Kalapse Posted March 17, 2016 Share Posted March 17, 2016 QUOTE (Jose Abreu @ Mar 16, 2016 -> 11:02 PM) David KaplanVerified account @thekapman 13m13 minutes ago Do not believe for 1 sec Adam LaRoche is in wrong. After doing my homework I promise you Sox said Drake could ALWAYS be around. idiot. So, realistically, why would Kaplan be so firmly in LaRoche's corner on this? Aside from meat company thing that Fathom is mentioning that I'm not at all familiar with. He's being incredibly aggressive on this topic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hi8is Posted March 17, 2016 Share Posted March 17, 2016 Here's a thought, why not wait until the offseason of 2016 to make this change in policy? Kenny has stated in interviews that "nothing has changed" regarding the Sox stance with his kid but that's just plain politicians talk. This story is the oddest since Olivo going Mike Tyson. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jose Abreu Posted March 17, 2016 Share Posted March 17, 2016 David Kaplan @thekapman 42m42 minutes ago Just so we're clear: Sox agreed to let LaRoche have son be around 100% of the time. Condition of him agreeing to sign w/the White Sox. 100%. I don't know how this guy is seen as credible Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whisox05 Posted March 17, 2016 Share Posted March 17, 2016 I wonder which meat of LaRoche is in Kaplans mouth Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GreenSox Posted March 17, 2016 Share Posted March 17, 2016 This is so stupid. I don't care what agreement they made. Players obviously didn't like it, so the agreement needs to be augmented. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fathom Posted March 17, 2016 Share Posted March 17, 2016 QUOTE (Jose Abreu @ Mar 17, 2016 -> 05:08 AM) David Kaplan @thekapman 42m42 minutes ago Just so we're clear: Sox agreed to let LaRoche have son be around 100% of the time. Condition of him agreeing to sign w/the White Sox. 100%. I don't know how this guy is seen as credible What if LaRoche is the person who told him this new info after hearing things from Sox management earlier? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baron Posted March 17, 2016 Share Posted March 17, 2016 Just amusing to see him on Sportstalklive taking the exact opposite position only a few hours ago Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bmags Posted March 17, 2016 Share Posted March 17, 2016 That is the dumbest agreement I've ever heard, so I imagine it's false. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kalapse Posted March 17, 2016 Share Posted March 17, 2016 QUOTE (Tony @ Mar 16, 2016 -> 11:14 PM) Doesn't this almost make LaRoche look worse? There was an agreement. Things can change. They had a discussion, apparently a week ago, and LaRoche continued to bring his son into the clubhouse every day. Another conversation is had, and LaRoche picks up his ball and goes home? Circumstances change in business every day. Especially when that agreement isn't built into his contract. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baron Posted March 17, 2016 Share Posted March 17, 2016 That report sounds like agent talk/damage control/blame other people Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
caulfield12 Posted March 17, 2016 Share Posted March 17, 2016 Fathom is right. At some point, religious discrimination or "persecution" is going to come into this eventually...whether it's an accusation via Twitter or a legal argument. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bmags Posted March 17, 2016 Share Posted March 17, 2016 It's adorable Kaplan feels he can play reporter for the day! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kalapse Posted March 17, 2016 Share Posted March 17, 2016 QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Mar 16, 2016 -> 07:19 PM) If Jose Anreu or Chris Sale brought their kid to the clubhouse every day this spring and Brett Lowry didn't like it, do you really think KW would have done the same thing? That is the one question to me is most important. KW talked about being fair, but I think, and perhaps incorrectly, LaRoche's status as a player had something to do with this. Just want to point out that, typo not with standing, this is an impossibility and you should feel bad for even suggesting as such. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fathom Posted March 17, 2016 Share Posted March 17, 2016 (edited) QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Mar 17, 2016 -> 05:18 AM) Fathom is right. At some point, religious discrimination or "persecution" is going to come into this eventually...whether it's an accusation via Twitter or a legal argument. I was being sarcastic when I said that. It's not like LaRoche's beliefs weren't known before he signed here Also if it was for those reasons, I'm confident in saying the whole team would have walked out Edited March 17, 2016 by fathom Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
