(05-26-2023, 12:38 PM)TheDuke007 Wrote:

(05-25-2023, 07:51 AM)Mikey Wrote: welcome to my point exactly! Promises cannot be the primary grounds used to make or exclude a deal. You can ask, but do not expect GMs to fully tip their hand to you.

A GM may not want to reveal who they are trading up for and refuse to answer, but if they promised to take one player as a condition of a trade and outright lied and took a different player, then 31 teams would never trust that GM again which would make it very difficult to ever trade up again.  You are basically asking "Would a GM be willing to never trade up again in order to get one player?"  For a generational franchise quarterback?  Perhaps some might.  That's why you wouldn't chance it with Trevor Lawrence.  For a late first rounder and later?  I would say the odds of a GM outright lying in that situation range somewhere between "Highly Doubtful" and "Not a Chance".

All of this is a little besides the point.  Baalke didn't say "I want offense, do you promise to take defense?"  He asked them whether they wanted offense or defense.  The other team lying would have served no purpose because they didn't know which one Baalke wanted.  Lying had a 50% chance of hurting them, so why lie?  If the Giants had lied and said "offense", it would have been no deal and the Giants wouldn't have gotten the player they wanted.

never say never. You tick off one team, you may not be able to trade with that team while they nurse their wound, or you may have to pay a little more in the future to win back trust, but if you get the guy you want now, wouldn't you say a little cost down the road isn't worth it? That's like saying it was poor taste for us to jump the Vikes in 2003 when their trade took to long to get in - It might have been, but at the time we wanted a QB bad enough that we were willing to tarnish the rep a bit in the hopes that our franchise would be set at QB for years. Were we calling the brass out for that move when it went down?

I agree that lying would not be likely, but still plausible if the reward were great enough. Point was that as a GM and primary decision maker you darn sure better have done your homework enough to know pretty well who the GM on the other end of the line is looking to move for. Asking them to confirm is courtesy, but by no means would I expect them to be truthful 100% of the time. I know who I want. I have a good idea who they want. If they are not in direct conflict with each other, I entertain the offer to trade. If I have any doubt to their honesty, I stand pat and take my guy, plain and simple.

---