nymr83

="metsguyinmichigan":2qftspnl]Always lots of rumors that Alomar was gay. Supposedly he spit at the umpire because he made a homophobic slur.[/quote:2qftspnl] which has what to do with anything here? metirish Feb 11 2009 07:50 AM I can't ever remember rumors that he was gay. HahnSolo Feb 11 2009 07:58 AM All this time I thought he was happily pillowing Mary Pierce. Benjamin Grimm Feb 11 2009 07:59 AM That kind of rings a bell with me. (The gay Alomar rumors.) John Cougar Lunchbucket Feb 11 2009 08:01 AM I did my part spreading those rumors after hearing my/his former drycleaner talk about how Alomar was obsessively particular about he preferred his shirts to be folded. Anyway, this and that are two different things. MFS62 Feb 11 2009 08:07 AM I wish him well. Later Edgy DC Feb 11 2009 08:08 AM I'm trying to zoom in on the alleged rape. The record shows him playing in the SALlie League at 17 and the California League at 18. The California League, as far as I can tell, sticks to the Golden State and doesn't wind out to New Mexico, or even Arizona, though maybe it did in 1986. Nymr83 Feb 11 2009 08:14 AM ="Edgy DC":1zt4k77z]I'm trying to zoom in on the alleged rape. The record shows him playing in the SALlie League at 17 and the California League at 18. The California League, as far as I can tell, sticks to the Golden State and doesn't wind out to New Mexico, or even Arizona, though maybe it did in 1986.[/quote:1zt4k77z] Reno, NV had a team from 1955 to 1992 (or so says wikipedia) soupcan Feb 11 2009 08:19 AM ="Nymr83":328ycyjo]="metsguyinmichigan":328ycyjo]Always lots of rumors that Alomar was gay. Supposedly he spit at the umpire because he made a homophobic slur.[/quote:328ycyjo] which has what to do with anything here?[/quote:328ycyjo] AIDS. Gay. There's relevance. Met Hunter Feb 11 2009 08:19 AM I have to say, I'm surprised by this story, but not shocked. The rumors of Robbie's sexual orientation have been around for years. I always felt that Piazza took some hits for Robbie back in the 'there's a gay Met' days. Hirschbeck did in fact call Alomar a name (faggot) that infuriated Roberto. A couple years ago, I attended an autograph show that both Sandys were at and we saw Roberto in the lobby. He looked like hell and we thought he was dying. We were told that he recently had surgery and was a litle under the weather. Either way, this is a sad story. If he indeed is infected, knew about it, and convinced his girl to have sexual relations with him, that is irresposible and criminal. Despite that, I hope for the best to the entire Alomar clan. A great baseball family. soupcan Feb 11 2009 08:22 AM ="Benjamin Grimm"]That kind of rings a bell with me. (The gay Alomar rumors.) There was some article making the rounds written by a gay writer who said he had an affair with a 'prominent baseball player with an east coast team'. At the time I think that many people assumed he was talking about Piazza but there were also whispers that it could have been Malomar. We used to joke here that Mary Pierce was a bad choice for a beard for Robbie because she looked more like a man than he did.. MFS62 Feb 11 2009 08:25 AM Yiles! No wonder she was fronting for Virgin. Who would want to .... ? Later Edgy DC Feb 11 2009 08:28 AM She gets a tough rap. A funky nose, but she had a wonderful athletic build, even by tennis player standards. Centerfield Feb 11 2009 08:31 AM I have confirmed with four different sources that Mary Pierce is one of the unnamed 103. Nymr83 Feb 11 2009 08:38 AM ="soupcan":1r1auihp]="Nymr83":1r1auihp]="metsguyinmichigan":1r1auihp]Always lots of rumors that Alomar was gay. Supposedly he spit at the umpire because he made a homophobic slur.[/quote:1r1auihp] which has what to do with anything here?[/quote:1r1auihp] AIDS. Gay. There's relevance.[/quote:1r1auihp] You can catch AIDS by having normal heterosexual sex. You can also be raped by men even if you yourself are not gay, I still fail to see the relevance. metsguyinmichigan Feb 11 2009 08:44 AM ="soupcan":1hl6exl4]="Nymr83":1hl6exl4]="metsguyinmichigan":1hl6exl4]Always lots of rumors that Alomar was gay. Supposedly he spit at the umpire because he made a homophobic slur.[/quote:1hl6exl4] which has what to do with anything here?[/quote:1hl6exl4] AIDS. Gay. There's relevance.[/quote:1hl6exl4] Well, the point was that if he was saying he got the disease because he was raped by two men in Mexico, that might not be entirely true. But certainly there are multiple ways to get AIDS, and I wasn't casting any dispersions on him because he might be gay. Just saying the rape thing seemed odd, as did the refusals to be tested over the years. soupcan Feb 11 2009 09:00 AM Of course you can 'catch' AIDS in ways that have nothing to do with homosexual sex. The fact remains however that it originated as a disease specific to the homosexual community and rightly or wrongly, still remains something that many people consider a 'gay desease'. The rumor that Alomar is gay combined with the rumor that he has AIDS makes the statement valid. Fman99 Feb 11 2009 09:13 AM ="soupcan"]="Benjamin Grimm"]That kind of rings a bell with me. (The gay Alomar rumors.) There was some article making the rounds written by a gay writer who said he had an affair with a 'prominent baseball player with an east coast team'. At the time I think that many people assumed he was talking about Piazza but there were also whispers that it could have been Malomar. We used to joke here that Mary Pierce was a bad choice for a beard for Robbie because she looked more like a man than he did.. Wow I can't believe Robby Alomar had sex with Geddy Lee. Benjamin Grimm Feb 11 2009 09:17 AM You know, millionaire professional athletes have trouble getting the prettiest of women, and often have to settle for those who look like Willie Nelson. Edgy DC Feb 11 2009 09:26 AM Cruel room. Vic Sage Feb 11 2009 10:00 AM my observations: 1) saying someone has AIDS could be actionable, unless it were true, so it is unlikely the woman would make this accusation without some good faith basis to believe it to be true; 2) The gay rumors (which i recall) and his sudden and precipitous drop in performance add further credibility to the claim and therefore are relevent issues to raise without pretending otherwise, or implying veiled innuendo of homophobia for having done so, 3) There doesn't seem to be an allegation that Alomar knew (or even that he necessarily should have known) that he had AIDS at the time they were having unprotected sex, so there is no criminal liability (or moral culpability); 4) this is tragic all the way around; and 5) Namor's perspective does not surprise me in the least. John Cougar Lunchbucket Feb 11 2009 10:01 AM View the suit: [url:xutp2sq2]http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2009/0211091alomar1.html[/url:xutp2sq2] metirish Feb 11 2009 10:08 AM 12 pages..... Not sure if it was last season or the one before that Alomar was shown in the stands at Shea watching a game , looked pretty good then , may have been Father's Day IIRC. Nymr83 Feb 11 2009 10:16 AM I always thought "Ilya" was a guy's name, at least the one Ilya I know is, unless I'm spelling his name wrong? ]There doesn't seem to be an allegation that Alomar knew (or even that he necessarily should have known) that he had AIDS at the time they were having unprotected sex, so there is no criminal liability (or moral culpability); #29-34 on the first cause of action seems to allege just that, even if it isn't true it is certainly being alleged. HahnSolo Feb 11 2009 10:24 AM ="metirish":z7miuiq4]12 pages..... Not sure if it was last season or the one before that Alomar was shown in the stands at Shea watching a game , looked pretty good then , may have been Father's Day IIRC.