(05-25-2023, 07:51 AM)Mikey Wrote:

(05-24-2023, 08:34 AM)Caldrac Wrote: Too risky. Wilson being touted and compared to Patrick Mahomes during the combine and pro days as far as creativity and arm talent went was laughable though. Chris Simms went out of his way to go against the grain with his QB rankings that year. Specifically with Wilson > Lawrence.

He still gets trashed without mercy online for that [BLEEP] box take. But, just too risky there. What if they made that deal with the Jets and then another team calls the Jets and offers a crazy, stupid Mike Ditka level trade deal to them to draft Lawrence?

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.

---