*** Official 2018 Royals Repository ***

[duncan_idaho]

The season is upon us, even if spring is not.

2018 MLB Draft Picks
#18
#33 - Compensation (Eric Hosmer)
#34 - Compensation (Lorenzo Cain)
#40 (Competitive Balance Round A)

018 Draft Names to Watch

RHP Kumar Rocker, N Oconnee HS, Georgia.

Spoiler!

Possibly goes top 10 but is a big, physical SP with ace potential. Moore and co. will be all over him if he slips a bit and could offer top 10 money at No. 16

OF Jarred Kelenic, Waukasha West HS, WI

Spoiler!

Kelenic is the top prep bat, toolsy OF. Royals would be ecstatic to have shot at him.

1B Triston Casas, American Heritage HS (FL).

Spoiler!

Tremendous raw power, best in HS bats. Royals typically like HS arms or HS bats with "special" tools. He qualifies.

RHP Carter Stewart, Eau de Gallie HS (Ga).

Spoiler!

Another big, physical specimen with huge upside. More likely to be available mid-first than Rocker.

ANY Any, Any (Any). Any current top projected pick who slides for injury concerns. Includes current top prospect prospect SP Brady Singer, U of Florida.

Current Prospects to Watch:

OF Seuly Matias - Huge tools. Hit 2 HR in Lexington (A) season opener.

1B Nick Pratto - Top pick in 17 has advanced approach and good glove; needs to start tapping into power in first full year in minors. Also at Lexington.

OF Michael Gigliotti - Good defender in CF, good OBP skills, plus baserunner. Next mainstay in CF for KC, IMO. Advanced college bat also starting at Lexington.

OF Khalil Lee - Probably has highest upside in Royals' system. Could hit 30 HR in majors, could steal 30 bases. Plus defensive ability in RF. Nice test at Wilmington this year.

3B Emmanuel Rivera - Really nice approach and good contact skills. Power is still developing. Also getting a good test at Wilmington.

SP Foster Griffin - Made nice strides in 2017. Needs to continue to progress in 2018. Could be a lefty version of Jakob Junis (good breaking ball that he can really manipulate, OK fastball, good command).

1B Samir Duenez - Duenez still is intriguing, hoping for a step forward in his power production this year at Northwest Arkansas, which would turn him into a legit prospect.

Others to keep an eye on:
SP Gerson Garabito (Wilmington), OF Marten Gasparini (Lexington), C MJ Melendez (Lexington), RP Tyler Zuber (lexington), RP Richard Lovelady (Omaha), SP Dan Tillo (Lexington), SS Nicky Lopez (NWA), SP Scott Blewett (NWA), OF Brewer Hicklen (Idaho Falls),

In general, Lexington and Wilmington are the most interesting spots to watch. Nice depth and a lot of interesting pieces at both.

[Prison Bitch]

Your analogy doesn't apply here DJ. Child molestation isn't a 60/40 proposition you need to calculate a probability of winning on. ROI, etc.


It's 100% either/or. You did it or you didn't. And if you didn't you go full-bore into court and plead innocence. And do so until you die, outcome independent. Nobody will EVER accuse me of that crap.

[DJ's left nut]

Originally Posted by Prison Bitch

Your analogy doesn't apply here DJ. Child molestation isn't a 60/40 proposition you need to calculate a probability of winning on. ROI, etc.


It's 100% either/or. You did it or you didn't. And if you didn't you go full-bore into court and plead innocence. And do so until you die, outcome independent. Nobody will EVER accuse me of that crap.

I will concede it's a different environment entirely (in fact I believe I started from that very point). But even in criminal cases we will acknowledge the possibility of 'no win situations' with Nolo Contendere pleas. And there are absolutely situations where people will take one of those because it's the path of least resistance.

