LT to be Traded?

by Jonny Dub on Jan 13, 2009 8:03 AM PST Comment 27 comments

The rumor s have been going around and I have discounted them to just that. Rumors. But now it seems more and more of a possibility. The Chargers front office is looking into dealing our star player.

I don’t like it, I say keep him. And here’s why.

The Chargers can’t replace him. Sproles is more of a specialty back. And Sproles is untested over an entire season. And while Hester can deliver a big hit, he’s no LT. When LT is healthy he’s still our best running back. But that seems to be the question. Can LT stay healthy? He has one season plus the Championship Game last year with injuries and the Chargers should get rid of him? Let him get the minor surgery, and see where he’s at.

Sproles is a free agent and it might take some doing to keep him. And it’s looking like getting rid of Turner last year might not have been a great idea. If we had Turner now, letting go of LT would be a lot easier choice.

If the Chargers trade LT the fans will go nuts. Unwanted drama will rise. We’ll lose a leader who has helped keep EVERY teammates ego in check, the backbone of our teams great chemistry.

Tomlinson is the greatest Charger that ever lived and that alone warrants giving him one more season.

Poll

How much longer is LT a Charger?

LT has worn the Lightning Bolt for the last time.

28 votes

One more year. If he has another year like 2008 he’s out.

31 votes

Three more years. He finishes out his contract and retires..

36 votes

Four or more years. He keeps on playing, shattering every NFL record possible.

11 votes

106 votes | Poll has closed

0 recs | Comment 27 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Splitting carries

Having LT split carries with someone else is the only way he doesn’t continue the steep decline in performance, in my opinion. The argument against having him split carries has always been that he’s the highest-paid RB in the league, so we shouldn’t have to spend money on a second decent RB.

As I said in my post a week or so ago, I think AJ wants to put his own stamp on the RB position (he did it with the coach and the QB). I also think AJ looks at the stats of RBs who reach this point in their career (both in terms of age and number of carries) and sees the sharp decline. If we don’t trade him now, that contract has a good chance of becoming a big burden moving forward. With that being said, it’s a Peavy situation. We won’t trade LT for nothing, but if someone wants to give us back some good value (like a first round pick) I think he’s gone.

Don’t underestimate the amount of teams that are going to let go of good veteran running backs before next year in hopes of landing a Chris Johnson or Matt Forte in the draft. There’s also some good free agent RBs hitting the market. If we had a backfield of Ricky Williams/stud rookie/Sproles, you could argue that our rushing game wouldn’t miss a beat and would cost the team half as much (meaning we can keep Merriman easily).

by John (obviousman) on Jan 13, 2009 8:22 AM PST reply actions 0 recs

It hurts to write this

But those groin injuries recur. It’s better to let go of a player a year too early than a year too late; and LT’s contract eats up a huge amount of payroll. This offense doesn’t need a marquee back anymore; the Chargers can find a cheaper alternative. LT isn’t happy here even when he is healthy, he is used to being the prime offensive weapon and second fiddle clearly isn’t sitting well with him.

"Football is a physical sport, sometimes you have a disagreement on what's going on, and you have a discussion about it." Kris Dielman

by Brian (DaBolts) on Jan 13, 2009 8:40 AM PST reply actions 0 recs

I dont know if the Chargers would be able to trade LT for any value because of his groin.

I think he will split carries with Sproles and Hester next year, get injured again, try to come back in 2010 but will eventually retire ala Marshal Faulk.

by Steve (Grey Suit) on Jan 13, 2009 8:58 AM PST reply actions 0 recs

Trading makes no sense

The entire NFL has been talking about how LT is declining. I don’t think there is a GM out there that thinks that they will be making a good deal with the Chargers if they get LT. He’s an older back, with recurring injuries and a big salary. That doesn’t exactly scream, “Trade for that guy!” The same reasons the Chargers may want to trade LT are the same reasons that other teams won’t want to trade for LT.

1-10-DEN 18 (9:52) (Shotgun) 6-J.Cutler pass short right intended for 19-E.Royal INTERCEPTED by 93-L.Castillo (95-S.Phillips) at DEN 18. 93-L.Castillo to DEN 14 for 4 yards (62-C.Wiegmann). 6-J.Cutler pouts ob to DEN 25 for 11 yards.

by Wonko on Jan 13, 2009 9:10 AM PST reply actions 0 recs

Best case scenario

LT has the surgery and renegotiates his contract to stay with the team for the next two years (free’s up money for them to re-sign Sproles, Merriman and possibly a vertrain G or OT) and hopes that they can make a superbowl run within the next two years.

by Steve (Grey Suit) on Jan 13, 2009 9:26 AM PST reply actions 0 recs

Free up money

The Chargers don’t need any money freed up. I don’t they are even close to the cap. They almost never are.

I think that the year the Chargers said they couldn’t sign Brees, they were like $25 million under the cap.

by Wonko on Jan 13, 2009 9:49 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

It isn't the cap

it’s revenues for small market teams. They aren’t going to lose money.

"Football is a physical sport, sometimes you have a disagreement on what's going on, and you have a discussion about it." Kris Dielman

by Brian (DaBolts) on Jan 13, 2009 9:54 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

I could only see that being an issue

If they had a bunch of signing bonuses to deal with, an expensive coaching staff, or were in debt because of a new stadium that’s a different story. Like every team in the NFL the Chargers can easily afford to spend to the cap without losing money (and I bet you its not even close).

by Wonko on Jan 13, 2009 10:00 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

The 2009 cap is 123 million, in 2008 they made 19 million net. This article places them at 18.7 million under the cap last year. But they want a new stadium and as recently as two years ago they were making 33 million per year; they are already ranked 26th in the league as far as valuations go. Technically they could go to the cap and just barely break even, but they are going to need cash for a stadium somewhere; and this isn’t a non-profit organization.

"Football is a physical sport, sometimes you have a disagreement on what's going on, and you have a discussion about it." Kris Dielman

by Brian (DaBolts) on Jan 13, 2009 10:36 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Even if they didn't net any annual revenue

They’d still be sitting pretty. The really money is in the franchise value. I assume you are getting this info from Forbes (which has been shown to be only partially accurate in these cases) and it has the franchise value at $888 million. That’s $818 million more than the Spanos’ originally paid. That’s what the sports business is all about, annual profits are just gravy. Not to mention that Dean Spanos will inherit a franchise for which he didn’t pay a dime, making that $888 million figure look even better.

Plus, why can’t the Chargers be non-profit (aside from franchise value)? Alex gives away millions every year to all sorts of things. If the Spanos’ want the city to help them build a stadium they shouldn’t be crying poor, especially when it comes to iconic players.

by Wonko on Jan 13, 2009 11:12 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

If the Spanos’ want the city to help them build a stadium they shouldn’t be crying poor, especially when it comes to iconic players.

I can’t track this; if the Chargers want the city to buy them a stadium they should be crying poor and trying to convince the city that they are being as prudent as they can to pay for as much of the stadium themselves as they possibly can.

I am using Forbes as a source for the income; since these are not public companies by and large I’m sure they are off to some degree. Like it or not this is a for profit business; there are some owners that ignore payroll and treat it like a hobby but that isn’t the Spanos family. At the end of the day this is a cold hard business, I don’t see that changing any time soon.

"Football is a physical sport, sometimes you have a disagreement on what's going on, and you have a discussion about it." Kris Dielman

by Brian (DaBolts) on Jan 13, 2009 12:24 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

I'm saying

That if they want to the city to invest in the team, the team needs to show they are willing to invest in the team. They need to show its not just a business, because if building a stadium is only a ploy to increase their profit, then there isn’t much of a reason the public should help them. If they dump players for financial reasons (other than the cap) while still making a tidy profit, instead of rewarding the fans’ investment by building the best team they can within the NFL cap rules then the city/count mentality becomes: “If you’re only looking out for your bottom line, then we will only look out for ours.” The only way the team is going to get any public backing is to do as much as they can to build the best team possible. Especially considering that the value of the franchise continues to rise whether or not the team is turning an annual profit.

by Wonko on Jan 13, 2009 1:28 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

OK

I don’t think we will agree here. I’ll point out that only two teams come close to breaking even, the 49ers and the Lions. Also no business can continue to post annual losses and continue to grow in value; ultimately cash has to get back to the investors, if not today, then in the future. You can see in the valuations a rough correlation between operating income and the value of the franchise. I see your point that LT being an icon in the community is seen as a positive by the city; but frankly I think they are more motivated by the lure of potential Super Bowls, added tourism, jobs and tax revenues.

"Football is a physical sport, sometimes you have a disagreement on what's going on, and you have a discussion about it." Kris Dielman

by Brian (DaBolts) on Jan 13, 2009 2:01 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Mind you

I never said that they should post annual loses. Even, if they were to treat the franchise like a hobby you can only take losses for so long before you can’t have the hobby. If you want to keep the hobby, you can’t take losses.

Of course, I’m not even sure how stadium’s are even viable anymore. The costs have skyrocketed to the point where I’m not even sure that if you got the maximum NFL loan ($150 million) and a city to match that amount that the team still wouldn’t have to spend >50% of the cost to build it. And you can’t rely on putting condos on the property anymore. I think I read that Jerry Jones got some public money, plus the NFL loan, plus personal seat licenses and planned to contribute a bunch of money himself to a state of the art facility. That money covered ~$750 million which was agreed to be enough when they started in 2004 and now he’s seeing cost overruns to the point where the stadium will end up costing ~$1.2 billion.

by Wonko on Jan 13, 2009 2:19 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

It is crazy

I was wondering if they couldn’t make a grab for some of that stimulus money. The Feds are going to be trying to spend a trillion dollars in just a few years; that’s hard to do. Get them to chip in and maybe the numbers work better. Now there is some change I can believe in!

