Adam LaRoche retires

[jimmer]

I see your point Chi, but he got told not to bring his kid AT ALL this spring training.  

 

He signed with the White Sox with the agreement he could bring his kid and after going a whole season of being able to, it gets completely changed.  If Williams had said last year LaRoche could never bring his kid, he never would have signed with the team.

 

Being a retiree, I know all about having terms of employment changed with no way to fight it.  Even stuff written in contracts.  Things like, you signed a 6 year contract that will take you to a certain amount of years in service only to have them reduce how long a person of your rank can serve three years later. I know how upsetting that can be.  

 

Employees are expected to abide by the conditions put forth when agreeing to work for someone.  Employers should be held to the same standard.

[Squirrel]

 

He could hang out here at Twins Daily.

Yeah, I wouldn't allow my underage kids to hang out here for their education in life.

[Otto von Ballpark]

http://espn.go.com/mlb/story/_/id/15007382/mlb-statement-adam-laroche

 

'Prior to signing with the White Sox, my first question to the club concerned my son's ability to be a part of the team. After some due diligence on the club's part, we reached an agreement. The 2015 season presented no problems as far as Drake was concerned. (My bat and our record are another story!)

 

With all of this in mind, we move toward the current situation which arose after White Sox VP Ken Williams recently advised me to significantly scale back the time that my son spent in the clubhouse. Later, I was told not to bring him to the ballpark at all.'

Williams said he told LaRoche 50% was too much, and that it should be between 0-50%. Would not surprise me if LaRoche misinterpreted that, given that his reaction was to retire, I am not sure that nuance is his game.

[Squirrel]

 

I see your point Chi, but he got told not to bring his kid AT ALL this spring training.  

 

He signed with the White Sox with the agreement he could bring his kid and after going a whole season of being able to.  If Williams had said last year LaRoche could never bring his kid, he never would have signed with the team.

 

Being a retiree, I know all about having terms of employment changed with no way to fight it.  Even stuff written in contracts.  Things like, you signed a 6 year contract that will take you to 26 years of service only to have them to reduce how long a person of your rank can serve three years later. I know how upsetting that can be.  

 

Employees are expected to abide by the conditions put forth when agreeing to work for someone.  Employers should be held to the same standard.

I don't disagree with that. All I'm saying is that I have a lot of questions here because this is just really strange. And a signed contract is pretty binding, not to mention he has a union behind him. (Edit: being part of a cbu, an individual has a lot of protection and a lot of recourse and resources when it comes to any contract.) I get why he would choose to walk away rather than fight it ... because why would you even want to be around while that is going on? There is something else at play here. LaRoche also said that if it ever became a problem, that the team could address it and he would take care of it. Perhaps there was some kind of a problem and it wasn't being or wasn't able to be addressed to satisfy both parties? Again, too much we don't know. I'm not on anyone's 'side' here because it doesn't concern me and I don't know enough ... I just find this whole unfolding quite strange.

[Otto von Ballpark]

No question that Williams could have managed this better. Sale and Eaton like to fight, and are LaRoche's buddies -- Williams should have treaded more carefully.

 

Although I do wonder if he wasn't blindsided by LaRoche's rather extreme decision to make himself a martyr. If LaRoche doesn't retire, but instead gets the MLBPA involved, or even just ignores Williams' request as they work out details of a revised policy, there is a good chance we never hear about this.

[Otto von Ballpark]

Also, from reading LaRoche's statement, he seems to assume the only problem that could arise would be if Drake did something that Adam would have to talk to him about. He doesn't seem to even be aware that some people could be put off by his son's presence regardless of the kid's behavior, or that his teammates should have a right to a standard, childless work environment. In short, he seems very clueless about reality.

 

Of course, Williams should have taken that into account as he approached this. Although maybe he did, and LaRoche still went off like a loose cannon, who knows.

[Otto von Ballpark]

More details:

 

http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/columnist/bob-nightengale/2016/03/18/adam-laroche-drake-laroche-kenny-williams/81993428/

 

Sounds like Williams asked LaRoche to cut back, but after 3-4 days of LaRoche failing to do so, Williams got mad and cut off all access before reverting back to the original reduced access request.

[Squirrel]

Well, I don't know how credible USAToday is, but this story paints a bit different picture, imo.

