ThirdGen

Checked out a few lawyers' websites on advice for getting pulled over, this seems to be consensus. As TLR has a DUI record, I suspect he already received this advice: STEP 4 - Do not submit to any field sobriety tests. Police can ask you to step out of your vehicle, however, they cannot force you to perform field sobriety tests. These tests are completely voluntary. When an officer asks you to step out of your vehicle you need to comply (but do not use your door or vehicle for balance when exiting). Once out of your vehicle, respectfully refuse to perform all field sobriety tests. Simply explain: "my lawyer told me to NEVER submit to these tests." NOTE: never perform field sobriety tests, because they are very difficult and very specific balancing tests. If you have poor balance, you will definitely fail these tests (regardless of how much alcohol consumed). Even if you have great balance, you will still fail these tests, because of how difficult / specific they are. STEP 5 - Do not submit to taking a chemical test (breath, blood, or urine). When pulled over for DUI, politely decline when the officer asks you to take a breath, blood, or urine test, if you have been drinking. Why? For many reasons: 1. Breath tests produce unreliable results all the time for many different reasons (see here). 2. The officer is going to arrest you for DUI / OVI regardless of if you take a chemical test (even if you blow under the the legal limit). After you refuse to take the chemical test, you will be subjected to (at least) a 1 year administrative license suspension (ALS) for refusing to take the test, BUT, you will have to serve (at least) a 1 year court-ordered suspension, anyways, if you are ultimately convicted of OVI. So there is little to no incentive to take a chemical test. It should be noted, if you do take a breath, blood, or urine test and the results come back above the legal limit, it does not mean you are guilty of DUI / OVI. There are still many defenses that can be raised. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- So he followed standard procedure, guilty or not. It sounds like he was involved in Spring Training at the time, and had a dinner/drinks with other Angels employees. He apparently was not fired or disciplined by the Angels. It would be interesting to find out if the Sox spoke to anyone at the dinner regarding TLR's behavior that night prior to the hiring, or if the Angels were even aware of the arrest.

As someone who has never been charged with a DUI, I ask this question sincerely. Does it normally take 8 months to be formally charged with a DUI after the actual arrest? Is there sometimes an option to avoid the charges if, for example, TLR would have gone through a treatment program? The timing seems weird, as though he may have pissed someone off and he and the Sox thought he was going to get off without charges. IMO the only way he can redeem himself is to announce that he was in treatment starting in February, has completely stopped drinking due to his age and his lack of judgement, and has contractually agreed to a zero tolerance alcohol policy with the Sox when hired. Somehow I doubt that happened however.

If he is looking for a GM position where ownership and a President/VP type don't hold veto power he isn't going to get it. He hasn't earned that type of power, and I'm don't think there are a lot of organizations that give a GM that type of power anymore. If he had nailed his last couple of manager hires and got shot down on this one he may have a point. He'd look foolish walking away from this team and the talent over being overruled on one hiring decision that he has no track record of success in the past.

7 days. He has been manager for seven days. In November. He has no coaching staff. He has 38 men on a roster to reach out to, but nothing of substance yet to tell him. But because you and other internet posters have chosen to paint him as racist despite the fact that no player since 1979 has as much as suggested that, and have generally said the exact opposite, you believe he needs to prioritze singling out a Black player to ask for his approval. An approach that no managerial hiring in history has used. And when the media asks questions with the clear intent of stirring racial shit, and TA doesn't take the bait, you blame TLR.

If you said Hinch already reached out to Cabrera you would have a point. You said Verlander, who's opinion is every bit as relevant to the Tigers as Quintana's would be to the Sox.

There are 8 players remaining on Detroit's 40 man roster from his time there. Would you have been impressed if TLR called Jose Quintana in September? That's what you are talking about here.

Is Verlander back with the Tigers? Hadn't heard that one yet.

How many players on the Tigers has AJ Hinch called so far? Is it even a discussion among Tiger fans? He has some baggage....

Does anyone know what a typical team gets in radio revenue in the current era? Seems like it would be negligible based on the current financial situation of radio stations.

This isn't even the first time the White Sox have done that. But the last time was a disaster. Jack McKeon once had 10 years between MLB managerial jobs. Was in the front office most of that time. Later won a WS in his 70's, 3 decades after his first job. Also had gaps of 6 and 7 years along the way. I'm sure there are more.

I think it is quite likely that if and when TLR contacts the players there will be no public acknowledgment of that from the players or management. For all we know that process could be taking place now. I have never seen a team discuss off season phone conversations and I don't think I've ever seen a player tweet about talking to a manager during the off season. And in light of the potential for conflict, I think this is almost certain to be kept quiet, both to protect TLR and the players. I doubt the Sox want the media to know that TLR spoke to TA for example, and have the media bombard TA with loaded questions to start controversy.

Lots of coaches have said the same thing, Dave Roberts for example initially said that kneeling was disrespectful to his father, a Marine. Many have come around since George Floyd's public murder. I hope TLR will respect kneeling, he now says he will do so. And I hope that those who choose to protest in this manner will respect those who don't as they feel it is disrespectful to those who gave their lives to protect our freedom, even though that freedom has not achieved full equality. Those who attack the choice of TLR simply because his conservative views don't match theirs unfortunately don't give me much hope of either.

