Originally posted by SmokeyJoe:
Originally posted by 5_Golden_Rings:
You have moved the goal posts. At first you argued Shanahan traded Trey without Trey's consent, and now you are saying it was "in their mutual interest."
Now, that still doesn't change the fact that Kyle said he told Trey they wanted him here. As it regards to this:
"It had been reported for months that we could trade him."
John Lynch said they weren't trying to do so. "Could" was mere speculation. That decision wasn't made until last week, by Trey, according to Kyle.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by SmokeyJoe:
All that simply because he 'asked for it' and some vague public comments after the fact from people who have no incentive to tell you otherwise and every reason to soften the blow for upset fans.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
5GR: The comments weren't even remotely vague. You are still arguing that Kyle was lying about what he said to Trey, and that Trey has no problem with Kyle lying about that situation. And you still have ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to base that on OTHER than your narrative, which you ASSUME to be true, and thus it is your evidence. You're like a young earth creationist here. It's circular reasoning.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by SmokeyJoe:
If we wanted to keep him we would have, and we certainly wouldn't give a player we 'liked' to a rival with all these other conditions attached. Shockingly naive.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
5GR: We would if we didn't think much of his chances of hurting us. He's got two years left. He's not going to be a Cowboy beyond that. They traded for him most likely to re-trade him for higher value later. Moreover, again, Kyle has stated the preference was to keep him as QB3, but that they offered him the choice. For QUARTERBACK THREE! That's the part you're not factoring in. Why would Kyle be afraid of QUARTERBACK THREE? That is a big reason why the choice was given to Trey in the first place. It hardly hurt the team to give him away, other than depth. They sacrificed depth for a 4th round pick. Given that a 4th round pick can get second string QBs, it's not a terrible sacrifice. But on the other hand, Trey has some physical talent, which is also why they would have kept him had he wanted to stick around (per what they said).
The evidence for your narrative IS your narrative, and a whole lot of speculation which requires everyone involved to be lying either direction or by omission (Trey), all because you think the 49ers should value a THIRD STRING QB so much that the possibility that they could be happy either with him here or with a draft pick, which allowed them to give the player some agency, seems impossible to you. As I said previously, they've done more for players in the past simply because of good will built up. There is absolutely ZERO reason for either their claims to be false OR for them to lie about. None. They told the truth because they have zero incentive to lie. It's not even an unreasonable situation. There's nothing unreasonable about a team deciding that the relationship with the THIRD STRING QB is worth enough to give him the choice of whether he wants to remain as QB3 or be traded for a third day pick.
I didn't move the goalposts guy. I said the 49ers wanted to trade him and at best Trey also wanted to be traded (mutual interest). I said that from the day the trade happened. The bottom line point is we wanted to trade him. Period. We do not 'like' him as a player anymore, and we do not want him on this roster at that price. We are ripping the band-aid off, regardless of whether Trey wanted it not.
And you base that on nothing other than the narrative you already accept as true.
Originally posted by SmokeyJoe:
Further you are continuing to ignore the evidence (you appear to not know what evidence actually is), which I pointed out to you in the last response, and hanging on public statements after the fact as the only support for your very misguided position.
If they wanted to trade him from the beginning, or at least from the "10 days" during which Darnold had already "separated himself," why continue to take so many reps away from Darnold and Purdy for him, whilst risking injury? The trade situation arose spontaneously. It was always an option, but it wasn't the only option until it became clear Lance wanted to go. Until that time, they were hedging their bet, waiting for either an offer they couldn't refuse or for Trey to magically become worth keeping another year.
Originally posted by SmokeyJoe:
Every one of your arguments are based on public statements.
Public statements
when corroborated by both parties are the strongest evidence there is. And you ignore them entirely.
Originally posted by SmokeyJoe:
Moreover, your logic for the reason they would do this fails with your reasoning in the 2nd bolded line. It's contradictory. We wanted to do right by Trey because he asked for it, and this isn't Madden and he's a human being and all the other nonsense you believe, so we traded him to a place where we also believe he's no threat and not likely to play for two more years.
There is no contradiction at all. We KNOW what we'd do. We don't know what will happen in Dallas, and neither did Trey, which was why he wanted the trade and was glad for it. And as Lynch said, Dallas wasn't the place they wanted to send him, but the cost-benefit analysis versus risk won out.
Originally posted by SmokeyJoe:
You heard Kyle's b******t quote 'he needs an opportunity to play'. If you believe this line and think the Niners traded him out of the goodness of their heart then the 2nd bolded line in your response makes no actual sense. What does make sense is we took the best offer we could get, saved the most money we could, and jettisoned a player no longer useful to us in any capacity.
Except he was still useful as a third string quarterback. This was a situation with many variables. It is not a black and white situation. The only contradiction is in your lack of imagination.
Originally posted by SmokeyJoe:
The actual evidence is the moves we made (which you addressed poorly as the result of prepping for injuries),
That's not "addressed poorly," it's fact, and backed up by what happened last year.
Originally posted by SmokeyJoe:
the reporting that he could be traded for months (not addressed)
Which was speculation on the part of content creators, much like the speculation that we were for sure drafting Mac Jones.
Originally posted by SmokeyJoe:
and the actual fact that he was traded for peanuts to a playoff* rival and we ate a s**t ton of money, which you never thought was a possibility before it happened. I've read your posts for months-really over a full year. Of course you believe the company line now (still).
I never believed it would happen for the same reason I never believed Jimmy would come back at a discounted price: I forgot the human element. In the case of Trey, it was that he wanted to be traded.
The very, very best case you can make is that the trade was mutual. What ACTUALLY happened is that the 49ers were ambivalent about it (because a third string QB is about as valuable as a 4th round pick next year) and Trey
wanted the trade and actually
requested it, which made the decision easy for the 49ers.
