nymr83

] Brian Schneider (right calf) was scratched from his extended spring training game Monday, and Omar Minaya said there was no timetable for when Schneider would begin playing It doesn't look like the club will need to decide between Castro and Santos any time soon.

]) Those claiming to know that Lowe would have been a good sign need to be sure to tell us all about how they are calling this one in their favor approx 1/20th of the way through a deal that takes the pitcher until just before birthday #40 while, at the same time, I'm sure were all over the Glavine deal being a mistake despite coming at a similar age & money only with 1 fewer year guaranteed and a better career up to that point. they were pretty damn similiar. the lowe deal pretty much IS the glavine deal, or at least as close as you can get in making these types of comparisons, so anyone who says "the mets should have signed lowe" also has to agree with the statement "i am happy with how the glavine deal turned out and would like to have that again" i could go either way on that. i liked lowe better than the crappy alternative ("ball 4" Perez), but didnt really LIKE him.

A key chunk of news in this report is that Wily Mo Pe�a isn't currently available if we need to DL Carlos Delgado. I heard Bobby Bonilla was available, and I think the Mets are still paying him!

NOW they bring Stokes in? down 4 runs they might as well ask feliciano to find another out.

2 run single, and the runners advance to 2nd and 3rd on murphy's ill-advised throw home. throw to third, muph!

Reyes fucks up. And now Diaz, murderer of lefty relievers, will bat with bases loaded.

WEAR THE MUSTACHE!!! (stupid yankee fan)

="metirish":13ypim9n]Hi Lou[/quote:13ypim9n] Hi Doctor Nick! Edgy DC May 13 2009 07:51 AM Here's a guy who needs to be deposed.: http://www.nyyankeefans.com/forums/index.php?s=f16ced6e12dc8c417116cf1fe4e377db&showtopic=47002&st=0&p=501666entry501666 Yeah, that's right. I'm chilling at the Yankee forum. Frayed Knot May 13 2009 08:05 AM ]For example, Roger Clemens tested positive for steroids at the end of the 2005 season and thats why he missed the beginning of the 2006 season. He wasnt signed until the night after the Astros played 50 games I've heard this theory before but it doesn't hold water IMO. I think people see the 50-game mark and simply run with it. But we all know that Guillermo Mota was able to sign during the winter before the days of the suspension even started ticking off. And, of course, Clemens merely signed on day 51 (assuming that's even accurate) but didn't start pitching until 70-some days had gone by. Why? And then he did the same thing the next season. Then, of course, none of this explains Manny, who only got suspended after only a questionable drug test made MLB do follow-up investigations to confirm their suspicions. Edgy DC May 13 2009 08:09 AM Oh, I think the guy definitely has to add some pieces to the story, but anybody who steers the conversation even a little bit away from players who might have used toward suits who might have facilitated them is somebody who neutral parties should be talking to. John Cougar Lunchbucket May 13 2009 08:31 AM ="Edgy DC":3hu1314s] Yeah, that's right. I'm chilling at the Yankee forum.[/quote:3hu1314s] Say Hi to Steve J Rogers for me. LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr May 13 2009 08:36 AM ="Frayed Knot"]]For example, Roger Clemens tested positive for steroids at the end of the 2005 season and thats why he missed the beginning of the 2006 season. He wasnt signed until the night after the Astros played 50 games I've heard this theory before but it doesn't hold water IMO. I think people see the 50-game mark and simply run with it. Folks have whispered in the same way about Jordan's first retirement-- that it was a secret gambling sanction from Stern-- for years. The circumstantial evidence here-- pretty much "the lengths of time seem to match, don't they?"-- is just as unconvincing (and the non-circumstantial evidence, unless someone kept copious notes, is nonexistent). As plausible as some of the details sound, ultimately, I'm left with the same feeling I get when someone spills the supposed workings of an elaborate-but-workable government conspiracy theory: if 90% of the folks in office can f*ck up something as simple as [tax administration/sunsetting of bills/fill in the blank], how the HELL are they properly administering-- AND keeping the lid on-- something this far-reaching and filigreed? Edgy DC May 13 2009 08:48 AM Yeah, I'm not trying to endorse any particular thing the guy reports, only that anybody who claims to have inside knowledge of suit faciliation needs to point somebody down the trail. Keep in mind, though, that this account comes six months before the Mitchell List, so the notion that MLB was throwing marginal players over while protecting All Stars was still pretty viable. I mean, I guess I remain bothered that the players get raked over while the suits remain free to practice. Steve Phillips position that he had suspicions about his players (apparently accurate, as it turns out) but didn't know what he could do remain pretty weak.

