La Russa arrested for DUI in Feb; charged day before hire

[hi8is]

35 minutes ago, Texsox said:

I'm still going to support the team. The Sox have a product that I buy just like Amazon, USAA, my mortgage company, my brokerage house, Ford, Titleist, and all the other companies I buy from. I still watch reruns of Two and a Half Men and Kelsey Grammar stuff. That's my choice. I don't think there is a business out there of any size that hasn't had an employee with a DUI. 

It shouldn't matter who in the organization had the DUI. A line cook at Denny's is as dangerous driving drunk as a baseball executive. I'll let the courts determine the punishment. If convicted I hope the punishment is severe based on it being a second conviction. But I'm still watching and following the team.

I'm also not going to drive away sponsors who may never come back. That is punishing innocent people in the organization who worked hard to sell those sponsors and who don't deserve to have their livelihood in jeopardy because TLR and JR made a bad decision. 

Agree regarding the sponsors... can’t get there though about equating the hire to filling a line cook job.

This position only has 30 possible vacancies — it is very different and applicants are rightfully held to a higher standard. 

[Harry Chappas]

When Tony took a stand on kneeling, and then his dopy comment about being the judge on sincerity of  the protest, he presented himself as  holier than thou.  That is BS but tolerable. 

Now he looks like a joke and every stance and position he had taken previously makes him look more foolish because of  his disingenuous attitude.

This is why he needs to go, he is simply put, a dick.  He will be unable to lead the players and will become a shadow puppet.

What makes matters worse is that we all know that Hahn is not behind this move and the team has gone silent.  Had there have been good sales pitch and some rationale atonement for previous idiotic remarks I and I think the fans would be ok.

When Renteria was fired there was a very clear message sent.  Since that day the whole message as circled and went down the drain.

Go get Bochy or Alomar and repair this thing.

This is old white guy stuff at its finest. 

[oneofthemikes]

10 hours ago, hi8is said:

I can’t believe this “class act” intends on taking this to trial.

"Your Honor, I'm a Hall of Famer Baseball Person. I'm legit. I don't want to put words in your mouth but, case dismissed. Who's up for a cocktail? I'm drivin'!"

[Texsox]

31 minutes ago, Balta1701 said:

1. I do not know where I will be in March, but right now I have no interest in cheering for this team.

2. You comparison with a line cook or standard employee is disingenuous at best. This is a line cook getting his second DUI and getting promoted to the Denny’s spokesperson because that’s the kind of person Denny’s wants representing them.

3. If someone other than LaRussa loses their job because of this, that is Jerry Reinsdorfs choice - saying LaRussa is more important than those employees, and you don’t get to use other employees as a shield to cover for all this as a consequence.

4. Do you take issue with companies that have fired people or multiple DUIs? The Diamondbacks fired their mascot for 1 and Mark Grace from their broadcast team for 2. Were they wrong? 

5. Do you agree with Tony LaRussa that people should receive extra criticism for being insincere? Because that was his chosen way of publicly punching down against minorities, and his “it will never happen again” remarks in 2007 break the standard he used to evaluate and criticize black men. 

2.  I spoke about the danger to society is the same. You're talking about the danger to the business.

3. Having their commissions cut is a serious punishment for someone who is innocent. How often in history have people hidden behind it was someone else's decision or they were just following orders. You are advocating for something that will punish innocent people. Own it.

4. I don't have a problem with them firing anyone. In fact I believe it's a wise path to follow. Punish the guilty.

5. That has nothing to do with what I posted.

[oneofthemikes]

32 minutes ago, Balta1701 said:

Do you take issue with companies that have fired people or multiple DUIs? The Diamondbacks fired their mascot for 1 and Mark Grace from their broadcast team for 2. Were they wrong? 

It's worse than that though. It isn't that he got the second one and the Sox decided not to fire him, he got the second one and then the Sox decided that it was still a good idea and hired him. Such a bad look. This offseason couldn't be going worse up to this point.

[Texsox]

31 minutes ago, hi8is said:

Agree regarding the sponsors... can’t get there though about equating the hire to filling a line cook job.

This position only has 30 possible vacancies — it is very different and applicants are rightfully held to a higher standard. 

OK. So it's not about the danger to society that the employee caused but the position within the company? From a business risk standpoint I agree. It's a bad business decision. 

But you've lead us to giving a free pass to hire people who have a DUI as long as there are lots of other people who can also do the job. But if there are fewer people who can do the job and fewer openings, that's a problem. I don't think we believe that do we?

[Balta1701]

4 minutes ago, Texsox said:

2.  I spoke about the danger to society is the same. You're talking about the danger to the business.

3. Having their commissions cut is a serious punishment for someone who is innocent. How often in history have people hidden behind it was someone else's decision or they were just following orders. You are advocating for something that will punish innocent people. Own it.