As we know now, yes. But at the time he was chosen because he agreed not to protest the daily abuse and hatred he faced because of his skin color.

None of those examples involve teams basically living together and playing together for nine months out of the year, with the exception of Robinson. Jackie Robinson was not involved in political protests during the games, he was specifically selected for his ability to avoid those conflicts. What is happening on teams across sports currently is completely unprecedented in its scope. At some point we will see a clubhouse self destruct as it is impossible to construct a team where every player coach and manager hold compatible political beliefs. Hopefully it is not the Sox. If some players truly are ignoring TLR track record as a manager because he is conservative it is very concerning, because I suspect some Sox players are closer to LaRussa in beliefs than Anderson.

25 year old me worked for many men and women who held political and social beliefs that I disagreed with. And although they never came out and said it, I assume they thought my views were the result of being an inexperienced naive 25 year old dumbass. But I learned a tremendous amount about my career by working with and observing them. 50 year old me still has some of the beliefs that 25 year old me held, but not all of them. In fact, experience has taught me that some of the beliefs held by my elders were actually informed by their experience and shockingly 25 year old me was wrong. LaRussa's biggest challenge won't be the rift between his beliefs and his players' beliefs. It will be preventing a rift between the players who believe that social justice causes should be addressed on the field and those who believe their job is to play baseball and address social issues on their own time. The 26 men on his roster don't hold the same beliefs. But they, and the coaching staff, need to maintain an atmosphere of respect for each others opinions on these matters. Every team will face this challenge,\ now that MLB has chosen to allow political protests as part of the game itself. MLB players have avoided conflict so far. But what happens when a player appears in a picture with "F*** 12", or writes "F12" in the dirt, or is involved in a peaceful protest that evolves into one that causes injury, property damage or death?

IMO he was fairly terrible at the baseball side of things. One World Series title in an era of only 16 teams for the most part, and no free agency issues to deal with. And that's my point: no one questioned him being involved in baseball decisions, yet everyone freaks when Reinsdorf does.

Lots of people think Reinsdorf should remain out of team decisions, I assume because he is not a "baseball man". He's been heavily involved in baseball for approximately 40 years now. Bill Veeck was considered a "baseball man" because he was involved in baseball management for around the same amount of time (when he re-purchased the Sox). He had won one World Series, same as Reinsdorf. Yet when he owned the team, he was heavily involved in team decisions, more so than Reinsdorf IMO, despite having a well regarded GM in Roland Hemond. Two of the managers he hired, Doby and Lemon had strong ties to previous ownership stints. Paul Richards was also a friend of his, and was a White Sox returning manager. I don't have any recollection of anyone questioning Hemond's role, suggesting he had been neutered, suggesting that he quit, suggesting that Veeck should stay out of his way. At some point does Reinsdorf become a "baseball man", or is he always a real estate guy?

It would be embarrassing if TLR didn't stick up for his players on that one. Calling all the Sox players' wives "horny broads that wanted to get married, and they wanted a little money, a little security, and they wanted a big, strong ballplayer" showed how pathetic Piersall could be. He also enjoyed trash talking Bill Veeck's wife. IIRC, Piersall whined about the fact that TLR confronted him, since Piersall had a bad heart. Tough guy attacking women on TV, then can't take the confrontation he caused.

McEwing and LaRussa were very tight when McEwing played in St Louis. LaRussa has commented a few times that McEwing should be a major league manager. Would bet McEwing stays on as bench coach. But I think Jirschele makes better sense if he is truly seen as the manager of the future. Might serve as a bit of a buffer if some players don't click with TLR.

Looked like they had energy when they were running around with the World Series trophy.

Blaming any manager is stupid. What were they supposed to do, unilaterally impose drug testing in direct conflict with the basic agreement?

I stand corrected. I had looked at the picture of TA kneeling with Yoan and RR standing next to him. Didn't realize other players down the line also kneeled. But...still very very far from a united group protest.

IIRC correctly, Anderson was the only player to kneel. I get that he is Black, but no other player or coach joined in support? Is it possible that the remainder of the team believes kneeling during the anthem is wrong? Is it possible the Cuban / Latinx players feel incredibly blessed and lucky to be here, and therefore respect the US despite its many flaws, as they recognize the far worse alternatives from being exposed to them? Or maybe they want to be baseball players on the White Sox time, and activists on their own time? Assuming the entire team is opposed to TLR's anthem stance is extremely simplistic and probably extremely wrong.

Now is not the time to give experience to a new manager, hoping that their in game decision making and clubhouse management will be effective. Assuming we fill a couple of needs this off season this team should be ready to start making serious runs in the post season. They need a manager who has been there multiple times. Often, those managers will be geezers.

That's what makes me wonder if Hinch is really a viable candidate. I would assume Reinsdorf would give him a chance to explain how the Astros scandal shouldn't taint his reputation. Maybe Hinch can tap dance around that, but I don't see a way. And if Hinch has legit interest from other teams (Detroit specifically) does he even bother to try with JR?