="Benjamin Grimm"]Can an adult switch rooting interests? I guess I know the answer is yes, but I don't quite understand it. Yes, see: Sabermetric, Bret but seriously i can see how someone would stop being a fan, that is to say stop caring about their team, but i cant see how they could just pick up a new one and really care about them.

wanted to go tonight but its not happening, so expect Santana to throw the first no-hitter in franchise history in my absence.

Eastwood made an "eh" script watchable

not to be confused with [u:uotfl7t2]Star Trek: The Motion Picture[/u:uotfl7t2] i saw it earlier today and it was a decent movie in its own right but not such a good part of the star trek universe.

="duan":2nv96i5t]but why is the right to my good name "odd"[/quote:2nv96i5t] if your name is "good" you can prove so in court. duan May 09 2009 01:58 PM have you ever had to go to court? why should the burden of proof belong to me, not the person who says things about me. [for the record, i'm only talking this out, not necessarily advocating!] cooby May 09 2009 10:24 PM Steve I think your other-Mets-Forum-lawyer-friend might have a correspondence course degree

going tonight, dont know where we will be sitting.

better not check the archives as i'm afraid i'd be on that list

right, and that is a free speech issue because i'm sure the british laws stifle alot more potential speech than the american laws do... whether thats good or not is for everyobe to decide, but i'd suspect americans prefer the law we have and vice versa

="seawolf17":25cthrrd]and the worst possible players in the AL.[/quote:25cthrrd] but what if I don't want to see Jeter that night? metsguyinmichigan May 08 2009 12:27 PM ="Nymr83":10ijqdy2]="seawolf17":10ijqdy2]and the worst possible players in the AL.[/quote:10ijqdy2] but what if I don't want to see Jeter that night?[/quote:10ijqdy2] Oh, I yearn to hear what falls on Jeter like soft rain when he's introduced in St. Louis. Actually, those fans are pretty respectful. Ceetar May 08 2009 12:41 PM other AL Shortstop? Even Yankee fans are down on their team this year. It makes guys vote less (see the Mets last year). Is there a SS that can take it away from Jeter? How about Bartlett from the Rays? He's definitely the smart choice at this early juncture. Do the Rays have enough fans to get him on there? I know generally when I vote, after the first standings are released, I vote for the guys that could take spots away from the Yankees. Fman99 May 08 2009 09:01 PM Jeter gets too many votes from women and gay men to be overcome by an actual ballplayer. That, plus the lack of a marquee alternate at that position in the AL, near-guarantees the soft rain continue. I will rain down vomit.

="Edgy DC":1uqr1nn3]The problem is that there's advertising commitments attached to the distribution and circulation of the ballot. It's a cash cow. The idea may be "pretty good vote totals" to you, but it's not to MLB.[/quote:1uqr1nn3] i didnt even think of advertising as i probably havent taken a good look at a paper all-star ballot in years Edgy DC May 08 2009 10:45 AM But electronic balloting leads to page hits which leads to advertising $$ also. Ceetar May 08 2009 11:20 AM Rick If we really want to expose the joke of it, don't vote for Milledge, do a write-in for Rick Astley. Citi's scoreboard prompted me to vote for Sheffield last night. He's not even on the ballot. metsguyinmichigan May 08 2009 11:52 AM Hey now. Have all the fun you want with the American League ballot. But we need the best NLers out there because I want home field advantage when we're in the World Series this fall. Ceetar May 08 2009 11:54 AM ="metsguyinmichigan":2w0p9ocs]Hey now. Have all the fun you want with the American League ballot. But we need the best NLers out there because I want home field advantage when we're in the World Series this fall.[/quote:2w0p9ocs] Nah. if the Mets have home field advantage they'll clinch on the road in game four. Much rather them be home. seawolf17 May 08 2009 12:07 PM Yeah, what's wrong with you people? Vote all Mets in the NL, and the worst possible players in the AL. Nymr83 May 08 2009 12:09 PM ="seawolf17":25cthrrd]and the worst possible players in the AL.[/quote:25cthrrd] but what if I don't want to see Jeter that night? metsguyinmichigan May 08 2009 12:27 PM ="Nymr83":10ijqdy2]="seawolf17":10ijqdy2]and the worst possible players in the AL.[/quote:10ijqdy2] but what if I don't want to see Jeter that night?[/quote:10ijqdy2] Oh, I yearn to hear what falls on Jeter like soft rain when he's introduced in St. Louis. Actually, those fans are pretty respectful. Ceetar May 08 2009 12:41 PM other AL Shortstop? Even Yankee fans are down on their team this year. It makes guys vote less (see the Mets last year). Is there a SS that can take it away from Jeter? How about Bartlett from the Rays? He's definitely the smart choice at this early juncture. Do the Rays have enough fans to get him on there? I know generally when I vote, after the first standings are released, I vote for the guys that could take spots away from the Yankees. Fman99 May 08 2009 09:01 PM Jeter gets too many votes from women and gay men to be overcome by an actual ballplayer. That, plus the lack of a marquee alternate at that position in the AL, near-guarantees the soft rain continue. I will rain down vomit.

