Buehrle>Wood Posted March 17, 2016 Share Posted March 17, 2016 QUOTE (fathom @ Mar 17, 2016 -> 03:43 PM) I hate to admit that it's Jemele Hill that made a great point, but for everyone asking if KW would have done this if LaRoche played well last year....would LaRoche have quit if he was coming off of a good season? No. Although I not sure sox would have said somethino either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soxbadger Posted March 17, 2016 Share Posted March 17, 2016 QUOTE (Condor13 @ Mar 17, 2016 -> 03:21 PM) Just saw that the mlbpa will most likely file a grievance against the sox bc having his son with him was a condition for him to sign with the sox. This should be an easy case, either it is in the contract or its not. Unless this is some sort of bizarro world where they had junior high school students drafting the contract there will be something called a integration/merger clause so either its in the contract or its not. Id be willing to bet its not in the contract so this wont go far. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buehrle>Wood Posted March 17, 2016 Share Posted March 17, 2016 QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Mar 17, 2016 -> 04:53 PM) This should be an easy case, either it is in the contract or its not. Unless this is some sort of bizarro world where they had junior high school students drafting the contract there will be something called a integration/merger clause so either its in the contract or its not. Id be willing to bet its not in the contract so this wont go far. I just really hope it doesn't delay the Sox spending money now though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Condor13 Posted March 17, 2016 Share Posted March 17, 2016 QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Mar 17, 2016 -> 05:53 PM) This should be an easy case, either it is in the contract or its not. Unless this is some sort of bizarro world where they had junior high school students drafting the contract there will be something called a integration/merger clause so either its in the contract or its not. Id be willing to bet its not in the contract so this wont go far. From what I've read it was verbally agreed upon and known by all, hence the kid was with the team all last year. The verbal agreement is just as binding as his contract, especially since they did multuple things to accommodate his son last year. I have a feeling the sox would lose the case or it would be very difficult case to decide. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elrockinMT Posted March 17, 2016 Share Posted March 17, 2016 I just looked at the MLB Trade Rumors site and read todays story about the Adam Laroche issue. Interesting story. Looks as if there was almost (and maybe there was) a full-scale revolt by players against Williams. Chris Sale telling Williams toi get out of the clubhouse and all that good stuff. I think it speaks positive of Laroche that we haven't heard anything from him as far as lashing out against the Org or anything but on the other hand when he said he wanted more time to think things over he specifically mentioned respect for Rick Hahn. I didn't see any comments about KW. Makes you believe also there may have been a gentleman's agreement as far as the son being with Dad and the team. Unless something has been happening lately I see nothing more from Adam Laroche Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soxbadger Posted March 17, 2016 Share Posted March 17, 2016 QUOTE (Condor13 @ Mar 17, 2016 -> 05:00 PM) From what I've read it was verbally agreed upon and known by all, hence the kid was with the team all last year. The verbal agreement is just as binding as his contract, especially since they did multuple things to accommodate his son last year. I have a feeling the sox would lose the case or it would be very difficult case to decide. Not really. They are sophisticated parties that were both represented by attorneys if it was a condition to his employment, it should have been in writing. If it really was agreed to by all, why was it not in writing? I cant imagine that a multi-million dollar agreement does not have a merger/integration clause. And if it does, then the entire point of having the written agreement is so that neither party can come back later and say that there were other terms to the agreement. I dont know the facts, I havent seen the contract, but I would rather be on the Sox side then Laroche's (from a legal standpoint). If the Sox materially breached his contract, why would he not sue for breach instead of retire? The fact he retired seems to suggest that he had no legal ground to stand on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iamshack Posted March 17, 2016 Share Posted March 17, 2016 QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Mar 17, 2016 -> 03:08 PM) Not really. They are sophisticated parties that were both represented by attorneys if it was a condition to his employment, it should have been in writing. If it really was agreed to by all, why was it not in writing? I cant imagine that a multi-million dollar agreement does not have a merger/integration clause. And if it does, then the entire point of having the written agreement is so that neither party can come back later and say that there were other terms to the agreement. I dont know the facts, I havent seen the contract, but I would rather be on the Sox side then Laroche's (from a legal standpoint). If the Sox materially breached his contract, why would he not sue for breach instead of retire? The fact he retired seems to suggest that he had no legal ground to stand on. My guess is he retires, then unretires and signs elsewhere. I don't think either party would be too disappointed with that result. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fathom Posted March 17, 2016 Share Posted March 17, 2016 Seriously, did any of these idiots read what KW actually said to LaRoche? The Cubs players/Manager might be dumber than their fans. Patrick Mooney @CSNMooney 58m58 minutes ago Joe Maddon: “We’re all for kids on the infield. They do have their own lockers. We get them whatever toys they would like Gordon Wittenmyer @GDubCub 2h2 hours ago Arrieta on LaRoche/Sox: “It kind of makes me mad to see this kind of thing happen. I want my teammates’ kids in the clubhouse.” Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soxbadger Posted March 17, 2016 Share Posted March 17, 2016 QUOTE (iamshack @ Mar 17, 2016 -> 05:11 PM) My guess is he retires, then unretires and signs elsewhere. I don't think either party would be too disappointed with that result. I dont know the contract but my guess that unless the Sox have chimps for attorneys there should be a clause that states they have his rights through the end of the contract (even if he retires) so they would have to release him from the contract. Otherwise any guy who doesnt like his contract could just "retire" and then go sign somewhere else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bmags Posted March 17, 2016 Share Posted March 17, 2016 QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Mar 17, 2016 -> 05:08 PM) Not really. They are sophisticated parties that were both represented by attorneys if it was a condition to his employment, it should have been in writing. If it really was agreed to by all, why was it not in writing? I cant imagine that a multi-million dollar agreement does not have a merger/integration clause. And if it does, then the entire point of having the written agreement is so that neither party can come back later and say that there were other terms to the agreement. I dont know the facts, I havent seen the contract, but I would rather be on the Sox side then Laroche's (from a legal standpoint). If the Sox materially breached his contract, why would he not sue for breach instead of retire? The fact he retired seems to suggest that he had no legal ground to stand on. Right, and even if there was a verbal agreement, really would like to know whether it was verbally agreed that kid could be there 100% of time as was performed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Black_Jack29 Posted March 17, 2016 Share Posted March 17, 2016 QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Mar 17, 2016 -> 04:08 PM) Not really. They are sophisticated parties that were both represented by attorneys if it was a condition to his employment, it should have been in writing. If it really was agreed to by all, why was it not in writing? I cant imagine that a multi-million dollar agreement does not have a merger/integration clause. And if it does, then the entire point of having the written agreement is so that neither party can come back later and say that there were other terms to the agreement. I dont know the facts, I havent seen the contract, but I would rather be on the Sox side then Laroche's (from a legal standpoint). If the Sox materially breached his contract, why would he not sue for breach instead of retire? The fact he retired seems to suggest that he had no legal ground to stand on. I have no background in law, but I thought that was very telling as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fathom Posted March 17, 2016 Share Posted March 17, 2016 QUOTE (Black_Jack29 @ Mar 17, 2016 -> 10:17 PM) I have no background in law, but I thought that was very telling as well. They don't teach law in the clubhouse? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Black_Jack29 Posted March 17, 2016 Share Posted March 17, 2016 (edited) QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Mar 17, 2016 -> 04:14 PM) I dont know the contract but my guess that unless the Sox have chimps for attorneys there should be a clause that states they have his rights through the end of the contract (even if he retires) so they would have to release him from the contract. Otherwise any guy who doesnt like his contract could just "retire" and then go sign somewhere else. I imagine that the Sox and LaRoche could, in theory, mutually agree to terminate the remainder of LaRoche's contract, where LaRoche would not be be paid the remainder of his deal and would become a free agent. That said, I doubt that the MLBPA would be OK with that. Edited March 17, 2016 by Black_Jack29 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iamshack Posted March 17, 2016 Share Posted March 17, 2016 QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Mar 17, 2016 -> 03:14 PM) I dont know the contract but my guess that unless the Sox have chimps for attorneys there should be a clause that states they have his rights through the end of the contract (even if he retires) so they would have to release him from the contract. Otherwise any guy who doesnt like his contract could just "retire" and then go sign somewhere else. Well I'm working off the assumption that neither party really cares to enforce the contract at this point. Perhaps releasing or voiding the contract is the easier thing to do procedurally. The Sox might have chimps for attorneys or they might have great attorneys, but if they try to enforce their rights to LaRoche through the end of this year, they don't know baseball. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChiliIrishHammock24 Posted March 17, 2016 Share Posted March 17, 2016 QUOTE (fathom @ Mar 17, 2016 -> 05:14 PM) Seriously, did any of these idiots read what KW actually said to LaRoche? The Cubs players/Manager might be dumber than their fans. Patrick Mooney @CSNMooney 58m58 minutes ago Joe Maddon: “We’re all for kids on the infield. They do have their own lockers. We get them whatever toys they would like Gordon Wittenmyer @GDubCub 2h2 hours ago Arrieta on LaRoche/Sox: “It kind of makes me mad to see this kind of thing happen. I want my teammates’ kids in the clubhouse.” It's easy to say that, until you are entering Year 2 of someone's kid being in the clubhouse every single day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fathom Posted March 17, 2016 Share Posted March 17, 2016 No shock, but Nightengale seems to be supporting KW during this: Bob Nightengale @BNightengale 31m31 minutes ago Several GMs have met w their managers today to review policy on kids in #MLB clubhouses. Most clubs prohibit kids from being on field. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soxbadger Posted March 17, 2016 Share Posted March 17, 2016 QUOTE (iamshack @ Mar 17, 2016 -> 05:26 PM) Well I'm working off the assumption that neither party really cares to enforce the contract at this point. Perhaps releasing or voiding the contract is the easier thing to do procedurally. The Sox might have chimps for attorneys or they might have great attorneys, but if they try to enforce their rights to LaRoche through the end of this year, they don't know baseball. Laroche retired. He could have asked for a release. I honestly have no clue what is going on, but my guess is that LaRoche let his ego get the best of him and instead of thinking it through, he made a rash decision. He probably thought if he threatened retirement they would cave, when they didnt, he took his ball and went home. I get why the Sox would consider releasing him, but it just seems like that is an option you discuss before you retire. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soxfest Posted March 17, 2016 Share Posted March 17, 2016 QUOTE (fathom @ Mar 17, 2016 -> 05:39 PM) No shock, but Nightengale seems to be supporting KW during this: Bob Nightengale @BNightengale 31m31 minutes ago Several GMs have met w their managers today to review policy on kids in #MLB clubhouses. Most clubs prohibit kids from being on field. As it should be Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fathom Posted March 17, 2016 Share Posted March 17, 2016 How cute https://twitter.com/ESPNChiCubs/status/710602614900019201 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fathom Posted March 17, 2016 Share Posted March 17, 2016 QUOTE (Tony @ Mar 17, 2016 -> 11:11 PM) That's not Jessie Rogers trolling, that's all Cubs. Yep....but I thought they don't concern themselves with the White Sox? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Black_Jack29 Posted March 17, 2016 Share Posted March 17, 2016 The Cubs are a bit mouthy for a team that hasn't won anything in over a century. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leonard Zelig Posted March 17, 2016 Share Posted March 17, 2016 QUOTE (Black_Jack29 @ Mar 17, 2016 -> 06:13 PM) The Cubs are a bit mouthy for a team that hasn't won anything in over a century. Haven't you heard? They won the 2016 World Series. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iWiN4PreP Posted March 17, 2016 Share Posted March 17, 2016 Just a smart move on the cubs behalf. Take advantage of the situation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Black_Jack29 Posted March 17, 2016 Share Posted March 17, 2016 QUOTE (Leonard Zelig @ Mar 17, 2016 -> 05:22 PM) Haven't you heard? They won the 2016 World Series. I don't live near Chicago, but I've heard that's the dominant attitude right now. Hubris is never a good thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dick Allen Posted March 17, 2016 Share Posted March 17, 2016 Maddon said he wants no part of a kids in the clubhouse policy. He said it is up to the players to police it themselves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts