Adam LaRoche retires

[jimmer]

As a Twins fan and with the White Sox being the team I dislike the most, this situation can do nothing but help us.

[Otto von Ballpark]

What is bizarre and weird to me is the overwhelming negative reaction towards a 14 year old young man accompanying his father to work. At a baseball park. Not a slaughterhouse. Not a courtroom. Not Dunder-Mifflin paper sales. A baseball park.

 

A hundred years ago 90% of the population were farmers (something like that.) 14 year olds then and now not only accompanied their fathers and mothers to work, they worked. But whatever. Obviously I am in the vast minority here. I'm just truly flabbergasted over the indignation people have over this "horrifying" concept of teaching young people experientially.

I don't have a problem with apprenticeship if it's a farmer or some other self-employed / boss situation. This is not that kind of workplace.

[big dog]

 

I don't know. I gave up playing baseball because it was too much time away from the farm in the summer, where I spent nearly all of my time from about age 8-9 on up helping my dad each day. My classmates frequently would have a missed day of class to help on the farm during the school year throughout even high school, and then your summer was basically dedicated to the farm. So that life still exists plenty, and of all my classmates, 0 have become farmers.

But you weren't working on a farm where 24 people beside your dad were also working, competing with each other, being interviewed by the media, going through slumps, worried about getting traded, etc.

[Otto von Ballpark]

To me, it's not whether or not anyone agrees with the idea of having your kid with you at work all the time (and for me, I don't think it's my place to comment on his parenting). For me, the point is he was told he could. It was a condition of his signing with the team.

 

If someone signed with a company and that someone negotiated a corner office with a great view, I imagine they would get pretty ticked off if they had to vacate that office a year later because the company decided that you needed to be with the company for 10 years, regardless of experience in the field, before you could get such and office and now that someone had to move out of it.

 

A condition of agreeing to employment. If the team had an issue with such a condition, tell the player before he signs with them and the player can move on. Once the team agrees, honor your agreement.

That analogy doesn't work. Corner office would mean a corner locker for a MLB player. Doesn't materially effect the work environment of others. Bringing a non-employee to work every day, letting them participate on the field, etc. can materially affect the work environment of others.

 

Imagine if you are a baseball pro, working in professional environments without children for years, then you get to White Sox spring training or a cup of coffee, with a limited chance to impress and hundreds of thousands in potential earnings on the line, and all of a sudden a team's leaders kid is in the mix, right alongside you in spring training drills. And you risk losing concentration on your job as you have to be cautious of this kid, how to deal with kid, how to deal with the father, etc. All the time. Every day. The kid can be an angel but that still doesn't mean his constant presence won't be a distraction to a coworker.

 

Now if the White Sox promised that access to LaRoche, it was probably inappropriate. But we don't know what conditions were attached -- in fact, LaRoche in his statement seemed to understand the situation could cause problems that would have to be addressed, even if he ultimately disagreed in how they were addressed. And the pretty much accepted fact that it wasn't a formal written guarantee of access pretty much backs up the idea that all parties knew it wasn't immutable and could be open for revision under certain conditions.

[Otto von Ballpark]

Also, the reason why it probably wasn't put into the written contract, despite the high priority assigned to it by LaRoche, is that I am guessing the union wouldn't allow such a clause. It is clearly a workplace issue, affecting more than just the parties signing that contract (LaRoche and White Sox management). A more extreme example would be if LaRoche demanded a completely silent workplace 100% of the time. It's not really his or management's right to bargain that away from other employees sharing that workspace. Having his kid thee so often is less extreme than that, but far enough outside the accepted norms of the industry that it also deserves consideration as a likely workplace distraction.

 

Management can say they are cool with it, they don't foresee any problems, they will do what they can to help work around those problems... but I think every party here knew there was no way to make this an ironclad guarantee. (Except perhaps Sale who appears to be a bit on the combative side...)

 

No doubt Williams could have handled it better, but LaRoche probably should have either been more willing to compromise, or he should have called off his attack dog teammates.

[Otto von Ballpark]

Or, of course, from a Twins fan perspective, they should have all bungled it even more.

 

Although Sox fans will probably be even more unsufferable if they have a good year and this gets cited as a great challenge they had to overcome...

[Dman]

 

To me, it's not whether or not anyone agrees with the idea of having your kid with you at work all the time (and for me, I don't think it's my place to comment on his parenting). For me, the point is he was told he could.  It was a condition of his signing with the team.

 

If someone signed with a company and that someone negotiated a corner office with a great view, I imagine they would get pretty ticked off if they had to vacate that office a year later because the company decided that you needed to be with the company for 10 years, regardless of experience in the field, before you could get such and office and now that someone had to move out of it.

 

A condition of agreeing to employment.  If the team had an issue with such a condition, tell the player before he signs with them and the player can move on. Once the team agrees, honor your agreement.

 

Yep to me you are dead on.  They agreed to what LaRoche wanted and so they should honor that agreement.  Some might think it bizarre or whatever but the Whitesox agreed to it and then LaRoche agreed to sign.  The Whitesox never should have agreed to it in the first place, but they did.  This whole issue is on them.

[ewen21]

 

You ignored the point I made that it was very common from March to May each spring and in September and October for kids in my class to miss full weeks of class to help on the farm during planting, harvest, and calving seasons on their respective farms, so while my parents didn't pull me frequently, it did happen a few times.

You are pulling your children from school during important farming seasons  Your children are actually WORKING to help the family business.  That is entirely different than Drake LaRoche tagging along with his daddy at work.  Drake LaRoche is an indulgence which is a lot different that your example.

Drake's presence is completely pointless other than to give LaRoche personal satisfaction.  He's an interference, a distraction and serves no purpose.  

[ewen21]

 

Yep to me you are dead on.  They agreed to what LaRoche wanted and so they should honor that agreement.  Some might think it bizarre or whatever but the Whitesox agreed to it and then LaRoche agreed to sign.  The Whitesox never should have agreed to it in the first place, but they did.  This whole issue is on them.

No, it is not.  The discussion about the White Sox honoring this "agreement" means virtually nothing.  The issue is WHY is Adam LaRoche so special?  Is it now OK for all major league dads to have their children tag along?  If so do we need to take a step back and look at the situation thanks to this?  Drake was present for 120 games.  He had his own locker, practiced with the team, was on chartered flights.  Don't LaRoche's teammates have the right to complain about this?  LaRoche and his son made this an issue.  Pure and simple

 

This idea that it is really the White Sox fault is absurd.  It's LaRoche.  He took things too far.  He was given a special privilege and took it to the extreme.  

[ewen21]

 

I don't presume to know Laroche's motivation. Nor do I put much stock in out of context quotes. Maybe he is some self-centered jerk and this whole thing is indeed a contrived way to win a parent of the year award.

I just disagree with those who think the notion of a 14 year old young man spending time at work with his dad is somehow bizarre. Unusual in this day and age, yes. Which is unfortunate--but hey, that is just my opinion.

You are mischaracterizing the situation.  This is not about a kid spending "some time" with his father at work.  This is about a kid who was a fixture as his dad's job.

http://deadspin.com/it-looks-like-a-bunch-of-white-sox-players-had-a-proble-1765924819

 

It IS bizarre for a kid to spend that much time tagging along with his dad at work.  There are no analogies that fit.  This is an annoying sense of entitlement given to this kid.  In days of yore children worked when they were out of school.  This is a totally unique situation which only can be compared to other players around the league.  It makes you wonder.....how many other kids are this present in major league clubhouses?  I have never heard of such a thing.  This is wayyyyy excessive.

