I'm not breaking news here, or even slightly spraining it for that matter, but if that jack wagon doesn't get to roll his eyes at someone, or call people stupid, [fork]-tards, "morans", or just generally insult people each and every day, I'm guessing it's not a good day for him.ronnie76 wrote: ↑01 Oct 2025 14:22 pmWhat exactly do you mean by stupidity continues to worsen?scoutyjones2 wrote: ↑01 Oct 2025 07:35 amLordy, stupidity of CT continues to worsen...ronnie76 wrote: ↑01 Oct 2025 07:08 amAre labor laws different in St. Louis? Screaming and demeaning doesn't seem like a legal reason to have to fire someone. Depending on how bad it was, it certainly could've been grounds for firing and something they thought they had to do for the sake on the organization. I'm just not sure how it would be a legal issue.
Oh and thanks so much for providing info. Really appreciate it.
Missouri follows the Employment-At-Will doctrine. This means that both the employer and employee can terminate the employment relationship at any time and for any reason, as long as there is:
No employment contract being broken
No discrimination under civil rights laws (based on race, color, age, national origin, religion, ancestry, sex, or physical/mental disability)
No merit laws apply, or
The state’s limited public policy exception does not apply.
Mo's comment on Shildt
Moderators: STLtoday Forum Moderators, Cards Talk Moderators
-
- Forum User
- Posts: 356
- Joined: 23 May 2024 13:11 pm
Re: Mo's comment on Shildt
Re: Mo's comment on Shildt
Gosh Gee!!!
It must have really been bad. I mean he is now managing a team in the playoffs. Ownership that supports WINNING. Receives compliments from media and other MLB ownerships on his managerial ability.
How worse can it get?? Well not being under MO Ran's and DimWallets thumb has to be excruciating.
Face it Schildt got a pardon and is living the good life. While STL has to tolerate the Marmot. Really put the screws to him.
It must have really been bad. I mean he is now managing a team in the playoffs. Ownership that supports WINNING. Receives compliments from media and other MLB ownerships on his managerial ability.
How worse can it get?? Well not being under MO Ran's and DimWallets thumb has to be excruciating.
Face it Schildt got a pardon and is living the good life. While STL has to tolerate the Marmot. Really put the screws to him.
-
- Forum User
- Posts: 1763
- Joined: 23 May 2024 12:42 pm
Re: Mo's comment on Shildt
My theory on the firing was that Schildt went around Mo to DeWitt to address issues Mo failed to.... I think Mo was offended and was unwilling to overlook the overzealous nature of the act. In Schildt's defense, I suspect he'd covered his issues with Mo extensively and wasn't willing to sit on his hands...
Re: Mo's comment on Shildt
Bottom line from what I've heard in this: Players AND coaches didn't really like Schilty,where in fact they DO like Oli.
Re: Mo's comment on Shildt
Yeah, I was considering the irony of it. Not knowing Missouri labor laws would be ignorance while reading comprehension below a 2nd grade level would actually be stupidity. Fairly elaborate mental gymnastics to find anywhere in this thread where anyone suggests the firing of Shildt wasn't legal. Very strange that some people gain self worth by acting that way.Imperial Capitalist wrote: ↑01 Oct 2025 14:36 pmI'm not breaking news here, or even slightly spraining it for that matter, but if that jack wagon doesn't get to roll his eyes at someone, or call people stupid, [fork]-tards, "morans", or just generally insult people each and every day, I'm guessing it's not a good day for him.ronnie76 wrote: ↑01 Oct 2025 14:22 pmWhat exactly do you mean by stupidity continues to worsen?scoutyjones2 wrote: ↑01 Oct 2025 07:35 amLordy, stupidity of CT continues to worsen...ronnie76 wrote: ↑01 Oct 2025 07:08 amAre labor laws different in St. Louis? Screaming and demeaning doesn't seem like a legal reason to have to fire someone. Depending on how bad it was, it certainly could've been grounds for firing and something they thought they had to do for the sake on the organization. I'm just not sure how it would be a legal issue.
Oh and thanks so much for providing info. Really appreciate it.
Missouri follows the Employment-At-Will doctrine. This means that both the employer and employee can terminate the employment relationship at any time and for any reason, as long as there is:
No employment contract being broken
No discrimination under civil rights laws (based on race, color, age, national origin, religion, ancestry, sex, or physical/mental disability)
No merit laws apply, or
The state’s limited public policy exception does not apply.
Re: Mo's comment on Shildt
Whenever a guy says " My theory is-----" That's code for "I'm making this up"
Re: Mo's comment on Shildt
Yeah, but Mo hinted at something which gave them no choice but to fire him and hinted at legal reasons. At least that's how I interpreted his comments.hugeCardfan wrote: ↑01 Oct 2025 14:45 pm My theory on the firing was that Schildt went around Mo to DeWitt to address issues Mo failed to.... I think Mo was offended and was unwilling to overlook the overzealous nature of the act. In Schildt's defense, I suspect he'd covered his issues with Mo extensively and wasn't willing to sit on his hands...
-
- Forum User
- Posts: 944
- Joined: 08 Sep 2024 21:25 pm
Re: Mo's comment on Shildt
On this forum at the time someone posted Shildt went on a local radio show after the season and said he did as good as he could considering the talent he had. Every team in MLB would have fired him.
Can't gripe about talent now with the loaded roster in SD.
Re: Mo's comment on Shildt
Mo's comments for reference.