4. I don't have a problem with them firing anyone. In fact I believe it's a wise path to follow. Punish the guilty.

5. That has nothing to do with what I posted.

2. If a person has proven themselves to be a danger to society and a business rewards them with a promotion, why would they stop?

3. I can take my entertainment dollars elsewhere and reward a decent company and their employees. You are using these people as LaRussa’s shield. Own it. Ownership can do anything they want because we have to protect these employees.

4. Great then you agree LaRussa should be fired.

5. It has everything to do with this because Tony LaRussa said so. He set that standard, publicly criticized Kaepernick for being insincere, and repeated it 2 weeks ago. You get to choose, which is it? Do you agree with Tony LaRussa that he should be judged harshly for his 2007 insincere statement that it won’t happen again, or was Tony LaRussa just using that line as a way to punch down a black man knowing that he was a rich white hall of fame guy and that never comes back to haunt those guys?

[Balta1701]

4 minutes ago, Texsox said:

OK. So it's not about the danger to society that the employee caused but the position within the company? From a business risk standpoint I agree. It's a bad business decision. 

But you've lead us to giving a free pass to hire people who have a DUI as long as there are lots of other people who can also do the job. But if there are fewer people who can do the job and fewer openings, that's a problem. I don't think we believe that do we?

Pretending again that this is equivalent to the White Sox hiring LaRussa in the mailroom while he completes his jail time and a treatment program, with a pledge that if he works hard and stays clean he could be in management in 20 years is something I cannot let pass. I would even encourage the White Sox to support the city of Chicago by doing that with other employees, I mean their police ran a damn torture room.

This is a million dollar promotion the day after charges were filed.

[Texsox]

9 minutes ago, Balta1701 said:

Pretending again that this is equivalent to the White Sox hiring LaRussa in the mailroom while he completes his jail time and a treatment program, with a pledge that if he works hard and stays clean he could be in management in 20 years is something I cannot let pass. I would even encourage the White Sox to support the city of Chicago by doing that with other employees, I mean their police ran a damn torture room.

This is a million dollar promotion the day after charges were filed.

the equivalent I am claiming is the risk to society. An executive and a minimum wage worker when driving drunk presents the same risk to society. If your goal is to make society safer by pressuring companies to not hire people with DUIs, it doesn't matter their position. 

If your goal is to mitigate the business damage from hiring someone then yes, there is a difference with high profile employees.

 

[Texsox]

25 minutes ago, Balta1701 said:

2. If a person has proven themselves to be a danger to society and a business rewards them with a promotion, why would they stop?

3. I can take my entertainment dollars elsewhere and reward a decent company and their employees. You are using these people as LaRussa’s shield. Own it. Ownership can do anything they want because we have to protect these employees.

4. Great then you agree LaRussa should be fired.

5. It has everything to do with this because Tony LaRussa said so. He set that standard, publicly criticized Kaepernick for being insincere, and repeated it 2 weeks ago. You get to choose, which is it? Do you agree with Tony LaRussa that he should be judged harshly for his 2007 insincere statement that it won’t happen again, or was Tony LaRussa just using that line as a way to punch down a black man knowing that he was a rich white hall of fame guy and that never comes back to haunt those guys?

2. Exactly, so why pick and choose which companies to not support? Attack the Sox but not other companies?

3. Yes you can, but you won't. You'll be here in March. I believe Tony should be fired, that's not using those employees as shields to keep him. I believe he should be punished, not them.

5. Again that has nothing to do with my post. I believe Tony should never have been hired and now that he was hired he should be fired. 

Edited November 12, 2020 by Texsox

[Balta1701]

16 minutes ago, Texsox said:

the equivalent I am claiming is the risk to society. An executive and a minimum wage worker when driving drunk presents the same risk to society. If your goal is to make society safer by pressuring companies to not hire people with DUIs, it doesn't matter their position. 

If your goal is to mitigate the business damage from hiring someone then yes, there is a difference with high profile employees.

 

If your goal is to increase the risk of DUIs, giving LaRussa a million dollar job as a reward for successful completion of his second and then having dozens of people dissemble and cover for him in public seems like an excellent way to do so. 

[Balta1701]

13 minutes ago, Texsox said:

2. Exactly, so why pick and choose which companies to not support? Attack the Sox but not other companies?

Yes. There is a reason why I didn’t support the Washington Football Club, why I no longer say the name of the Cleveland Baseball club, and why I won’t ever consider supporting the Cubs under the ownership of the Ricketts. They all have employees. I can find better uses of my money than to support liars and racists, and if the White Sox want to be in that group I have every right to make choices with my time and money and you don’t get to use their employees as a shield for those choices.

[southsider2k5]

1 hour ago, Texsox said:

I'm still going to support the team. The Sox have a product that I buy just like Amazon, USAA, my mortgage company, my brokerage house, Ford, Titleist, and all the other companies I buy from. I still watch reruns of Two and a Half Men and Kelsey Grammar stuff. That's my choice. I don't think there is a business out there of any size that hasn't had an employee with a DUI. 

It shouldn't matter who in the organization had the DUI. A line cook at Denny's is as dangerous driving drunk as a baseball executive. I'll let the courts determine the punishment. If convicted I hope the punishment is severe based on it being a second conviction. But I'm still watching and following the team.

I'm also not going to drive away sponsors who may never come back. That is punishing innocent people in the organization who worked hard to sell those sponsors and who don't deserve to have their livelihood in jeopardy because TLR and JR made a bad decision. 

I can tell you I am already cutting back. In a year where I had bought tons of Sox merch, I am now done. Nothing new for Christmas,  and I am telling others the same.

[Texsox]

1 minute ago, southsider2k5 said:

I can tell you I am already cutting back. In a year where I had bought tons of Sox merch, I am now done. Nothing new for Christmas,  and I am telling others the same.

I respect that decision. I'm not going out of my way to buy anything. 

[Chicago White Sox]

9 minutes ago, Balta1701 said:

If your goal is to increase the risk of DUIs, giving LaRussa a million dollar job as a reward for successful completion of his second and then having dozens of people dissemble and cover for him in public seems like an excellent way to do so. 

This is just stupid.

[Texsox]

7 minutes ago, Balta1701 said:

Yes. There is a reason why I didn’t support the Washington Football Club, why I no longer say the name of the Cleveland Baseball club, and why I won’t ever consider supporting the Cubs under the ownership of the Ricketts. They all have employees. I can find better uses of my money than to support liars and racists, and if the White Sox want to be in that group I have every right to make choices with my time and money and you don’t get to use their employees as a shield for those choices.

and I respect that decision. Now when will you start pressuring their sponsors? Or are you just pressuring the favorite team of everyone here?

[ron883]

Just now, Chicago White Sox said:

This is just stupid.

Agreed. DUIs won't increase because some rich guy got a pass for it. Rich people ALWAYS get away with stuff. Hyperbole at its finest. 

[A-Train to 35th]

3 minutes ago, Chicago White Sox said:

This is just stupid.

But it's sincere

 

[Balta1701]

5 minutes ago, Texsox said:

and I respect that decision. Now when will you start pressuring their sponsors? Or are you just pressuring the favorite team of everyone here?

What makes you think I haven't? I have been avoiding FedEx where possible for years, and there's a reason I never used Progressive insurance, for example. It's difficult to do all of them, but i can sure avoid some big ones. 

[Texsox]

Just now, Balta1701 said:

What makes you think I haven't? I have been avoiding FedEx where possible for years, and there's a reason I never used Progressive insurance, for example. It's difficult to do all of them, but i can sure avoid some big ones. 

Are you organizing a protest of the teams you mentioned sponsors?

[Balta1701]

Just now, Texsox said:

Are you organizing a protest of the teams you mentioned sponsors?

Nope but there are other people doing that. I can't run them all. 

[shakes]

11 hours ago, ShoeLessRob said:

Maybe I’m biased since I live in Cook County and won’t pretend to know Arizona’s court systems. But I’ve seen DUI cases go well over a year. 

Things may be different in Arizona, but defense attorneys in Illinois will file every delay, extension, filing they can waiting for the prosecution or police to make a mistake or no show. Well over a year is common.

People that get off on a DUI usually happen because of a procedural technicality. 

Unless things are very different in Arizona or there is a want to get this settled quick, I would not expect this to be settled within days or a even a month.

[southsider2k5]

10 minutes ago, Texsox said:

and I respect that decision. Now when will you start pressuring their sponsors? Or are you just pressuring the favorite team of everyone here?

Personally I hate this standard.  When someone makes a stand, the question to ask isn't why aren't you doing more.  It is what can I do to help.  You don't need to live in a cave avoiding all human contact to make a point here.

[South Side Hit Men]

 

[Kyyle23]

1 hour ago, Harry Chappas said:

When Tony took a stand on kneeling, and then his dopy comment about being the judge on sincerity of  the protest, he presented himself as  holier than thou.  That is BS but tolerable. 

Now he looks like a joke and every stance and position he had taken previously makes him look more foolish because of  his disingenuous attitude.

This is why he needs to go, he is simply put, a dick.  He will be unable to lead the players and will become a shadow puppet.

What makes matters worse is that we all know that Hahn is not behind this move and the team has gone silent.  Had there have been good sales pitch and some rationale atonement for previous idiotic remarks I and I think the fans would be ok.

When Renteria was fired there was a very clear message sent.  Since that day the whole message as circled and went down the drain.

Go get Bochy or Alomar and repair this thing.

This is old white guy stuff at its finest. 

Someone was so mad at this they reported it as a guest.  Can you believe that?  So mad they couldn't even put their name on it.