It isn't a 'ROI' analysis in question here but rather a risk/reward one. I can't speak to what the actual possibilities were here - I have no idea what the law in his state was at the time (was it Washington?). But let's say he has a 25% chance of being convicted and spending the rest of his HS days in a juvenile detention center before being released into society without a HS degree and one hell of a problem on his resume to explain. Or he takes the plea, keeps moving forward with his life and 5 years later the records are sealed. An attorney would be committing malpractice to simply not discuss that sequence of events with him and insist he consider the potentially catostrophic downside of digging his heels in. The lawyer doesn't ultimately make the call, but there's no way he should have gone into a room with him and that family and said what you're saying "Screw even thinking about the offer man - if you didn't do it, fight it".

A lot of people will naturally come to that conclusion on their own, no doubt. I'd suggest a majority would. But some absolutely wouldn't. What Heimlich did was almost certainly the path of least resistance and presented by far and away the least amount of risk. There's an argument, even if a fairly tenuous one, in favor of exactly what he claims he did and it happens in offices and courtrooms around the country daily. Because in the end, you know 100% whether you did or didn't do it, but the finder of fact doesn't. And even if you know you didn't do it, you can never be 100% certain that the folks that are about to decide whether your life is effectively obliterated are going to comet o that same conclusion.

[Prison Bitch]

You did mention criminality.

But even there, diff levels of crime. Someone accuses me of theft, I'd plea down to avoid a felony, pay the fine, and move on. But some, I'll fight to the death. Child molestation is one.

[DJ's left nut]

Genuinely curious how folks would view a less 'icky' but more tragic fact pattern.

A lot of us drank in High School, right? Many of us more than we should have. And at 15 yrs old many of us had access to a car for permit driving, etc... So if the parents are out of town, our buddies come over and we get lit on Boone's farm. Then I get in the car for a fast food run, blow a light and kill a little girl in a car accident.

Your distinctions are pretty clear here - one was technically an accident, but legally there are a lot of 'voluntary' acts that went into it. You're almost certainly still going to be subject to a juvenile system because again - as a society we recognize that at that age you just don't have the cognitive development to make as fully formed of a decision as you'll make as an adult; basic human physiology at work there. But you've also killed someone.

I think most people would be more inclined to call that a 'tragic accident' and allow the kid another shot under that fact pattern. Not all, maybe not most. But I don't think the guy goes undrafted in that situation. And while the key distinction is that the molestation required an overt, intentional act at the time it was done - the drunk driving did as well. And in both circumstances we subject a person to juvenile penalties because we recognize that the judgment that went into both of those decisions was from a person who simply isn't mature enough to exercise adult decision-making.

And I'll admit my own hypocrisy here in that I've not really been impacted by either kinds of situations in my life and I'd be more inclined to get behind the car accident kid in the Cardinals organization myself. But I do think I'm engaging in some logical inconsistency there.

[DJ's left nut]

Originally Posted by Prison Bitch

You did mention criminality.

But even there, diff levels of crime. Someone accuses me of theft, I'd plea down to avoid a felony, pay the fine, and move on. But some, I'll fight to the death. Child molestation is one.

Like I said - I have no reason to doubt you would. And I think most would.

But I think it's naive to say everyone would. That's simply not the case.

If you'll acknowledge that you have your own gradient as to when/where you'd consider taking a rap for something you didn't do because the risk/reward worked out that way, then surely you have to also acknowledge that not everyone has the same rubric you do.

[Sure-Oz]

Originally Posted by Prison Bitch

You did mention criminality.

But even there, diff levels of crime. Someone accuses me of theft, I'd plea down to avoid a felony, pay the fine, and move on. But some, I'll fight to the death. Child molestation is one.

I think he should be able to work and move forward but not in MLB not being a role model or potential to be around kids for sure. Personally hope no team signs him. Jmo

[Discuss Thrower]

Originally Posted by DJ's left nut

Genuinely curious how folks would view a less 'icky' but more tragic fact pattern.

