Black_Jack29

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Mar 17, 2016 -> 09:53 AM) Or he just wants to be with his family. His dad said he wouldn't have signed with the White Sox had they not told him having his kid around would be a problem. In the articles I linked he even mentioned there are a lot of teams that ban kids. If it was THAT important to him, he should've had that stipulation placed into his contract. And, again, it's not like Kenny banned his kid. He just wanted him around less often. It sounded like he would've been fine with once a week. Furthermore, if LaRoche doesn't feel like playing without his kid being there every moment of every day, it sounds like he's more focused on spending time with his kid than doing his job. And if that's the case, it's probably best that he parts ways with the Sox.

QUOTE (OmarComing25 @ Mar 17, 2016 -> 09:52 AM) I don't care if it was fine last year, or even if there was a handshake agreement when he signed. Things change. If Lawrie/Latos/Frazier/Avila/Navarro or whoever came in and had a problem with it, then they have a right to make changes to the arrangement. If LaRoche was verbally promised that his kid could be there every day last winter (and I have serious doubts about that), then I have some sympathy for him. Reneging on a gentleman's agreement is unbecoming. And, assuming that this agreement actually did happen, I can understand why LaRoche would be upset. But I generally agree with you. If it's not written into the contract, Sox management can't justify the kid's omnipresence when other players complain. And that HAS to be what happened... there's no way that Kenny would screw up clubhouse chemistry on his own, for personal reasons. And it's not like LaRoche's kid was banned from the clubhouse or anything. It sounded like him being there once a week would've been OK.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Mar 17, 2016 -> 09:43 AM) I would hope if my dad had $13 million coming to him in the next 6 months he wouldn't walk away from it because his boss didn't want to see me so much. But he did. Who are we to judge? Yes, how awful of us to judge. Walking away form $13M isn't a big deal. Athletes retire with money on the table all of the time. But doing so in protest because your employer won't let your kid hang out with you at work every freaking day is just ridiculously immature.

QUOTE (flavum @ Mar 17, 2016 -> 08:47 AM) Can we all agree that players today aren't men? They're fun junky frat boys that want no rules. Exactly. LaRoche retires and walks away from $13M because he was told that his kid should be in the clubhouse less than 50% of the time, and the rest of the team refuses to go play baseball and earn their multi-million dollar contracts. It's just embarrassing. I have no idea how managers put up with this crap.

QUOTE (chitownsportsfan @ Mar 16, 2016 -> 09:33 PM) Uh, yea, that describes this situation pretty well. RV is just a weak leader and it's proven again. A strong leader would have told LaRoche privately to go f*** himself. Ventura is no Earl Weaver, that's for sure. That said, telling LaRoche to go f*** himself wouldn't accomplish anything constructive. Unless you think that making Eaton and LaRoche's other buddies hate RV is constructive. Today's pro athletes tend to be entitled morons who think that the world revolves around them. Yet, as a manager, you have to get these morons to like you and play hard for you, if you want to keep your job. That's Ventura's job, not to pound his fist on the table and act like a tough guy. Guys like Earl Weaver don't last for long in the bigs anymore.

Well, this feces-storm pretty much ensures that LaRoche can't come back now, even if he wanted to. That said, changing his mind would pretty much force the Sox to release him and pay out the $13M. If he's ticked off at the Sox, that'd be a good way to stick it to them.

QUOTE (chitownsportsfan @ Mar 16, 2016 -> 09:28 PM) Eh it's pathetic. Why the hell is the "executive VP" down in the clubhouse anyways to sort this out? That's literally like the first responsibility (and most important perhaps) of the manager. WTF are the paying RV for exactly? In addition to setting the lineup and handling the pitching staff, managers handle player egos and smooth over hard feelings. Ventura can't get into the middle of a spat like this and alienate a bunch of players. I agree that somebody higher up had to intervene.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Mar 16, 2016 -> 09:18 PM) LaRoche is pretty religious...I have a feeling there wasn't much talk of banging chicks around him or his son. Unless the kid was attached to LaRoche's hip the entire time, he undoubtedly heard stuff like this in the clubhouse. This is another reason why players were probably not happy with a 14-year-old being around all of the time. Pro athletes tend to be raunchy and strongly prefer a clubhouse where "men can be men."

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Mar 16, 2016 -> 09:17 PM) We need to bring in illinilaw. If LaRoche was promised that privilege, everyone in the Sox organization (especially the players) were aware of this fact, as well as some of his ex-teammates like Harper or Boyer...would the White Sox be covered legally because there wasn't an explicit promise written into the contract? I'm not a lawyer, but unless management announced the terms of this agreement in the presence of several eyewitnesses (unlikely), it's most likely hearsay. If that was the case, I agree.

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Mar 16, 2016 -> 09:08 PM) If it was in writing (unlikely, but possible) or a verbal/gentleman's agreement, you can be certain that a lawsuit might be coming. A lawsuit over a gentleman's agreement would be laughed out of court. That said, if Hahn or Kenny did promise LaRoche extra access for his kid, that definitely changes things.

QUOTE (ChicagoHeel @ Mar 16, 2016 -> 09:01 PM) @thekapman This White Sox story is one of the most bizarre I have seen in a long time. Good sources tell me it was a condition of LaRoche signing here. @thekapman You are wrong. 100% that he could be there everyday. Otherwise he would not have signed with the White Sox. Was it in writing?

QUOTE (iamshack @ Mar 16, 2016 -> 08:56 PM) ? As in typical pro athletes talking about "banging the chicks" that they met in the bar the previous evening. Not appropriate for a 14-year-old.

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Mar 16, 2016 -> 08:54 PM) Except that's been rebutted to an extent by some of the Dan Hayes article...what we're left with is the likelihood it was an issue with "some" players...which was enough to push it up the chain to Hahn and KW. Obviously there were players who weren't bothered as much, such as Eaton. For example, it didn't affect the Nationals when they made the playoffs. One would logically conclude it being brought to the forefront by one of our new veteran acquisitions who felt that having kids around 24/7 wasn't appropriate and not standard operating procedure in a majority of big league clubhouses. OK, fair enough. "Some" players. I agree with what you wrote. All clubhouses are somewhat different, and a sizable contingent of the current Sox clubhouse don't want kids hanging around all of the time. It's their clubhouse and they have the right to limit access for children.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Mar 16, 2016 -> 08:39 PM) But KW said the kid wasn't a distraction and everyone liked him. So who is bulls***ting? Nobody. Lots of new people in the clubhouse this season, and some of those new folks likely had an issue with it. Were Konerko's kids around every day? Did they have their own lockers? Dusty was the manager, and he made the rules. True, it's much less appropriate for kids to be hanging out with a bunch of pro athletes who are cursing and having sexually suggestive conversations. Do you want your kids hanging out in a locker room that's been "decorated" by Nick Swisher? Ozzie's kids are a good example of what can happen when you expose your kids to that kind of stuff.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Mar 16, 2016 -> 09:32 PM) If you,are,making a big deal out of LaRoche preparing for the season, he just getting treatment wouldn't be effected by his son's presence. Yes, but it's not all about LaRoche and his kid, which is something that LaRoche doesn't seem to understand. It's about his kid's omnipresence negatively affecting the rest of the clubhouse.

If anything, they (Ventura/Hahn/Kenny) waited too long to put a stop to this, IMO. I never would've let LaRoche's kid become a permanent member of the clubhouse with his own stall.

QUOTE (mmmmmbeeer @ Mar 16, 2016 -> 04:31 PM) Adam Laroche really seems like he's likely an annoying guy....die-hard hunter, country, Duck Dynasty, holy roller, etc......a guy like this doesn't see things rationally, like a suggestion from your boss to not bring your kid to work everyday isn't seen as a reasonable request but rather an assault on FAMILY VALUES! As with most people who feel that life is one big, emotional country ballad about god, guns, and family, Adam feels that taking this brave stand is standing up for 'Murica. Just look at what his buddy posted about "good and evil". Bigotry towards those who don't share your world view isn't cool.

QUOTE (venom4789 @ Mar 16, 2016 -> 04:05 PM) I dont see why he needed to bring his kid in everyday. Maybe once as a neat expierence but that would be it. It obviously was a distraction cause something had to be done about it. I'm sure that the rest of the clubhouse would've been cool with once a week. Many of them probably bring their kids into the clubhouse every so often.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Mar 16, 2016 -> 03:20 PM) The other thing is, you say something like KW says, and how is LaRoche ever going to be comfortable ever bringing his kid in the clubhouse, whether it's once a week or once a month? You know KW is taking attendance. What is the cutoff between fine and too much? LaRoche walked away from a lot of money in a rather short period of time. Obviously having his son there meant a lot to him. As I said, I have no problem with the White Sox having a policy you can't bring your kid in every day, but they should have had it in place a while ago. If the White Sox could have signed Alex Gordon but Alex wanted his kid in the clubhouse every day during spring training, I really doubt KW would have said that would be a deal breaker. The Sox probably didn't have a specific policy before because they hadn't had a player abuse the privilege like LaRoche has. C'mon, who brings their kid into work every single day? Also, Kenny simply told LaRoche to "tone it down" and specifically said "less than half the time." And none of this was public before LaRoche's buddies began throwing the Sox under the bus on Twitter. If I were LaRoche and still wanted to play and earn my $13M for this season, I would've told Kenny that I understand and I would've brought my son into the clubhouse once a week. LaRoche was obviously not happy in his current situation and wanted an excuse to leave.

QUOTE (LittleHurt05 @ Mar 16, 2016 -> 03:18 PM) Headlines like this make the Sox look bad, even though they are a stretch on the truth: Yahoo Sports Retweeted Big League Stew ‏@bigleaguestew 4m4 minutes ago White Sox told Adam LaRoche his son couldn't be in clubhouse http://dlvr.it/KpH1Rj Sensationalism and clickbait matter more than the truth these days. Especially to corporate basket cases like Yahoo.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Mar 16, 2016 -> 03:00 PM) Then the entire team should be annoyed with each other. Many teams let their kids in the clubhouse, many have a policy against it. Either is OK. Just don't have one that allows it, and then ask the player who this means so much, to not take advantage. As the earlier post stated, does he have this conversation if LaRoche had a big year last year, and was healthy this spring? I don't think he does. If the truth is he would, then I apologize to KW. Perhaps it's the Sox's front office fault for not setting boundaries. Kenny did this spring, and LaRoche apparently wasn't happy about it. So be it. To answer your question, my guess is that LaRoche would've gotten more leeway if he had put up a .900 OPS last season. Superstars get preferential treatment (e.g., Barry Bonds' private room, complete with recliner and video game system in the Giants clubhouse). That said, I don't think that Kenny used this situation to force LaRoche off the team and $13M back into his organization's coffers. I honestly think that some of the new guys complained about it and that Kenny had no reason to give LaRoche special treatment.

QUOTE (Saufley @ Mar 16, 2016 -> 02:56 PM) I just heard some guy call in to ESPN. He said it was written into the contract LaRoche signed to bring his kid to the clubhouse. Not sure how this guy knows that. Let's see what other stories come out. Did it say how often? If this were the hangup, I imagine that LaRoche would've filed a complaint through the player's union, rather than retire.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Mar 16, 2016 -> 02:50 PM) I doubt that. From all accounts, both with the Nats and White Sox, this kid is supposedly a really good kid. If he was a distraction, they would want him gone. KW said he just didn't want him there every day. Even the nicest people in the world can get on people's nerves if they're constantly around.

QUOTE (shysocks @ Mar 16, 2016 -> 02:45 PM) I don't think that's obvious at all. It's more likely that he heard complaints from multiple players. That's what I would guess.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Mar 16, 2016 -> 02:37 PM) And if the Guillen family doesn't serve as example of what having your kids around too much can do to a team, I don't know what will. +1,000,000