Funny, most of this board has done EXACTLY that regarding one Alex D. Smith.

Hi, my user name is Detoxing. Not "Most of this board".

You completely missed the point.

You're implying that Chicago isn't paying him because he's a problem.

THEY ARE paying him. He's under contract. They just haven't given in to his demands yet, just like they haven't given in to Forte's demands yet.

They aren't giving him a raise because THEY DON'T HAVE TO. He can come to work, or sit out.

Pass.

I'd rather use the draft pick on a player than to get a TE with a questionable ethic and love of the game.

No, im implying that Chicago doesn't believe he's worth the pay raise. Yes, of course they're willing to pay him the contract they agreed upon.

This isn't a case of waiting out his demands. This is a case of, "You wanna sit out? Hit the road. Not worth it".

THEY DON'T HAVE TO put him on the trade block either. But they did.

We couldn't even if we wanted to - we have no money this year, and he wasn't an extension. If he's willing to sit out in Chicago, he's willing to sit out in KC.

I'm not even advocating trading for him. I'm just responding to the ridiculous comments about a guy who has only been outproduced by three TE's over the last two years being lazy.

****, I wish Alex Smith was that lazy.

Ask the Cowboys and Bears why they call him lazy. Stop acting like Chiefsplanet randomly made that shit up.

You're arguing with the NFL teams he played on, not us.

The point remains, i can give you a truck load of bad history with this guy with everything from bad production, poor work ethic and stirring the pot and all you can give me to combat that is a single 900 yard season, after which, he holds out.

There's no argument to be had there. You're basically taking 6 years of history and throwing it out the window and claiming that none of it matters because "that one time in 2014".

Missed the mark again.

Even IF they think he's worth the raise, why the **** would they give in NOW?

Answer: They wouldn't.

You're also implying that putting him on the trade block means they are sick of his shit. You're speculating, based on shit you know about a reality show from a half-decade or more ago.

If he came in and asked for $9M a season, and they know they can't pay him that - or aren't willing to pay him that - of course they are going to put him on the block and see what the market will offer. And if no one bites, he can either show up at his current rate, or sit and not get paid.

Chicago has 100% of the leverage here.

No.

There's a huge difference between not giving in and putting someone on the trade block.

BIG difference.

Did you even READ that post? Last comment and I'm done, because you refuse to consider anything other than "it's because he's lazy".

This has nothing to do with giving in because no team in this situation would do so in APRIL. Because they hold all the cards.

You want to assume this is all about his character, when you have precisely ZERO percent information to base that assumption on.

If I'm the GM of a football team and my fourth of four weapons on offense came to me and wanted a raise - and I knew that I either couldn't pay him, or was unwilling to because I have all the leverage with him being under contract - I'd put him on the block as well and see what I could get.

If I get a good offer, I make the deal.

If I don't, I've lost nothing. I still have all the leverage because he's still under contract and I don't have to pay him a penny more.

If the Bears cut Bennett, they'll save almost $4 million this year towards the cap. They already traded Brandon Marshall and there's rumors of getting rid of Cutler, which will cost them almost $13 million.

I wouldn't be surprised to see a massive roster purge shortly, with Bennett out the door. He's a not a John Fox "Attaboy" type guy, anyway.

For someone thats "not even advocating" for getting the guy, you're sure on a holy roller, OTWP.

My take isn't "simply because he's lazy". My take is that he's not worth the contract/trade because of his baggage and small sample of production.

You want to latch onto one season of production and use that single season to justify him. Sorry, i need more than that. And when you couple that with all of his off the field BS and otherwise LACK of production for most of his career, i think the move is pretty obvious.

You keep saying they don't have to pay him. Of course they don't. They don't have to TRADE him either. That is telling.

Im not sitting here claiming i know WHY they wanna trade him, but they do.

They could:

1. Express an interest to re-negotiate
2. Express no interest to re-negotiate until a later time
3. Let him hold out until he caves.

But they aren't doing any of that.

By initiating trade talk right away, they're making a statement. They're clearly stating that they'd rather trade than pay him a cent more.

Why? Why would they rather trade him than simply bide time in hopes of retaining him?

Maybe he's not as good as you think he is?