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?

This arguement is silly. They are a distraction when they are ariund too much. My neighbors kids are great but once they've been around the ehole weekend I get tired of them. It is a time factor. It has everything to do with being around too much.

Edited March 17, 201610 yr by ptatc

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.

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?

 

Easy...someone complained to KW

Which is why Drake shouldn't have had his own locker and unlimited access---last year.

 

Why is it so unreasonable to think they tried it, weren't sure about it, and then got more complaints about it this year, so they decided to fix it.

 

This stuff happens in the real world every day.

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?

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.

Yes they are. But in all the sports locker rooms ive been in baseball gives kids the most access. LaRoche just abused the privilege.

Exactly, Nightengale's column hit on that. Kids are around clubhouses once in awhile, or maybe home games. But to be around 100% of the time whereever his dad was, traveling with them on the plane and living in the hotel? Its ok to ask to have that dialed back.

Why is it so unreasonable to think they tried it, weren't sure about it, and then got more complaints about it this year, so they decided to fix it.

 

This stuff happens in the real world every day.

 

A baseball clubhouse/lifestyle isn't the real world. It just isn't.

 

And if they decided to fix it, it should have been in November or December when they started talking about spring training and how it would be run.

Exactly, Nightengale's column hit on that. Kids are around clubhouses once in awhile, or maybe home games. But to be around 100% of the time whereever his dad was, traveling with them on the plane and living in the hotel? Its ok to ask to have that dialed back.

 

Especially if they feel Adam didn't live up to expectations last year due to potential lack of focus/preparation.

On Mike and Mike right now they are discussing how Robin had to basically beg the players to play yesterday after they found out Kenny stepped into the office and made the no LaRoche jr allowed in the clubhouse every day rule.

Sounds like a team all on the same page, but I would guess someone probably complained behind the scenes and that's why this happened.

 

edited to make more sense, sorry still on my 1st cup of coffee

 

ohhh this is bullshiite, a team mutiny over a exec decision that really not even a in-game baseball decisions.

 

but if this is true, how could the FO deal with this.... i guess RV did it right.

 

but this is bullshiite from the players. i wonder who is the leading player making this decision. there is always a leader

That seems... weird. A dissension that extreme is the last thing this team needs. All the positive "improved clubhouse atmosphere" stories from the days prior were refreshing.

 

Yet two days ago those were categorized as fluff pieces by most of Soxtalk.

And if they decided to fix it, it should have been in November or December when they started talking about spring training and how it would be run.

 

I agree with that, but that's why the most simple explanation is one of the newer player(s) complained to KW about it.

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.

If you can work 5 days a week, why not all 7? If you can work you can work.

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.

Edited March 17, 201610 yr by Dick Allen

"FamilyFirst" >>> The Will To Win

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.

 

This from the one guy on Soxtalk who has actually been around pro sports team on a daily basis

"FamilyFirst" >>> The Will To Win

This story won't go away simply because it has too many compelling storylines for non-sports fans.

 

Someone supposedly willing to walk away from $13 million, an amount of money only 3-5% of Americans will earn in their lifetime.

 

Workplace rules and regulations...everyone can identify with bosses in family businesses who had their kids around the workplace too frequently.

 

"FamilyFirst" and the dramatic battle of "good vs. evil" if you care to follow that to its logical conclusion...

 

Bryce Harper.

 

Conflicting ideas of what it means to be a "good or highly-involved" parent.

 

Entitlement of modern-day athletes.

 

It's hard to imagine "The View" not having a round table discussion and late night talk shows not using it as comedy material. Trump, Clinton and Obama should be providing their own soundbites in the coming days.

 

The "self-righteousness" of those with strong Christian beliefs (in terms of a world viewpoint) vs. modern-day/secular America.

Edited March 17, 201610 yr by caulfield12

ohhh this is bullshiite, a team mutiny over a exec decision that really not even a in-game baseball decisions.

 

but if this is true, how could the FO deal with this.... i guess RV did it right.

 

but this is bullshiite from the players. i wonder who is the leading player making this decision. there is always a leader

 

Sale, Frazier and Eaton are my picks to click. Remember the meeting went very long, so it could be where they didn't want to play because they didn't get to do their normal stretching routine, etc.

I agree with that, but that's why the most simple explanation is one of the newer player(s) complained to KW about it.

 

Bingo. Occams Razor.

We need to bring in illinilaw.

 

If LaRoche was promised that privilege, everyone in the Sox organization (especially the players) were aware of this fact, as well as some of his ex-teammates like Harper or Boyer...would the White Sox be covered legally because there wasn't an explicit promise written into the contract?

 

 

At any rate, it still makes the White Sox look bad if that was the case. They shouldn't have offered that "open clubhouse" policy in the first place unless they were willing to deal with the consequences.

 

KW comes off here as more of a bully who's hiding behind not wanting to set a precedent for other players (in the future) when that's exactly what they did in the first place apparently.

 

 

As an employment lawyer, I'll weigh in:

 

If he was promised that privilege, he would have the right to file a grievance over its breach to have it fulfilled. But the labor law maxim: "Work now, grieve later" applies. And even if that unwritten clause were insanely judged to be a "material" term or condition of employment, the law wouldn't allow him to unilaterally decide not to perform, but still collect pay for performing.

 

 

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.

Edited March 17, 201610 yr by Dick Allen

My guess - they never explicitly mentioned 100%.

 

I'm going to guess Adam mentioned how he likes to bring his kid around the clubhouse and sox said it's an open clubhouse.

 

Pure speculation, but thinking Sox didn't realize full breadth of it being everyday, trip, etc

 

Sale, Frazier and Eaton are my picks to click. Remember the meeting went very long, so it could be where they didn't want to play because they didn't get to do their normal stretching routine, etc.

 

now i wish the media experts take this a rpt on it.....

 

this is pure and simply ugly for players to overreact.

 

the players are employees and the boss says this are the new rules of the day, and if it not against the union rules, the players have no ground to threaten and mutiny by refusing to play.

now i wish the media experts take this a rpt on it.....

 

this is pure and simply ugly for players to overreact.

 

the players are employees and the boss says this are the new rules of the day, and if it not against the union rules, the players have no ground to threaten and mutiny by refusing to play.

 

The Sox have a few high-profile players that speak/act first before thinking it through (I'm sure every team does).

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?

 

Still arguing I see