A lot of us drank in High School, right? Many of us more than we should have. And at 15 yrs old many of us had access to a car for permit driving, etc... So if the parents are out of town, our buddies come over and we get lit on Boone's farm. Then I get in the car for a fast food run, blow a light and kill a little girl in a car accident.

Your distinctions are pretty clear here - one was technically an accident, but legally there are a lot of 'voluntary' acts that went into it. You're almost certainly still going to be subject to a juvenile system because again - as a society we recognize that at that age you just don't have the cognitive development to make as fully formed of a decision as you'll make as an adult; basic human physiology at work there. But you've also killed someone.

I think most people would be more inclined to call that a 'tragic accident' and allow the kid another shot under that fact pattern. Not all, maybe not most. But I don't think the guy goes undrafted in that situation. And while the key distinction is that the molestation required an overt, intentional act at the time it was done - the drunk driving did as well. And in both circumstances we subject a person to juvenile penalties because we recognize that the judgment that went into both of those decisions was from a person who simply isn't mature enough to exercise adult decision-making.

And I'll admit my own hypocrisy here in that I've not really been impacted by either kinds of situations in my life and I'd be more inclined to get behind the car accident kid in the Cardinals organization myself. But I do think I'm engaging in some logical inconsistency there.

Wouldn't a drunk driving analogue to Heimlich's situation be as follows:

1) You were drunk.
2) You drive a vehicle that matches a witness' description of one which was driving erratically and caused another driver to fatally crash in a place not watched by cameras.
3) You were apprehended in the vicinity of the crash though not currently driving the vehicle, the vehicle showed signs of being in operation recently, had a BAC which suggests you were drunk at the time of the crash of the other car as well as being defined as an impaired driver at the time of the crash.

?

[DJ's left nut]

Originally Posted by Discuss Thrower

Wouldn't a drunk driving analogue to Heimlich's situation be as follows:

1) You were drunk.
2) You drive a vehicle that matches a witness' description of one which was driving erratically and caused another driver to fatally crash in a place not watched by cameras.
3) You were apprehended in the vicinity of the crash though not currently driving the vehicle, the vehicle showed signs of being in operation recently, had a BAC which suggests you were drunk at the time of the crash of the other car as well as being defined as an impaired driver at the time of the crash.

?

In trying to have the 'morality' conversation I simply set aside the question of 'credibility'. I'm assuming for the sake of the dialogue on this particular question anyway that he DID commit both offenses.

And if he did, would you view the drunk driving situation in a different light as the molestation one? I think virtually all would and most would be lighter on the drunk driver despite his more dire consequences. I think I probably would be.

And I'm not entirely certain I'd be justified in doing so.

[Why Not?]

Originally Posted by DJ's left nut

In trying to have the 'morality' conversation I simply set aside the question of 'credibility'. I'm assuming for the sake of the dialogue on this particular question anyway that he DID commit both offenses.

And if he did, would you view the drunk driving situation in a different light as the molestation one? I think virtually all would and most would be lighter on the drunk driver despite his more dire consequences. I think I probably would be.

And I'm not entirely certain I'd be justified in doing so.

It's definitely a fair talking point. I think the difference may lie in what you pointed out in the beginning. Almost all of us(certainly me)probably, idiotically, drove at least somewhat inebriated in our younger days. While this is a vile act(and I'm forever grateful I didn't hurt or kill anyone), the intent to harm someone isn't there. Nobody gets behind the wheel when drunk and thinks "lemme go kill some folks." Molesting a child is a purposeful, disgraceful act. Many people drive at least buzzed daily with no negative consequences. A child's life is 100% of the time damaged or ruined if they get molested.

To be clear, I'm certainly not saying driving intoxicated is anywhere close to okay. If a drunk driver killed one of my kids, somebody would certainly go to prison for years and I assure you, it wouldn't be the driver. I'm just saying, sometimes intent does matter.

[SPchief]

Originally Posted by DJ's left nut

Most of the where you'll find people falling on the situation comes down to how credible you find the denial.

