wrathofhahn

So it's three starts now 9.00 ERA. Something has to be up with his arm right? He just signed a 5/145 deal. If I'm a redsox fan I have to be terrified that he has some sort of arm trouble.

All it does is serve to further divide people. I try to take people as they come and just because I agree with someone politically does not make them a good person or even someone I would want to have a beer with. When I first heard the Smollett story I was skeptical but not dismissive the more that came out the more skeptical I became. We are sort of in a new era and I agree that some of the things surrounding women needed to change women should be heard everyone has a story I used to have a conversation with my parents about stories when they grew up one thing that always startled me was what they told about a teacher and perverts back then everyone knew but noone acted. They would say don't go to Ms Smith and if you see Mr Smith walking down the hallway immediately go to the womans bathroom. They would offer home tutoring there was this one girl who was new and my grandmother phoned and warned the parents they were told too late. They then moved to another city. I've worked at Bank in the late 90's where I was responsible for the uptime of the production servers my boss was a misogynist. Would he been allowed to do that now? No. For me it's important that any claims of racism, sexism, sexual assault are heard and not just hidden under the carpet but they need to be vetted too. We cannot just assume guilt and profess outrage before knowing the facts and we can not confer victim status either because otherwise we are creating a space for people like Smollett to exist. I also think when people prejudge these things it makes it harder for people to have a honest conversation later because one side basically has to admit they were wrong.

If that were true Jesse and his lawyers wouldn't be so desperate to keep it sealed nor would they be talking to the media about their whiteface theory. This was chicago poltiics Kim Foxx did a favor to Jesse.

As a matter of law nothing has changed. Real hate crimes will get investigated and prosecuted by the police in the same manner as Johnson said in his press conference. When it comes to the media if this causes them to put their journalism hat on rather then their advocate hat and start reporting these events with dispassion mixed in with a healthy does of skepticism then we would all be better off. This is the forth major hoax the American media has perpetrated on the American public from Covington, Russia, Jessie to Kavanaugh there has to some point be some sort of reflection of why they are getting so many of these big stories so wrong.

The thing about 2020 is while there isn't a ton of standout guys. There are some guys 30+ who could be great stop gaps. Really depends on how the market develops

It's all about the velocity he was hitting 94-95 consistently in his first start. Last year for a good portion of the year he was pitching 90-91 MPH. Honestly I still don't trust him you can see from the velocity graph last year his FA velocity has been all over the place. https://www.fangraphs.com/graphs.aspx?playerid=15474&position=P&pitchgraphs=true&statArr=&legend=1&split=base&time=daily&start=2018&end=2018&rtype=single>1=78&dStatArray=FA&ymin=&ymax= Going to have see what he did last game over a much larger sample size.

So going into the offseason I would have said the plan was to continue to trade and sign stop gaps who could be moved for prospects down the road because imo this roster isn't anywhere close to making the playoffs let alone winning a championship. However, the FO went hard after Machado and somehwat hard after Harper. So what is the plan moving forward? Are we operating on a shoterned timeline? Are we going to see the FO trade prospects for players and be active in next years FA. Or are we going to continue to rebuild by trading our remaining assets like Rondon and Sanchez. Or are we going to not make any major moves at all. I thought I knew the plan now I have no idea does anyone who listens to radio tell me what Hahn has been saying?

Well originally I argued she possibly violated the law but after she later claimed her recusal was informal (never filed with the court) that makes it unlikely. I honestly don't know where it goes from here clearly she misrepresented her recusal, acted unethically, misinformed the public, and failed to properly enforce the law. Whether these things are illegal is debatable I've heard the charge of "depriving citizens of honest services" but it seems for that to stick she would have to not only acted unethically but also received something tangible in return for doing so. She is currently being investigated by the FBI my hope would be pending the results of the investigation even if they found she acted unethically but not criminally the ISBA and ARDC would step in and disbar her effectively ending her career as a DA.

