Whisox05

White Sox chairman Jerry Reinsdorf met with Adam LaRoche one on one yesterday. He also plans to meet with the players at some point https://twitter.com/scottmerkin/status/710916143373012992

Problem now for #whitesox is either LaRoche is lying and players backed him, or Williams is lying. Cover up often worse than the crime. https://twitter.com/Joelsherman1/status/710918623477547009

QUOTE (chw42 @ Mar 18, 2016 -> 02:40 PM) They're paying him millions to play baseball. The expense of having his kid around is miniscule compared to his contract. Yes but is not sox job to pay for the kid. Then why doesn't ever player bring the kids with them all the time.

QUOTE (chw42 @ Mar 18, 2016 -> 02:36 PM) I guarantee you he didn't pay anything. Seriously what kinda person are you take advantage of that. There no way in hell he should be making the Sox take care of the kid too.

So if Laroche was taking Drake with him on the road was he paying for the his tickets on flights and getting his own hotel room. Was Drake eating food from the locker room. I really hope Laroche was paying for that stuff cause if not the Sox did awful alot for his kid to be there all the time

The #WhiteSox contradict Adam LaRoche statement, saying he was never told his son was not permitted, just not everyday., https://twitter.com/BNightengale/status/710905465895395328

Reinsdorf: I have instructed members of the organization not to talk about this issue and get our focus back on the field....#WhiteSox. https://twitter.com/BNightengale/status/710894843745034241 He needs to tell them all they here payed to play baseball and that's what they need to worry about

Chicago White Sox owner Jerry Reinsdorf has set up a meeting to talk to several of his players, but at this time, is declining comment. https://twitter.com/BNightengale/status/710894409047351297 Reinsdorf: "While we appreciate everyone's attention and interest, we continue to feel that it would be premature to comment at this time." https://twitter.com/CST_soxvan/status/710894293913702400

QUOTE (Dunt @ Mar 18, 2016 -> 01:22 PM) I find it ironic that these guys are so stoutly defending LaRoche despite the underlying fact that he walked out on the team. Same here

QUOTE (fathom @ Mar 18, 2016 -> 01:22 PM) Wow, this is the transcript of Sale: Q: What are your concerns about how this affects the team moving forward? A: We’re missing two big pieces to our puzzle, plain and simple. I’m not going to sit here and say it’s going to be the main reason, but he’s definitely going to be missed and we’re not going to get him back. Wow Laroche was such a key puzzle piece last year to the team not playing well

The #WhiteSox players say that Adam LaRoche is not changing his mind about retirement: He is gone. (Updated) : https://t.co/ctYBiMZ5bg https://twitter.com/BNightengale/status/710890980400959488 Don't have to worry about more of a circus if he came back.

QUOTE (fathom @ Mar 18, 2016 -> 01:03 PM) Adam Hoge ‏@AdamHoge 6m6 minutes ago Chris Sale: "We have a much bigger problem on our hands than Kenny coming in here and kicking out a kid and LaRoche retiring." Again he didn't kick the kid out just less time of him in there. What hell

QUOTE (fathom @ Mar 17, 2016 -> 12:45 PM) It will be there for 3 years, max I've heard that may be getting a rockie relationship cause it's want to go at least 4 yrs

QUOTE (fathom @ Mar 17, 2016 -> 12:41 PM) KW really is falling on the sword Jeff PassanVerified account ‏@JeffPassan 5m5 minutes ago After GM Rick Hahn and manager Robin Ventura OK'd Drake LaRoche's presence, for Williams to unilaterally say otherwise set the players off. Question is how much presence they okd. I can't imagine them oking that Drake could be there 24/7

QUOTE (Black_Jack29 @ Mar 17, 2016 -> 12:39 PM) Sale needs to grow up and learn to control his anger. Especially on the field. Seen alot of times when things don't go his or white sox way and he gets pissed and starts over compensating then starts losing control a bit.

http://espn.go.com/blog/buster-olney/insid...tmostworkplaces Can't read much unless you are a insider but Olney agrees with sox. Also video from pardon the interruption in article.

http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2016/03/17/the...h-adam-laroche/ Bernstein throwing out his 2 cents saying White sox are correct

QUOTE (fathom @ Mar 17, 2016 -> 09:30 AM) Just to put a smile on everyone's face, I present this: http://mlb.nbcsports.com/2016/03/16/should...eff-samardzija/ I was watching that game yesterday and started coughing up homeruns. Looked like his stuff was rolling up to the plate

QUOTE (Jose Paniagua @ Mar 17, 2016 -> 09:20 AM) This is about the team meeting they had: Christopher Crawford ‏@CVCrawfordBP 59m59 minutes ago San Diego, CA Karl Ravech was just on television saying the White Sox were willing to boycott their ST game over this Laroche situation. That's..something http://www.businessinsider.com/white-sox-p...-laroche-2016-3 "This is a team that was not going to go out and practice," Ravech said. "And furthermore, this was a team that ultimately said to the manager 'we're not going to go out and play in that game at 1:00.' You had a team that was willing to stand by the player and not participate in practice, and moreso, not participate in an exhibition game." The only thing that kept the players from boycotting was manager Robin Ventura who told that he needed them to play for him, that it was his job and it was their job. At that point, the players relented. Yes again the kid being there or not shouldn't deter Laroche or the players from playing. They are paid a crap load of money to play baseball. Most Americans leave their kids to go to work. How is LaRoche the exception to the rule.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Mar 17, 2016 -> 08:52 AM) I would bet there is a guy Drake LaRoche's age or younger around the Sox clubhouse 162 games this season even if LaRoche sticks with retiring. If it was so burdensome, why was this addressed in March of 2016, 13 months after this has been going on? Still arguing I see

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Mar 17, 2016 -> 08:35 AM) No I don't. If he is a distraction why would it be OK if he still is a distraction only less of the time? It makes no sense. Honestly some thing had to be brought this spring that caused it to be a distraction. We don't know what it is and may never know. Only get certain information handed out.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Mar 17, 2016 -> 08:29 AM) Again, I would be fine then if KW just banned kids period. But he didn't. If they are a distraction, this is a half assed effort on his and the team's part. All he did was asking him to dial it back. Didn't say he couldn’t bring him in. What so hard to understand. I really think you like to argue for the sake of arguing.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Mar 17, 2016 -> 08:22 AM) So the press was at the team meeting taking photos? You're better than that. If there are photos, that isn't a true team meeting, something bat boys wouldn't have access. Why do you keep arguing this. There is no need of any players kid to be around the team all the time. Plan and simple.

Bottom line Laroche wasn't told he couldn't have his kid in the clubhouse. People are acting like thats what happened but it didnt. He is there payed to play baseball. His kid being there or not shouldn't justify him to being able to play. If he can't handle stepping onto the field to preform with his son not in the dugout or in the clubhouse then there is a issue. It's not like he's going to another country to play baseball and won't see his kid in months. Might not be a good comparison but we have men and women who serve their country and have families that they leave all the time. They know they have to go and do their job. LaRoche is playing a sport but can't do it with out his kid so he quits. What is wrong with this picture. question raised is why is it a problem now. Something had to have changed since he signed and was allowed to have the kid this whole time with him before. Especially in the last week place since it was reported that Kenny had to talk to him twice about it. If this was an issue last year then why didnt the Sox say something before. Maybe they did but it was never reported. Something has to give.

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Mar 16, 2016 -> 11:24 PM) Yes, but it's not unlike the Rockies trading CarGo after telling Parra he would be around this season...or the Marlins throwing a fire sale after the Buehrle's committed to being there in Miami for 4 seasons. They're not breaking an actual contract, but it's not the best way to go about conducting business if you become known for going back on your promises. Obviously, the counterargument is that the reputation of the White Sox is still good enough to attract the likes of Rollins, Latos, Austin Jackson, etc. What would be really interesting is to see how many other members of the team are in the Eaton/LaRoche/Kaplan camp...if it's at least 1/3rd of the team, not a good thing. The thing us we don't know if there was an agreement about his kid allowed to always be there. We know it wasn't in his contract. The only person saying it's was verbal is Kaplan who seems to be in Laroche's corner. I would find it pretty hard to imagine that any team would say it's OK for players to have their kids around all the time which includes travel with the team.