I've told clients on several occasions that they have a 60/40 or 70/30 shot at a win but they're getting offered X and the X is good enough that they should just take the settlement and walk. They had a better case than the other guy, but a non-zero chance of losing and getting nothing.

Now I'd have a more difficult time doing that in a criminal situation but I can see a whole slew of situations where I'd at least consider that advice. And I have a hard time saying it's even 'bad' advice - had the information stayed private the kid would've almost unquestionably been better off for it and by all accounts this information was supposed to remain sealed.

And his former attorney would never be likely to come out and corroborate any of that even if it's true - it would paint him in a terrible light.

But I think a key difference that's perhaps being overlooked here, and it applies to Duncan's question regarding the distinction between his case and Hill's, is the legal and moral distinction between adult and juvenile offenders. We as a society have pretty much universally agreed that young kids ought not be held to the same standard as adults. It's the entire foundation of our juvenile justice system and that's the system that he was processed through and held accountable in.

So if we're going to hold someone morally accountable (or perhaps 'practically accountable' would be a better term) to the same level as someone who was adjudicated as an adult, why bother with a juvenile justice system at all? Societally we recognize the distinction and its benefit but when asked to actually practice what we preach here, we suddenly disregard the distinction?

Ultimately I'm not privy to any more information than has been made publicly available so I have no real way to make a credibility assessment here. Perhaps MLB teams have done interviews and simply don't buy his story, in which case the denial is troubling and maybe he shouldn't get a second bite. Then again, maybe several of them do believe him and simply don't want to put up with the backlash from their fans.

But even if you don't believe him, it does seem odd to me that people are treating a guy who committed this act as a juvenile, an act with an exceptionally high rate of rehabilitation, as though he was an adult when he did it and refusing to consider any additional nuance.

I've not sat down and really formed an opinion as to whether or not I'd want him in the Cardinals organization specifically because that's just not something I imagine Bill DeWitt would ever sign off on. But to say it poorly, I do kinda think that I think I would want some team to give him a shot. He truly might have been told to take a guilty plea and get his records sealed as a part of it; it's not beyond the pale at all. And even if he did do it, he was a juvenile who was was not actually guilty of a crime (that's not how it works in the juvenile system), who almost certainly presents no risk of recidivism and based strictly on merit has earned a shot.

I dunno - I think it's worth more discussion than simply "**** that guy..."

That's what has me thinking. Did he and his folks sit down and decide that it was better to take the plea knowing it Should be sealed and then xpunged be better long term for have career vs fighting it the whole way?

[KChiefs1]

Originally Posted by duncan_idaho

That’s a good question and something I need to think on.

Thanks for asking me, though. I need to introspect on this and see if it’s an opportunity I need to work on.

I just remember how dead set you were on not drafting Hill. I believe in 2nd chances because everyone makes mistakes here & there. I’m willing to give everyone another chance even though some aren’t able to change their ways.

[Strongside]

Since this is now a drunk thread...

Andy is HAMMERED...

[Deberg_1990]

Should the Royals take a chance and sign Luke Heimlich?

Worth the backlash? Worked for the Chiefs with Tyreek.

Fans will forgive if the results show up on the field. Or was the crime too heinous?

[nychief]

Originally Posted by Deberg_1990

Should the Royals take a chance and sign Luke Heimlich?

Worth the backlash? Worked for the Chiefs with Tyreek.

Fans will forgive if the results show up on the field. Or was the crime too heinous?

Have you met Dayton "Real men don't use porn" Moore?

[suzzer99]

Originally Posted by Deberg_1990

Should the Royals take a chance and sign Luke Heimlich?

Worth the backlash? Worked for the Chiefs with Tyreek.

Fans will forgive if the results show up on the field. Or was the crime too heinous?

6-year-olds dude.

I can cheer for a guy who lost his temper in the heat of the moment, hasn't repeated his mistake, and shows real remorse and contrition. You don't molest a child in the heat of the moment.

Same reason the Chiefs don't play that Gary Glitter song anymore.