[ashbury]

More details:

 

http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/columnist/bob-nightengale/2016/03/18/adam-laroche-drake-laroche-kenny-williams/81993428/

 

From this article:

 

The players don’t blame manager Robin Ventura, who realizes if he spoke up against LaRoche, he would lose his clubhouse for the rest of the season. Not a good idea when you’re on the final year of your contract.

 

Are there ironclad rules on who among non-players has access to the clubhouse and under what conditions?

 

Within certain boundaries (access by the press, etc), I would think this subject was strictly a clubhouse matter, for the players to mainly to decide for themselves.

 

To me it's a mark of how a manager "runs his clubhouse", for these kinds of disagreements to be worked out amicably. And if there's an impasse, eventually one or both players approaches a coach, the manager eventually is reeled in, and he figures out what needs to happen - in this case, by first checking with the front office for exactly what language is in the contract and what verbal commitments may have been also agreed to.

 

For Ventura to consider speaking up against LaRoche, as implied above, it would mean not knowing information the front office could have provided.

 

This sounds, to me, pretty weak by Ventura. And pretty brain-dead by Williams to directly inject the front office into this.

 

Imagine Rob Antony, for example, getting mixed up in something like this. TK, Gardy, or Molitor surely would have politely told him to keep your ...well, darn nose out of my ...well, dadgum clubhouse. A long goshdarn time before anything hit the media.

 

/ edit - one more thought: If a manager starts to take (or not take) actions based on fear of losing his clubhouse..., dude, you've lost your clubhouse.

[Squirrel]

I don't know why this issue fascinates me so much. Maybe because it's fun to see the White Sox implode over something so ... this. But I chuckled at the opening paragraph to this article:

 

"After hearing White Sox ace Chris Sale eviscerate executive vice president Kenny Williams and seeing his teammates react to restrictions on 14-year-old Drake LaRoche's clubhouse privileges, it comes as no surprise Sox players feel so comfortable around adolescents.

 

This whole embarrassing Adam LaRoche l'affaire carries the whiff of immaturity. This isn't about the Sox having one too many teenagers around. It's about having too few adults in the room."

 

The rest of the article is a pretty reasonable take.

[biggentleben]

So, in talking about a prospect with an Atlanta scout (and a friend of Adam's unbeknownst to me before this conversation), I found out that there is a clause in the contract, and Adam reacted quickly to Williams due to being so upset at the request coming out of the blue, something never discussed with the LaRoche family throughout the entirety of the offseason until it was sprung on Adam this spring. What you have to know is that LaRoche does have diagnosed and confirmed adult ADHD. He can react impulsively, and reportedly he sprung the "retirement" to the media without talking with his agent or representation. Upon having that conversation, he was informed that he had a contractual right to a procedure before any changes happened with his son's access to the locker room that was not followed, and he had a right to every dollar of his 2016 salary, even if he didn't play a minute of baseball. That's what changed Adam's approach. That, and the response of his teammates, who, while not unanimous, in very strong majority supported him pursuing the full contract for 2016, convinced him to pull back on the "retirement".

 

This is all second-hand information, obviously, but I do trust the source. It's very interesting to say the least to see how this goes.

[Squirrel]

 

So, in talking about a prospect with an Atlanta scout (and a friend of Adam's unbeknownst to me before this conversation), I found out that there is a clause in the contract, and Adam reacted quickly to Williams due to being so upset at the request coming out of the blue, something never discussed with the LaRoche family throughout the entirety of the offseason until it was sprung on Adam this spring. What you have to know is that LaRoche does have diagnosed and confirmed adult ADHD. He can react impulsively, and reportedly he sprung the "retirement" to the media without talking with his agent or representation. Upon having that conversation, he was informed that he had a contractual right to a procedure before any changes happened with his son's access to the locker room that was not followed, and he had a right to every dollar of his 2016 salary, even if he didn't play a minute of baseball. That's what changed Adam's approach. That, and the response of his teammates, who, while not unanimous, in very strong majority supported him pursuing the full contract for 2016, convinced him to pull back on the "retirement".

 

This is all second-hand information, obviously, but I do trust the source. It's very interesting to say the least to see how this goes.

But he retired. According to the media, he signed the papers and is gone. No?