"Football is a physical sport, sometimes you have a disagreement on what's going on, and you have a discussion about it." Kris Dielman

by Brian (DaBolts) on Jan 13, 2009 2:28 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

There's some irony there

Given that Alex Spanos is a BIG contributor to the Democratic Party.

by Wonko on Jan 13, 2009 3:15 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Bummer!

by Steve (Grey Suit) on Jan 14, 2009 7:07 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

I look at the past couple of drafts and I wonder if AJ is "all that"

This team should’ve been making post-LT plans a year and half ago. The only positions that the Chargers are solid at are QB and WR (the latter no thanks to #1 pick Buster Davis). It would be great if the best Charger ever could retire as a Charger, but the situation they’re in might necessitate a trade just to keep “the window” from closing.

by CoastalBronco on Jan 13, 2009 10:35 AM PST reply actions 0 recs

I just don't see it

It takes two to tango. Which teams out there do you think would trade for LT and his big salary?

by Wonko on Jan 13, 2009 10:53 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

you have a great point

Even diminished, I think teams will rate him in the top 5 of RBs available via FA or trade. Maybe the Chargers assume some of his salary to get picks and/or players? I dunno, grasping at straws. Like everyone else here, it would be nice to see the Chargers get some value for one of the greatest RBs ever. But you’re right, the opportunity to trade him may have already passed.

by CoastalBronco on Jan 13, 2009 12:28 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Easy Answer

So far on this poll there are 21 people who think LT has a year or less left with the Chargers while 19 people think he’s going for 3 years or more with the team. My point is almost half of the people out there think that LT’s bad year was caused by a bad toe and then a bad groin. He did have a couple of good games, albeit against subpar defenses.

There are going to be teams out there that would fall over themselves for Tomlinson for the following reasons:

-This year may have been a fluke caused by injuries
-He’s going to be extra motivated to prove he’s not done
-He immediately brings in star power
-He immediately brings in the reputation of being a good locker room veteran
-Even if he’s on the decline, he’s still a smart veteran runner who can be decent in the right situation

Do you think his presence, both as a veteran runner and someone who can legitimize a team and a locker room, isn’t worth a first round pick and a big paycheck to the following teams?:

Detroit
Cincinnati
Cleveland
Seattle
Houston

Detroit, Seattle and Houston all have problems with a number one back that’s too small to take a pounding 30 times a game. They’re going to look for someone to take some of those carries and Tomlinson immediately makes news. Cincinnati doesn’t have a decent running back in my mind and Jamal Lewis seems to be on a decline. Now it may sound risky because they’re both old for running backs, but Jamal Lewis getting 10-15 carries with LT getting 10-15 more as a change-of-pace back sounds dangerous. I also think Denver, New England and the Colts would all be interested but turned down because we don’t want to face LT every year.

by John (obviousman) on Jan 13, 2009 3:45 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Well shoot

Now I want to keep him.

by Wonko on Jan 13, 2009 5:14 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Haha

That’s the rub. Even though I think we should trade him this offseason, it’s kindof a pussy move to do so because you’re banking on him being done. There’s a chance, and probably one as good as him being done, that he’s a great player still. I’ve been saying for months now that I don’t think we should trade him, I think we should use a high draft pick on a RB and split carries between to two of them. It would make LT more effective and reduce injuries. However, part of that relies on LT not making a stink if he’s told he has to have some touches taken away.

by John (obviousman) on Jan 13, 2009 8:17 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

LT making a stink

I have to think that sitting out what amounts to 3 whole playoff games (1.5 last year, 1.5 this year) has got to make him open to any suggestion that may help him play in playoffs again.

by Wonko on Jan 13, 2009 8:33 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Which has more value for the Chargers?

LT playing half time, or the picks and players he could be traded for? All of the teams listed are picking early enough that they might help the Chargers more in the long-term than another year (or three) of LT starting slow, having a couple of good games, then watching the playoffs from the sideline.

I confess I’m not the LT fan I once was, beginning the year after he set the single season record. He’s lost a lot of humility since (who wouldn’t, I guess), and I’ve been less than impressed with his on-field performance and sideline pouts since that year. Caveat: I was out of the country for the last game game vs. the Broncos, so I’m thankfully not taking that performance into account.

by CoastalBronco on Jan 14, 2009 8:16 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

I really have a hard time believing

that they could get much in the way of picks for LT. If it were so easy to trade an aging former MVP expensive RB I think the Seahawks would have found a taker for Shaun Alexander. Also, I look at what Fred Taylor has done for Jacksonville by taking less carries and looks fine with me. I also look back to what happened to the Cowboys after Emmitt Smith left and that looks ugly. Everything, to me, seems to point to LT staying.

by Wonko on Jan 14, 2009 10:01 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Acee has said the opposite, that the more he hears the less he thinks LT will be back.

Bolts from the Blue // "Game over." - Jamal Williams
Bloody Elbow // "Every normal man must be tempted at times to spit upon his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats." - H.L. Mencken

by Richard Wade on Jan 14, 2009 11:02 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs