iamshack

QUOTE (BigHurt3515 @ Mar 17, 2016 -> 08:11 PM) So we are 16 years apart. I would assume things have changed a lot from when you were in middle/high school and I was. In regards to views on 14 year olds seeing an adult naked? Hah...this is entertaining to me...what is it that I am missing here? What terrible things are happening as a result of men wishing to bathe or change in a locker room?

QUOTE (BigHurt3515 @ Mar 17, 2016 -> 08:09 PM) Not sure how many young teens are at private health clubs where you have to pay to be a member? And whenever I was that age when we went to work out (at a rec center) somewhere I surely didn't go in the locker room to shower, I tried avoiding going in there to see naked old guys. A public swimming pool?

QUOTE (BigHurt3515 @ Mar 17, 2016 -> 08:06 PM) Hold on, how old are you? lol 39

QUOTE (Dunt @ Mar 17, 2016 -> 07:51 PM) I don't really care how you were raised. If you don't understand what's wrong with that situation, you need to open your eyes to the world around you. Oh, please do explain it to me then. Please explain to me what "message" is being sent when a teenager sees other adults of the same gender in a state of semi-undress as result of them bathing or dressing. Because honestly, I have absolutely no clue what you are referring to.

QUOTE (Dunt @ Mar 17, 2016 -> 07:25 PM) I don't think it's a good precedent to set for your child regardless of gender. A parent should never give the message that "this is ok" to be in a room with naked adults to their children. Are you guys serious? As a 14 year old? I remember going to the Union League Club as a 10-12 year old and having a bunch of old farts actually swimming naked in the pool. That was weird. But honestly, what "message" are you talking about?

QUOTE (BigHurt3515 @ Mar 17, 2016 -> 07:17 PM) Your high school shouldn't of allowed that. Recipe for a law suit right there. Also that is just weird, as a grown man and a teacher I would not want to be showering and using the same facilities as my students at the same time. So what about a private health club?

QUOTE (BigHurt3515 @ Mar 17, 2016 -> 06:41 PM) But it is ok for a 13-14 year old boy to be there Ok, this is the second time I have seen this now...aren't you in like 8th grade or freshman year when you're 13-14? At my high school, some of the coaches and teachers used the same locker room facilities as us...seeing naked men was sort of par for the course at that age.

QUOTE (Kalapse @ Mar 17, 2016 -> 06:17 PM) If my working there was 100% contingent on this specific condition being fulfilled, no exceptions, then that condition would be written into the contract. Yeah, hard to disagree with that, especially in hindsight. Even had it been, I'm not sure this wouldn't have still been an issue.

QUOTE (Tony @ Mar 17, 2016 -> 05:28 PM) So if you we are going by sources and rumors, which is a lot of what we have here unfortunately, then the reports of Rollins and others going to management about the issue is just as credible. I went back to read some early posts in this thread just for the hell of it to see what reaction was to this before anyone really started making statements to the press about this, and you mentioned you thought it was weak to give LaRoche an ultimatum when it comes to his son. I don't really think that's the case. The story we have is this issue was brought up a week ago, I believe on a Sunday, and LaRoche didn't change anything, Drake continued to be with the team. At that point, another conversation was had with LaRoche, saying to scale it back from 100%, not completely remove him from the clubhouse. At that point, LaRoche MADE THE CHOICE to walk away. Almost everyone is agreement that the decision by LaRoche caught everyone off guard, including the Sox management. And that also goes back to the verbal agreement. Things change. It seemingly wasn't any issue to anyone last year. Nor this off-season. I agree the timing on this is very weird, and the reason for that is newcomers in the locker room, seemigly guys that have influence, seemed to have an issue with it. So like any reasonable business, management sits down with it's employee, and tries to work out a soulition. By Williams own quotes, he gave LaRoche options. Drake did not have to leave the clubhouse cold turkey and never return. Adam didn't like what he heard, and took his ball and left. I just can't wrap my head around the talk of "They had a verbal agreement, that seals the deal on everything." Well if you signed a contract to work somewhere based on an agreement that a condition be fulfilled, and then than condition was no longer fulfilled, wouldn't you want to reconsider your agreement to work there? I mean this isn't rocket science. It doesn't necessarily lead to a legal conclusion, as Badger pointed out, but one can certainly see why the parties behaved as they did. All that's left is people who want to comment on the character of the parties or weigh in on who they believe was in the right or wrong.

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.

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.

Not quite sure why Baylor insisted on playing man-to-man instead of its zone. In other news, I just ordered a s***load of boneless wings from BWs.

QUOTE (Y2JImmy0 @ Mar 17, 2016 -> 11:38 AM) I don't think it matters at all honestly. This team needed a kick in the ass. Last year they sucked, had no leadership from the manager, and no leadership from the players. Avila, Frazier, Navarro, Jackson, and Rollins have been on wing teams before. This team needs this in my opinion. Agreed. I have no problem with how any of this has happened. Seems like there wasn't much of a way around any of this. Like a few others have said, this would be more interesting if LaRoche walking away wasn't a good thing for the organization.

QUOTE (KyYlE23 @ Mar 17, 2016 -> 11:37 AM) I like where you are going with it as well but i was thinking the drugged up kid coming home from the dentist I had to google...

QUOTE (KyYlE23 @ Mar 17, 2016 -> 11:34 AM) is this real life or is this fantasy

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Mar 17, 2016 -> 11:18 AM) I remember being at Soxfest and Hahn was gushing about LaRoche, saying they do so much homework on him, how he was the closest thing to Jim Thome in the clubhouse. It seems odd they would miss that he had his kid around him for 4 years in Washington. I'm sure they knew his kid was with him. But it sounds like they didn't quite realize just how with him he is.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Mar 17, 2016 -> 11:15 AM) Uh, oh. Sounds like he is going for reprisals now. Another great example you set.

QUOTE (chitownsportsfan @ Mar 17, 2016 -> 11:12 AM) As I said 40 pages ago (lol) they probably told LaRoche, "listen, we have no problem with your kid having access to the clubhouse". LaRoche, egomaniac that he apparently is, took this as "I can have my kid around 100% of the time, even on road trips". Ok then, no wonder there was a conflict. I don't think he's an egomaniac at all. In fact, that's pretty much opposite of everything that has been said/written about LaRoche. From all accounts, he's a very solid guy. I just think he marches a bit to the beat of his own drummer and the White Sox probably didn't really contemplate what his request was when it was made.

QUOTE (OmarComing25 @ Mar 17, 2016 -> 11:08 AM) Yes, I find it really hard to believe that any supposed handshake or verbal agreement specified that Drake was allowed 100% unrestricted access to the clubhouse. That is crazy. I'm sure you are correct...bmags is most likely correct in saying the Sox likely didn't know just how omnipresent the kid would be when they agreed to this.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Mar 17, 2016 -> 11:01 AM) Well I'm just going off of what I've read, I haven't actually watched that show. He's so proud of himself for considering Trump a legitimate threat back in the summer that it appears it may have led to him actually hoping he will win now.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Mar 17, 2016 -> 10:59 AM) Things should never change. Ever. Well, there is a concept in contract law called reliance.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Mar 17, 2016 -> 10:51 AM) For a long time, Scarborough was a bit of a Trump cheerleader. He only very recently turned against him. I didn't know that...seems like he's continued to cheer for him a bit as I've watched the show recently.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Mar 17, 2016 -> 10:43 AM) If the kid is really bright, he may be ahead of other kids his age doing it this way. It isn't for everyone, and I would disagree with Adam if he thinks school is not important. But there are many students who wind up not reaching their potential doing it the traditional way. The bottom line is that our current understanding of how best to educate and socialize our children in this country is not exactly producing results which are unquestionable or unchallengeable. When you consider that he might only see his son 7-8 months of the year if he didn't bring him on the road with him, I cannot possibly flatter myself, nor do I think anyone else should so flatter themselves, as to believe they might better understand what is better for his son and his upbringing than his own father.

QUOTE (HickoryHuskers @ Mar 17, 2016 -> 10:40 AM) To me those are two very different things. Fair enough. I think the latter has actually led to the former, however.

QUOTE (Baron @ Mar 17, 2016 -> 10:37 AM) Well thank you I appreciate it. I treat it the same as with Jay Cutler's wife and the anti vaccine mentality. Again, Jesus.