[biggentleben]

 

But he retired. According to the media, he signed the papers and is gone. No?

 

Sounds like he announced, but he has not signed everything due to a payout agreement needing to be reached, much like Michael Cuddyer didn't officially retire until the contract stuff was all worked out, even though it was clear he wasn't coming back. Nothing's been filed to the league office anyway.

[Otto von Ballpark]

Sounds like he announced, but he has not signed everything due to a payout agreement needing to be reached, much like Michael Cuddyer didn't officially retire until the contract stuff was all worked out, even though it was clear he wasn't coming back. Nothing's been filed to the league office anyway.

I've read multiple reports that he has already filed the official retirement papers:

 

http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2016/03/adam-laroche-issues-statement-on-departure-from-white-sox.html

[PseudoSABR]

Imagine if Terry Ryan during last season suddenly demanded that Torii Hunter put a stop to the dance-offs at the end of games (b/c other players/coaches complained about it); in spite of having no contractual clause allowing the dance-off, I think most of us would understand if there was backlash from the players.  (Sure, employees should be obligated to deal with whatever workplace they are provided, but baseball, and sports generally, have always been special workplaces that largely do not follow the rationale or ethics of common workplaces). 

 

The kids-in-the-workplace part of the story takes over the front-office-dictating-the-culture-of-the-clubhouse part of the story.   Although I understand why Ventura wouldn't want to touch the issue, he's in far better authoritative position to influence the clubhouse culture.  Kenny Williams should have discussed the problem with Ventura and LaRoche's agent before approaching LaRoche about it; this kind of response from both LaRoche and the other players should have been anticipated.  Lot's of parties mishandled the situation, but the buck stops at the top. 

[Otto von Ballpark]

Pseudo, did you read the article I linked upthread? Williams didn't demand zero access for the kid, he requested a reduction to ~50%. While I think that is a fair request for Williams to make, at that point I think it would have been fair for LaRoche to appeal to his manager, his agent, his union, etc. He apparently didn't. He continued to bring the kid every day. At that point, when he found out, Williams flipped out and cut off access completely, then later relented and simply restated the ~50% request. That is apparently when LaRoche retired.

 

I see in there multiple opportunities for LaRoche to make an appeal, but a consistent refusal to do so or abide by the reasonable request. I am not sure why that is Williams' fault, or something that Williams should have anticipated. Who reacts like that, with a powerful union behind him, an agent, a couple key players on his side, and $13 mil on the line?

 

Ventura absolutely should have never been involved. No part of the decision could come from him because it would strain his relationship with the players. It had to be from a front office guy, preferably one like Williams who is not even the GM anymore so he probably deals in little or no official business directly with players.

 

Likewise it should never be revealed who made the original requests/comments to Williams, as that would likewise harm active working relationships. (Although LaRoche seems oblivious to that fact, in his statement saying if there were problems, he would have dealt with them).

[biggentleben]

I've read multiple reports that he has already filed the official retirement papers:

 

http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2016/03/adam-laroche-issues-statement-on-departure-from-white-sox.html

I hadn't been following this that closely, but I'd wager my source simply was not yet informed as that happened Friday. It was a big deal to hold back on filing to see if a deal could be done. In lieu of that, he'd file, and then it'd be the MLBPA arguing for him to get the full salary, not a negotiated portion like Cuddyer got.

[nicksaviking]

Imagine if Terry Ryan during last season suddenly demanded that Torii Hunter put a stop to the dance-offs at the end of games (b/c other players/coaches complained about it); in spite of having no contractual clause allowing the dance-off, I think most of us would understand if there was backlash from the players.  (Sure, employees should be obligated to deal with whatever workplace they are provided, but baseball, and sports generally, have always been special workplaces that largely do not follow the rationale or ethics of common workplaces). 

 

The kids-in-the-workplace part of the story takes over the front-office-dictating-the-culture-of-the-clubhouse part of the story.   Although I understand why Ventura wouldn't want to touch the issue, he's in far better authoritative position to influence the clubhouse culture.  Kenny Williams should have discussed the problem with Ventura and LaRoche's agent before approaching LaRoche about it; this kind of response from both LaRoche and the other players should have been anticipated.  Lot's of parties mishandled the situation, but the buck stops at the top.

