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.

Tom Shaer was just on with Laurence Holmes and mentioned that guys complained last year as well.

Then why didn't KW say anything then?

I wonder if a player wants to bring his 14 year old daughter into the clubhouse , would that be okay as well.

Daughters are not allowed. LaRoche has a daughter.

Daughters are not allowed. LaRoche has a daughter.

 

"Adam gets to bring his son, but I can't bring my daughter? So we're discriminating now?"

"Adam gets to bring his son, but I can't bring my daughter? So we're discriminating now?"

Yes. Adam can't bring his daughter either. On the other hand there probably isn't a father in the world who would have any desire to bring his girl around a Major League Baseball team.

Yes. Adam can't bring his daughter either. On the other hand there probably isn't a father in the world who would have any desire to bring his girl around a Major League Baseball team.

 

Well, that's not fair. Especially if wives get to come hang out at the ballpark.

Why not?

I don't think an environment that includes naked men is a place most dads want to subject their 8 year old daughter.

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.

If my working there was 100% contingent on this specific condition being fulfilled, no exceptions, then that condition would be written into the contract.

Todd Frazier laughs at LaRoche's production

I don't think an environment that includes naked men is a place most dads want to subject their 8 year old daughter.

 

 

I don't think an environment that includes naked men is a place most dads want to subject their 14 year old son.

I don't think an environment that includes naked men is a place most dads want to subject their 14 year old son.

A lot of 14 year olds are in YMCA locker rooms all over the country.

Obviously this thread is still going.

1. We all agree that we are happy he is gone.

2. The leadership dynamic is different

3. The guys who are leading will bring this team together.

4. The "leaders" last year are now in the backseat.

 

I'm ok with everything.

Edited March 18, 201610 yr by RockRaines

This too shall pass, but tomorrow is going to be interesting as hell.

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.

Honestly, no one needed to be wrong in this situation

 

http://chicago.suntimes.com/sports/laroche...te-sox-ventura/

I don't think an environment that includes naked men is a place most dads want to subject their 8 year old daughter.

 

But it is ok for a 13-14 year old boy to be there

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.

Honestly, no one needed to be wrong in this situation

 

http://chicago.suntimes.com/sports/laroche...te-sox-ventura/

So this one said new players stepped up and let KW have it. Eaton loves the Drake,

So this one said new players stepped up and let KW have it. Eaton loves the Drake,

 

Sure, when you bring in a ton of them, I'm sure there were a few who were with him. Lawrie I believe is one

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.

 

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.

I don't think an environment that includes naked men is a place most dads want to subject their 8 year old daughter.

 

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.

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?

So this one said new players stepped up and let KW have it. Eaton loves the Drake,

Publicly he does.

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?

Publicly he does.

If Eaton really didn't like the kid he would be the greatest actor of all time.