[/quote:z7miuiq4] I believe so. I think he, his dad and brother took the Shea countdown number down on Fathers Day. I didn't see him that day. Vic Sage Feb 11 2009 10:51 AM there is no evidence that he knew he was positive until 1/06, and the complaint doesn't allege any. That he SHOULD have known before then, based on his various symptoms, is a matter of conjecture, and not the basis of "criminal" conduct. It might rise to tortious conduct, if her allegations are proven true, and though sections 29-34 of the complaint are worded broadly (as such complaints generally are), they clearly are about what he SHOULD have known. Of course, during all this time HE should have known, shouldn't she have? Why would she continue to have unprotected sex with someone whose symptoms she alleges were so obvious that ignoring or denying them rose to the level of negligence (civil, much less criminal negligence!). Wasn't she contributorily negligent? Oh the other hand, if he actually told her that he'd been tested on the numerous times that she alleges, and always told her he had tested negative, that's fraudulant behavior. Still, in most jurisdictions "emotional distress" needs at least some element of physical damage to be actionable, and certainly so for a criminal prosecution. She doesn't claim any battery, and as long as she tests negative, neither she nor any state may have a claim against him for what he might have or should have known. But certainly, if her allegations are true, there is moral culpability here. Edgy DC Feb 11 2009 11:05 AM Possiblities also exist that (1) he honestly had been tested, and received a false negative, and (2) had honestly been tested, and received an accurate negative, but contracted the disease subsequently. LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Feb 11 2009 02:20 PM A suit for distress several years after the supposed diagnosis... and after she continued to cohabitate (and, presumably, perform girlfriend-ly duties) with the guy for 3-plus years after THAT? I'm guessing that he's not a fantastic breaker-upper. metirish Feb 11 2009 06:05 PM My wife tells me that of course this is shocking news in Puerto Rico , anyway Robbie's current squeeze is a TV personality and model and she has been all over TV over there today talking about how all of this is false and that in due course all will be reveled , she did say that the ex told Alomar that when they broke up she was going to ruin him.Current GF also claims that Robbie is in good health. Edgy DC Feb 11 2009 06:16 PM I hope that's true. Good health doesn't necessarily mean virus-free, but it's good to have a woman stand by you when another is airing you out. metirish Feb 11 2009 06:22 PM More news , that picture is recent because they have been dating for only six months , current girl is the object of much scorn and ridicule in Puerto Rico , she is known for being an air head...also known as "dark cloud" as a BF from a few years ago killed himself and a guy she dated last year got cancer.....crazy stuff. Edgy DC Feb 11 2009 06:27 PM La Nube Oscura. Ouch. Frayed Knot Feb 11 2009 07:03 PM Robbie will be part of next year's 1st timers club for HoF consideration. Fman99 Feb 11 2009 07:56 PM ="metirish"]My wife tells me that of course this is shocking news in Puerto Rico , anyway Robbie's current squeeze is a TV personality and model and she has been all over TV over there today talking about how all of this is false and that in due course all will be reveled , she did say that the ex told Alomar that when they broke up she was going to ruin him.Current GF also claims that Robbie is in good health. I'd shake that shack. soupcan Feb 11 2009 08:37 PM I dunno - he don't look so good to me.. Of course I'm looking at him thinking he's got full-blown AIDS and he's trying to hide it but doesn't he look a little gaunt? He looks older than a 41 year-old former professional athlete should and he was always a pretty youthful looking guy. SteveJRogers Feb 11 2009 09:11 PM Shots of him getting inducted into the Blue Jays' Level of Excellence (they don't retire numbers) last spring Edgy DC Feb 11 2009 09:39 PM ="The New York Times":gev7takj]After he joined the mediocre Mets in 2002, Alomar�s play took a sharp turn for the worse.[/quote:gev7takj] Hey, paper of record, easy on the editorializing. That's not a blog you're writing. metirish Feb 19 2009 08:32 AM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Feb 19 2009 08:44 AM Nothing new in this case , some pictures here of Alomar's GF... Be careful Opening These At Work[/url:2ob5iosb] scroll down John Cougar Lunchbucket Feb 19 2009 08:35 AM Looks like she's smuggling a few batting helmets in her top. metirish Feb 26 2009 07:03 PM Update if anyone is interested......Gisselle a famous Puerto Rican Merengue singer and ex squeeze of Alomar's felt compelled to take a HIV test and go public with the results today because of a smear campaign down there in the gossip pages....she tested negative. Also his current GF holds daily news briefs on Robbie and has taken to calling him her husband....my wife tells me this girl is really a hate figure down there and it's worse now because she is seen to be using Alomar for her own publicity. I didn't appreciate how highly thought of the Alomar family are in Puerto Rico and it's a circus there right now. TransMonk May 06 2009 01:00 PM That's settled: http://www.nydailynews.com/gossip/2009/05/06/2009-05-06_alomar_settles_suit_with_former_gal_pal.html Ex-Met Roberto Alomar settles suit with former gal pal in AIDS lawsuit BY John Marzulli DAILY NEWS STAFF WRITER Wednesday, May 6th 2009, 4:00 AM The ex-girlfriend of Roberto Alomar has settled her lawsuit that accused the former Mets' second baseman of being stricken with full-blown AIDS and having unprotected sex with her, according to court records. No terms of the settlement was disclosed. Ilya Dall, 31, had alleged that Alomar had been in declining health for years, but insisted he was disease-free before testing positive for AIDS in February 2006, according to the suit filed in Brooklyn Federal Court. She sought $15 million in damages. The couple had been dating since 2002 and broke up last October. Dall claimed in the suit that Alomar had told her he was suffering from erectile dysfunction and had been "raped by two Mexican men" when he was 17. Asked if she regretted the public disclosure of intimate details of Alomar's health, Dall told the Daily News: "I'm sorry, but I have no comment." Alomar's lawyer would not comment on whether the baseball legend had AIDS. "He's healthy and he looks great," said Charles Bach. "The matter is over. The plaintiff [Dall] has withdrawn her complaint." As part of the settlement, Dall agreed not to file any future lawsuit against Alomar. Dall's suit originally filed in Queens Supreme Court in January, was transferred to federal court at Alomar's request because they live in different states - he in Florida and Dall in Whitestone, Queens. Dall's lawyer, Robert Sullivan, also declined to comment on the settlement. jmarzulli@nydailynews.com metirish May 06 2009 01:06 PM My wife was telling me last night that Robbies current GF who also serves as his spokesperson in PR has been all over TV there boasting that they are getting married and showing off a ring that she says cost $300K . This information was blurted out during a press conference yesterday to announce the settlement. Benjamin Grimm May 06 2009 01:16 PM Of course, this settlement doesn't settle the issue of Alomar's health. It just got the plaintiff to agree to shut up. He's still just as HIV positive, or not, as he was before today. So that issue remains up in the air. LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr May 06 2009 03:18 PM ="metirish"]My wife was telling me last night that Robbies current GF who also serves as his spokesperson in PR has been all over TV there boasting that they are getting married and showing off a ring that she says cost $300K . This information was blurted out during a press conference yesterday to announce the settlement. This GF... is she actually made of plastic, or does she just seem as if she must be?

]Now move on to reading comprehension apparently it is you who needs reading lessons, "exposure" does not require that the victim be actually infected. ] It also seems to indicate he didn't show symptoms until 2 years after she started shtupping him. when he started showing symptoms isnt relevant, whats relevant is when he learned he was positive and what he did or didn't do afterwards.

