/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_image/image/49375931/usa-today-8877545.0.jpg)
Another day, another "development" in the Colin Kaepernick saga. Adam Schefter was a guest on 104.3 The FAN in Denver, Colorado earlier in the week, and while he discussed the trade between the Cleveland Browns and the Philadelphia Eagles, as well as normal Denver football matters, he managed to keep the saga alive with this:
"The same people that were telling me [about the Browns/Eagles trade] that, three of them, telling me a deal was getting done between those two sides said San Francisco and Kaepernick are going to have to end in a divorce. I think most people believe that is a difficult relationship to have to continue. And if they're right and I believe they are, they're going to have to move him and if they have to move him, there is one logical landing spot."
This came a day after Jason LaCanfora had reported nothing has happened to try and repair the relationship between Colin Kaepernick and the 49ers.
Literally nothing at all has occurred to in any way repair this broken marriage, and I wouldn't anticipate much movement on the trade front until the eve of the draft, or during the draft itself (should the Broncos not take a quarterback in the first round).
And of course, Trent Baalke said on Wednesday that he has not spoken face-to-face with Kaepernick since the start of the offseason workout program. Baalke said he has not spoken with 85 percent of the players, but when your highest paid player has requested a trade, and you've said you want to keep him, one would think you would speak with him at some point.
Nearly two weeks ago, Schefter reported that there was a decent chance Kaepernick would be sticking around in San Francisco. Kaepernick may yet be on the roster come week 1, but this seems to steer it a different direction, whether it's Denver or somewhere else entirely.
Kaepernick has been reporting to the facility for the 49ers mini-camp, and the trade with Denver has been stalled as far as we know. If money isn't agreed to, does this uncomfortable arrangement continue?