Adam LaRoche retires

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

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.

Two things:

 

1) The team didn't actually boycott

 

2) Sale suggesting that the team boycott is essentially an attempt to expose the dissenters.  The players probably felt they had no choice but to go along lest they be labeled as non-supportive of LaRoche and Sale.  Many were probably relieved when Ventura stopped the boycott idea.

[Dman]

 

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.

 

 

 

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.

 

Touche.  Verbal agreements are dangerous and cannot be relied upon.  They are based on trust and Honor.  LaRoche is doing the honorable thing and retiring the White Sox just don't come off looking trustworthy or honorable in their approach to this situation.  That is just the way I see it and kind of how Sale explained it. Certainly more information will come out and it could drastically change the way I feel but given what I know now I'll still side with LaRoche.

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

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

Not quite.  The MLBPA is "monitoring" the situation.  Maybe it's semantics, but at this point they don't even know whether they have grounds for a grievance, much less whether they will "pursue" one.  The fact that several days have passed without further information suggests that they don't indeed have grounds for a grievance (a written contract clause would almost certainly have been revealed by now -- why would LaRoche and his agent omit that from his prepared statement on the matter?).

[Squirrel]

 

Not quite.  The MLBPA is "monitoring" the situation.  Maybe it's semantics, but at this point they don't even know whether they have grounds for a grievance, much less whether they will "pursue" one.  The fact that several days have passed without further information suggests that they don't indeed have grounds for a grievance (a written contract clause would almost certainly have been revealed by now -- why would LaRoche and his agent omit that from his prepared statement on the matter?).

Or LaRoche doesn't want to pursue it.

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

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.

As I said, a written contract clause relating to this is not only unlikely to be revealed now, but such a clause (in any form that would justify LaRoche's "100%" claims) would never have been approved by the MLBPA.  They aren't in the habit of bargaining away members' workplace rights/expectations without member input.

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

Or LaRoche doesn't want to pursue it.

If a team violated a written contract clause, I suspect the MLBPA would pursue it regardless of what the player wanted.  The issue would be a lot larger than LaRoche's preferences at that point.  The MLBPA doesn't even let players lower their agreed-upon salaries to change teams (remember A-Rod to the Red Sox?), there's no way they'd let a team blatantly violate a written contract.

[Dman]

 

Two things:

 

1) The team didn't actually boycott

 

2) Sale suggesting that the team boycott is essentially an attempt to expose the dissenters.  The players probably felt they had no choice but to go along lest they be labeled as non-supportive of LaRoche and Sale.  Many were probably relieved when Ventura stopped the boycott idea.

 

Obviously we can't know who was affected by the kid as no one seems to be willing to complain about it except Williams.  The fact that Laroche did this with the Nationals for three years and it never was an issue doesn't really support your theory that many players were relieved that the boycott didn't happen.  They all might still be pissed at Williams for letting things get to this point.  We don't know.

 

 I mean the vast majority of the reports about this kid are glowing and there is nothing negative about his time with the Nationals. I think the evidence right now is almost non-existent that players are up in arms over the kid hanging out.  There appears to be more evidence that the players don't care if he is there or not or that they actually like the kid.  So relieved that the Boycott didn't happen and a witch hunt for the dissenters I doubt it.  Just some players not understanding why this matters now when it didn't before is the far more likely scenario.

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

Touche.  Verbal agreements are dangerous and cannot be relied upon.  They are based on trust and Honor.  LaRoche is doing the honorable thing and retiring the White Sox just don't come off looking trustworthy or honorable in their approach to this situation.  That is just the way I see it and kind of how Sale explained it. Certainly more information will come out and it could drastically change the way I feel but given what I know now I'll still side with LaRoche.

Chris Sale tried to get into the Royals clubhouse to fight after he was ejected in an on-field brawl last April.  I really wouldn't read too much into his statements except that he's a bit combative, he's trying to support a friend, and he doesn't have anything to lose by being critical of others.

 

Obviously none of us know the exact terms of the verbal assurance the White Sox made to LaRoche before signing, but again, if it wasn't written (and was probably forbidden from being written by the MLBPA), that suggests that all parties knew a later modification was a possible outcome.  They bungled the PR and damage control, but I can't see that they did anything untrustworthy or dishonorable, at least no more than LaRoche if he initially ignored Williams' request this spring, and then let his friends lead a witch-hunt to try finding the source of the complaints.

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

Obviously we can't know who was affected by the kid as no one seems to be willing to complain about it except Williams.

You do see why this is an impossible request, right?  There is no positive benefit, and large negative consequences, to any player or staff member to complain publicly about Drake LaRoche.

 

 

The fact that Laroche did this with the Nationals for three years and it never was an issue doesn't really support your theory that many players were relieved that the boycott didn't happen.  They all might still be pissed at Williams for letting things get to this point.  We don't know.

 

 I mean the vast majority of the reports about this kid are glowing and there is nothing negative about his time with the Nationals. I think the evidence right now is almost non-existent that players are up in arms over the kid hanging out.  There appears to be more evidence that the players don't care if he is there or not or that they actually like the kid.  So relieved that the Boycott didn't happen and a witch hunt for the dissenters I doubt it.  Just some players not understanding why this matters now when it didn't before is the far more likely scenario.

 

A boycott didn't happen.  I think that's all the evidence I need that most of the players weren't in favor of a boycott, at least not remotely as much as Sale.  Robin Ventura is not a good enough orator to dissuade 25+ members of the most powerful union on earth.

 

I'm not suggesting a majority of players were annoyed by LaRoche's kid.  Maybe only a couple took the step of complaining to Williams.  But I'd guess that the vast majority of players probably endorse the explicit or implied limits on child access that exist for every single other professional sports team, and thus don't care if those isolated complaints re-established that status quo and prompted the retirement of a 78 OPS+ DH with a bad back.

[Dman]

 

Or LaRoche doesn't want to pursue it.

 

I think you might be right.  I don't think he wants to make waves with the White Sox or his former teammates.  If we can believe the letter he wrote he understands the privileges he had in bringing his son with him to work.  His body is hurt, he hasn't been playing well and the agreement he had with the White Sox about his son appears over so maybe just honorably retire and let everyone move on is his motivation but it all got tangled up in the process.  Time will tell.

 

[Squirrel]

 

I think you might be right.  I don't think he wants to make waves with the White Sox or his former teammates.  If we can believe the letter he wrote he understands the privileges he had in bringing his son with him to work.  His body is hurt, he hasn't been playing well and the agreement he had with the White Sox about his son appears over so maybe just honorably retire and let everyone move on is his motivation but it all got tangled up in the process.  Time will tell.

Yeah ... but this situation could still have ramifications moving forward for both teams and players when it comes time to negotiating contracts. That part still intrigues me ... and what was/wasn't said/agreed to in the process. Things we will likely only ever be able to speculate on. But the tangled up part ... both Williams and Sale had huge parts in that, imo. Williams more so, but Sale is no less a hot head.

[tobi0040]

This nugget came out yesterday.  Not sure if it news to the thread but it is to me.    You know the story had more to it.  If the players were 100% united and lied to by the GM, who also re-negged on his agreement with LaRoche he would be fired.  Especially since his teams typically have higher payrolls, flashy moves, without the results (since 2005 at least).

 

http://mlb.nbcsports.com/2016/03/20/it-finally-comes-out-several-white-sox-players-complained-about-drake-laroche/?ocid=Yahoo&partner=ya5nbcs

[Vanimal46]

Not surprising to read that at all. It was clear that there were some players that came to KW to complain. Williams was doing what anyone in upper management would do - keep those names protected and put the blame on himself. 

Eaton and Sale were the most vocal out of all players on this matter, and most likely in the minority in their own clubhouse on this situation. 