You don't agree that it is criminal to lie to your sexual partner about a lethal disease that they are risking contracting by sleeping with you? Its one thing if you didn't know you had it, even if that lack of knowledge resulted from negligence, but to have sex with the girl without warning her when you know you've tested positive is criminal. But hey don't take my word for it... http://www.avert.org/criminal-transmission.htm ]As of 2008, 36 states in America criminalized the transmission or exposure of HIV, with many having laws specifically mentioning HIV. Some states punish those convicted of offences such as prostitution or rape more severely if the person knows they have HIV. Spitting or emitting HIV-infected bodily fluids at another person while in prison is also an offence in some states. A sample of the laws are below:26

="John Cougar Lunchbucket":34jzt8xm]My god. Best wishes to Robby.[/quote:34jzt8xm] If the girl's allegations are true, he should be brought up on criminal charges. John Cougar Lunchbucket Feb 11 2009 05:07 AM Right. Send him to Gitmo even. What a criminal. Nymr83 Feb 11 2009 05:26 AM You don't agree that it is criminal to lie to your sexual partner about a lethal disease that they are risking contracting by sleeping with you? Its one thing if you didn't know you had it, even if that lack of knowledge resulted from negligence, but to have sex with the girl without warning her when you know you've tested positive is criminal. But hey don't take my word for it... http://www.avert.org/criminal-transmission.htm ]As of 2008, 36 states in America criminalized the transmission or exposure of HIV, with many having laws specifically mentioning HIV. Some states punish those convicted of offences such as prostitution or rape more severely if the person knows they have HIV. Spitting or emitting HIV-infected bodily fluids at another person while in prison is also an offence in some states. A sample of the laws are below:26 Edgy DC Feb 11 2009 05:29 AM Christ, Namor. Put down the handcuffs and realize this is a tragedy no matter how it shakes out. themetfairy Feb 11 2009 05:46 AM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Feb 11 2009 05:49 AM If he indeed has full-blown AIDS, then I wish him the best - that's not a disease one would wish on anyone. The article details that the couple had unprotected sex prior to this diagnosis. Should he have had further testing at an earlier stage? Probably. On the other hand, she was having unprotected sex with him despite his persistent symptoms, which isn't the brightest idea in the world either. But the article says that the couple did not have unprotected sex after the diagnosis, so it doesn't appear that this involves criminal activity. John Cougar Lunchbucket Feb 11 2009 05:47 AM ="Nymr83"]You don't agree that it is criminal to lie to your sexual partner about a lethal disease that they are risking contracting by sleeping with you? Its one thing if you didn't know you had it, even if that lack of knowledge resulted from negligence, but to have sex with the girl without warning her when you know you've tested positive is criminal. But hey don't take my word for it... http://www.avert.org/criminal-transmission.htm ]As of 2008, 36 states in America criminalized the transmission or exposure of HIV, with many having laws specifically mentioning HIV. Some states punish those convicted of offences such as prostitution or rape more severely if the person knows they have HIV. Spitting or emitting HIV-infected bodily fluids at another person while in prison is also an offence in some states. A sample of the laws are below:26 Thanks for the legal lesson, Atticus. Now move on to reading comprehension. According to that article the chick isn't suing for infecting her --- she's disease free in fact -- but for $15 million in stress. It also seems to indicate he didn't show symptoms until 2 years after she started shtupping him. Either way, that your takeway from this story is that Alomar oughta be locked up is fucking sad. metirish Feb 11 2009 06:34 AM Best wishes to Alomar , more is sure to come out here on this story. His dad claims this is all news to him. Not surprised by Nymr83's reaction. soupcan Feb 11 2009 07:19 AM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Feb 11 2009 07:19 AM Horrible story all-around. Assuming her story is true though and that my reading comprehension isn't as poor as I think it might be, how valid is Alomar's contention that IF he had AIDS it was a result of being raped by two men at age 17? Wouldn't subsequent medical tests administered by various teams over the course of his carrer have picked up HIV? Nymr83 Feb 11 2009 07:19 AM ]Now move on to reading comprehension apparently it is you who needs reading lessons, "exposure" does not require that the victim be actually infected. ] It also seems to indicate he didn't show symptoms until 2 years after she started shtupping him. when he started showing symptoms isnt relevant, whats relevant is when he learned he was positive and what he did or didn't do afterwards. metirish Feb 11 2009 07:27 AM ="soupcan":3kmruy73]Horrible story all-around. Assuming her story is true though and that my reading comprehension isn't as poor as I think it might be, how valid is Alomar's contention that IF he had AIDS it was a result of being raped by two men at age 17? Wouldn't subsequent medical tests administered by various teams over the course of his carrer have picked up HIV?[/quote:3kmruy73] The ex is the one saying that about the rape , or that' what she claims he told her , if the rape claim is true and Alomar didn't get tested in subsequent years then that is rather sad and irresponsible of him. metsmarathon Feb 11 2009 07:32 AM BEFORE learning he was HIV-positive, they had unprotected sex. AFTER learning he was HIV-positive, they did not have unprotected sex. am i reading the same article? seawolf17 Feb 11 2009 07:34 AM ="metsmarathon":15hmqqt2]BEFORE learning he was HIV-positive, they had unprotected sex. AFTER learning he was HIV-positive, they did not have unprotected sex. am i reading the same article?[/quote:15hmqqt2] That's what I read also. She's suing for distress -- not that she doesn't have the right to be distressed, but I would think she has to prove that he knew he had HIV before having unprotected sex with her, and the article doesn't say that. Sucks for Roberto. soupcan Feb 11 2009 07:38 AM Maybe its a blackmail thing and he chose not to pay her so she puts this out there under the guise of suing him? Benjamin Grimm Feb 11 2009 07:41 AM If she found out about the HIV (or AIDS) when he did then she's responsible for any decisions she made about any kind of contact with his bodily fluids. This seems less about a health concern than about a way to drag her ex-boyfriend through the mud after an (I assume) ugly breakup. Of course, we still don't know if Alomar has HIV, or anything at all, although my hunch is he probably does. If not, there would be little point in launching such a lawsuit. Alomar could easily quash it by taking a test and providing the results to the court. I have to wonder if the sudden decline in production that Alomar experienced in 2002 may have had something to do with illness. (Or age, of course, or "the pressure of playing in New York.") John Cougar Lunchbucket Feb 11 2009 07:46 AM Well, it's clear that "New York" wasn't the cause of his decline since he played in other cities since and wasn't any good in those places either. I mean, it seems obvious he wasn't where he used to be physically when he got here, although had this thing not come up I would have sooner guessed steroid withdrawl or old age before AIDS. But yeah, obviously the chick is interested in $15 million more than anything. metsguyinmichigan Feb 11 2009 07:48 AM Always lots of rumors that Alomar was gay. Supposedly he spit at the umpire because he made a homophobic slur. Nymr83 Feb 11 2009 07:49 AM ="metsguyinmichigan":2qftspnl]Always lots of rumors that Alomar was gay. Supposedly he spit at the umpire because he made a homophobic slur.[/quote:2qftspnl] which has what to do with anything here? metirish Feb 11 2009 07:50 AM I can't ever remember rumors that he was gay. HahnSolo Feb 11 2009 07:58 AM All this time I thought he was happily pillowing Mary Pierce. Benjamin Grimm Feb 11 2009 07:59 AM That kind of rings a bell with me. (The gay Alomar rumors.) John Cougar Lunchbucket Feb 11 2009 08:01 AM I did my part spreading those rumors after hearing my/his former drycleaner talk about how Alomar was obsessively particular about he preferred his shirts to be folded. Anyway, this and that are two different things. MFS62 Feb 11 2009 08:07 AM I wish him well. Later Edgy DC Feb 11 2009 08:08 AM I'm trying to zoom in on the alleged rape. The record shows him playing in the SALlie League at 17 and the California League at 18. The California League, as far as I can tell, sticks to the Golden State and doesn't wind out to New Mexico, or even Arizona, though maybe it did in 1986. Nymr83 Feb 11 2009 08:14 AM ="Edgy DC":1zt4k77z]I'm trying to zoom in on the alleged rape. The record shows him playing in the SALlie League at 17 and the California League at 18. The California League, as far as I can tell, sticks to the Golden State and doesn't wind out to New Mexico, or even Arizona, though maybe it did in 1986.[/quote:1zt4k77z] Reno, NV had a team from 1955 to 1992 (or so says wikipedia) soupcan Feb 11 2009 08:19 AM ="Nymr83":328ycyjo]="metsguyinmichigan":328ycyjo]Always lots of rumors that Alomar was gay. Supposedly he spit at the umpire because he made a homophobic slur.[/quote:328ycyjo] which has what to do with anything here?[/quote:328ycyjo] AIDS. Gay. There's relevance. Met Hunter Feb 11 2009 08:19 AM I have to say, I'm surprised by this story, but not shocked. The rumors of Robbie's sexual orientation have been around for years. I always felt that Piazza took some hits for Robbie back in the 'there's a gay Met' days. Hirschbeck did in fact call Alomar a name (faggot) that infuriated Roberto. A couple years ago, I attended an autograph show that both Sandys were at and we saw Roberto in the lobby. He looked like hell and we thought he was dying. We were told that he recently had surgery and was a litle under the weather. Either way, this is a sad story. If he indeed is infected, knew about it, and convinced his girl to have sexual relations with him, that is irresposible and criminal. Despite that, I hope for the best to the entire Alomar clan. A great baseball family. soupcan Feb 11 2009 08:22 AM ="Benjamin Grimm"]That kind of rings a bell with me. (The gay Alomar rumors.) There was some article making the rounds written by a gay writer who said he had an affair with a 'prominent baseball player with an east coast team'. At the time I think that many people assumed he was talking about Piazza but there were also whispers that it could have been Malomar. We used to joke here that Mary Pierce was a bad choice for a beard for Robbie because she looked more like a man than he did.. MFS62 Feb 11 2009 08:25 AM Yiles! No wonder she was fronting for Virgin. Who would want to .... ? Later Edgy DC Feb 11 2009 08:28 AM She gets a tough rap. A funky nose, but she had a wonderful athletic build, even by tennis player standards. Centerfield Feb 11 2009 08:31 AM I have confirmed with four different sources that Mary Pierce is one of the unnamed 103. Nymr83 Feb 11 2009 08:38 AM ="soupcan":1r1auihp]="Nymr83":1r1auihp]="metsguyinmichigan":1r1auihp]Always lots of rumors that Alomar was gay. Supposedly he spit at the umpire because he made a homophobic slur.[/quote:1r1auihp] which has what to do with anything here?[/quote:1r1auihp] AIDS. Gay. There's relevance.[/quote:1r1auihp] You can catch AIDS by having normal heterosexual sex. You can also be raped by men even if you yourself are not gay, I still fail to see the relevance. metsguyinmichigan Feb 11 2009 08:44 AM ="soupcan":1hl6exl4]="Nymr83":1hl6exl4]="metsguyinmichigan":1hl6exl4]Always lots of rumors that Alomar was gay. Supposedly he spit at the umpire because he made a homophobic slur.