What is it with baseball players expecting to be treated like royalty?  LaRoche put his own ego before the team.  Having his son around as much as he was is an unnecessary indulgence.  If players and staff complained about the kid interfering then good for Williams.  He was the fall guy in this situation and he actually protected the privacy of the players who complained.

 

No more information is necessary.  LaRoche took this too far.  He and Drake need to go to Disneyland.  Good bye and good riddance

 

[ewen21]

 

I agree with you in principle.  As much as we wish it should, one's principals can't dictate how management deals with an employee's contractual and workplace issues.  The Whitesox were in the position to keep such a provision out of the contract, or not agree to the premise, but they hog-tied themselves.   My premise, that we would need to know about the contract before determining what Williams, Ventura, and LaRouche should have done still stands.  That I think LaRouche wanting to rear his kid in the clubhouse is bizarre has no bearing on how management should have handled it. 

I don't think how the White Sox handled it should be the issue.  I think the issue is how much "rights" does an employee have to take their children to a place of employment. I am not talking about a situation where it is a family business and children come to help.  LaRoche is just an employee of the White Sox.  You are right.  We don't know what the deal was....however, that isn't the issue.  This is WHY did LaRoche expect that much?  What about the "rights" of the other players to prepare free of this distraction?  TO what level is a player allowed to do this?

 

I had never heard of anything like this.  LaRoche's needs were excessive.  Pure and simple

[ewen21]

 

I would suggest that any apprenticeship is beneficial to young adults.  Like bigben, I and most of my friends grew up on farms, though few to none of them farm now.  I think we were part of the last generation of farm kids.  I took me a while to realize how much I'd learned just about hard work, ethical behavior, and resilience from that experience.  Its been an advantage for me my whole life.  

 

 

Working on a farm is the family business.  Your dad makes those decisions.

 

The analogy doesn't work in this case.  Even worse, LaRoche set a HORRIBLE example for his son in the end.  By not getting his way, and quitting as a result, he sends a terrible message to his son.  Drake had an uncommon privilege. He got to chill with major leaguers. How is that teaching him ethics and resiliency?

 

It's actually stunning to read some of the analogies presented here. doing farm work for your family vs. chilling in a major league clubhouse with your millionaire daddy?
 

[Otto von Ballpark]

Yep to me you are dead on. They agreed to what LaRoche wanted and so they should honor that agreement. Some might think it bizarre or whatever but the Whitesox agreed to it and then LaRoche agreed to sign. The Whitesox never should have agreed to it in the first place, but they did. This whole issue is on them.

I think it is far from clear that they agreed to it in the ironclad, 100% guaranteed manner you are suggesting they had to honor at all costs. If it wasn't in the written contract, as is pretty much confirmed - why not? It was a priority for LaRoche, he employs an agent for the primary purpose of managing contracts, and is backed by arguably the most powerful union in the world. But it probably isn't in the written contract because it would never be allowed in a written contract, because its affects go beyond the two parties in the contract, which means that whatever agreement they came to on the issue, whatever promise the White Sox made, all likely understood it was impossible to make it an ironclad, 100% guarantee.

 

You could promise Drake a locker and hotel accomodations, but you can't promise he can be a permanent presence in traditionally team-only times and functions -- the latter could easily be a violation of workplace rules/expectations for other players. Just like you could promise a player that there would be a vegan option in the post game spread, but you can't promise a meatless clubhouse. Or you could promise a player a separate quiet space he could use in the stadium, but you couldn't promise that the team would be silent in the clubhouse for him. Etc.

 

I have no doubt the White Sox handled parts of this poorly, but there is no way to put it completely on them, given what we know.

[Dman]

 

No, it is not.  The discussion about the White Sox honoring this "agreement" means virtually nothing.  The issue is WHY is Adam LaRoche so special?  Is it now OK for all major league dads to have their children tag along?  If so do we need to take a step back and look at the situation thanks to this?  Drake was present for 120 games.  He had his own locker, practiced with the team, was on chartered flights.  Don't LaRoche's teammates have the right to complain about this?  LaRoche and his son made this an issue.  Pure and simple

 

This idea that it is really the White Sox fault is absurd.  It's LaRoche.  He took things too far.  He was given a special privilege and took it to the extreme.  

