I was referring to the fact hat he preferred to act like a father as opposed to a child.
But I'd also suggest that deciding how you want to live your own life as opposed to allowing others to dictate your actions is also acting like a man.
That's fine; have yourself a good time.
But calling a guy a "baby" because he's beyond that kids stuff strikes me as sort of stupid.
If you feel compelled to insult somebody because they're different from you, at least make the insult fit.
Call him a boring old fart instead........
Understood. Like others said, fair enough. Yet, he is under contract too, don't leave others in a lurch. Leave after contract is up. Walking out on them in a snit is not honorable even if he is hiding behind being an honorable dad. The dad part is commendable, really commendable, we get that.
He can be both, honor all his commitment. To me he just seems all holier than thou and threw his kid under a bus. He got the attention and his feelings were hurt, we get that. If the fire isn't there, then humbly move on. I will just leave it at that.
If he was dragging the kid in there or forcing him into things he didn't want to be involved in, then I totally agree with you.
But if the kid was asking to come to the park for home games and he was just trying to spend some extra time with him before he grows up and disappears, then I'm not going to give him hell for it.
Dude, it is Spring Training... What state are they in... NOT home...
The son has been with his father in the locker room full time for years. LaRoche had him by his side when he was with Washington. In Washington there were no outward problems with the arrangement. Bryce Harper loved the kid like he was his little brother.
I don't think that Chicago's GM was being unreasonable when he told the player that although his son would be allowed in the locker room that it wouldn't be allowed all the time.
Personally, I think this arrangement is a little unhealthy for the kid in that his interactions with people outside of baseball were somewhat limited. I think it would have been a healthier situation for him if he associated more with kids his age. I'm not referring to the home schooling aspect of the situation. Even in a home schooling situation kids have a greater opportunity to interact with each other.
If Adam LaRouche felt that he couldn't compromise in this matter then he exercised his prerogative by walking away from the game and the paychecks. I'm not sure that he is sending the right implicit message to his son by essentially saying that if you aren't allowed to completely control your work environment then you should walk away. But ultimately he is the father and he has a right to make his own life decisions for himself and his son up to this point.
What would happen if other players also wanted to bring their kids into the locker room, even to a limited extent? The situation would get out of hand to the point where the organization would have had to put a stop to the visitations by all the kids. Most often a little commons sense and courtesy would suffice. Apparently it wasn't applied here by Mr. LaRouche whose world view is a little more rigid than most others.
Nailed it! Exactly!