[/quote:1hl6exl4] which has what to do with anything here?[/quote:1hl6exl4] AIDS. Gay. There's relevance.[/quote:1hl6exl4] Well, the point was that if he was saying he got the disease because he was raped by two men in Mexico, that might not be entirely true. But certainly there are multiple ways to get AIDS, and I wasn't casting any dispersions on him because he might be gay. Just saying the rape thing seemed odd, as did the refusals to be tested over the years. soupcan Feb 11 2009 09:00 AM Of course you can 'catch' AIDS in ways that have nothing to do with homosexual sex. The fact remains however that it originated as a disease specific to the homosexual community and rightly or wrongly, still remains something that many people consider a 'gay desease'. The rumor that Alomar is gay combined with the rumor that he has AIDS makes the statement valid. Fman99 Feb 11 2009 09:13 AM ="soupcan"]="Benjamin Grimm"]That kind of rings a bell with me. (The gay Alomar rumors.) There was some article making the rounds written by a gay writer who said he had an affair with a 'prominent baseball player with an east coast team'. At the time I think that many people assumed he was talking about Piazza but there were also whispers that it could have been Malomar. We used to joke here that Mary Pierce was a bad choice for a beard for Robbie because she looked more like a man than he did.. Wow I can't believe Robby Alomar had sex with Geddy Lee. Benjamin Grimm Feb 11 2009 09:17 AM You know, millionaire professional athletes have trouble getting the prettiest of women, and often have to settle for those who look like Willie Nelson. Edgy DC Feb 11 2009 09:26 AM Cruel room. Vic Sage Feb 11 2009 10:00 AM my observations: 1) saying someone has AIDS could be actionable, unless it were true, so it is unlikely the woman would make this accusation without some good faith basis to believe it to be true; 2) The gay rumors (which i recall) and his sudden and precipitous drop in performance add further credibility to the claim and therefore are relevent issues to raise without pretending otherwise, or implying veiled innuendo of homophobia for having done so, 3) There doesn't seem to be an allegation that Alomar knew (or even that he necessarily should have known) that he had AIDS at the time they were having unprotected sex, so there is no criminal liability (or moral culpability); 4) this is tragic all the way around; and 5) Namor's perspective does not surprise me in the least. John Cougar Lunchbucket Feb 11 2009 10:01 AM View the suit: [url:xutp2sq2]http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2009/0211091alomar1.html[/url:xutp2sq2] metirish Feb 11 2009 10:08 AM 12 pages..... Not sure if it was last season or the one before that Alomar was shown in the stands at Shea watching a game , looked pretty good then , may have been Father's Day IIRC. Nymr83 Feb 11 2009 10:16 AM I always thought "Ilya" was a guy's name, at least the one Ilya I know is, unless I'm spelling his name wrong? ]There doesn't seem to be an allegation that Alomar knew (or even that he necessarily should have known) that he had AIDS at the time they were having unprotected sex, so there is no criminal liability (or moral culpability); #29-34 on the first cause of action seems to allege just that, even if it isn't true it is certainly being alleged. HahnSolo Feb 11 2009 10:24 AM ="metirish":z7miuiq4]12 pages..... Not sure if it was last season or the one before that Alomar was shown in the stands at Shea watching a game , looked pretty good then , may have been Father's Day IIRC.[/quote:z7miuiq4] I believe so. I think he, his dad and brother took the Shea countdown number down on Fathers Day. I didn't see him that day. Vic Sage Feb 11 2009 10:51 AM there is no evidence that he knew he was positive until 1/06, and the complaint doesn't allege any. That he SHOULD have known before then, based on his various symptoms, is a matter of conjecture, and not the basis of "criminal" conduct. It might rise to tortious conduct, if her allegations are proven true, and though sections 29-34 of the complaint are worded broadly (as such complaints generally are), they clearly are about what he SHOULD have known. Of course, during all this time HE should have known, shouldn't she have? Why would she continue to have unprotected sex with someone whose symptoms she alleges were so obvious that ignoring or denying them rose to the level of negligence (civil, much less criminal negligence!). Wasn't she contributorily negligent? Oh the other hand, if he actually told her that he'd been tested on the numerous times that she alleges, and always told her he had tested negative, that's fraudulant behavior. Still, in most jurisdictions "emotional distress" needs at least some element of physical damage to be actionable, and certainly so for a criminal prosecution. She doesn't claim any battery, and as long as she tests negative, neither she nor any state may have a claim against him for what he might have or should have known. But certainly, if her allegations are true, there is moral culpability here. Edgy DC Feb 11 2009 11:05 AM Possiblities also exist that (1) he honestly had been tested, and received a false negative, and (2) had honestly been tested, and received an accurate negative, but contracted the disease subsequently. LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Feb 11 2009 02:20 PM A suit for distress several years after the supposed diagnosis... and after she continued to cohabitate (and, presumably, perform girlfriend-ly duties) with the guy for 3-plus years after THAT? I'm guessing that he's not a fantastic breaker-upper. metirish Feb 11 2009 06:05 PM My wife tells me that of course this is shocking news in Puerto Rico , anyway Robbie's current squeeze is a TV personality and model and she has been all over TV over there today talking about how all of this is false and that in due course all will be reveled , she did say that the ex told Alomar that when they broke up she was going to ruin him.Current GF also claims that Robbie is in good health. Edgy DC Feb 11 2009 06:16 PM I hope that's true. Good health doesn't necessarily mean virus-free, but it's good to have a woman stand by you when another is airing you out. metirish Feb 11 2009 06:22 PM More news , that picture is recent because they have been dating for only six months , current girl is the object of much scorn and ridicule in Puerto Rico , she is known for being an air head...also known as "dark cloud" as a BF from a few years ago killed himself and a guy she dated last year got cancer.....crazy stuff. Edgy DC Feb 11 2009 06:27 PM La Nube Oscura. Ouch. Frayed Knot Feb 11 2009 07:03 PM Robbie will be part of next year's 1st timers club for HoF consideration. Fman99 Feb 11 2009 07:56 PM ="metirish"]My wife tells me that of course this is shocking news in Puerto Rico , anyway Robbie's current squeeze is a TV personality and model and she has been all over TV over there today talking about how all of this is false and that in due course all will be reveled , she did say that the ex told Alomar that when they broke up she was going to ruin him.Current GF also claims that Robbie is in good health. I'd shake that shack. soupcan Feb 11 2009 08:37 PM I dunno - he don't look so good to me.. Of course I'm looking at him thinking he's got full-blown AIDS and he's trying to hide it but doesn't he look a little gaunt? He looks older than a 41 year-old former professional athlete should and he was always a pretty youthful looking guy. SteveJRogers Feb 11 2009 09:11 PM Shots of him getting inducted into the Blue Jays' Level of Excellence (they don't retire numbers) last spring Edgy DC Feb 11 2009 09:39 PM ="The New York Times":gev7takj]After he joined the mediocre Mets in 2002, Alomar�s play took a sharp turn for the worse.[/quote:gev7takj] Hey, paper of record, easy on the editorializing. That's not a blog you're writing. metirish Feb 19 2009 08:32 AM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Feb 19 2009 08:44 AM Nothing new in this case , some pictures here of Alomar's GF... Be careful Opening These At Work[/url:2ob5iosb] scroll down John Cougar Lunchbucket Feb 19 2009 08:35 AM Looks like she's smuggling a few batting helmets in her top. metirish Feb 26 2009 07:03 PM Update if anyone is interested......Gisselle a famous Puerto Rican Merengue singer and ex squeeze of Alomar's felt compelled to take a HIV test and go public with the results today because of a smear campaign down there in the gossip pages....she tested negative. Also his current GF holds daily news briefs on Robbie and has taken to calling him her husband....my wife tells me this girl is really a hate figure down there and it's worse now because she is seen to be using Alomar for her own publicity. I didn't appreciate how highly thought of the Alomar family are in Puerto Rico and it's a circus there right now. TransMonk May 06 2009 01:00 PM That's settled: http://www.nydailynews.com/gossip/2009/05/06/2009-05-06_alomar_settles_suit_with_former_gal_pal.html Ex-Met Roberto Alomar settles suit with former gal pal in AIDS lawsuit BY John Marzulli DAILY NEWS STAFF WRITER Wednesday, May 6th 2009, 4:00 AM The ex-girlfriend of Roberto Alomar has settled her lawsuit that accused the former Mets' second baseman of being stricken with full-blown AIDS and having unprotected sex with her, according to court records. No terms of the settlement was disclosed. Ilya Dall, 31, had alleged that Alomar had been in declining health for years, but insisted he was disease-free before testing positive for AIDS in February 2006, according to the suit filed in Brooklyn Federal Court. She sought $15 million in damages. The couple had been dating since 2002 and broke up last October. Dall claimed in the suit that Alomar had told her he was suffering from erectile dysfunction and had been "raped by two Mexican men" when he was 17. Asked if she regretted the public disclosure of intimate details of Alomar's health, Dall told the Daily News: "I'm sorry, but I have no comment." Alomar's lawyer would not comment on whether the baseball legend had AIDS. "He's healthy and he looks great," said Charles Bach. "The matter is over. The plaintiff [Dall] has withdrawn her complaint." As part of the settlement, Dall agreed not to file any future lawsuit against Alomar. Dall's suit originally filed in Queens Supreme Court in January, was transferred to federal court at Alomar's request because they live in different states - he in Florida and Dall in Whitestone, Queens. Dall's lawyer, Robert Sullivan, also declined to comment on the settlement. jmarzulli@nydailynews.com metirish May 06 2009 01:06 PM My wife was telling me last night that Robbies current GF who also serves as his spokesperson in PR has been all over TV there boasting that they are getting married and showing off a ring that she says cost $300K . This information was blurted out during a press conference yesterday to announce the settlement. Benjamin Grimm May 06 2009 01:16 PM Of course, this settlement doesn't settle the issue of Alomar's health. It just got the plaintiff to agree to shut up. He's still just as HIV positive, or not, as he was before today. So that issue remains up in the air. LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr May 06 2009 03:18 PM ="metirish"]My wife was telling me last night that Robbies current GF who also serves as his spokesperson in PR has been all over TV there boasting that they are getting married and showing off a ring that she says cost $300K . This information was blurted out during a press conference yesterday to announce the settlement. This GF... is she actually made of plastic, or does she just seem as if she must be?

no prices for the beer? i feel like i'm in a fancy restaurant! seriously though, for those burger prices i expect a meal not half of one. i'm glad the Mets, unlike most other local teams, allow outside food into the stadium.

]I've seen maybe 5 minutes total of the NFL Network so I could be way off here -- but I highly doubt they've ever mentioned the word 'steroids' on that channel much less held a critical discussion of them The NFL doesn't only censor it's own network, it censors others. ESPN's fictional drama about football players "Playmakers" was allegedly cancelled because the NFL threatened them.

="John Cougar Lunchbucket":2cn4g75p]mookiE wilson, CF jefF kent, 2B gregG jefferies, 3B keitH hernandez, 1B elI marrero, LF marK bradley, RF pauL loduca, C tiM foli, SS johN valentin, 3B pedrO martinez, P[/quote:2cn4g75p] Wheres J?

1. Rickey Henderson, LF 2. Tadahiro Iguchi, 2B 3. Joe Jackson, RF 4. Harmon Killebrew, 1B 5. Fred Lynn, CF 6. Tim McCarver, C 7. Graig Nettles. 3B 8. Jose Offerman, SS 9. Satchel Paige, P forget the Mets

="Willets Point":bu8eegj7]At least he wasn't photographed smoking a bong.[/quote:bu8eegj7] Grant Roberts!! Frayed Knot Feb 08 2009 05:29 AM The fun part here (as Joel Sherman points out)[/url:3hflo8sz] is that the Yanx "re-hired" Rodriguez (ie, agreed to his asking price) at least partly because he has a great shot at breaking the all-time HR record, wresting it away from that dirty Barry Bonds and returning it 'to its rightful place' as part of Yanqui lore. And all televised by 'YES'! Oops. MFS62 Feb 08 2009 07:40 AM Primobolan I'm not sure about. But the article says Testosterone can be taken legally with a prescription. I mean, if he knew he was going to be schtupping Madonna in a few years, he had legit reason to be loading up on that stuff. Later metsguyinmichigan Feb 08 2009 07:40 AM Smart move for Alex would be to come out and say, "Yeah, I tried it back in 2003, back when a lot of guys were trying it. But that was six years ago. I'm still playing at high level, which shows that I didn't need them...." Or something along those lines. G-Fafif Feb 08 2009 08:00 AM ="metsguyinmichigan"]Smart move for Alex would be to come out and say... "I'm still playing at a high level..." So he smoked dope, too? What a bad influence on all children all MFYs are! metsmarathon Feb 08 2009 09:03 AM watch him come out with an explanation like ' i only took steroids so that i would test positive, and force the testing program we have now.' Frayed Knot Feb 08 2009 09:54 AM ="metsguyinmichigan":3hfg8k2g]Smart move for Alex would be to come out and say, "Yeah, I tried it back in 2003, back when a lot of guys were trying it. But that was six years ago. I'm still playing at high level, which shows that I didn't need them...." Or something along those lines.[/quote:3hfg8k2g] That would be the smart move for just about anyone who used before MLB & the union got its collective act together. Doing the whole denial thing (Palmiero), the 'I don't walk to talk about it' thing (McGwire), the non-denial denial thing (Giambi), and the 'I don't understand the question thing (Sosa) makes it so much worse than it would be otherwise. A-Rod first move here (No comment - talk to the union?!?) seems to be some combination of all of the above. Edgy DC Feb 08 2009 02:33 PM ="Frayed Knot":31umhbnc]Doing the whole denial thing (Palmiero), the 'I don't walk to talk about it' thing (McGwire), the non-denial denial thing (Giambi), and the 'I don't understand the question thing (Sosa) makes it so much worse than it would be otherwise.[/quote:31umhbnc] But Clemens played it well. Frayed Knot Feb 08 2009 08:43 PM Hey, who doesn't like the 'blame your wife' strategy? One interesting aspect of all this A-Rod story coming to light on a Saturday afternoon is that I was able to quickly flick on MLBN just to see what they were doing at that point. Turns out they had interrupted regular programming to have a panel discussion of the topic. Now granted the scheduled program was nothing more than a replay of some decade-old game, but two things did occur to me: 1) at least MLBN didn't take a 'see-no-evil' approach and confirm fears about the station being a house organ by avoiding anything controversial. 2) I've seen maybe 5 minutes total of the NFL Network so I could be way off here -- but I highly doubt they've ever mentioned the word 'steroids' on that channel much less held a critical discussion of them Edgy DC Feb 08 2009 09:03 PM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Feb 09 2009 05:40 AM How about Bobby Estalella being a star witness in a steroid trial. Shocking. Stunning. Heartbreaking. Nymr83 Feb 08 2009 10:33 PM ]I've seen maybe 5 minutes total of the NFL Network so I could be way off here -- but I highly doubt they've ever mentioned the word 'steroids' on that channel much less held a critical discussion of them The NFL doesn't only censor it's own network, it censors others. ESPN's fictional drama about football players "Playmakers" was allegedly cancelled because the NFL threatened them. metirish Feb 09 2009 06:30 AM Bill Madden in the Snooze today says the MFY's need to 'Cut him loose - no matter the cost" , they would be "applauded for it"....hey it's only $270 million.... John Cougar Lunchbucket Feb 09 2009 06:48 AM Way more hysterical than the "COWARDS IN THE NIGHT" series, and that's saying something. All this based on anonymous sources revealing what was supposed to be anonymous results. The one good article in the Snooze on the subject examines who it could have been. Frayed Knot Feb 09 2009 07:21 AM ="metirish":1cn88ews]Bill Madden in the Snooze today says the MFY's need to 'Cut him loose - no matter the cost" , they would be "applauded for it"....hey it's only $270 million....[/quote:1cn88ews] That's so absurdly over the top that it's barely worth discussing. Benjamin Grimm Feb 09 2009 07:26 AM Yeah, I can't imagine the Yankees eating $270 million over nine years. Sheesh! Madden also said that none of the other 29 teams would pick Rodriguez up for the major-league minimum. Yeah, right. metirish Feb 09 2009 07:28 AM Madden seems to take personnel offense that Rodriguez would tarnish the great yankee name. Frayed Knot Feb 09 2009 07:28 AM ="Nymr83":2xenghij]The NFL doesn't only censor it's own network, it censors others. ESPN's fictional drama about football players "Playmakers" was allegedly cancelled because the NFL threatened them.[/quote:2xenghij] They just didn't want the public to think that the NFL has any drug-taking, gun-carrying, groupie-groping, wife-swapping miscreants in its midst. I mean, nobody would ever watch the sport if info like that were to get out. John Cougar Lunchbucket Feb 09 2009 07:33 AM ="metirish":1bbhz6qs]Madden seems to take personnel offense that Rodriguez would tarnish the great yankee name.[/quote:1bbhz6qs] I thought of all Madden's cockamamie points, the fact that this event tarnishes the MFY Brand that they've worked so hard to feed us was actually a good one. I mean, were it up to the Yankee Brand people exclusively, they'd probably have Rodriguez killed. metirish Feb 09 2009 07:38 AM It's been a bad few weeks for the Yankee Brand . metsguyinmichigan Feb 09 2009 07:44 AM ="Benjamin Grimm":3buhpzhc]Yeah, I can't imagine the Yankees eating $270 million over nine years. Sheesh! Madden also said that none of the other 29 teams would pick Rodriguez up for the major-league minimum. Yeah, right.