 

None of this is relevant though if the Whitesox said no to LaRoche from the beginning.  There was only an issue when the terms changed.  They should have never promised or allowed it from the beginning.  It is on them to see that this was a bad idea from the beginning.

 

I will concede that LaRoche is taking an all or nothing approach which is extreme but again the WhiteSox should have asked more questions and probed the situation better before saying it was fine for him to do that.

 

I can agree that it might impact players etc but disagree with the blame being put on LaRoche when the Whitesox appeared to change the terms.  They set the 120 game precedent last year why would or should he expect anything different this year?

 

 

[Dman]

 

I think it is far from clear that they agreed to it in the ironclad, 100% guaranteed manner you are suggesting they had to honor at all costs. If it wasn't in the written contract, as is pretty much confirmed - why not? It was a priority for LaRoche, he employs an agent for the primary purpose of managing contracts, and is backed by arguably the most powerful union in the world. But it probably isn't in the written contract because it would never be allowed in a written contract, because its affects go beyond the two parties in the contract, which means that whatever agreement they came to on the issue, whatever promise the White Sox made, all likely understood it was impossible to make it an ironclad, 100% guarantee.

You could promise Drake a locker and hotel accomodations, but you can't promise he can be a permanent presence in traditionally team-only times and functions -- the latter could easily be a violation of workplace rules/expectations for other players. Just like you could promise a player that there would be a vegan option in the post game spread, but you can't promise a meatless clubhouse. Or you could promise a player a separate quiet space he could use in the stadium, but you couldn't promise that the team would be silent in the clubhouse for him. Etc.

I have no doubt the White Sox handled parts of this poorly, but there is no way to put it completely on them, given what we know.

 

Your logic is sound there.  I do not know what was or was not agreed to, but really the White Sox set the precedent for expectations last year when he was given a locker and allowed there throughout the season.  To me that means that was the agreement else they would have said something during the year last year but they didn't.  The precedent is set why should he expect anything else.  They should have never allowed it in the first place.

 

I will quibble with your analogy.  In your analogy none of  the things promised appear to be a condition of employment.  In LaRoche's case it was a condition of employment.  I think those are very different scenario's.  I think most of us agree that if you are promised something as a condition of employment and it is taken away you would likely move on.

[SweetOne69]

 

I don't think how the White Sox handled it should be the issue.  I think the issue is how much "rights" does an employee have to take their children to a place of employment. I am not talking about a situation where it is a family business and children come to help.  LaRoche is just an employee of the White Sox.  You are right.  We don't know what the deal was....however, that isn't the issue.  This is WHY did LaRoche expect that much?  What about the "rights" of the other players to prepare free of this distraction?  TO what level is a player allowed to do this?

 

I had never heard of anything like this.  LaRoche's needs were excessive.  Pure and simple

Actually, LaRoche is not an employee of the White Sox.  He is an independent contractor.  Under his previous contract he was allowed to have his son in the clubhouse (for 3 years prior to coming to the White Sox).  When he was looking to sign a new contract he wanted the same privileges as a condition on agreeing to work for them.  The White Sox agreed to these privileges so he agreed to work for them for 2 years.  After 1 year, the White Sox decide to restrict/revoke the very privileges that enticed LaRoche to sign with them in the first place.  It doesn't matter if LaRoche's needs were excessive or not, the team agreed to them at the time he was signed.  They should honor it for the length of his contract.

[nicksaviking]

 

I don't have a problem with apprenticeship if it's a farmer or some other self-employed / boss situation. This is not that kind of workplace.

 

Exactly, because the odds of you having the ability to become a blacksmith or farmer due to your education under tutelage in that field is much higher than becoming a professional athlete.