 

Why shouldn't the front office get to dictate the atmosphere of the clubhouse? The team still owns the workplace. Every other employer gets to make the rules, and employees simply grouse about it. It happens everywhere else, why not here? It shouldn't matter how much money the inmates make, they shouldn't be running the assylum.

[PseudoSABR]

 

Why shouldn't the front office get to dictate the atmosphere of the clubhouse? The team still owns the workplace. Every other employer gets to make the rules, and employees simply grouse about it. It happens everywhere else, why not here? It shouldn't matter how much money the inmates make, they shouldn't be running the assylum.

Because MLB employers are constantly shopping for talent.  Player-employees have way more bargaining power in MLB.  It's precisely why the Whitesox agreed to allowing Drake in the clubhouse in the first place.  Typically there's not 29 other firms who know who you are and value your assets as an employee, and the firms that do compete like that, make the workplace a recruiting attribute. 

 

If I was at the top of my field, I could negotiate things like the corner office with a mini-fridge, comped travel expenses, and four weeks vacation; it's the same kind of thing.   MLB players just are a much better position to dictate things like clubhouse culture, and they want to maintain that.  And I think the impact is negligible, because the players are still accountable for their performance (their next contract).

[PseudoSABR]

 

Pseudo, did you read the article I linked upthread? Williams didn't demand zero access for the kid, he requested a reduction to ~50%. While I think that is a fair request for Williams to make, at that point I think it would have been fair for LaRoche to appeal to his manager, his agent, his union, etc. He apparently didn't. He continued to bring the kid every day. At that point, when he found out, Williams flipped out and cut off access completely, then later relented and simply restated the ~50% request. That is apparently when LaRoche retired.

We can't say what is reasonable, because we still don't know the whole story as far as what was stipulated in the contract.  What's reasonable to request of LaRoche depends on the agreement he had with the Whitesox. It very well could be an unreasonable condition of his contract (which is my guess). Regardless, Williams should have anticipated the depth of LaRoche's grievance, esp. after he failed to comply (again us not knowing if LaRoche was contractually obligated to comply or that Williams was contractually prohibited from demanding such complicity). I'm not suggesting LaRoche didn't impulsively act, or behave in way that was conducive to his relationship with the front office.  But LaRoche's job isn't management, that's Williams' job. 

[ewen21]

There is no need for additional information.  We already have enough information.  This whole story is a dead issue.

 

The White Sox were right for ending their relationship with Adam and his son Drake.  This is not the "Courtship of Eddie's Father" here.  This is a professional baseball.  What some people fail to understand is that although LaRoche was given the thumbs up initially on this PRIVILEGE of having his sidekick son tagging along, a PRIVILEGE is not an unconditional thing.  This business about the White Sox lying to him is bunk.  The problem is Williams scrambled to make an excuse for his decision and he really didn't need to--no matter how unpopular.

 

For LaRoche and certain White Sox to expect this arrangement to be completely unconditional is absurd.  It was a privilege and apparently the White Sox felt after a year letting it play out it was too much.  And it was too much.  This kid has lived this odd life for years, apparently.  LaRoche actually believes that rather than being among peers and developing like a normal child his son is better off under his wing to the point where stipulations needed to be made.  That is not only absurd, it is borderline nuts.  I am not telling him how to raise a child, but this whole thing is bonkers.  What in the world gives LaRoche the right to expect and demand such special treatment?

 

He has tried to sell him as a "family first guy" and I think that is hogwash.  He is a ME FIRST guy.  He chose his own special demands over the team.  The fact that Chris Sale and Adam Eaton are rushing to support LaRoche makes me shake my head.  It only goes to show how these players don't want any special privilges taken away no matter how nuts they are.  LaRoche is a guy who quit on himself and on the team.  This is a guy who had a horrendous season and probably deep down realizes he isn't capable of playing to that contract.  Instead of bowing out gracefully or listening to his boss he chose to make this into a big issue.  He put his own special interests above the team.  What in the world is with Eaton, Sale and the other Sox players?  Move on already.  Are they trying to say LaRoche was disrespected?  Really??  He got more than any other able bodied employed person could ever hope for.  He preformed horribly, had his son by his side (at his behest), and earned 13 million dollars on the way.  Shut up and move along.