And I have tried to explain that is not the law. It doesn't matter what you or I deem sufficient. http://www.ilpba.org/announcements/7249825 The manner in which this case was dismissed was abnormal and unfamiliar to those who practice law in criminal courthouses across the State. Prosecutors, defense attorneys, and judges alike do not recognize the arrangement Mr. Smollett received. Even more problematic, the State’s Attorney and her representatives have fundamentally misled the public on the law and circumstances surrounding the dismissal. The public has the right to know the truth, and we (Illinois Prosecutors Bar Association) set out to do that here. When an elected State’s Attorney recuses herself from a prosecution, Illinois law provides that the court shall appoint a special prosecutor. See 55 ILCS 5/3-9008(a-15). Typically, the special prosecutor is a neighboring State’s Attorney, the Attorney General, or the State Appellate Prosecutor. Here, the State’s Attorney kept the case within her office and thus never actually recused herself as a matter of law. Additionally, the Cook County State’s Attorney’s office falsely informed the public that the uncontested sealing of the criminal court case was “mandatory” under Illinois law. This statement is not accurate. To the extent the case was even eligible for an immediate seal, that action was discretionary, not mandatory, and only upon the proper filing of a petition to seal. See 20 ILCS 2630/5.2(g)(2). For seals not subject to Section 5.2(g)(2), the process employed in this case by the State’s Attorney effectively denied law enforcement agencies of legally required Notice (See 20 ILCS 2630/5.2(d)(4)) and the legal opportunity to object to the sealing of the file (See 20 ILCS 2630/5.2(d)(5)). The State’s Attorney not only declined to fight the sealing of this case in court, but then provided false information to the public regarding it. The appearance of impropriety here is compounded by the fact that this case was not on the regularly scheduled court call, the public had no reasonable notice or opportunity to view these proceedings, and the dismissal was done abruptly at what has been called an “emergency” hearing. To date, the nature of the purported emergency has not been publicly disclosed. The sealing of a court case immediately following a hearing where there was no reasonable notice or opportunity for the public to attend is a matter of grave public concern and undermines the very foundation of our public court system. Lastly, the State’s Attorney has claimed this arrangement is “available to all defendants” and “not a new or unusual practice.” There has even been an implication it was done in accordance with a statutory diversion program. These statements are plainly misleading and inaccurate. This action was highly unusual, not a statutory diversion program, and not in accordance with well accepted practices of State’s Attorney initiated diversionary programs. The IPBA supports diversion programs, and recognizes the many benefits they provide to the community, the defendant and to the prosecuting agency. Central to any diversion program, however, is that the defendant must accept responsibility. To be clear here, this simply was not a deferred prosecution. Prosecutors must be held to the highest standard of legal ethics in the pursuit of justice. The actions of the Cook County State’s Attorney have fallen woefully short of this expectation. Through the repeated misleading and deceptive statements to the public on Illinois law and circumstances surrounding the Smollett dismissal, the State’s Attorney has failed in her most fundamental ethical obligations to the public. The IPBA condemns these actions.

11-19

The law is the law which is why her spokesperson said afterwards she meant it "colloquially" the problem is recused is a legal term the unethical part is claiming she recused herself when she clearly didn't and not following state law after doing so. It isn't open up to interpretation. It doesn't say could it says shall. It's a required action. Of course considering she now claims to have lied and never filed the recusal with the court so it's not likely illegal. You make the case the idea the whole department isn't conflicted is nonsense well what was the result? I would say the law was in place for a very good reason and precisely to prevent a situation like this from happening. I am not someone who honestly cares one way or another of whether Smollett spends a day in jail. I also don't think this reflects badly on the police department. The problem is someone did him a tremendous favor they expunged the case files, sealed the court records, didn't go to trial, didn't force him to accept any guilt in the deal. It stinks of corrupt Chicago Politics.

I one hundred percent agree. We will end up trading that space for some bum 4A guy like we do every year just watch. Instead we should have been moving guys for INTL Money and being extremely active in IFA. It's a joke that at the bottom of our prospects lists we consistently don't have one exciting young under 20 prospect year after year after year. Take a look at our prospect list on MLB.com. Then take a look at SD. We don't have the kind of depth and high upside talent that is going to create a separate wave after Robert and Cease. That is why the injuries to kopech dunning and the rest of them are so devastating.