[/quote:3buhpzhc] Hell, EVERY other team would pick him up. Any why cut Arod when they didn't cut Giambi or Pettitte? Frayed Knot Feb 09 2009 07:46 AM ="John Cougar Lunchbucket"]="metirish"]Madden seems to take personnel offense that Rodriguez would tarnish the great yankee name. I thought of all Madden's cockamamie points, the fact that this event tarnishes the MFY Brand that they've worked so hard to feed us was actually a good one. I mean, were it up to the Yankee Brand people exclusively, they'd probably have Rodriguez killed. Sure, except that the success of the 'brand' depends on large part on them continuing to win and it's amazing how many MFY fans or apologists have convinced themselves that they'd win more if only they could replace this horrible Rodriguez guy with someone really good like the reincarnation of Scott Brosius or something. metsguyinmichigan Feb 09 2009 07:57 AM Can you imagine how different that column would be had it been Jeter who was caught? "Jeter test proves 'roids should be legalized, Cap'n put personal health at risk to help Bombers and fans." MFS62 Feb 09 2009 08:12 AM A few minutes ago, Craig Carten on WFAN said that "30% of the year 2000 Champion Yankees were taking steroids". He didn't say where he got that number. Have any of you see that written somewhere? Even if close to true, I wonder if Madden would ask the members of that team to give back their rings? Of course not! Later metirish Feb 09 2009 08:16 AM Looking at the roster it would not surprise me, not that it means a whole lot now anyway. http://www.baseball-reference.com/teams/NYY/2000.shtml John Cougar Lunchbucket Feb 09 2009 08:22 AM The following guys have been implicated from 2K MFY postseason roster: Clemens Pettitte Knoblauch Justice Canseco Hill Neagle Stanton That's 8/25 -- 32% edit -- I should add this is a silly exercise, the number I am certain would similar for all teams of the era -- whether or not the guys got caught, this is how the game was played at this time. It also doesn't show these dickheads were roided up at the time they played, or even that what they took helped in any appreciable way. John Cougar Lunchbucket Feb 09 2009 08:28 AM I should also add the interesting part of it is to see the MFYs with so many users illustrates that steroid taking was in part good for their careers, since they got the big $$ there (Clemens, Brown, Arod, Giambi, etc etc) Frayed Knot Feb 09 2009 08:29 AM btw, turns out that SI's Selena Roberts (formerly of the NYTimes) who broke this story did so because she's been on the ARod trail in preparation for her upcoming book (sked for May release): [u:1zonj7fk]Hit & Run: The Many Lives of Alex Rodriguez[/u:1zonj7fk] Edgy DC Feb 09 2009 08:36 AM Well, these guys are those that appeared in that series. The ones on record as having a PED indiscretion hanging over them (not all of them of them with the same degree of credibility) we can bold. Clay Bellinger Scott Brosius Jose Canseco Roger Clemens David Cone Orlando Hernandez Glenallen Hill Derek Jeter David Justice Chuck Knoblauch Tino Martinez Denny Neagle Jeff Nelson Paul O'Neill Andy Pettitte Luis Polonia Jorge Posada Mariano Rivera Luis Sojo Mike Stanton Jose Vizcaino Bernie Williams That's 8/22 or 36.4%. If I had to guess, I'd suspect that the number was higher (and not much better perhaps for the Mets of that era). That seems not only closer to the high water mark, but also closer to the era in which Senator Mitchell's witnesses were most qualified to speak to. MFS62 Feb 09 2009 08:41 AM Funny that O'Neill's name isn't bolded. Looking back on all those destroyed water coolers and flung bats, I think "'roid rage". Later Benjamin Grimm Feb 09 2009 08:49 AM Or maybe he was just a jerk. SteveJRogers Feb 09 2009 09:19 AM ="Frayed Knot":2q83r4pt]btw, turns out that SI's Selena Roberts (formerly of the NYTimes) who broke this story did so because she's been on the ARod trail in preparation for her upcoming book (sked for May release): [u:2q83r4pt]Hit & Run: The Many Lives of Alex Rodriguez[/u:2q83r4pt][/quote:2q83r4pt] She was also one of those on the forefront against the Duke Lacrosse team players in that rape case, that turned out to be a big fraud. metirish Feb 09 2009 09:21 AM How are you holding up Steve? Edgy DC Feb 09 2009 09:27 AM That this is to sell a smelly book is just rotten. It seems to me the union spokespersons should have spent the last two days burning up the airwaves with invective over this. metsguyinmichigan Feb 09 2009 09:31 AM ="SteveJRogers":1qvyocmb]="Frayed Knot":1qvyocmb]btw, turns out that SI's Selena Roberts (formerly of the NYTimes) who broke this story did so because she's been on the ARod trail in preparation for her upcoming book (sked for May release): [u:1qvyocmb]Hit & Run: The Many Lives of Alex Rodriguez[/u:1qvyocmb][/quote:1qvyocmb] She was also one of those on the forefront against the Duke Lacrosse team players in that rape case, that turned out to be a big fraud.[/quote:1qvyocmb] Steve, if this was a fraud, I think ARod's response would have been stronger than "Talk to the union." Frayed Knot Feb 09 2009 09:31 AM ="SteveJRogers":3m388vh4]="Frayed Knot":3m388vh4]btw, turns out that SI's Selena Roberts (formerly of the NYTimes) who broke this story did so because she's been on the ARod trail in preparation for her upcoming book (sked for May release): [u:3m388vh4]Hit & Run: The Many Lives of Alex Rodriguez[/u:3m388vh4][/quote:3m388vh4] She was also one of those on the forefront against the Duke Lacrosse team players in that rape case, that turned out to be a big fraud.[/quote:3m388vh4] Depends on what she wrote about that case and when. Also, there's a big difference between being an opinion-writing, deadline-oriented newspaper columnist (which she was at the time of the Duke case) and a book-writing journalist chronicling someone's life story (or part of it) as she is on the ARod trail. The standards and practices are very different between the two job descriptions. SteveJRogers Feb 09 2009 09:43 AM ="metsguyinmichigan":1yl23d5c]="SteveJRogers":1yl23d5c]="Frayed Knot":1yl23d5c]btw, turns out that SI's Selena Roberts (formerly of the NYTimes) who broke this story did so because she's been on the ARod trail in preparation for her upcoming book (sked for May release): [u:1yl23d5c]Hit & Run: The Many Lives of Alex Rodriguez[/u:1yl23d5c][/quote:1yl23d5c] She was also one of those on the forefront against the Duke Lacrosse team players in that rape case, that turned out to be a big fraud.[/quote:1yl23d5c] Steve, if this was a fraud, I think ARod's response would have been stronger than "Talk to the union."[/quote:1yl23d5c] I didn't say this was a fraud, I'm giving the whole story on the story breaker. Rockin' Doc Feb 09 2009 11:06 AM It's seems apparent to me that the Yankees organiztion should be contracted and banished from MLB for the good of the game. Beside, they employed a bunch of 'roid users. MFS62 Feb 09 2009 12:08 PM (Channeling The Scooter) Holy cow! This is the most shocking revellation so far. http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/baseball/yankees/2009/02/09/2009-02-09_yankees_captain_derek_jeter_says_arod_de.html El Capitan comes out with something that can be taken as a support of A-Rod? And I thought he was the guy who might have ratted him out. Will wonders never cease? Later metirish Feb 09 2009 12:13 PM I'm certain one of our members commented along these lines when this came out. From Ian O'Connor's article today. ] The first sign of serious trouble came last February, when Rodriguez volunteered he�d been drug-tested nine or ten times during his monster 2007 season. Players are supposed to be tested twice during a season, three times if selected for one of 600 additional random tests. A-Rod�s odds of being tested as much as he claimed were a gazillion to one, unless, of course, he�d turned up positive for amphetamines and earned an extra half-dozen mandatory trips to the urinal. O'Connor lays this mess on Hank. Hank MFS62 Feb 09 2009 12:19 PM There was a list in today's early edition of the Daily News that named some players who have been associated with taking drugs and steroids in various investigations. I couldn't find the link just now - it may have been replaced by the news that A-Rod may address the press later today. Anyhow, one of the names on the list was Rico Brogna. Had anyone seen his name mentioned about drugs before? Later Frayed Knot Feb 09 2009 12:31 PM ARod is in the process of fessing up to Gammons (and ESPN is going to milk this access for all it's worth): - now admits he roided from 2001 to 2003 but not since metsguyinmichigan Feb 09 2009 12:32 PM AP sez ARod confessing to using PEDs between 2001 and 2003. Probably a good move to get it out there. Even better if he says "Derek gave them to me!" metsmarathon Feb 09 2009 12:38 PM wow! good for him! that, btw, is exactly what i would've thought he should say. own up to using for more than you were caught for, and it makes the confession more believable. should be an interesting story to read more on later when i actually have time. John Cougar Lunchbucket Feb 09 2009 01:07 PM The Andy Pettitte defense. I didn;t. Oh, you got me? OK I did metirish Feb 09 2009 01:08 PM Alex didn't know what he was taking either...of course you didn't..... metirish Feb 09 2009 02:27 PM I've been thinking about this and I don't dislike Rodriguez anymore after this debacle , I have never cared for him but this doesn't make me care even less for him. I have been following baseball since the mid nineties so in reality looking back I have been a fan in the steroid era. Centerfield Feb 09 2009 03:52 PM ="Frayed Knot":1w77txb8]="metirish":1w77txb8]Bill Madden in the Snooze today says the MFY's need to 'Cut him loose - no matter the cost" , they would be "applauded for it"....hey it's only $270 million....[/quote:1w77txb8] That's so absurdly over the top that it's barely worth discussing.[/quote:1w77txb8] It's like Klapisch and Madden are trying to have a dumb-off. Someone might want to point out to Madden that the "Yankee Brand" not only doesn't cut steroid users, they re-sign them (Pettite). MFS62 Feb 09 2009 04:02 PM Or forgive them (Giambi) Later bmfc1 Feb 09 2009 04:18 PM Real classy Alex: he accuses Selena Roberts of breaking into his house, scaring his kids, and only doing this because she has a book deal. bmfc1 Feb 09 2009 04:21 PM Alex: "God is doing this for a reason." Yeah, to expose you as a fraud, you self-righteous jackass. Frayed Knot Feb 09 2009 05:13 PM ="bmfc1":2fg4x9go]Real classy Alex: he accuses Selena Roberts of breaking into his house, scaring his kids, and only doing this because she has a book deal.[/quote:2fg4x9go] That was the most interesting thing I took out of his chat w/Gammons (didn't hear/see all of it). And that's not going to gain him any brownie points with the scribes. Not a whole lot gets the collective media more in line as when one of their own is attacked for his/her motives. MFS62 Feb 09 2009 05:21 PM Motives? If this (the break in) is true, what about methods? Later MFS62 Feb 09 2009 06:35 PM Did he or didn't he is just copious quantities of ca ca. This is the real issue: http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/ne...o&type=lgns Whoever leaked the list could look at doing some real hard time. Later Rockin' Doc Feb 09 2009 07:45 PM Lunchbucket - "I thought of all Madden's cockamamie points, the fact that this event tarnishes the MFY Brand that they've worked so hard to feed us was actually a good one. I mean, were it up to the Yankee Brand people exclusively, they'd probably have Rodriguez killed." They could just have Rivera invite A-Rod to a pool party. MFS62 Feb 09 2009 07:48 PM That's cold. Funny. But cold. Literally LOL! Later metsguyinmichigan Feb 09 2009 08:16 PM ="Rockin' Doc":2q348b13]Lunchbucket - "I thought of all Madden's cockamamie points, the fact that this event tarnishes the MFY Brand that they've worked so hard to feed us was actually a good one. I mean, were it up to the Yankee Brand people exclusively, they'd probably have Rodriguez killed." They could just have Rivera invite A-Rod to a pool party.[/quote:2q348b13] Badass bullet of cool! metirish Feb 10 2009 06:35 AM I watched the interview last night , thought Gammons was disgraceful , not surprised by that though. Frayed Knot Feb 10 2009 07:00 AM ="MFS62":2tuoh1qv]Motives? If this (the break in) is true, what about methods?[/quote:2tuoh1qv] I'm operating under the assumption that the stories* of Roberts breaking into his house and "stalking" him are, at best, over-the-top exaggerations and that what Alex considers to be criminal harassment will be seen by other reporters as 'doing her job'. So, yeah, I expect the media as a whole to close ranks around her rather than him. * Apparently there was "an incident" with reporter Roberts and a guard at the gate outside of Rodriguez's community. Not sure if that's what he's blown up into 'trying to break in' or if he's talking about something else. Vince Coleman Firecracker Feb 10 2009 07:52 AM ="John Cougar Lunchbucket"]The Andy Pettitte defense. I didn;t. Oh, you got me? OK I did Actually, the Pettitte defense is more like: I didn't. Oh, you got me? Well, I only did it that time. Ok, I did it a little more than you caught me for, but never again or before. This defense allows you to seem like you're telling the truth, since you admit to just a smidge more than you got busted for, while at the same time limiting damage to your reputation, since there was only a small time span (always significantly in the past) in which you were cheating. This defense works well because people want to give these athletes the benefit of the doubt. I assume that these tests only snag the very tips of the icebergs in terms of how many are cheating and how often they are. I think A-Rod, Pettitte and countless others (including many Mets I loved and still love following) have used PEDs since high school and continue to cheat to the present day. Edgy DC Feb 10 2009 08:00 AM ="Vince Coleman Firecracker":3cjpun8v]This defense works well because people want to give these athletes the benefit of the doubt.[/quote:3cjpun8v] Unless, of course the athlete is A-Rod. John Cougar Lunchbucket Feb 10 2009 08:19 AM Not to stoke this more but Jeter fed his fanclub in the 4th estate an interesting line yesterday. Filip Bondy who may as well titled his piece in the snooze today GOD I LOVE THE TASTE OF DEREK'S BALLSACK practically apologizes for even asking whether Jeter did it and finds the answer: "Why would my name be on that list?" as an acceptable response. Note how Jeets dares his cheering section to accuse him of something, so he can act wronged from the start. metirish Feb 10 2009 09:12 AM ="John Cougar Lunchbucket"] Filip Bondy who may as well titled his piece in the snooze today GOD I LOVE THE TASTE OF DEREK'S BALLSACK practically apologizes for even asking whether Jeter did it and finds the answer: "Why would my name be on that list?" as an acceptable response. . Bondy definitely finds that answer acceptable... ] That was the answer we wanted to hear. Jeter is the guy who stays out of trouble, doesn't go trawling for it. He remains single, so his romantic dalliances amuse instead of disgust us. He keeps quiet about the contract that expires in 2010, about his place in the lineup, about the pitchers and teammates and coaches who have failed him in recent seasons what would these guys do if their beloved Jeter was dirty...Snooze has 15 pages on Rodriguez. metsguyinmichigan Feb 10 2009 09:43 AM Jeter's proof is in his middling stats. If he put those numbers up in Kansas City, he'd be just another decent player. John Cougar Lunchbucket Feb 10 2009 09:47 AM No no no no no no. My point is if he played in this era he's a suspect whose denial is as sincere as anyone else's. Everyone is a suspect, and the papers still don't get it. And players from Termel Sledge to Manny Aybar should have proven by now that numbers have little to do with it. metirish Feb 10 2009 09:56 AM Yeah numbers mean nothing really , as we know a lot of players took them to help recover from injury or just to recover from games, unlike Rodriguez who was just young and stoopid. metsguyinmichigan Feb 10 2009 09:57 AM Letterman on ARod Top Ten Messages Left on Alex Rodriguez's Answering Machine 10 "Hey, it's Mark McGwire, want to get together this weekend and not talk about the past?" 9 "Joe Torre here, thanks for helping book sales." 8 "Could you find a steroid that keeps you from choking in the playoffs?" 7 "Are you worried this will taint all the championships you didn't win?" 6 "Hi, it's Bernie Madoff. Nice try, but I'm still the most hated man in NYC." 5 "Michael Phelps here, got any snacks?" 4 "Hi, this is Sammy Sosa, just pretend you don't speak English." 