 

The strange thing is, we have not heard a dissenting voice.  I am hoping they come forward.  I would guess a few players weren't comfortable with the arrangement. How could there not be?  However, given way it's played out they can't for fear of being made to look like the bad guy or a voice that divides the clubhouse.  THe work environment is not a place for children.  A baseball clubhouse is not a place to rear your child.  LaRoche's misguided comments about a baseball clubhouse being better than school are absurd.  This support he has gotten is equally absurd.  The White Sox were favored by some to do really well this season.  I don't see how they can be given what has played out.

 

And when they have a sideshow to talk about this year they can credit LaRoche for all of it.  Sure, Kenny Williams could have done a better job, but that is not the issue.  THe issue was initiated by LaRoche making these insane stipulations.  If he were a family first guy he'd have retired after the last season.  I gotta imagine there were plenty of awkward moments in that White Sox clubhouse because of him.  How could there not have been?

 

[TheLeviathan]

Laroche's entire stance on child rearing makes it basically impossible to defend him.  He's lived an insulated life thanks to his unique talents and is setting up his son for a difficult life if he doesn't happen to share them.  (Like Laroche shared his father's)

 

Was the tact by Williams lacking?  Maybe.  But reports are that other clubhouse officials (possibly the manager) and players complained about it.  I think it's reasonable to ask he not be there constantly, it doesn't seem Laroche agreed, and the problems spiraled from there.  

 

Sorry, do your kid a favor, put him in school like a normal human.

[PseudoSABR]

 

There is no need for additional information.  We already have enough information.  This whole story is a dead issue.

 

The White Sox were right for ending their relationship with Adam and his son Drake.  This is not the "Courtship of Eddie's Father" here.  This is a professional baseball.  What some people fail to understand is that although LaRoche was given the thumbs up initially on this PRIVILEGE of having his sidekick son tagging along, a PRIVILEGE is not an unconditional thing.  This business about the White Sox lying to him is bunk.  The problem is Williams scrambled to make an excuse for his decision and he really didn't need to--no matter how unpopular.

Call it a privilege, a benefit, a guarantee, an obligation -- it hardly matters, if it's a term of a contract (which is something we still don't know).  Terms of contracts are typically agreed to unconditionally, so knowing that would either support your point or undercut it.  

 

[PseudoSABR]

 

Sorry, do your kid a favor, put him in school like a normal human.

For the record, I totally agree with this.  But it's always been a sticky thing telling people how to raise their children...

[Otto von Ballpark]

Call it a privilege, a benefit, a guarantee, an obligation -- it hardly matters, if it's a term of a contract (which is something we still don't know). Terms of contracts are typically agreed to unconditionally, so knowing that would either support your point or undercut it.

I think we pretty much know it wasn't a term of the written contract. It quite likely was an oral promise, and probably not well-defined either. Even absent a specific clause that it could be revised, that should have been implicit given it clearly affected a shared work environment.

[PseudoSABR]

 

I think we pretty much know it wasn't a term of the written contract. It quite likely was an oral promise, and probably not well-defined either. Even absent a specific clause that it could be revised, that should have been implicit given it clearly affected a shared work environment.

You're playing fast and loose with the facts, my friend.

[Squirrel]

You're playing fast and loose with the facts, my friend.

I'm not sure how that's fast and loose. It's been reported from various sources that Williams reacted responding to complaints he received privately from players and staff. I'd say those complaints were clearly issues some had with their work environment with Drake present.

[TheLeviathan]

It's been strongly suggested that it was Ventura also, who didn't want to make the policy himself for fear of train-wrecking the clubhouse against him.

[Otto von Ballpark]

You're playing fast and loose with the facts, my friend.

How so? If it was in the written contract, I am pretty sure we would have heard about it by now. He would have had an ironclad case for a grievance.

 

And actually, the CBA prohibits verbal side agreements, outside the written contract. That's why LaRoche basically has/had no recourse other than to follow the team's new rules or retire.

 

His union and his agent surely would not have let him retire if the team was violating a term of the written contract.

[Otto von Ballpark]

You're playing fast and loose with the facts, my friend.

Sorry, just saw what you underlined in my post. I think the persistent presence of a child in the workplace can clearly affect the workplace environment of others, no? That's not in dispute here, is it?