Dick Allen

QUOTE (fathom @ Mar 17, 2016 -> 10:57 AM) So the game they almost boycotted was yesterday's and not Tuesday's (which took place after the meeting with LaRoche). This is a little more concerning. Also pretty pathetic that JR, KW and Hahn are going to meet next week to discuss clubhouse access for management. What a ridiculous situation. http://espn.go.com/mlb/story/_/id/14993803...mp;sf22718540=1 Is this saying they want KW's access limited? That would be cool. Just not every day KW. Maybe not even half the games. There is a big area between 0 and 50%.

QUOTE (Black_Jack29 @ Mar 17, 2016 -> 10:48 AM) Yes, how awful of us to judge. Walking away form $13M isn't a big deal. Athletes retire with money on the table all of the time. But doing so in protest because your employer won't let your kid hang out with you at work every freaking day is just ridiculously immature. Or he just wants to be with his family. His dad said he wouldn't have signed with the White Sox had they not told him having his kid around would be a problem. In the articles I linked he even mentioned there are a lot of teams that ban kids. I

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Mar 17, 2016 -> 10:45 AM) So you arent on his side then. His side is to leave the game of baseball because of it. No it's not.

QUOTE (Black_Jack29 @ Mar 17, 2016 -> 10:40 AM) Exactly. LaRoche retires and walks away from $13M because he was told that his kid should be in the clubhouse less than 50% of the time, and the rest of the team refuses to go play baseball and earn their multi-million dollar contracts. It's just embarrassing. I have no idea how managers put up with this crap. I would hope if my dad had $13 million coming to him in the next 6 months he wouldn't walk away from it because his boss didn't want to see me so much. But he did. Who are we to judge? I am on LaRoche's side with this, but if I was him, I wouldn't have retired.

QUOTE (shysocks @ Mar 17, 2016 -> 10:35 AM) Are you familiar with the concept of moderation? If so, there's no reason to keep arguing about this. So if you worked some place where they let people bring your kids and your co-worker brought their child every day and it was bothering you, affecting your work, it wouldn't bother you or affect your work if the kid was around only half the time? I don't understand that at all. Either the kid bothers you and or causes your work to be affected, or he or she doesn't.

QUOTE (ptatc @ Mar 17, 2016 -> 10:29 AM) But the issue is they shouldn't have to try to avoid the kid. What kind of work environment is that? But it's also not just the hotel. It's the plane rides, the bus rides, the locker room, the field etc. He flat abused the privilege of letting your kid be around the team. I've been in many pro sports clubhouses, it's difficult to avoid anyone there before games and after games. Again, if the kid bothers someone that much, then why is it OK for that person to be bothered 3 days a week?

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Mar 17, 2016 -> 10:13 AM) The bat boys arent traveling with the team to every away game and staying in the hotel with the players. I've been in the White Sox team hotel many times. They would have zero problem avoiding the Drake at the hotel.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Mar 17, 2016 -> 10:00 AM) Immaterial. All the team needs to decide is that this specific situation isn't working for whatever reason. That's it. The rest of it is worthless. It doesn't explain why Oney wasn't limited when he was around. The only thing I can think of is maybe KW knew the firestorm it would have created telling Ozzie his kids couldn't be around so much, whereas LaRoche is obviously a bit more quiet.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Mar 17, 2016 -> 09:52 AM) Thankfully people never learn from anything, or change anything. They didn't. They agreed to let the kid in the clubhouse. Please provide one story where he is anywhere near Oney Guillen in terms of distraction. Just one is all I need and I will apologize.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Mar 17, 2016 -> 09:47 AM) Yeah, I have no idea why Kenny would get the idea that having kids in the lockerroom could be a bad idea... Yeah, compare Drake LaRoche to Oney Guillen. And Oney didn't get kicked out. Why?

QUOTE (Jose Paniagua @ Mar 17, 2016 -> 09:20 AM) This is about the team meeting they had: Christopher Crawford ‏@CVCrawfordBP 59m59 minutes ago San Diego, CA Karl Ravech was just on television saying the White Sox were willing to boycott their ST game over this Laroche situation. That's..something http://www.businessinsider.com/white-sox-p...-laroche-2016-3 "This is a team that was not going to go out and practice," Ravech said. "And furthermore, this was a team that ultimately said to the manager 'we're not going to go out and play in that game at 1:00.' You had a team that was willing to stand by the player and not participate in practice, and moreso, not participate in an exhibition game." I think it's awesome they supported their teammate and his son, but they do have a responsibility to prepare for the season and play the game.

QUOTE (fathom @ Mar 17, 2016 -> 09:16 AM) They are supporting their teammate....not a shock. The fact it involves family makes it an even more hot topic. If LaRoche does confirm the retirement, I'm not sure what the next step is by the organization to settle things down. I think it will blow over. It appears at least Eaton seems to think his decision is final. The biggest black eye in all of this is a 14 year old is in the middle of it all. Whether you want to blame LaRoche for having him around, and making such an issue over it he walks away, or blame KW for bringing this up now, it being in the news does put some burden on the kid.