Honestly, anyone in Vegas should bet the under on this team right now. 

[Dman]

 

You do see why this is an impossible request, right?  There is no positive benefit, and large negative consequences, to any player or staff member to complain publicly about Drake LaRoche.

 

 

 

A boycott didn't happen.  I think that's all the evidence I need that most of the players weren't in favor of a boycott, at least not remotely as much as Sale.  Robin Ventura is not a good enough orator to dissuade 25+ members of the most powerful union on earth.

 

I'm not suggesting a majority of players were annoyed by LaRoche's kid.  Maybe only a couple took the step of complaining to Williams.  But I'd guess that the vast majority of players probably endorse the explicit or implied limits on child access that exist for every single other professional sports team, and thus don't care if those isolated complaints re-established that status quo and prompted the retirement of a 78 OPS+ DH with a bad back.

 

I agree that most players would be ambivalent about this situation but likely both ways.  Who cares if he is there or not. They have jobs to do and the kid doesn't change anything they need to do.  He is just another body in the mix of other bodies.  No different than a bat boy on game days.  

 

Is it a good precedent to set?  I don't think so because if you give this privilege to everyone then you might have 30 kids in your locker room all the time.  I just think that verbal or written if it was agreed upon it should not be changed.

 

From what I can tell LaRoche doesn't have a problem with how the White Sox are handling this as he is ready to retire.  It looks like lots of other people see things differently though.

[Squirrel]

 

This nugget came out yesterday.  Not sure if it news to the thread but it is to me.    You know the story had more to it.  If the players were 100% united and lied to by the GM, who also re-negged on his agreement with LaRoche he would be fired.  Especially since his teams typically have higher payrolls, flashy moves, without the results (since 2005 at least).

 

http://mlb.nbcsports.com/2016/03/20/it-finally-comes-out-several-white-sox-players-complained-about-drake-laroche/?ocid=Yahoo&partner=ya5nbcs

Yup, several of us said pretty much this at the beginning of the thread ... why would Williams act in such a manner if not for some reason we don't know about.

[Dman]

 

This nugget came out yesterday.  Not sure if it news to the thread but it is to me.    You know the story had more to it.  If the players were 100% united and lied to by the GM, who also re-negged on his agreement with LaRoche he would be fired.  Especially since his teams typically have higher payrolls, flashy moves, without the results (since 2005 at least).

 

http://mlb.nbcsports.com/2016/03/20/it-finally-comes-out-several-white-sox-players-complained-about-drake-laroche/?ocid=Yahoo&partner=ya5nbcs

 

Wow looks like my being naive has killed me on this one.  That pretty much points to my assumptions as being dead wrong.  Gonna have to eat some crow on some of my statements.

 

I still blame the White Sox though as they had to see this coming and that it could end badly.  La Roche also had to see this as a possibility and he did what he felt he needed to do.  That is his decision not the White Sox.  He could still have played for them this year without his son showing up everyday.

 

Given how this situation played out I would guess no team will ever allow themselves to be put in such a situation again.  Very odd situation all the way around.

[Squirrel]

 

Wow looks like my being naive has killed me on this one.  That pretty much points to my assumptions as being dead wrong.  Gonna have to eat some crow on some of my statements.

 

I still blame the White Sox though as they had to see this coming and that it could end badly.  La Roche also had to see this as a possibility and he did what he felt he needed to do.  That is his decision not the White Sox.  He could still have played for them this year without his son showing up everyday.

Hey ... we were all speculating on this ... part of the fun ... and good to have differing voices in a discussion ... as long as it remains civil.

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

I still blame the White Sox though as they had to see this coming and that it could end badly.

 

Perhaps.  But as we said, management and LaRoche seem to publicly behaving just fine.  The public drama has mostly been led by Sale.  I doubt there was much that management or LaRoche could do to contain him.