]That's an odd statement. US libel laws are far less restrictive than those in places like the UK, for instance. restrictive to who? in the U.S. the laws are less restrictive in the sense that you (the alleged libel-er) can say more i believe that in the UK the burden of proof is backwards. here in the U.S. you (the person aggrieved) must prove the falseness of the statement, don't they place the burden on the libel-er to prove the statement is true over there?

i suppose it was necessary back whent he only way to vote was in person at a ballpark, but with the rise of internet voting it is pretty dumb. they could start the voting June 1st and have no problem getting good vote totals

="John Cougar Lunchbucket":f9eugbs2]Sure I'll intentionally humiliate a player and make a big joke of the All-Star Game while pretending it will "change" something.[/quote:f9eugbs2] Bud Selig made a big joke of the all-star game when he declared a tie. this is peanuts. OlerudOwned May 08 2009 09:42 AM That fact that All Star voting starts so early is a little funny in itself. Nymr83 May 08 2009 09:57 AM i suppose it was necessary back whent he only way to vote was in person at a ballpark, but with the rise of internet voting it is pretty dumb. they could start the voting June 1st and have no problem getting good vote totals Edgy DC May 08 2009 10:01 AM The problem is that there's advertising commitments attached to the distribution and circulation of the ballot. It's a cash cow. The idea may be "pretty good vote totals" to you, but it's not to MLB. Fman99 May 08 2009 10:32 AM Nymr83 May 08 2009 10:43 AM ="Edgy DC":1uqr1nn3]The problem is that there's advertising commitments attached to the distribution and circulation of the ballot. It's a cash cow. The idea may be "pretty good vote totals" to you, but it's not to MLB.[/quote:1uqr1nn3] i didnt even think of advertising as i probably havent taken a good look at a paper all-star ballot in years Edgy DC May 08 2009 10:45 AM But electronic balloting leads to page hits which leads to advertising $$ also. Ceetar May 08 2009 11:20 AM Rick If we really want to expose the joke of it, don't vote for Milledge, do a write-in for Rick Astley. Citi's scoreboard prompted me to vote for Sheffield last night. He's not even on the ballot. metsguyinmichigan May 08 2009 11:52 AM Hey now. Have all the fun you want with the American League ballot. But we need the best NLers out there because I want home field advantage when we're in the World Series this fall. Ceetar May 08 2009 11:54 AM ="metsguyinmichigan":2w0p9ocs]Hey now. Have all the fun you want with the American League ballot. But we need the best NLers out there because I want home field advantage when we're in the World Series this fall.[/quote:2w0p9ocs] Nah. if the Mets have home field advantage they'll clinch on the road in game four. Much rather them be home. seawolf17 May 08 2009 12:07 PM Yeah, what's wrong with you people? Vote all Mets in the NL, and the worst possible players in the AL. Nymr83 May 08 2009 12:09 PM ="seawolf17":25cthrrd]and the worst possible players in the AL.[/quote:25cthrrd] but what if I don't want to see Jeter that night? metsguyinmichigan May 08 2009 12:27 PM ="Nymr83":10ijqdy2]="seawolf17":10ijqdy2]and the worst possible players in the AL.[/quote:10ijqdy2] but what if I don't want to see Jeter that night?[/quote:10ijqdy2] Oh, I yearn to hear what falls on Jeter like soft rain when he's introduced in St. Louis. Actually, those fans are pretty respectful. Ceetar May 08 2009 12:41 PM other AL Shortstop? Even Yankee fans are down on their team this year. It makes guys vote less (see the Mets last year). Is there a SS that can take it away from Jeter? How about Bartlett from the Rays? He's definitely the smart choice at this early juncture. Do the Rays have enough fans to get him on there? I know generally when I vote, after the first standings are released, I vote for the guys that could take spots away from the Yankees. Fman99 May 08 2009 09:01 PM Jeter gets too many votes from women and gay men to be overcome by an actual ballplayer. That, plus the lack of a marquee alternate at that position in the AL, near-guarantees the soft rain continue. I will rain down vomit.

hardly a big deal, its not like he was drunk, pay the fine and be done with it. the big "news" to me here was that Angel Pagan is still a Met, i had no idea!

Plus backup C Molina looks headed to the DL along with Posada. Santos for Hughes or Kennedy. lets do it.

="duan":3q0j2xcf]I've never understood the US's attitude to Libel. An attitude that's become more pervasive worldwide as the values held by US companies become imposed elsewhere through the internet (not through any fault of the US' - why should the New York Times have to worry about Irish libel laws really). The right to say whatever you like about someone seems to be wrapped up in a Freedom of Speech banner and I don't know that that's actually fair.[/quote:3q0j2xcf] Libel laws became wrapped up pretty early on in the American identity with the Zenger trial, even if today's issues in the defamation area have nothign to do with Zenger (truth as a defense) I'd also posit that Americans put a much greater emphasis on freedom of speech than other democracies (i wont even bother talking about non-democratic countries) RealityChuck May 08 2009 09:30 AM Re: side issue but funnily enough ="duan"]I've never understood the US's attitude to Libel. An attitude that's become more pervasive worldwide as the values held by US companies become imposed elsewhere through the internet (not through any fault of the US' - why should the New York Times have to worry about Irish libel laws really). That's an odd statement. US libel laws are far less restrictive than those in places like the UK, for instance. ]The right to say whatever you like about someone seems to be wrapped up in a Freedom of Speech banner and I don't know that that's actually fair. Let's go over a few misconceptions: Libel is not a free speech issue. You can't avoid libel by claiming free speech. Libel is defined as a false statement of fact. It is not libel to say someone looks like a steroid user; that's your opinion, not a fact. It is libel to claim someone took steroids unless you have evidence to back it up. Since most of the posts on a message board are usually opinion, libel isn't in play. Public figures have a higher standard for proving libel than the general public. Someone can libel you and you can win by proving they were making false statements. For a public figure (an that would probably include ballplayers), the person claiming libel not only must show the false statement, but must also prove that the person publishing them knew that they were false and published them anyway. The truth is pretty much an iron clad defense against libel. Angel Pagan, for instance, can't sue newspapers for reporting about his arrest yesterday. Suits are often brought for defamation and called libel. There is a difference. These are often nuisance suits -- it's hard to prove actual defamation without libel, but it does force the defendant to hire a lawyer. Making a threat is not libel, and it is not usually allowed under free speech. A bulletin board has no special privileges when it comes to libel. However, since posts are usually clearly opinion, they will generally be in the clear (though they would have to pay legal costs in a suit). Nymr83 May 08 2009 10:00 AM ]That's an odd statement. US libel laws are far less restrictive than those in places like the UK, for instance. restrictive to who? in the U.S. the laws are less restrictive in the sense that you (the alleged libel-er) can say more i believe that in the UK the burden of proof is backwards. here in the U.S. you (the person aggrieved) must prove the falseness of the statement, don't they place the burden on the libel-er to prove the statement is true over there? LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr May 08 2009 10:18 AM Shall we adjourn to Non-BB? duan May 08 2009 10:56 AM well it' In Ireland & UK (where much of our law stems from anyway) if you publish something, the burden is on you to be able to prove that it's true, not the other way round. It's a very different dynamic. Nymr83 May 08 2009 12:11 PM right, and that is a free speech issue because i'm sure the british laws stifle alot more potential speech than the american laws do... whether thats good or not is for everyobe to decide, but i'd suspect americans prefer the law we have and vice versa RealityChuck May 08 2009 02:27 PM ="Nymr83"]]That's an odd statement. US libel laws are far less restrictive than those in places like the UK, for instance. restrictive to who? in the U.S. the laws are less restrictive in the sense that you (the alleged libel-er) can say more i believe that in the UK the burden of proof is backwards. here in the U.S. you (the person aggrieved) must prove the falseness of the statement, don't they place the burden on the libel-er to prove the statement is true over there?Yes -- less restrictive on the press and publisher. Libel, after all, is a suit against the person who publishes the material, not the other way around. Libel laws don't restrict the person suing. duan May 08 2009 04:11 PM but why is the right to my good name "odd" Kong76 May 08 2009 07:29 PM tmf: If someone is making actual threats on a message board, the authorities have the power to pierce the veil of anonymity <<< Lol, so do I. Nymr83 May 08 2009 10:46 PM ="duan":2nv96i5t]but why is the right to my good name "odd"[/quote:2nv96i5t] if your name is "good" you can prove so in court. duan May 09 2009 01:58 PM have you ever had to go to court? why should the burden of proof belong to me, not the person who says things about me. [for the record, i'm only talking this out, not necessarily advocating!] cooby May 09 2009 10:24 PM Steve I think your other-Mets-Forum-lawyer-friend might have a correspondence course degree

dont look now, we've got a game again.