This spring training up until this point was pretty upbeat. I hope KW whipping it out doesn't do anything to harm that. But I guess now that the kid is not around, the team should be more easily prepared.

QUOTE (ptatc @ Mar 17, 2016 -> 08:55 AM) No. There is not another kid ariund that much during the season. Most other kids are in school. I have never seen nor heard of another kid being around this much. I see bat boys every game. I see kids not related to players visting teams every day. No one on Soxtalk called LaRoche a bad parent or said his son was around too much when a couple articles about the situation came out last year. If there was a policy in place saying Drake can come 3 days a week, I would be fine with it. But there wasn't, and still isn't. And he did the exact same thing last season. If it bothered a player and that is what KW is covering for, he could have waited a couple of weeks and changed the policy. LaRoche hasn't been playing so Drake's presence wasn't inhibiting his getting ready to play. If the team policy changed to no kids, that's fine too.

QUOTE (Y2JImmy0 @ Mar 17, 2016 -> 08:50 AM) He didn't say anything then because nobody complained about then, Dick. That's why this happened. I don't know how many players were uncomfortable with Drake being around but I can promise you it's more than zero. Maybe, but again, if they are bothered by him being there every day, why would they not be bothered by him being there 3 days a week? If it's a distraction, it's a distraction.

QUOTE (ptatc @ Mar 17, 2016 -> 08:45 AM) This is not an all or none concept. It would be fun for a kid to be there occasionally. Its a burden to have them there all the time. If you truly can't see that, you are just after crticizing KW to criticiae him. I would bet there is a guy Drake LaRoche's age or younger around the Sox clubhouse 162 games this season even if LaRoche sticks with retiring. If it was so burdensome, why was this addressed in March of 2016, 13 months after this has been going on?

QUOTE (AustinIllini @ Mar 17, 2016 -> 08:42 AM) Good grief, I agree with Rock. I don't know why Dick Allen thinks this is so complicated "It doesn't make any sense" It makes perfect sense. "Dial it back" is completely fair. Your kid doesn't need to be in the locker room every day. No it doesn't. Either kids are distractions or they are not. Either they make players uncomfortable or they don't. It makes no sense that this distraction is fine a few days a week, but it is unacceptable every day. Don't change the policy in the middle of spring training, and then have the nerve to say you didn't change the policy. KW could have waited a couple more weeks and then said no more. Drake was around last year. Why didn't he say anything then?

QUOTE (Baron @ Mar 17, 2016 -> 08:35 AM) DA it sounds like your trying to argue with people for the sake of arguing...it's been getting ridiculous the past few pages Not at all. If Jose Abreu had a kid in the clubhouse every day, KW wouldn't have said squat. And Soxtalk would be abuzz with what the f*** is KW doing if he actually did and Abreu made a stink over it. I just think the team should have a clear policy one way or the other.

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Mar 17, 2016 -> 08:30 AM) And there are other sources that said he was around 100% of the time. Which is correct? Here's an article from last summer. And apparently KW didn't even realize the kid was around so much until this spring. http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/baseb...0620-story.html

QUOTE (WhiteSoxLifer @ Mar 17, 2016 -> 08:33 AM) All he did was asking him to dial it back. Didn't say he couldn’t bring him in. What so hard to understand. I really think you like to argue for the sake of arguing. No I don't. If he is a distraction why would it be OK if he still is a distraction only less of the time? It makes no sense.

QUOTE (Y2JImmy0 @ Mar 17, 2016 -> 08:31 AM) I disagree. I'm sorry that I'm not going to jump on board and praise him for being a great father. He's not a great father. How would you know if he is a good father or not?

QUOTE (WhiteSoxLifer @ Mar 17, 2016 -> 08:26 AM) Why do you keep arguing this. There is no need of any players kid to be around the team all the time. Plan and simple. Again, I would be fine then if KW just banned kids period. But he didn't. If they are a distraction, this is a half assed effort on his and the team's part.

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Mar 17, 2016 -> 08:24 AM) Obviously not all team meetings are closed door. Which is also why you have no idea if he was there in those either. But when the team is meeting and the press is there he was in the picture. Even if he's not a distraction it's a bad precedent to set and they were right in going forwar establishing team rules around it. I linked an article which stated he didn't have total access, and he knew his place.

QUOTE (Jose Abreu @ Mar 17, 2016 -> 08:23 AM) I'm sure some Nationals players struggled being themselves/censoring themselves with a kid around all the time, too. If that is the case, then you would agree, KW not changing the policy to totally ban kids is a half assed jesture, correct? The thing is while players didn't have their kids around as much as Drake, there are 25 guys and someone will bring his kid one day, another guy the next, plus with bat boys, and Make a Wish etc. there are kids around the Sox clubhouse every day whether Drake LaRoche is there or not.

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.