[Vanimal46]

 

Actually, LaRoche is not an employee of the White Sox.  He is an independent contractor.  Under his previous contract he was allowed to have his son in the clubhouse (for 3 years prior to coming to the White Sox).  When he was looking to sign a new contract he wanted the same privileges as a condition on agreeing to work for them.  The White Sox agreed to these privileges so he agreed to work for them for 2 years.  After 1 year, the White Sox decide to restrict/revoke the very privileges that enticed LaRoche to sign with them in the first place.  It doesn't matter if LaRoche's needs were excessive or not, the team agreed to them at the time he was signed.  They should honor it for the length of his contract.

Do you really think the White Sox agreed to have Drake LaRoche present in their clubhouse 100% of the time? I agree that having his son in the clubhouse was certainly discussed before agreeing to sign his contract with the White Sox. I'm assuming during the negotiation process it was mentioned LaRoche would like to bring his son in the clubhouse, which they agreed upon.

I'm not assuming that there was any sort of percentage put on there in his contract on how much Drake is allowed in the clubhouse.... Like it was mentioned before, Kenny Williams said 50% of the time would be acceptable for his kid to be in the clubhouse. They were still honoring the terms, but LaRoche didn't feel 50% was good enough. 

[Squirrel]

 

Actually, LaRoche is not an employee of the White Sox.  He is an independent contractor.  Under his previous contract he was allowed to have his son in the clubhouse (for 3 years prior to coming to the White Sox).  When he was looking to sign a new contract he wanted the same privileges as a condition on agreeing to work for them.  The White Sox agreed to these privileges so he agreed to work for them for 2 years.  After 1 year, the White Sox decide to restrict/revoke the very privileges that enticed LaRoche to sign with them in the first place.  It doesn't matter if LaRoche's needs were excessive or not, the team agreed to them at the time he was signed.  They should honor it for the length of his contract.

But LaRoche also said as part of the agreement that if there were any issues going forward, he would work to resolve them. And he didn't. From what I've been hearing/reading locally, that in his initial meeting with Ken Williams when he was asked to lessen the time Drake was there ... again, don't know specifics of said meeting ... LaRoche agreed. Then it was discovered that after agreeing he still brought his son with him the same amount of time, basically ignoring the request from management even after agreeing to it. That's when Williams 'lost it' and told him not at all. But after both parties calmed down, thought on it, Williams came back to his initial conversation with him, but LaRoche had decided to retire.

[nicksaviking]

 

 It doesn't matter if LaRoche's needs were excessive or not, the team agreed to them at the time he was signed.  They should honor it for the length of his contract.

 

If this stuff was actually in the contract and LaRoche wanted it honored, the MLBPA would already be filing a grievance. If this was of the utmost importance to him, he should have gotten it in writing, just like he did the terms of his pay. If the White Sox are backtracking off of some verbal discussion that's legal, they may pay for it in future contract talks/free agency, but that's their prerogative.

 

I also think it's crazy to assume Chris Sale speaks for all White Sox players. Just because the team ace and the most integral person on the team is upset doesn't mean everyone else is. It's unlikely the guys who are much more expendable than Sale are going to publicly say they disagree with him, and judging by the majority of responses here, having a co-workers kids at the workplace every day is not a popular sentiment.

[biggentleben]

If this stuff was actually in the contract and LaRoche wanted it honored, the MLBPA would already be filing a grievance. If this was of the utmost importance to him, he should have gotten it in writing, just like he did the terms of his pay. If the White Sox are backtracking off of some verbal discussion that's legal, they may pay for it in future contract talks/free agency, but that's their prerogative.

 

I also think it's crazy to assume Chris Sale speaks for all White Sox players. Just because the team ace and the most integral person on the team is upset doesn't mean everyone else is. It's unlikely the guys who are much more expendable than Sale are going to publicly say they disagree with him, and judging by the majority of responses here, having a co-workers kids at the workplace every day is not a popular sentiment.

The mlbpa did announce they are pursuing a grievance now that LaRoche turned in his papers.

[Dman]

 

Do you really think the White Sox agreed to have Drake LaRoche present in their clubhouse 100% of the time? 

 

I think the answer to this question lies with the Nationals.  Supposedly whatever happened there LaRoche expected to happen in Chicago and I assume the White Sox anticipated would happen with them.  If his son was with the Nationals all year long then the White Sox had to know what the expectations were.

[Squirrel]

 

The mlbpa did announce they are pursuing a grievance now that LaRoche turned in his papers.

I would expect them to, whether it was in writing or not, because it involves an employee and what he felt were the terms of his contract. And the outcome will be interesting ... how binding is a verbal agreement? And, maybe we'll find out to what degree details were discussed and agreed to? But if it had been in writing, I think they would/could have intervened sooner and instantly as that would have been a completely different set of circumstances. If it had been in writing I don't think Williams could have just changed or voided that part of his contract. And, as I said, LaRoche said himself that if there were any issues regarding his son, that he would resolve them. But perhaps that meant any behavioral or attitude issues with his son, not response others were having to him being around at all, as from all accounts I've read nothing but positive comments regarding his son's conduct.

 

As I've said from the beginning, what interests me most about this is what we don't know.

[Vanimal46]

 

If this stuff was actually in the contract and LaRoche wanted it honored, the MLBPA would already be filing a grievance. If this was of the utmost importance to him, he should have gotten it in writing, just like he did the terms of his pay. If the White Sox are backtracking off of some verbal discussion that's legal, they may pay for it in future contract talks/free agency, but that's their prerogative.

 

I also think it's crazy to assume Chris Sale speaks for all White Sox players. Just because the team ace and the most integral person on the team is upset doesn't mean everyone else is. It's unlikely the guys who are much more expendable than Sale are going to publicly say they disagree with him, and judging by the majority of responses here, having a co-workers kids at the workplace every day is not a popular sentiment.

I think Frank Lucas in American Gangster sums up the Sale situation... 

http://media-cache-ec0.pinimg.com/236x/d0/d8/d6/d0d8d61d9303f756b103f6e642d0c948.jpg

 

Sale can be vocal about this because his job security is that good on the White Sox. Doesn't mean that he has 24 other people behind him on this matter.

Like you said, I'm willing to bet there's a silent majority in that clubhouse that complained to Williams about this matter, and are unwilling to go public on it. I don't blame them for that one bit... 

[Dman]

 

 

I also think it's crazy to assume Chris Sale speaks for all White Sox players. Just because the team ace and the most integral person on the team is upset doesn't mean everyone else is. It's unlikely the guys who are much more expendable than Sale are going to publicly say they disagree with him, and judging by the majority of responses here, having a co-workers kids at the workplace every day is not a popular sentiment.

 

I don't think Sale speaks for all the players but the article I read said that the TEAM was going to boycott\forfeit their spring training game in protest of what happened.  I don't think Chris could do that all by himself.  There is teammate support for LaRoche and likely more than just a handful.  Does anyone want to speak out about it. Probably not and especially now that management has specifically asked them not to.

[Vanimal46]

 

I think the answer to this question lies with the Nationals.  Supposedly whatever happened there LaRoche expected to happen in Chicago and I assume the White Sox anticipated would happen with them.  If his son was with the Nationals all year long then the White Sox had to know what the expectations were.

Could be. How would the White Sox know during negotiations that Drake was in the Nationals club house 100% of the time? I don't think the White Sox had to know what the expectations were if the terms were never discussed. 

This situation is obviously important to LaRoche, so I think we can make the assumption that this was brought up early in the negotiation process. He probably let the White Sox know that before we get too far down the path, I'd like for my son to be with me in the clubhouse. The White Sox agreed to that and moved forward with salary negotiation. 