caulfield12 Posted March 17, 2016 Share Posted March 17, 2016 QUOTE (Kalapse @ Mar 16, 2016 -> 10:16 PM) Especially when that agreement isn't built into his contract. 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OmarComing25 Posted March 17, 2016 Share Posted March 17, 2016 Even if there was a handshake agreement, if some of the new players had a problem with it I don't fault them for changing it. Either way I'm already beyond sick of this story. Just go away LaRoche. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
caulfield12 Posted March 17, 2016 Share Posted March 17, 2016 QUOTE (fathom @ Mar 16, 2016 -> 10:20 PM) I was being sarcastic when I said that. It's not like LaRoche's beliefs weren't known before he signed here Also if it was for those reasons, I'm confident in saying the whole team would have walked out Except it might be just ONE part of it...which we'll never know, of course. Partly the reaction of players new to the team this year, partly about KW forcing the issue because of LaRoche's under-performance or perhaps Adam (theoretically) ignoring advice earlier in spring training to focus more on this season and his rehab, the increasing pressure on everyone to win this year and especially get off on the right foot out of the gate in April. The most obvious point here is Hahn had apparently been trying all offseason to sell him to the highest bidder for quarters on the dollar. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flash Tizzle Posted March 17, 2016 Share Posted March 17, 2016 QUOTE (Tony @ Mar 16, 2016 -> 10:14 PM) Doesn't this almost make LaRoche look worse? There was an agreement. Things can change. They had a discussion, apparently a week ago, and LaRoche continued to bring his son into the clubhouse every day. Another conversation is had, and LaRoche picks up his ball and goes home? Circumstances change in business every day. Among the fans/general public it probably does. Not many would sympathesize with his issue and the alleged non-written, gentleman's agreement to have his son around. However, I fear his teammates think differently and I believe Kaplan's tweet about players supporting him (notably Sale). It's an issue they have encountered for the last year and whether it was in his comtract or not probably means more to teammates who may have their own out-of-contract provisions. I don't disagree with Williams creating a new policy. However, I HATE its timing and moreso that is becomes yet another typical White Sox distraction. I can't wait for it to be referenced later if the team is struggling. "Cracks began to show within the team in preseason when VP Kenny Williams broke an agreement with first baseman Adam Laroche......" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
caulfield12 Posted March 17, 2016 Share Posted March 17, 2016 http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/columni...316-column.html John Kass trying to add some levity and "life lessons" to this story. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whisox05 Posted March 17, 2016 Share Posted March 17, 2016 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChiliIrishHammock24 Posted March 17, 2016 Share Posted March 17, 2016 Although Scott Van Pelt just sided with the White Sox on ESPN, he started with "This is the 1 time in 10 that I think the White Sox are RIGHT". Weird preface to his comments. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigHurt3515 Posted March 17, 2016 Share Posted March 17, 2016 QUOTE (Chilihead90 @ Mar 17, 2016 -> 12:08 AM) Although Scott Van Pelt just sided with the White Sox on ESPN, he started with "This is the 1 time in 10 that I think the White Sox are RIGHT". Weird preface to his comments. Did you hear what he said right off the bat? Something like "9 out of 10 times I am going to side with what is sentimental" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChiliIrishHammock24 Posted March 17, 2016 Share Posted March 17, 2016 QUOTE (BigHurt3515 @ Mar 17, 2016 -> 12:14 AM) Did you hear what he said right off the bat? Something like "9 out of 10 times I am going to side with what is sentimental" Oh, nope, definitely did not. I was confused why he decided to take that shot. But I get it now, thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whisox05 Posted March 17, 2016 Share Posted March 17, 2016 (edited) 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. Edited March 17, 2016 by WhiteSoxLifer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigHurt3515 Posted March 17, 2016 Share Posted March 17, 2016 Maybe the coaches kind of got tired of having to include him in drills and morning practices. Pedro Gomez just got on ESPN and said when he was there last week Drake was catching balls from the 3rd and 1st basemen while doing grounders. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts