Author: staff

Sports

Bad blood. A 20-5 defeat. 3 takeaways from the Chicago Cubs’ 4-game series split with the Cincinnati Reds.

CINCINNATI — The Chicago Cubs might be wondering what could have been this week against the Cincinnati Reds.Riding a three-game winning streak after taking the first two games of the four-game series, the Cubs couldn’t sustain momentum the rest of the week.AdvertisementThe Reds clobbered them 20-5 in the finale Thursday, piling up 20 hits for a series split. A 59-minute rain delay only prolonged the inevitable.An eight-run third inning doomed the Cubs and ended Justin Steele’s outing. The game got so out of hand that infielder Andrelton Simmons pitched for the first time in his career in the eighth — and he gave up five runs on five hits and a walk. AdvertisementRight fielder Seiya Suzuki exited the game in the fourth with a sprained left ring finger. He suffered the injury the previous inning when he jammed the finger sliding into second on a stolen base. Manager David Ross sounded optimistic Suzuki avoided a serious injury after he checked out OK, which included a negative X-ray.Cubs right fielder Seiya Suzuki, left, is checked on by trainers and manager David Ross after suffering an injury while sliding into second on a stolen base in the third inning against the Reds on Thursday in Cincinnati. (Dylan Buell / Getty Images)The Cubs get an off day Friday to regroup before heading to the South Side for a quick weekend series against the White Sox at Guaranteed Rate Field. The Sox won both games at Wrigley Field in early May. Javier Báez and Amir Garrett are no longer around to continue their feud, but heightened tensions between their former teams haven’t dissipated.Cubs reliever Rowan Wick and Reds first baseman Joey Votto have taken over as the protagonists in the bad-blood drama between the sides. The brouhaha from late in Wednesday’s game carried over into Thursday’s series finale. Willson Contreras, who homered in the fifth and admired his shot, was hit with the first pitch of his seventh-inning at-bat. Manager David Ross then was ejected for the second straight game and seventh time in his managerial career. Ross wasn’t interested in rehashing what prompted another conversation with the umpire crew.Cubs manager David Ross argues with umpire Will Little after being ejected in the seventh inning of a game against the Reds on Thursday at Great American Ball Park in Cincinnati. (Dylan Buell / Getty Images)“I’ll keep that between the umpires,” Ross said. “A lot of it just goes back to (Wednesday).”Contreras then had words with Votto after Wick struck out the Reds slugger to end the seventh. The Cubs’ bullpen started to run onto the field but made it only halfway before returning to the pen as the situation dissipated.Reds first baseman Joey Votto, left, exchanges words with Cubs catcher Willson Contreras after striking out in the seventh inning Thursday in Cincinnati. The Reds won 20-5. (Aaron Doster / AP)It’s unlikely this will be the end of the animosity between the Cubs and Reds and, more specifically, Wick and Votto. The teams still play 15 times, including six consecutive games to end the season.AdvertisementHoerner’s contact-oriented approach has been a welcomed part of the Cubs lineup that too often last season featured too much swing-and-miss.The Cubs’ regular lineup this season features more contact hitters — to the determent of the long ball at times. Hoerner figures to play a big role for the Cubs going forward. Adding power to his offensive profile would be huge for Hoerner and the team.There are some signs of that happening. Hoerner homered during the second inning Thursday in his first start off the injured list.Cubs shortstop Nico Hoerner crosses the plate after hitting a solo home run during the second inning against the Reds on Thursday in Cincinnati. (Aaron Doster/AP)“Two weeks is not too bad,” Hoerner said this week of his IL stint. “I was able to be swinging pretty soon afterward. That wasn’t really a concern in the rehab side of it.”The home run marked his third of the season, which tied his career high, doing so in 101 plate appearances. Hoerner’s career high came in 2019 (82 PAs). He hadn’t homered in 2020 or 2021, a stretch of 296 PAs.Chicago Tribune SportsWeekdaysA daily sports newsletter delivered to your inbox for your morning commute.Hoerner entered Thursday with the highest flyball rate (20.5%) and extra-base hit rate (7.0%) of his career. Getting more pop from Hoerner, combined with his contact rate and defensive performance at shortstop, would take his all-around game to the next level.AdvertisementWith two doubleheaders next week, the Cubs will gain a 27th player and need two additional starters.One player who won’t be brought up to help: top pitching prospect Caleb Kilian. The right-hander is lined up to start Monday after starting Wednesday for Triple-A Iowa. Kilian wasn’t sharp in that outing.However, Ross said before Thursday’s series finale that Kilian is not being discussed as an option for either of the doubleheaders Monday and Saturday. In nine starts with Triple-A Iowa, Kilian has posted a 2.06 ERA, 1.271 WHIP, 41 strikeouts and 15 walks in 39⅓ innings. It’s his first season pitching at that level.“It just looks like real big-league stuff,” Ross said. “He’s having a great season and (his) stuff’s trending up. The velocities moving up. There’s just a lot of good things to like about him. … He’s having a great season, and I’m sure we’ll see him sooner rather than later.”Kilian, acquired from the San Francisco Giants in the Kris Bryant trade, must be added to the 40-man roster in the offseason to be protected from the Rule 5 draft. The Cubs will want to get a look at him sometime this season. Bringing him up for a doubleheader spot start would require putting him on the 40-man, and the Cubs likely want to maintain flexibility there as long as possible.The organization is positioning to be major sellers at the trade deadline again, which would open spots for Kilian not only for the 40-man but in the rotation.

News

A very dark place

For many, mental health has only recently come into focus due to the COVID-19 pandemic. However, for those of us incarcerated by the Illinois Department of…

Sports

Roman Abramovich’s fall from grace in the Premier League was swift. Here’s how he was forced to sell Chelsea.

Standing by the bar in a small Stamford Bridge hospitality suite was a figure who had had not been spotted at the stadium in three years: Roman Abramovich.Last November, the Chelsea owner was back in London at his English Premier League club to host the president of Israel. There was no obvious security entourage around the Russian billionaire and little fuss, just close associate and Chelsea director Eugene Tenenbaum.AdvertisementAfter making small talk with guests and posing for photos with President Isaac Herzog in front of the pitch, the party moved onto an afternoon tea event for around 50 people, with scones and cucumber sandwiches.Abramovich was feted with speeches praising his work through Chelsea to campaign against antisemitism. It looked like the gradual reintroduction of Abramovich into a more high-profile role around Chelsea again, attached to his social activism.AdvertisementThere was, maybe, a British visa to be regained after he withdrew his application for a renewal in 2018.Then everything rapidly changed from Feb. 24 when Russia invaded Ukraine.Three months later, Abramovich is being replaced as Chelsea owner by a group fronted by American investor Todd Boehly, a prospect unimaginable when the oligarch was on the field in Abu Dhabi on Feb. 9 lifting the FIFA Club World Cup.Chelsea owner Roman Abramovich applauds his team during a 6-0 victory against Arsenal in the Premier League on March 22, 2014. (Alastair Grant/AP)It would turn out to be the 21st and last men’s team trophy in 19 years running the team his wealth transformed from being glamorous but only occasionally competing for the biggest trophies, into one of the most successful in European football.Abramovich tried to cling onto Chelsea, even as anger over Russia’s unprovoked aggression toward its neighbor intensified, backed not just by loyal fans but club greats including John Terry hailing him as “the best.”Within hours of the war beginning, Abramovich was accused in the House of Commons of having links to corrupt activity and paying for political influence in Russia. The demands grew for Abramovich to be sanctioned by the British government, which had already thwarted his efforts to regain the visa in recent years, according to a legislator.Sensing the need to act, Abramovich offered cosmetic changes to the ownership on Feb. 26 with the pledge to relinquish “stewardship and care” of the club to its charitable foundation trustees.They had not signed off on the plan, though, and the vague proposal did not quell the anger that a man accused of being so closely linked to Russian President Vladimir Putin could retain the ownership of a high-profile status symbol in the heart of London.AdvertisementAnother public play to shield his reputation from Putin’s war came on Feb. 28 when Abramovich’s PR pushed an apparent move for him to broker peace. Abramovich did not condemn the war, and he has yet to do so despite talking about the need to publicly condemn atrocities only two days before the invasion. The rare comments came in a statement launching a new partnership backing the Jerusalem-based Holocaust museum.“Yad Vashem’s work in preserving the memory of the victims of the Holocaust,” Abramovich said, “is instrumental to ensure that future generations never forget what antisemitism, racism and hate can lead to if we don’t speak out.”Yet, Abramovich never has practiced what he preached, even as Putin framed the war as one of denazification, falsely called the Ukrainian leadership “Nazis” despite President Volodymyr Zelenskyy being Jewish, and areas were reduced to rubble by Russian bombing and shelling. Yad Vashem suspended its partnership with Abramovich, as did the Imperial War Museum in London, where he funded a Holocaust exhibition and which hosted an event for him hours after the start of Russia’s war on Ukraine.It was only six days into the invasion when Swiss billionaire Hansjorg Wyss leaked that Abramovich was actually trying to quickly dispose of Chelsea and the club was publicly put up for sale.“I hope,” Abramovich said, “that I will be able to visit Stamford Bridge one last time to say goodbye to all of you in person.”A week later, any immediate hopes of returning to London were ended by the government. Sanctions and travel restrictions were placed on Abramovich, his assets were frozen, and Chelsea was allowed to operate only under the terms of a government-issued license until the end of May.AdvertisementNew match tickets couldn’t be sold by Chelsea. Players couldn’t be handed new contracts. Even merchandise stores had to close.The job of finding a buyer for Chelsea was placed with the New York-based Raine Group merchant bank. An array of prospective investors went public, some seemingly more viable owners than others, before the bank produced a shortlist of four bidders in early April.The sale ended where it began with Wyss.The Raine Group — working with Abramovich’s associates on the board leading Chelsea — eventually selected the group featuring Wyss and fronted by Boehly, part-owner of the Los Angeles Dodgers, with investment from Clearlake Capital.The sale price was 2.5 billion pounds ($3.2 billion), the most ever for a team in world sports, with the proceeds having to go to a foundation supporting Ukrainian victims of the war. Boehly also had to pledge to invest 1.75 billion pounds ($2.2 billion) in the coming years in the teams and infrastructure.The final stage of the process encapsulated how laced in politics the process was with approval needed from the British and European authorities that sanctioned Abramovich, ensuring he would not profit from the sale.AdvertisementIt was an unceremonious end to his 19 years as owner.After buying Chelsea for 140 million pounds in 2003, Abramovich ended up with nothing. Not even a return of the 1.6 billion pounds of loans he had to write off to allow the club to be sold and continue playing.It was never about money for Abramovich, though. More about status and winning trophies.“In hindsight, especially with the public profile it would bring me, maybe I would have thought differently about owning a club,” Abramovich was quoted as telling Forbes a year before losing control of Chelsea. “But, at the time, I just saw this incredible game, and that I wanted to be a part of that in one way or another.”No more, in England at least.Ultimately, though, the association with Putin that Abramovich spent so long trying to distance himself from cost him the ability to retain the ownership of Chelsea.

News

Song and dance, but not enough story

Here’s the TL;DR version of what to expect from Ain’t Too Proud, the new jukebox musical about soul/blues/disco/rock hitmakers The Temptations, whose catalog of songs spans…

Lifestyle

MAMAS speak out on Roe v. Wade: ‘We need to couple the fight for Roe v. Wade with multiple fights at the same time’

It’s been three weeks since the U.S. Supreme Court’s leaked draft decision to overturn Roe v. Wade was made public.Striking down the 1973 decision would end federal protection for abortion rights, opening the door for states to ban or restrict access to the procedure. A number of states have already passed measures that would outlaw or curtail abortion in the wake of the ruling. Since then, protests have stepped up around the nation and residents can’t help but wonder what the after will look like locally and regionally if the landmark decision is overturned this summer.Advertisement“Feminism failed to show up for voting rights and feminism failed to show up for candidates of color who talked about reproduction, so now here we are with mainstream feminism facing its worst fears because it wasn’t showing up for any of the other fights that might have prevented this,” said Mikki Kendall, author of “Hood Feminism: Notes from the Women That a Movement Forgot” — a book that centers feminism in a community-based activism lens.On Mother’s Day weekend, we talked with Nadine Naber and Souzan Naser, co-directors of MAMAS (Mamas Activating Movements for Abolition and Solidarity), a Chicago-based collective that works with mothers/caretakers of color impacted by violence, surveillance and deportation by law enforcement.AdvertisementRosemary Cade, 67, joined MAMAS for the camaraderie. The Roseland resident is mother to Antonio Porter, who is serving a 71-year sentence for a 2002 murder conviction stemming from a dice game slaying. Cade spoke about her son’s story at a rally Mother’s Day weekend. She said being in community with other mothers offers comfort.“There’s other mothers suffering and struggling with the same situation that I’m going through with my son — that’s a lot of stress,” Cade said. “The fight is the struggle. We got to keep fighting. We can’t give up.”Bertha Escamilla, center left, and Rosemary Cade, members of Mamas Activating Movements for Abolition and Solidarity, attend an event to recognize those who have experienced incarceration, outside Cook County Jail on May 7, 2022, in Chicago. Escamilla’s son, Nick Escamilla, and Cade’s son, Antonio Porter, are both imprisoned. (John J. Kim / Chicago Tribune)Established in 2019, the collective sees police violence as a feminist issue, where prisons are impacting their children and by extension impacting them. MAMAS seeks to integrate mother’s voices into social movements. Naber, University of Illinois at Chicago professor of gender and women’s studies and global Asian studies and faculty founder of UIC’s Arab American Cultural Center, and Naser, licensed clinical social worker, counselor and assistant professor at Moraine Valley Community College and Arab American Action Network president, spoke about the intersectionality of feminism, reproductive justice (reproductive rights, access, and social justice) and the upcoming decision on Roe v. Wade.“For women of color, the fight for Roe vs. Wade has to be accompanied by the fight for all women to have access to health care and for all women to have the capacity to have or not have kids and to mother in safety and dignity,” Naber said. “Our issue is that no matter what argument you make for the right to choose, it’s still not going to be enough if people don’t have health care and people aren’t protected from state violence.”Naber said MAMAS wants to make sure that mothers of color have a seat at the table in movements of change.“We’re working with mamas who are resisting immigration bans, mothers who are surviving war and colonization,” Naser said. “We need to take seriously the ways prisons impact people of color, not just in the U.S., but colonized people across the globe, including Palestine. We need to talk about how prison, colonization, immigration bans and detention devastates mothers and caretakers economically. It impacts their physical and mental health. It interferes with their ability to survive, and to thrive with dignity. Mothers and caretakers bear all of these burdens when they are supporting their incarcerated family members, when they’re resisting war and colonization.”The interview has been condensed and edited for clarity.Q: What are the collective’s thoughts about the draft decision news?AdvertisementNaber: Fighting for the right to choose — it couldn’t be more urgent. We’re very critical of how society is grappling with this moment, that our society is grappling with it in white, middle class, feminist terms. Those terms exclude the realities that women of color face and how they would be impacted. Reproductive justice is about the human right to parent your child. If you were to have a child and then the state forcibly separates mothers from their children, which very much disproportionately affects women of color, who, whether they’re immigrants, undocumented refugees, that trauma is reproduced generationally. For us, it’s the police violence issue of the Chicago Police Department, either killing children and forcibly separating mothers from their children and Chicago police incarcerating Black and brown men en masse, as well as the Chicago Police Department forcing confessions en masse. The question is: Who’s going to address these communities and these mothers who are facing a massively urgent reproductive justice issue that’s beyond a right under the law to choose whether to have a child or not? It’s about a state taking away your capacity to be a mother to your child.Naser: It goes back to who has access and who is this ban going to impact the most. It’s going to impact minority individuals and marginalized communities because the white middle-class folk are still going to be able to carry on as normal. They have the money, they have the ability to get their health care needs.Naber: Controlling women’s bodies has always been essential to white supremacy — we know that from the history of enslavement and Native American genocide. The hetero-patriarchal family, conservative concepts of women’s respectability, the white middle-class family must maintain itself if white supremacy, white privilege, and capitalism are to remain, which is what the U.S. is based on.Q: If the mainstream is single-issue feminism, do people of color have to create their own form of feminism to be included?Naber: Movements are often single issue. In our case, it’s about sexism and racism. It’s intersectional and that’s why we have to create our own because we need a space that can work on both at the same time — it’s gender and race together. It’s the mothering and the police violence. There are many movements like ours, but all of those groups are similarly on the margins … other groups of people doing the intersectional framing but maybe they’re just not as known.Naser: When we think about the women’s rights movement, it was initially led by middle-class white women who didn’t include, prioritize or vocalize, or stand up for the needs of women of color and other marginalized women who have historically and continue to have limited access to health care, who have a lack of choices for effective birth control. Just think about the different ways that reproductive injustices are maintained — BIPOC mothers and caregivers continue to be dehumanized for social problems. One of our mothers talked about how she’s treated when she used to be able to go in person and visit her incarcerated son, how racist and sexist that process is during prison visits for her or in the courtroom and how corporate media blames mothers of color for their children’s death, or for their incarceration. Reproductive injustices include all of this.AdvertisementQ: Is there a way to make more people drink the inclusive feminism Kool-Aid?Naber: Mainstream discussion says that if we really want women to have autonomy over their bodies, then they should get these rights under the law. We’re saying that’s not enough. If we really want women of color to be included in this, we need to say that women should get to choose to have or to not have a child. Some people don’t even get the choice to have and after you have, you should be able to parent, to mother your child in safety and dignity. That’s a women of color framework on it; to be able to raise your kids in sustainable communities with dignity and safety and to not have to fear that your child is going to die or be taken from you. To drink the Kool-Aid, we need to couple the fight for Roe v. Wade with multiple fights at the same time — that’s what makes it a women of color perspective, that it always has multiple asks and multiple struggles. That’s what’s hard for the mainstream to understand, they want the one thing, but women of color feminism is never one thing, because if we’re talking about housing, we need housing and child care.Naser: If they continue to chip away at people’s “rights” what’s to say that they’re not going to restrict individuals from being able to go out of state to get medication that they need, the health care that they need, the abortion that they need?drockett@chicagotribune.com