that we are willing to trade him.
- Talk up the asset publicly and privately.
- Highlight, or artificially attempt to create/increase, demand in an effort to get the best possible offer.

it's been my experience that "starting from an assumption" is a very bad place to start anything.

Originally posted by CharlieSheen:
Yea but with the Brock situation getting a backup like Darnold was imperative to being in position to let Trey go. If you're trying to sell an asset you don't believe in some of your actions will have to be contradictory lol

I definitely agree. I'm trying to point out what I think it is they are doing. I'm not trying to argue that it's going to work. They can float all sorts of information to national reporters and it doesn't necessarily mean teams are going to buy it. Like I mentioned to Polkadots a while ago, you don't have to go back far to see us boxing ourselves in while attempting to trade a player. That situation was flat out bungled. Thankfully the last time it happened it luckily worked to our benefit.

Originally posted by eastie:
it's been my experience that "starting from an assumption" is a very bad place to start anything.

You're definitely not a scientist.

Originally posted by SmokeyJoe:

Originally posted by CharlieSheen:

Yea but with the Brock situation getting a backup like Darnold was imperative to being in position to let Trey go. If you're trying to sell an asset you don't believe in some of your actions will have to be contradictory lol

I definitely agree. I'm trying to point out what I think it is they are doing. I'm not trying to argue that it's going to work. They can float all sorts of information to national reporters and it doesn't necessarily mean teams are going to buy it. Like I mentioned to Polkadots a while ago, you don't have to go back far to see us boxing ourselves in while attempting to trade a player. That situation was flat out bungled. Thankfully the last time it happened it luckily worked to our benefit.

Yea any team that really thinks this through would know we wouldn't be entertaining offers so early unless it's been pretty bad for Trey, but we just have to hope some teams don't think that deep and we get some good offers lol

Imagine deciding to give on a guy you invested 3 1st RD picks to draft.......For Sam Darnold of all QB's. It's crazy just saying it out loud. Let me say it again, You are going to trade Trey Lance because Sam fricken Darnold needs a roster spot?? So if Trey balls out this year for another team you can say Sam Darnold was the reason he had to go. It gets crazier and crazier the more I say it.

Originally posted by JTB1974:
Imagine deciding to give on a guy you invested 3 1st RD picks to draft.......For Sam Darnold of all QB's. It's crazy just saying it out loud. Let me say it again, You are going to trade Trey Lance because Sam fricken Darnold needs a roster spot?? So if Trey balls out this year for another team you can say Sam Darnold was the reason he had to go. It gets crazier and crazier the more I say it.

If they move on from Trey at this juncture it's about Purdy and how the feel about where Trey is at in his development,Darnold is irrelevant to the situation.

It will be surprising if Darnold is on the roster at yrs end.

Originally posted by DaleGribble:
If they move on from Trey at this juncture it's about Purdy and how the feel about where Trey is at in his development,Darnold is irrelevant to the situation.

Yeah but there is no harm in keeping Trey as a backup QB if you believe in Purdy. But people keep bringing up Sam Darnold as the reason Trey might be traded.

Originally posted by JTB1974:

Originally posted by DaleGribble:
If they move on from Trey at this juncture it's about Purdy and how the feel about where Trey is at in his development,Darnold is irrelevant to the situation.

Yeah but there is no harm in keeping Trey as a backup QB if you believe in Purdy. But people keep bringing up Sam Darnold as the reason Trey might be traded.

How much value does Trey really hold as a backup? He needs game reps to develop that doesn't make for an ideal backup,if they decide to move Trey it won't be because of Darnold.

Originally posted by DaleGribble:

Originally posted by JTB1974:

Originally posted by DaleGribble:
If they move on from Trey at this juncture it's about Purdy and how the feel about where Trey is at in his development,Darnold is irrelevant to the situation.

Yeah but there is no harm in keeping Trey as a backup QB if you believe in Purdy. But people keep bringing up Sam Darnold as the reason Trey might be traded.

How much value does Trey really hold as a backup? He needs game reps to develop that doesn't make for an ideal backup,if they decide to move Trey it won't be because of Darnold.

A lot to us as we have only had a healthy QB finish the complete season once in Kyles tenure.

Originally posted by DaleGribble:
How much value does Trey really hold as a backup? He needs game reps to develop that doesn't make for an ideal backup.

Well yeah it's probally best for Trey to go elsewhere if they won't give him an honest opportunity to win the starting job from Purdy but it's not best for the Niners unless they get a haul. Purdy is not even healthy currently and can't even begin throwing until the 2nd week of June. And with all the QB's Kyle goes through, He can't just dispose of any talented guy at that position. Especially when he doesn't have to.

But for argument say let's say they do trade him. I am wanting a mid 1st RD pick atleast and then I am trading back to get a 2nd RD pick to go with that 1st RD pick and then I taking BPA with both of those picks to make I can turn Trey into multiple superstars. So that when or if Trey becomes a top 5 QB they can say atleast they got two superstars as a result of the trade.

But knowing the Niners they will trade him for a mid to late 2nd and reach for a need like RT and take MG 2.0

Originally posted by TreyDeyEeyDey:

Originally posted by DaleGribble:

Originally posted by JTB1974:

Originally posted by DaleGribble:
If they move on from Trey at this juncture it's about Purdy and how the feel about where Trey is at in his development,Darnold is irrelevant to the situation.

Yeah but there is no harm in keeping Trey as a backup QB if you believe in Purdy. But people keep bringing up Sam Darnold as the reason Trey might be traded.

How much value does Trey really hold as a backup? He needs game reps to develop that doesn't make for an ideal backup,if they decide to move Trey it won't be because of Darnold.

A lot to us as we have only had a healthy QB finish the complete season once in Kyles tenure.

Its not as if Trey is the only option.