Well Smollett attorney has an interesting theory that might explain somethings. Whiteface. The two Nigeran men put on MAGA caps. Wore a ski mask (with whiteface underneath just in case). Then went to beat helpless Jessie. https://www.mediaite.com/tv/jussie-smolletts-attorney-nigerian-brothers-may-have-been-wearing-whiteface-during-attack/ Of course that doesn't explain why Smollett would think two Nigerians with thick African accents yelling "THIS IS MAGA COUNTRY" in a 80 percent AA neighborhood were white but still you could see why they would offer the deal.

Wow Kim Foxx may have broke the law listen to her convoluted defense. https://patch.com/illinois/chicago/did-top-prosecutor-break-law-cutting-deal-jussie-smollett State law states that after a state's attorney recuses herself on a case "the court shall appoint a special prosecutor." That didn't happen in the Smollett case. Instead, Foxx tapped her first assistant, veteran prosecutor Joseph Magats, to take over. Magats described the police investigation as "outstanding" and told the Tribune the fact the case was "disposed of alternatively" is not evidence that it was flawed in any way. But his predecessor told the paper he had never before seen charges dropped so quickly after an indictment. "You could make the argument that if the state's attorney has a conflict, her whole office has a conflict," a former prosecutor who asked not to be named said. "I don't know if that's the case. But this sure seems odd." Cook County State's Attorney spokeswoman Kiera Ellis said in a statement that Fox "did not formally recuse herself or the [State's Attorney] Office based on any actual conflict of interest. As a result, she did not have to seek the appointment of a special prosecutor." When Fox publicly announced that she had recused herself "it was a colloquial use of the term rather than in its legal sense," Ellis said.

Angelos? Peter? He's just cheap. He doesn't want to spend money on something that doesn't pay immediate dividends.

https://mobile.twitter.com/craigrwall/status/1110997231551873024

For those who are curious here is the complete investigative file. Will be interesting when the media has a chance to go through this. https://www.cwbchicago.com/2019/03/exclusive-chicago-police-departments.html

Eddie Johnson comes across as a stand up guy and I know if we talked politics we probably wouldn't agree on much but he still at least seems to knows the difference between right and wrong. It's too bad his investigation and the reputation of his officers will be dragged through the mud because of this. Smollett still maintains his innocence what a joke. Guess Kim Foxx (who epitomizes Chicago Politics) and the DA's office believe his story of the two Nigerian MAGA hat wearing white supremacists who beat him up. Who coincidentally was paid by Smollett 3500 dollars for "nutrition advice". They also must believe he risked life and limb to keep his subway sandwich and fight off MAGA attackers at 2:00AM in the middle of winter. Of course we will know the full evidence against him because they sealed his records but the story is ridiculous on it's face.

Sent down to AAA by the Cubs and not happy about it. Still has has 5 years of control. Not sure what the offer would be

This is my thinking as well. For all this money upfront we should got two possibly three free agent years.

Agreed. I think we could have waited and if we wanted to lock up Eloy we could have done so for similar money. I don't understand the need to do this now unless we were getting a bunch of options on FA years which didn't happen at least according to reports.

Thanks for the information. I got it off an initial media report to the Snell extension thanks for the correction I should have looked at Snells service time to dblcheck. There is no need to be hostile it is the players and agents job to get the best deal possible noone is chastising Jimenez for taking the money just that the organization overpaid by what appears a large margin.

Actually no it's pretty much the same Snell signed 5/50 into his 7th year of control. He made the minimum prior 558K. So it's basically 8/52 Jimenez will make 6/43 + 16.5 option + 18.5 option it becomes 8/78. We paid more for a player far less accomplished. Edit; It was pointed out to me there was no option in Snells contract (media report which I got the information initially from got it wrong thanks for the correction) which makes it even worse.

Rays just signed last years cy young winner for 5 years 50 million (already two years in) plus a FA option. We overpaid.

You just said the key words if he pans out. He hasn't had a ML at bat yet. Like I said it high and almost double what players have got in the past under similar deals but if he is really good it doesn't matter but if we are giving him so much more money upfront I would have hoped to have gotten more then one FA option year. At least two.