I could be dead wrong, but I highly doubt written into the contract were the terms "Drake LaRoche gets to be in the clubhouse x% of the time" - if it is, then I'd like to start negotiating my employment contracts with the White Sox, because that is incredibly stupid to do. 

[biggentleben]

 

I would expect them to, whether it was in writing or not, because it involves an employee and what he felt were the terms of his contract. And the outcome will be interesting ... how binding is a verbal agreement? And, maybe we'll find out to what degree details were discussed and agreed to? But if it had been in writing, I think they would/could have intervened sooner and instantly as that would have been a completely different set of circumstances. If it had been in writing I don't think Williams could have just changed or voided that part of his contract. And, as I said, LaRoche said himself that if there were any issues regarding his son, that he would resolve them. But perhaps that meant any behavioral or attitude issues with his son, not response others were having to him being around at all, as from all accounts I've read nothing but positive comments regarding his son's conduct.

 

As I've said from the beginning, what interests me most about this is what we don't know.

 

And the one source I had stated there was something in the contract that didn't specifically outline Drake, but did address family being present, so there may be something written as well, but as you said, there's so much we don't know that it's going to be an incredible thing to watch unfold.

[Squirrel]

 

And the one source I had stated there was something in the contract that didn't specifically outline Drake, but did address family being present, so there may be something written as well, but as you said, there's so much we don't know that it's going to be an incredible thing to watch unfold.

Precedent setting, even. We could see both sides begin to be extremely detailed and specific about in-writing contractual issues.

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

Your logic is sound there.  I do not know what was or was not agreed to, but really the White Sox set the precedent for expectations last year when he was given a locker and allowed there throughout the season.  To me that means that was the agreement else they would have said something during the year last year but they didn't.  The precedent is set why should he expect anything else.  They should have never allowed it in the first place.

It's possible that it wasn't brought to Williams' attention until after last season.  The fact that it apparently had the team's blessing probably made dissenting players or staff members hold back for quite a while.  Or perhaps it was brought to Williams' attention, but he was able to "put out the fire" so to speak without involving LaRoche, but by this spring it became too much.

 

 

I will quibble with your analogy.  In your analogy none of  the things promised appear to be a condition of employment.  In LaRoche's case it was a condition of employment.  I think those are very different scenario's.  I think most of us agree that if you are promised something as a condition of employment and it is taken away you would likely move on.

 

That's fine if LaRoche elevated that to a condition of employment, and if wants to retire over it, that's fine too.  I don't care.  But it was likely naive of him and his agent to expect the verbal assurance to be any more binding or ironclad than my example "conditions of employment" like a meat-free clubhouse buffet or a silent locker room.  Hence why it was rather pointless to apparently get indignant about a request to revise the policy, and rather inappropriate to let Sale and Eaton complain so vocally on his behalf and apparently engage in a bit of a witch-hunt to find out who was dissatisfied by the kid's presence.

[Dman]

 

Could be. How would the White Sox know during negotiations that Drake was in the Nationals club house 100% of the time? I don't think the White Sox had to know what the expectations were if the terms were never discussed. 

This situation is obviously important to LaRoche, so I think we can make the assumption that this was brought up early in the negotiation process. He probably let the White Sox know that before we get too far down the path, I'd like for my son to be with me in the clubhouse. The White Sox agreed to that and moved forward with salary negotiation. 

I could be dead wrong, but I highly doubt written into the contract were the terms "Drake LaRoche gets to be in the clubhouse x% of the time" - if it is, then I'd like to start negotiating my employment contracts with the White Sox, because that is incredibly stupid to do. 

 

I only have the information from the articles I have read and TD.  In one article it was explained that LaRoche had WhiteSox management reach out to the Nationals about how the proposed son hanging out all season went.  Supposedly the WhiteSox did that and felt comfortable enough to at least verbally agree to those terms.  But again I only know what I read and comment off of that.