[tobi0040]

 

Perhaps.  But as we said, management and LaRoche seem to publicly behaving just fine.  The public drama has mostly been led by Sale.  I doubt there was much that management or LaRoche could do to contain him.

 

It seems like the apology needs to be from Sale to Williams.   Called him a liar and said he should be fired.

[Don Walcott]

From what information we have now, it appears that the White Sox made a promise to LaRoche, verbally, pre-contract.  Post-contract, they gave his kid a locker and let him be around virtually all of a terrible losing season, while his dad was overpaid and under-performed.  Sounds like the mistake the Sox made was the original promise.  What happened last year constitutes performing on that promise, even though it wasn't in the written contract.  In my book it's still a contract, once you establish performance and LaRoche's reliance on that performance.  So they put themselves in a position this year to have a big problem.  Very poor decision-making by the Sox.

 

So this year comes around, and there are players and coaches who don't like the situation, and probably complained that they didn't like the situation last year, but didn't want to hurt anyone's feelings about it.  Management had no choice but to go back on their deal.  It could be that the deal was "so long as nobody has a problem with it . . . ."  So now that some of his teammates and some of the staff have a problem with it, LaRoche is put in a very difficult situation.  As much as I think he wasn't doing the right thing imposing his kid on his co-workers in the first place, I think he did the right thing retiring rather than continuing to cause a problem.  Although, to be fair, most people would have just not had their son continue to show up to work, do his best for the team, and get overpaid for another year.  However, in his world, where kids should be allowed in the clubhouse full time, he did the right thing.

 

I doubt the MLBPA will do anything about it.  First, if players can require that their kids get to be in the clubhouse, only a very few players will be allowed to make this strange demand, and the majority will not.  The majority probably also don't want other guys' kids around all the time.  So the MLBPA will likely side with the majority.  Second, if players were bothered enough to complain about it to management, right or wrong, there's a problem in the workplace that has to be resolved.  If you prevent the Sox front office from making this decision, you force a bad situation on a whole team, which affects a lot of careers, not to mention the fans of the team.

 

Going forward, I expect you'll never see another team make the initial mistake of the verbal promise backed by performance, again.  Which is too bad, because I wish this would happen to the Yankees.

[big dog]

Speaking of the Nationals- I wonder if Dusty Baker has any young kids (or grandchildren) he wants to use on the field again.

 

 

[ewen21]

 

It seems like the apology needs to be from Sale to Williams.   Called him a liar and said he should be fired.

If he's a man he will

[biggentleben]

 

Perhaps.  But as we said, management and LaRoche seem to publicly behaving just fine.  The public drama has mostly been led by Sale.  I doubt there was much that management or LaRoche could do to contain him.

 

Exactly. From what I'd heard, LaRoche attempted to come to a negotiation point with the White Sox after his announcement and the information as to why he made the announcement became public. He wanted to keep it from becoming a drawn out thing. When he felt that wasn't going to be possible, he turned in his papers and turned it over to his union to handle further grievances.

[biggentleben]

 

Speaking of the Nationals- I wonder if Dusty Baker has any young kids (or grandchildren) he wants to use on the field again.

 

Interestingly, Baker referenced his own son when discussing this issue with Peter Gammons. Gammons referenced an article in a tweet, but I can't grab the tweet at work.

[h2oface]

 

That analogy doesn't work. Corner office would mean a corner locker for a MLB player.........

 

......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.

 

As an aside --- the corner locker is a horrible locker, not like the best room on the floor with all the windows! It is where there are far too many people too close and jammed in the corner....... with no clothes on.....butts (and other things) to close to my face.........and with no 180 degree gorgeous views. 

 

From LaRoche's statement, and him not trying to fight it, he seems happy with his decision to me. I think it is others that are making it a way bigger deal than it is to him. From his expressed understanding in his statement, it almost seems like he is relieved that he could give himself a reason to quit and stop the embarrassment and pain and suffering, and this gave him one.