"There were certainly reasons why we had to make that decision. I don't think the public forum is the right place for it. I do feel like I get beaten up for it. Legally, I was advised that as an employer, there is only so much that can be said. I don't want to beat around the bush. I know we had to make a decision. I believe it was the right decision. People can argue that they don't think it was. However, I'm sure that someday more of this will come to light. I'm sure some of the people who worked with me or under him might have some things to say as well. But to me, it's what has happened, happened," Mozeliak said.
"There were certainly reasons why we had to make that decision. I don't think the public forum is the right place for it. I do feel like I get beaten up for it. Legally, I was advised that as an employer, there is only so much that can be said. I don't want to beat around the bush. I know we had to make a decision. I believe it was the right decision. People can argue that they don't think it was. However, I'm sure that someday more of this will come to light. I'm sure some of the people who worked with me or under him might have some things to say as well. But to me, it's what has happened, happened," Mozeliak said.
-
- Forum User
- Posts: 1763
- Joined: 23 May 2024 12:42 pm
Re: Mo's comment on Shildt
As a boss, I'm sure he felt there was no option but to fire a guy who might have gone directly to DeWitt rather than take his decision as gospel. The legal reasons he refers to are to not discuss the firing. The lawyers don't want him to feed Schildt specific issues to grasp and turn back around...in a lawsuit.ronnie76 wrote: ↑01 Oct 2025 15:47 pmYeah, but Mo hinted at something which gave them no choice but to fire him and hinted at legal reasons. At least that's how I interpreted his comments.hugeCardfan wrote: ↑01 Oct 2025 14:45 pm My theory on the firing was that Schildt went around Mo to DeWitt to address issues Mo failed to.... I think Mo was offended and was unwilling to overlook the overzealous nature of the act. In Schildt's defense, I suspect he'd covered his issues with Mo extensively and wasn't willing to sit on his hands...
Re: Mo's comment on Shildt
Sounds to me like Shildty poo'd in the Cardinal nest in some fashion.ronnie76 wrote: ↑01 Oct 2025 16:11 pm Mo's comments for reference.
"There were certainly reasons why we had to make that decision. I don't think the public forum is the right place for it. I do feel like I get beaten up for it. Legally, I was advised that as an employer, there is only so much that can be said. I don't want to beat around the bush. I know we had to make a decision. I believe it was the right decision. People can argue that they don't think it was. However, I'm sure that someday more of this will come to light. I'm sure some of the people who worked with me or under him might have some things to say as well. But to me, it's what has happened, happened," Mozeliak said.
Re: Mo's comment on Shildt
This forum despised Schildt as it does all managers, so I hardly think it matters.
Re: Mo's comment on Shildt
Maybe, having been in those situations before and reading Mo's comments it sure seams like there is more to it. I certainly could be reading more into than there is though.hugeCardfan wrote: ↑01 Oct 2025 16:15 pmAs a boss, I'm sure he felt there was no option but to fire a guy who might have gone directly to DeWitt rather than take his decision as gospel. The legal reasons he refers to are to not discuss the firing. The lawyers don't want him to feed Schildt specific issues to grasp and turn back around...in a lawsuit.ronnie76 wrote: ↑01 Oct 2025 15:47 pmYeah, but Mo hinted at something which gave them no choice but to fire him and hinted at legal reasons. At least that's how I interpreted his comments.hugeCardfan wrote: ↑01 Oct 2025 14:45 pm My theory on the firing was that Schildt went around Mo to DeWitt to address issues Mo failed to.... I think Mo was offended and was unwilling to overlook the overzealous nature of the act. In Schildt's defense, I suspect he'd covered his issues with Mo extensively and wasn't willing to sit on his hands...
-
- Forum User
- Posts: 8263
- Joined: 23 May 2024 14:43 pm
Re: Mo's comment on Shildt
ronnie76 wrote: ↑01 Oct 2025 14:22 pmWhat exactly do you mean by stupidity continues to worsen?scoutyjones2 wrote: ↑01 Oct 2025 07:35 amLordy, stupidity of CT continues to worsen...ronnie76 wrote: ↑01 Oct 2025 07:08 amAre labor laws different in St. Louis? Screaming and demeaning doesn't seem like a legal reason to have to fire someone. Depending on how bad it was, it certainly could've been grounds for firing and something they thought they had to do for the sake on the organization. I'm just not sure how it would be a legal issue.
Oh and thanks so much for providing info. Really appreciate it.
Missouri follows the Employment-At-Will doctrine. This means that both the employer and employee can terminate the employment relationship at any time and for any reason, as long as there is:
No employment contract being broken
No discrimination under civil rights laws (based on race, color, age, national origin, religion, ancestry, sex, or physical/mental disability)
No merit laws apply, or
The state’s limited public policy exception does not apply.


Re: Mo's comment on Shildt
Perhaps it was the DUI’s and multiple alcohol related incidents(wait that was another manager)ronnie76 wrote: ↑01 Oct 2025 16:11 pm Mo's comments for reference.
"There were certainly reasons why we had to make that decision. I don't think the public forum is the right place for it. I do feel like I get beaten up for it. Legally, I was advised that as an employer, there is only so much that can be said. I don't want to beat around the bush. I know we had to make a decision. I believe it was the right decision. People can argue that they don't think it was. However, I'm sure that someday more of this will come to light. I'm sure some of the people who worked with me or under him might have some things to say as well. But to me, it's what has happened, happened," Mozeliak said.
Teams cover up what they chose to