Chicago White Sox Posted March 17, 2016 Share Posted March 17, 2016 QUOTE (flavum @ Mar 17, 2016 -> 07:22 AM) I just want to know what changed from last year to this year other than him playing terrible? Was Adam putting his kid over rehabbing his back? And why on March 15th in his second spring training with the team? Again, I think it's weird he would have that type of access, but they allowed it last year, and they put up a locker for the kid, why now? There's two weeks left. They could have just got through the two weeks with the understanding that the regular season will be different this year. And if that was the case (a change in the regular season access), then the Sox did nothing wrong, and LaRoche has the prerogative to walk away--as weird as that may be. Why is implementing a policy change mid-spring wrong in the first place? LaRoche has clearly been abusing the "kid friendly clubhouse" policy more significantly this camp and the Sox have finally placed a focus this spring on preparation and readiness for the regular season. Also, with the amount of personnel change this offseason, there is no doubt some people complained about constantly having a kid in the clubhouse. The right choice was to end this ridiculousness immedietely. The Sox did absolutely nothing wrong here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cabiness42 Posted March 17, 2016 Share Posted March 17, 2016 There's a lesson here, and that lesson is: YOU NEVER SIGN AN AGING DH SLUGGER FROM THE NL. * * at least if you're the White Sox Well, it works one in three times. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chicago White Sox Posted March 17, 2016 Share Posted March 17, 2016 QUOTE (LDF @ Mar 17, 2016 -> 07:37 AM) finally some one in the media is defending the sox and kw. i complain on the sox and the FO, but come on, they are innocent here. Most of the media is defending the Sox. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cabiness42 Posted March 17, 2016 Share Posted March 17, 2016 As long as the Sox didn't make this decision with the intention of forcing Laroche to retire, which from everything I've read it sounds like they didn't, then I'm 100% fine with this, even if they did give some sort of verbal agreement to let the kid be around all the time. The Sox have every right to make a policy change if they believe that it will have a positive impact on the team. And I'm fine with Laroche's decision, so long as it doesn't end up getting his teammates all pissed at management over this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lillian Posted March 17, 2016 Share Posted March 17, 2016 An interesting perspective might be gained by contemplating this hypothetical: Assume that La Roche was a really productive player, and that his presence was considered key to his team's chances of winning. He has a contract, which obligates his team to pay him an exorbitant amount of money, in fact more than he is arguably worth. His contractual obligation, whether explicitly stipulated, or implied, is to do his utmost, to help the team win. Instead he allows his selfish, personal desire for a particularly unusual, special privilege, to take precedence over the interests of the team. He further allows it to create an atmosphere of contention and division in the clubhouse, leading players to take sides against one another, over the issue. Then, when he is unhappy with the request to "dial it back a little", he chooses to abandon his teammates, and quit, leaving them with a significant void, which will be difficult to fill. One of the reasons that some fail to see how poorly this reflects upon La Roche, is that his presence on the roster, and salary are perceived by most to be a detriment to the team's chances for success. How would we feel if his leaving negatively impacted those chances? It does seem like this man, who claims to be such a good Christian, and devout family man, has selfishly placed his interest, ahead of his team's. If he now does anything to try to claim all, or part of the money, which was owed in the contract, he will further reinforce that characterization of selfishness. What would truly have been the "selfless" act would have been for him to have volunteered to quit, and not accept the money (a la Gil Meche) because he felt that he, not only did not earn his salary last season, but that his presence on the roster, represented an obstacle to the team's chances for success. The question now is; How does this team best overcome this distraction and move forward with the determination to win. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dick Allen Posted March 17, 2016 Share Posted March 17, 2016 (edited) It's just another case of the White Sox doing something half assed. KW says kids are welcome, Drake is not a distraction, just bring him less than half the time, and everyone else, bring your kids they are welcome,would love to see them, just not 2 days in a row or 2 days out of 3. . Either make a clear rule for kids in the clubhouse, or ban them. BTW with bat boys and clubbies, there are young guys around these players all the time. It isn't like Drake was sitting in team meetings. Pick a lane KW. Edited March 17, 2016 by Dick Allen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted March 17, 2016 Share Posted March 17, 2016 QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Mar 17, 2016 -> 07:50 AM) It's just another case of the White Sox doing something half assed. KW says kids are welcome, Drake is not a distraction, just bring him less than half the time, and everyone else, bring your kids they are welcome, just maybe not today. Either make a clear rule for kids in the clubhouse, or ban them. BTW with bat boys and clubbies, there are young guys around these players all the time. It isn't like Drake was sitting in team meetings. Pick a lane KW. Common sense need not a apply. Apparently baseball players are too stupid to figure out what less than every day is and they need a full calendar to know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RockRaines Posted March 17, 2016 Share Posted March 17, 2016 (edited) QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Mar 17, 2016 -> 07:50 AM) It's just another case of the White Sox doing something half assed. KW says kids are welcome, Drake is not a distraction, just bring him less than half the time, and everyone else, bring your kids they are welcome, just maybe not today. Either make a clear rule for kids in the clubhouse, or ban them. BTW with bat boys and clubbies, there are young guys around these players all the time. It isn't like Drake was sitting in team meetings. Pick a lane KW. Most clubs including the Sox allow players families for Sunday games. Laroche wanted special privileges, and the Sox wanted to dial that back. Oh well. Oh and Drake was sitting in on team meetings and such. He was literally there for everything like a member of the team Edited March 17, 2016 by RockRaines Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flavum Posted March 17, 2016 Share Posted March 17, 2016 (edited) QUOTE (Chicago White Sox @ Mar 17, 2016 -> 07:39 AM) Why is implementing a policy change mid-spring wrong in the first place? LaRoche has clearly been abusing the "kid friendly clubhouse" policy more significantly this camp and the Sox have finally placed a focus this spring on preparation and readiness for the regular season. Also, with the amount of personnel change this offseason, there is no doubt some people complained about constantly having a kid in the clubhouse. The right choice was to end this ridiculousness immedietely. The Sox did absolutely nothing wrong here. That bolded part--we don't know that one way or the other. If the Sox perceived a problem from the 2015 spring training, then this should have been dealt with in the offseason. And if it's a "new player" problem, then a compromise could have been to get through the last two weeks and then establish a new regular season policy---and maybe that's what was offered, but he didn't want that. Anyway--the Sox blew it last year, and LaRoche is a dead-eyed hillbilly. Have a nice day everybody. Edited March 17, 2016 by flavum Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fathom Posted March 17, 2016 Share Posted March 17, 2016 Woke up today wondering if this has nothing to do with Drake and everything to do with the team believing Adam's not focusing enough on baseball. Either way, the sooner this story goes away, the better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dick Allen Posted March 17, 2016 Share Posted March 17, 2016 QUOTE (RockRaines @ Mar 17, 2016 -> 07:52 AM) Most clubs including the Sox allow players families for Sunday games. Laroche wanted special privileges, and the Sox wanted to dial that back. Oh well. Oh and Drake was sitting in on team meetings and such. He was literally there for everything like a member of the team No he wasn't involved in team meetings. He did odd jobs and didn't have access to the clubhouse during games. Read the articles I linked earlier in this thread. LaRoche didn't ask for special privileges at all. He was doing as he did last year when the Sox said nothing. Either ban kids or give them x amount of passes. Many teams ban kids. If that is the policy, fine. Don't half assed adjust said policy because you think one kid is around too much.KW said it wasn't about this kid, it's about the next player who wants to bring his kid every day. Why didn't he ban kids when Ozzie was managing? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fathom Posted March 17, 2016 Share Posted March 17, 2016 QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Mar 17, 2016 -> 02:01 PM) No he wasn't involved in team meetings. He did odd jobs and didn't have access to the clubhouse during games. Read the articles I linked earlier in this thread. LaRoche didn't ask for special privileges at all. He was doing as he did last year when the Sox said nothing. Either ban kids or give them x amount of passes. Many teams ban kids. If that is the policy, fine. Don't half assed adjust said policy because you think one kid is around too much.KW said it wasn't about this kid, it's about the next player who wants to bring his kid every day. Why didn't he ban kids when Ozzie was managing? Why does anyone think KW would admit if a player told him it was about the kid. That's a great way to kill team chemistry even more. It's no shock to me that the only media member to supposedly hear something is someone not associated with the Sox. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dick Allen Posted March 17, 2016 Share Posted March 17, 2016 (edited) QUOTE (fathom @ Mar 17, 2016 -> 08:04 AM) Why does anyone think KW would admit if a player told him it was about the kid. That's a great way to kill team chemistry even more. It's no shock to me that the only media member to supposedly hear something is someone not associated with the Sox. From anyone who has said anything about the kid, including those that don't have a dog in the fight, there is no reason to believe he caused any kinds of trouble. If KW wanted to change the policy, he could have changed it in a couple of weeks. The kid isn't around every day during the season. He plays on 2 teams one in the Chicago area and one in Kansas. While he was around more than the 50% KW has now said is too much but 49% would be just fine, it wasn't the 100% many have said. If the kid is a distraction being there every day, he is a potential distraction being there once a month. If that is the case, ban them all. I wonder how the Sox ever won a WS with Ozzie's kids around every day. How did Dusty Baker get his team to the WS with his little kid there as a bat boy? Edited March 17, 2016 by Dick Allen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fathom Posted March 17, 2016 Share Posted March 17, 2016 QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Mar 17, 2016 -> 02:13 PM) From anyone who has said anything about the kid, including those that don't have a dog in the fight, there is no reason to believe he caused any kinds of trouble. If KW wanted to change the policy, he could have changed it in a couple of weeks. The kid isn't around every day during the season. He plays on 2 teams one in the Chicago area and one in Kansas. While he was around more than the 50% KW has now said is too much but 49% would be just fine, it wasn't the 100% many have said. Which is why the Abbatacola report makes the most sense for why this situation took place when it did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bananarchy Posted March 17, 2016 Share Posted March 17, 2016 (edited) QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Mar 16, 2016 -> 03:24 PM) Maybe not, but still it is an unwelcome sign. What constitutes the amount of dialing it back? If he is a distraction every day, why wouldn't he be a distraction once a week? Most situations where kids "grew up in the locker room" involved the kids being there less than 50% of the time. Kyle Long was not in the locker room "every day" Also, it's not a matter of the kid being a distraction, it has a lot more to do with setting some ground rules. Someone was clearly uncomfortable. Edited March 17, 2016 by AustinIllini Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dick Allen Posted March 17, 2016 Share Posted March 17, 2016 QUOTE (fathom @ Mar 17, 2016 -> 08:14 AM) Which is why the Abbatacola report makes the most sense for why this situation took place when it did. If KW did this for team chemistry, it has apparently backfired tremendously. The kid has a lot more support in the Sox clubhouse than any player who if he was opposed isn't saying anything now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daa84 Posted March 17, 2016 Share Posted March 17, 2016 QUOTE (fathom @ Mar 17, 2016 -> 07:58 AM) Woke up today wondering if this has nothing to do with Drake and everything to do with the team believing Adam's not focusing enough on baseball. Either way, the sooner this story goes away, the better. Of course that is what this is about. If your kid is there 100% of the time, there's no way you are doing your job to the best of your abilities. And if you hit two f***ing ten and make 13 mil, maybe you should be concentrating on your job WHILE at work and less about the kid Frankly I can't believe anyone in the world sides with laroche on this Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LittleHurt05 Posted March 17, 2016 Author Share Posted March 17, 2016 QUOTE (fathom @ Mar 17, 2016 -> 08:04 AM) Why does anyone think KW would admit if a player told him it was about the kid. That's a great way to kill team chemistry even more. It's no shock to me that the only media member to supposedly hear something is someone not associated with the Sox. Exactly. Eaton has been tweeting about it and a "source" says Sale is pissed. Yet how many other players are quiet about the situation? Why do you think that is? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlackSox13 Posted March 17, 2016 Share Posted March 17, 2016 Yesterday, this story was pretty cut and dry for me but not so much this morning after sleeping on it. There has to be more to the story than what is being reported. Maybe some players were annoyed with the constant presence of Drake , maybe some players wanted to bring their kids with them to work more often or maybe a combination of both. Those two things would help explain the sudden change in policy. Hopefully more credible info comes out to shed some light on this story. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dick Allen Posted March 17, 2016 Share Posted March 17, 2016 QUOTE (daa84 @ Mar 17, 2016 -> 08:17 AM) Of course that is what this is about. If your kid is there 100% of the time, there's no way you are doing your job to the best of your abilities. And if you hit two f***ing ten and make 13 mil, maybe you should be concentrating on your job WHILE at work and less about the kid Frankly I can't believe anyone in the world sides with laroche on this He had the kid around when he was doing fine with Washington. He gets called out now but he's been hurt. It's not like he's been doing drills and playing 6 hours a day. If a kid makes you not do your work, why would bringing him 4 days out of 10 be OK? Shouldn't they be totally banned? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RockRaines Posted March 17, 2016 Share Posted March 17, 2016 QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Mar 17, 2016 -> 08:01 AM) No he wasn't involved in team meetings. He did odd jobs and didn't have access to the clubhouse during games. Read the articles I linked earlier in this thread. LaRoche didn't ask for special privileges at all. He was doing as he did last year when the Sox said nothing. Either ban kids or give them x amount of passes. Many teams ban kids. If that is the policy, fine. Don't half assed adjust said policy because you think one kid is around too much.KW said it wasn't about this kid, it's about the next player who wants to bring his kid every day. Why didn't he ban kids when Ozzie was managing? There are literally pictures of him in team meetings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bananarchy Posted March 17, 2016 Share Posted March 17, 2016 QUOTE (LittleHurt05 @ Mar 17, 2016 -> 08:19 AM) Exactly. Eaton has been tweeting about it and a "source" says Sale is pissed. Yet how many other players are quiet about the situation? Why do you think that is? Right. I respect KW for taking the "fire" on this. The fact is, there was likely a player, but he can remain anonymous and be "angry" in the meantime to preserve team chemistry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fathom Posted March 17, 2016 Share Posted March 17, 2016 QUOTE (LittleHurt05 @ Mar 17, 2016 -> 01:19 PM) Exactly. Eaton has been tweeting about it and a "source" says Sale is pissed. Yet how many other players are quiet about the situation? Why do you think that is? And those are two guys who were here last year and used to it. Maybe the new guys came in and thought it was a distraction. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dick Allen Posted March 17, 2016 Share Posted March 17, 2016 (edited) QUOTE (RockRaines @ Mar 17, 2016 -> 08:20 AM) There are literally pictures of him in team meetings. 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. Edited March 17, 2016 by Dick Allen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jose Abreu Posted March 17, 2016 Share Posted March 17, 2016 QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Mar 17, 2016 -> 08:20 AM) He had the kid around when he was doing fine with Washington. He gets called out now but he's been hurt. I'm sure some Nationals players struggled being themselves/censoring themselves with a kid around all the time, too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts