Soxbadger

Everyone better be placing their bets. I see that after I made my Tejada guess a rumor came out that supported it. Although how hard is it to guess a guy that Canseco said was doing roids. SB

Im just making the point that you really never know who it can be. Every player potentially could be a user. Regardless of how they appear, or what they say, we do not know the person. There are plenty of fakes in the world, and I would imagine that quite a few baseball players fall into this category. Since the whole thread is entirely speculation based on no personal knowledge, I might as well add some new names to the mix, instead of just repeating the same old rumors. SB

Water retention is a sign of steriod abuse. Imagine a player who used a lot of steroids, but did not work out to compliment them. Might look like Colon. SB

The deal last year was Maggs for Ortiz and Jones. And the majority of the board did not think Jones was worth trading for. lol Atleast I was one of the very few who wanted Jones. SB

Okay I am not going to get into a this player said something so therefore it must be true argument. Its my guess on speculation, you are not going to convince me that I should change what I said. If I wanted to say the popular thing I would of said: Clemens and Damon SB

And Palmiero was not big on speaking out about steriods? (Edit) Its just a guess based on pure speculation. Tejada though, Canseco did say he was doing roids with Giambi. Seems kind of strange that all of a sudden Tejada has been tanking. SB

If I had to guess or bet I would say: Tejada and Smoltz In Canseco's book he said that Tejada was a big time user. And I just do not think it is Clemens. Smoltz is an older player coming from the bullpen. ::shrugs:: Its fun to speculate. SB

They want Konerko to be Frank Thomas. What is sad is that if Konerko is replaced, he probably will put up weaker numbers than what Konerko does this season. SB

What hurt the team is that Cadillac Williams and Benson were pretty much a toss up. One guy made it a priority to get into camp even if he lost out on a million or so. The other guy has not even said that he wants to play. Not knowing who you are drafting hurts the team. SB

My biggest fear for 2005 is that we waste the pick. My biggest fear for the success of the Bears franchise in general is that we give in for the sake of getting something, and he turns into Enis or Salaam Jr, and not only did we waste a pick, we had to pay to watch him suck. SB

Angelo should of never drafted Benson. But they would not be the Bears unless they made decisions that hurt the team. Also, its just as easy for Benson to say yes. SB

This is now wierd, some sites say Rivers got only $14mil. Regardless I think $16.5 mil is fair. If that is the Bears offer then they have to walk away if he will not accept. You are right $2mil, $5mil, $10mil are really nothing to an NFL franchise if the player is going to change the shape of the team. But, if the Bears back down, every agent will hold out from now until the Bears are gone. They will see that the Bears are a team willing to flinch and we will have this scenario every year. Some times you just have to put your foot down. SB

And for what its worth here is Rivers contract: Hence why Benson wants $18mil. SB

So speculation on your part. I have heard: Benson wants around $18mil. The Bears have offered 16.5mil SB

Where did you read that Benson wants 14.5mil guaranteed? I heard he wants around $18mil... SB

Peanut, So per your logic since Lebron James got $100mil from Nike every other #1 pick in the NBA should get the same contract? Or is each player an individual, in which individual circumstances dictate the contract negotiations. Rivers contract is entirely different than Benson. When Benson re-enters the draft next year, he will not get Rivers money, he will not even get Cedric Benson money. Depending your entire future on a market that no longer exists is foolish. It would be like me going down to the local Mobile and saying: "In 2000 you sold me gas for $1.25, I would like that same deal." Times change, markets change. He gets paid on a 2005 scale, to suggest that he should get paid on a 2004 scale is unheard of in contract negotiations. People should try this with their employer: "Employee A at another company gets paid X, since I was hired a year after employee A I deserve X + %" They will laugh and say "Who the f*** cares what employee A gets, here is your offer, take it or leave it." SB

