Adam LaRoche retires

[madducks]

Two words: separation anxiety. Somebody seems a little bit clingy and in this case it may be the adult.

[swampdragon]

Facts are facts... you don't really have the option to believe or not believe in facts. Otherwise, they wouldn't be called "facts".

perhaps you are not familiar with the tea party

[Silentmist]

perhaps you are not familiar with the tea party

If it falls under the political landscape of the world, there aren't many facts. Just a lot of lies and half truths.

[Kevin Seitzer]

The players union will fight for the player, hopefully.

I deleted my comment because this isn't getting anywhere. I still feel like the chickens are fighting as hard as they can to defend Colonel Sanders, which frustrates me. Whatever, though. People are still asserting that unwritten agreements are not binding, which is untrue, or that complaints mean that those agreements can be unilaterally modified by management, which is also untrue. The truth will flesh itself out eventually. If what Kenny Williams and Adam LaRoche have said publicly is true, then it's absolutely clear to me that White Sox management violated the rights of Adam LaRoche. Maybe someone is lying but Williams appears to have dug his own grave to me. The law regarding unilateral modification by management is very clear, even when that modification only concerns something that is considered a "past practice", even less than a verbal agreement. And all of us who are workers should be extremely thankful that is the case. And I guess those few of us who are executives (or temporarily inconvenienced millionaires) I suppose should take umbrage at the fact that this part of the law favors the worker.

I'm pretty sure the Uniform Player's Contract states that no other agreements, whether written or verbal, are a valid part of the contract.

[Kevin Seitzer]

On a macro level, I'm a firm believer that management doesn't actually benefit in the long run by exploiting workers.

[Kevin Seitzer]

The Uniform Player's Contract is in Schedule A of the CBA. The last section on Supplemental Agreements is what I was referencing.

[Hornsby]

Some more on this brouhaha from USA Today:

"Several players and staff members privately complained to White Sox management recently about the constant presence of LaRoche’s 14-year-old son, Drake, in the clubhouse. Drake LaRoche, multiple people say, was with the team about 120 games during the 2015 season."


"The [White Sox] were the ones who told LaRoche that his son could be with him as often as he desired when they signed him to a two-year, $26 million contract before the 2015 season. They even furnished him with his own locker and uniform, right next to dad. Perhaps the verbal agreement in theory felt far different in practice, and that the White Sox were taken aback that LaRoche truly had his son everywhere with him. They were together virtually every home game. He made almost half the road trips. Flew on the team charters. And even participated in drills."


"it wasn’t until Williams heard complaints, sat down with LaRoche, and told him to scale back his son’s presence in camp. He could still come to camp and be in the clubhouse, but perhaps just half the time. Certainly, not every day. Well, after their heart-to-heart talk, nothing changed, according to multiple people in White Sox camp. LaRoche kept bringing his son to the ballpark every day. This went on for at least three or four days. When Williams saw Drake on the field this week, in the middle of a practice drill, standing on the pitcher’s mound, he lost it."

Huh, who would have thought that such things we're possible?

[chancellor]

The Uniform Player's Contract is in Schedule A of the CBA. The last section on Supplemental Agreements is what I was referencing.

Ah, so all the Sox did here was lie to him and negotiate in bad faith.

[DMT]

Ah, so all the Sox did here was lie to him and negotiate in bad faith.

You mean by giving him his own locker, letting him on the charter plane, and participate in drills?

[Hornsby]

Ah, so all the Sox did here was lie to him and negotiate in bad faith.

Or, you can look at it as LaRoche taking advantage of a situation that nobody really expected to develop to the point it did. This isn't an old cowboy movie where the white hats and black hats define the good and bad characters. It's filled with shades of gray, as is pretty much all of life.

[GwynnInTheHall]

Or, you can look at it as LaRoche taking advantage of a situation that nobody really expected to develop to the point it did. This isn't an old cowboy movie where the white hats and black hats define the good and bad characters. It's filled with shades of gray, as is pretty much all of life.

Not really.

They made an oral agreement with him which was one of the deciding factors of him signing with the Sox. they catered to this agreement to the fullest level. They then decided to change the agreement which legally is their right, but ethically is bullshit. LaRoche has NO responsibility to change a damn thing. It's the Sox ans Williams who should honor the agreement they made with LaRoche or amend it to Adam's satisfaction. Again, the Sox and Williams are well withing their legal rights to do whatever they want, but morally, ethically and in every manner--this is wrong.


The most disappointing thing about this thread is those who think breaking your word is acceptable.

[GwynnInTheHall]

Lol, it would appear. And then they unilaterally modified the mutual agreement when it no longer suited them, knowing that there was little available recourse. Go Sox!

Rooting for the Karma bus to run their asses over.

[Hornsby]

Not really.

They made an oral agreement with him which was one of the deciding factors of him signing with the Sox. they catered to this agreement to the fullest level. They then decided to change the agreement which legally is their right, but ethically is bullshit. LaRoche has NO responsibility to change a damn thing. It's the Sox ans Williams who should honor the agreement they made with LaRoche or amend it to Adam's satisfaction. Again, the Sox and Williams are well withing their legal rights to do whatever they want, but morally, ethically and in every manner--this is wrong.


The most disappointing thing about this thread is those who think breaking your word is acceptable.

We'll agree to disagree, on all of it, including the White Sox breaking their word. Shades of Grey Doig...shades of grey...

[GwynnInTheHall]

We'll agree to disagree, on all of it, including the White Sox breaking their word. Shades of Grey Doig...shades of grey...

So if you tell me you'll come out to Vegas to visit if I can put you and your family up for the week and after a day or two my wife says it's bothering her that you and your family are here (she knew you were coming and agreed it would be ok). So I tell you, you probably should house your kids and wife elsewhere or maybe just find a place for all of you to stay for the remainder of your vacation, you'd be OK with me going back on our agreement. I mean legally, i owe you nothing and it's MY house so it's well within my rights and it IS important that I keep my wife happy regardless of what we agreed to beforehand.


Yeah I could see you being ok with that

[DMT]

So if you tell me you'll come out to Vegas to visit if I can put you and your family up for the week and after a day or two my wife says it's bothering her that you and your family are here (she knew you were coming and agreed it would be ok). So I tell you, you probably should house your kids and wife elsewhere or maybe just find a place for all of you to stay for the remainder of your vacation, you'd be OK with me going back on our agreement. I mean legally, i owe you nothing and it's MY house so it's well within my rights and it IS important that I keep my wife happy regardless of what we agreed to beforehand.

Yeah I could see you being ok with that

Absolutely. I can't believe you'd choose an internet friend over your wife!