With the trade deadline just three days away, the Los Angeles Chargers have continually projected a public stance of standing pat at the deadline—all the national reporting that's come out has indicated that other teams that have tried to call the front office about potential trades have been rebuffed.
Still, though, there was reason to think aspects of that stance could change before the deadline ultimately came.
At 0-7, the Chargers have absolutely no path to playoff contention—their focus needs to be on resetting the roster for 2027 and beyond. Although there's no reason to tear down this roster entirely, there's certainly room to move pieces like Donte Jackson, Dalvin Tomlinson, and Denzel Perryman for some mid- and late-round draft capital, which is the only asset that Hortiz has truly utilized successfully during his tenure in Los Angeles. Two weeks ago, the statements from the front office, and from insiders around the league, may very well have been smoke screens.
But as we rapidly approach the Nov. 10 deadline, that stance doesn't appear to have changed in the slightest. Per Adam Schefter and Ian Rapoport at ESPN, the Chargers continue to tell teams that they have no interest in trading Mack, and combined with the other reporting on the issue, it seems they have no interest in stripping back this roster whatsoever. To Hortiz, that would mean "giving up on the season".
Good intel here.
— Jeremy Fowler (@JFowlerESPN) November 7, 2026
Chargers still not in seller mode at 0-7.
L.A.’s stance seems to be: Can get Day 3 picks any time, so why trade good players for them? https://t.co/pBSaFUrXP3
This season is already over. Unless Jackson and other expiring pieces are returning this offseason, this is the most frustrating way Los Angeles could cap off a campaign that's already been disastrous from wire to wire.
The Chargers need to chart a path forward—and Joe Hortiz's deadline stance puts them behind the 8 ball
Just for the sake of it, let's explore a hypothetical situation where the Chargers don't give up on this season.
Perhaps their faith in a turnaround from Mike McDaniel pays some dividends over the next few games, and Los Angeles finally strings together some consistency on his side of the ball by the time we exit the Week 11 matchup against the New York Jets. Let's say the Chargers are, then, able to eek out back-to-back wins in Weeks 10 and 11. That leaves them with a 2-8 record, and of their remaining seven games, it's likely that at least three of those—against the New England Patriots, San Francisco 49ers, and Kansas City Chiefs—are essentially guaranteed losses for even the 20th-best offense in the NFL, let alone the 32nd.
If the Chargers win out apart from those games, they'll be 6-11, putting them firmly in top-10 pick territory but leaving them without a chance at earning a top selection in the Draft. If Los Angeles can recoup some morale and some faith in the organization with that sort of record, great—but is that objectively a desirable outcome for the season?
There's also another point to consider here—this roster can't simply be fixed through amassing late-round draft capital. Those players largely serve as depth pieces over the duration of their rookie contracts, and the Chargers need true starters on the interior offensive line and at their skill positions if there's going to be a turnaround in 2027 and beyond.
Trading pieces like Jackson, Tomlinson, and Perryman, for example, wouldn't represent an immediate fix for this roster. What it would represent, though, is an acknowledgement that something needs to change—a recognition that the front office has a plan to move beyond this disastrous season and re-construct the roster around its strengths through use of its cap space and its draft capital.
Holding onto those players, especially just to let them walk this offseason for a potential leg up in the compensatory pick formula, would leave the Chargers at an immediate disadvantage in attempting to reconstruct this roster for next season. At this point, it's not a surprising outcome given Hortiz and the front office's consistent public stance.
But that doesn't make it any less of a frustrating one.
Add us as a preferred source on Google