The reality of the situation is that the Bears are in a much better position than Benson is. The most famous hold out Bo Jackson was picked 1st over all. A year later he was picked in the 7th round, 183 over all. Unlike Jackson, Benson's days of 2 sports athletics are over, not to mention Jackson is a far superior football player. If Benson should have to redeclare for the 2006 draft, it is unclear how far he will fall. He will not be a top 5 pick, that much is certain. My guess is that he would go some where between 10-15. This amounts to what could be a $10million loss in gauranteed money, plus not being paid anything for 2005. Unlike an injury Benson will not be paid if he had an insurance policy, but will still have to pay the premiums if he wants to keep the policy. He will also have to pay his agent, etc all coming out of the $0 taht he earns. The Bears on the other hand lose Benson for 1 year. If the Bears are going to be terrible with out Benson, they can draft him again in 2006 if he is such a great player. But, with the 4th pick in the 2006 draft the Bears will be looking for a much better player than Benson. This is why the Bears can not give into his demands and set themselves up for being on the hook for another huge running back contract. How long can Benson hold out? My guess is not very long. His agent can only fill his head with "You deserve $18mil" for so long. Eventually a point will be reached when Benson goes: "You know 16.5mil is not that bad." Is $1.5mil really that much for the Bears? No But the principle of bargaining is. When you are in a position with all of the power, you do not give into the position with no power. If the Bears give into Benson, every draft pick will hold out. This contract situation is one of the most powerful the Bears will ever be in. 1) There is not much popular support for Benson. In fact there appears to be more support for the Bears. This is a unique situation in hold outs. Fans usually want the players signed for whatever price, but Benson has done nothing to get the Bears fans behind him. He was not a popular pick to begin with, and he has done nothing to get fans to embrace him. With out public support, Benson has nothing. 2) Draft pick contracts are relatively easy once the market has been set. Outside of the dream world of Eugene Parker, there are only 3 contracts that matter to the Benson negotiation. Brown, Edwards, and C. Williams. Brown because he is the best back, therefore Benson can not be paid more. Edwards because he is the 3 pick and therefore sets the upper limit, and C. Williams because he sets the lower boundary. 3) Benson can do nothing else for a year. Unlike the Bears who will make about the same money, Benson makes nothing if he does not play. The Bears can outwait Benson, it will be very hard for Benson to outwait the Bears. 4) Potential backlash from year long hold out. This is not Bo Jackson who can just go "f*** it Im playing baseball" outside of football Benson has no marketable skills. If he holds out, what type of backlash will there be? Teams could easily not draft him in the first round posing a potential $10million loss for Benson. His agent will not reimburse him, the league will not reimburse him, he can not go back and say "Oh wait I got picked 35th now I want to go back to the Bears", it will be over. To give into Benson would be one of the worst personel decisions in Bears history, especially after the loss of Grossman. ::Shrugs:: When you are a fan of a team you want them to be good not just next year, but forever. Giving into Benson does nothing for the future of the Chicago Bears. SB

The comparison falls apart much more than that. For Benson to deserve 4th pick money of the 2004 draft, he would have to been the 4th player selected. The draft went: 1) Manning 2) Gallery 3) Fitz 4) Rivers Benson would not have been drafted in front of any of these players. Therefore if we were to truely base Benson's value on the 2004 draft, it would be less than 4. That is why basing your value off of last years draft is ridiculous outside of a general guideline. SB

I would prefer the Bears let Benson sit out the entire year than give him the money he is asking for. Next year he will definitely not be drafted number 4. Do you think his agent will say that he deserves to be paid like the 4th pick in the 2006 draft because he was the 4th pick in the 2005 draft? The answer is no. There is no precedent for basing a contract demand entirely on the market of a year ago. Markets change, numbers change, demands change. The only relevant market is the 2005 draft market. Benson was picked 4, he should be paid as follows: Less than Brown Less than Edwards More than C. Williams. That is all. There is no "well last year". If he wanted to get paid in 2004 money, he should have entered the 2004 draft. The previous draft can be a guideline, but the end measuring stick is the 2005 draft. Not to mention that I have little to no sympathy for a player who is set to make over $15mil in gauranteed money right out of college. That is equivalent to: 100 years at $150k per annum. If he was such a great player he would be in camp. $1 or $2mil would be chump change compared to what he will make through endorsements. Let him sit. Atleast with this version of Enis and Salaam I wont have to be sick watching him play. SB

Should have drafted Cadillac Williams. I have to wonder what the Bears were thinking on draft day. Should we: A) Draft player who wants to be like Walter Payton. B) Draft player who wants to be like Ricky Williams. I guess B got the most votes, and they are suprised by a hold out. Mav

I doubt you will find where I have made a hypocritical statement. ::Shrugs:: Just because the majority of the people can not keep a consistent view point, does not mean that every one can not. This thread is the pinnacle of hypocrisy. I can remember so vividly how Paul was the worst White Sox player because he did not go out of his way to say a good thing about Juan Uribe. Now when he says good things about the entire team, he is the worst player in the world. It can not be both ways. Either he is bad for saying good things about the team when they are not necessarily true. Or he is bad for saying bad things about the team when they are true. Either way he just is saying his opinion. And strangely what else do you want him to say? Hes not the GM, He can not go out and get another player. Should he have said: "The Sox suck. We plain old suck. We are not even going to make the playoffs unless we get Ken Griffey Jr. The White Sox are the worst organization in baseball. If we do not add a bat Im not showing up for September." Some people are never happy. Thats where my anger and frustration comes from. And I probably will be one of the few who misses Konerko if he does go. But I was also one of the few who said that we should not give Garland away. Wonder where all those posters went to? SB

This thread is hilarious. Earlier this season people were on Konerko because he did not support his team mates by saying that Clayton was the best SS he had played with. Now people are complaing Konerko is saying the White Sox are good enough to win? lol Either he is a bastard because he does not support his team mates, or he is a bastard because he supports them to much. So hilarious. SB

There are some suprising players on that list. But Blalock how could no one claim? Or has it become that GM's almost claim no one out of respect to the other teams? SB

Damn condo's. I always thought I was the only one who thought it would be a good idea. SB

Konerko did the right thing. Even if he was sprinting from the start he would not of had a stand up double. Everett is much faster than Konerko, he also had a lead and was running on contact and it was a close play at 3rd (albeit a some what shorter throw). Had Konerko not waited they would have nailed him at 2nd easy. Was there a 1 second delay between the ball being hit and Konerko running, yes. If you want to bench him for that its fine. The whole team will be benched because on pop up etc, most of the guys throw their bat before they start running, therefore they should be benched on that delay. I wonder how many people would be complaining if Konerko had hit a home run the at bat before. SB