3 "Michael Phelps again, did I call you or did you call me?" 2 "Hi this is Rod Blagojevich, I'll say you're innocent if you say I am." and the Number One Message Left on Alex Rodriguez's Answering Machine: 1 "It's Madonna. You got a phone number for Jeter?" soupcan Feb 10 2009 10:09 AM Fucking funny! metirish Feb 10 2009 11:43 AM Hilarious from Letterman.... Representative Elijah Cummings apparently wants to bring Rodriguez before Congress. ] "I think we're going to have to see what Rodriguez will tell us," Cummings said in a phone interview. "He is in a confessing mode, so maybe he needs to put his apology into some meaningful action by cooperating with the committee so we can see if there are things we need to reopen to make sure baseball is doing all that it can to rid itself of this kind of practice." Edgy DC Feb 10 2009 11:47 AM Me as A-Rod: "I'll testify under oath if everybody else does. Don't have time for that? OK, then just Derek." metirish Feb 10 2009 11:48 AM Let's just play ball. MFS62 Feb 10 2009 11:51 AM Under HIPAA regulations (in force since 1996) divulging the results of a medical test without the express consent of the patient is a violation of Federal Law. The penalties are here: http://aspe.hhs.gov/admnsimp/pl104191.htm#1176 From information published about the A-Rod case, the tests were conducted by a licensed medical testing organization. To me, that makes them covered by that law. Those 2003 tests were conducted under the terms of anonymity. In that case, I can't believe any of the players testd signed a release/ waiver of those terms. Therefore, IMO anyone divulging those results has committed a crime and should be punished. Can any Medical folks here confirm my opinion? Later metirish Feb 10 2009 12:04 PM Our David has spoken ] Mets' David Wright praises A-Rod for coming clean BY DAVID LENNON | david.lennon@newsday.com 1:57 PM EST, February 10, 2009 David Wright praised Alex Rodriguez for coming clean on his PED use during Monday's interview with ESPN, but also took a hard-line against cheaters. "I hope that anybody who cheats get caught," Wright said. "Maybe its me being na�ve, but I think baseball is clean. You would have to be either very desperate or flat-out stupid to try and beat the system now." That said, Wright still believes that A-Rod is "a tremendous player" and laughed when someone asked about comparing himself to the Yankees' third baseman in the wake of these revelations. "He's better than me," a smiling Wright said Frayed Knot Feb 10 2009 12:18 PM ]Under HIPAA regulations (in force since 1996) divulging the results of a medical test without the express consent of the patient is a violation of Federal Law. Fine. Now all you have to do is convince the government that they need to prosecute themselves over the fact that they're the ones who first confiscated, then leaked, the records. metirish Feb 10 2009 01:15 PM Congress thankfully win not haul Rodriguez in for a grilling. ] The statement from Rep. Edolphus Towns (D-NY) today reads: "The news that another one of baseball's premier players -- in addition to another 103 unnamed players -- used performance enhancing drugs is disturbing and sends yet another horrible message to our young people. "With unemployment in this country approaching double digits and our constituents' very livelihoods being threatened by the nation's economic woes, I intend to focus on passing President Obama's Economic Recovery legislation to get Americans back to work to fix our sinking economy. The American people need leaders who will focus on stemming job losses and getting credit to flow in the marketplace before hearing from yet another person who cheated both himself and the game of baseball. The Committee began this investigation in the face of a weak and ineffective drug testing policy that compromised the integrity of Major League Baseball. Now that baseball is implementing one of the most comprehensive drug testing policies in major league sports, I look forward to monitoring how well the policy is working to ensure the credibility of our national pastime. themetfairy Feb 10 2009 01:36 PM ="metirish"]Our David has spoken ] Mets' David Wright praises A-Rod for coming clean Wright said. "Maybe its me being na�ve, but I think baseball is clean. You would have to be either very desperate or flat-out stupid to try and beat the system now." Someone give that boy a hug. Or a puppy dog. themetfairy Feb 10 2009 01:42 PM Caple Blames Madonna For A-Rod's Steroid Use[/url:1axxb394]. G-Fafif Feb 10 2009 04:44 PM Just you wait -- some version of this[/url:1e05cmtc] will be written by at least one of the columnists cited. metirish Feb 10 2009 04:53 PM OMG , brilliant.... Edgy DC Feb 12 2009 08:13 AM Zev goes the whole nine yards, and the only moral failure he indicts the Rod for is giving up the juice and therefore ripping the Yankees off. Opinion A-Rod, get back on the 'roids You've got nothing to apologize about; drugs have been part of professional baseball for a long time. By Zev Chafets February 12, 2009 If it is true that Alex Rodriguez stopped using steroids in 2003, before he came to New York, the Yankees have been swindled. A-Rod hasn't been trying his hardest to win and help his team. In A-Rod's defense, it could be argued that there is no empirical proof that taking anabolic steroids improves baseball performance. But baseball players think they do. A-Rod himself admits he took steroids to make himself one of the greatest players of all time. Even if steroids are potentially dangerous (and despite suspicions, there is no proof that they cause permanent harm when properly administered to adult males), what of it? For many people, danger is the price of doing business. Construction workers, firefighters, cops and combat soldiers all take their lives in their hands to earn a living. According to Sports Illustrated, 104 major leaguers tested positive for steroids in 2003. That's about 10% of the players in the majors. Back in 2003, A-Rod didn't necessarily know who the other 103 users were. But he did know that they were out there someplace. They might have been pitchers he was facing, or fielders who caught up with his batted balls. He probably guessed that some of the juicers were the great hitters he was competing against for primacy and the money that goes with it. Can anybody blame A-Rod for leveling the playing field? What was he supposed to say: My rivals may be chemically enhancing their performances, but that's just a disadvantage I must live with? Baseball players have been doing drugs since Hall of Fame pitcher Pud Galvin shot up with monkey testosterone in 1889. And it's not just steroids, Since the '60s, major leaguers also have used amphetamines and downers. Players take them for professional purposes, not for fun. As every Little Leaguer has been taught, you sacrifice what you must for the good of the team. You play hurt if necessary, and you take your advantages where you find them. Gaylord Perry threw spitballs, more or less publicly, for 20 years, and he got into Cooperstown. As a player, John McGraw tripped so many base runners that baseball was forced to introduce an infield umpire -- and McGraw is in the Hall of Fame too. Even Babe Ruth was caught corking his bat. These and a hundred other incidents of sign stealing, bat tippling, ball scuffing and bat doctoring are staples of baseball lore, lovingly recounted by after-dinner speakers and broadcasters across American generations. Cheating is as much a part of Major League Baseball as alcoholism, ethnic bench jockeying and the ground-rule double. Besides, let's be honest. Americans love chemicals that provide an edge. Students use them to cram for finals. Pilots and surgeons take Provigil to keep sharp. Trial lawyers and Broadway actors pop beta blockers to ward off stage fright. Bob Dole pitched Viagra on television. I've even heard rumors about sportswriters who smoothed out their workdays with Prozac. Science marches on, no matter how much we long for the pristine days before medication. Ballplayers will always look for an edge, and chemists will always come up with one, and a way to evade testing too. "Everybody does it" is not a moral defense, but honestly, is this really a moral issue? Baseball hasn't treated it that way. Forty years after Jim Bouton revealed the widespread use of "greenies," no players have been seriously punished for using chemicals. Even now, the only real threat is getting banned from the Hall of Fame, and we'll see how long that lasts in the age of Barry Bonds and Roger Clemens and A-Rod. The baseball establishment still hasn't made a real effort to stop players from using steroids, because it is believed that steroids enhance performance and help win games -- and that is what professional baseball is all about. Except, it turns out, to A-Rod. For the last four seasons, he has let his teammates and his fans down by doing less than his best. Unless, of course, he is lying about having quit in 2003, and he's been enhancing right along. Say that it's so, A-Rod. Say that it's so. Zev Chafets' book on the Baseball Hall of Fame, "Cooperstown Confidential," will be published in May. Rockin' Doc Feb 12 2009 11:09 AM My dear Mr. Chafets, You sir, are an idiot. Sincerely, --Rockin' Doc metirish Feb 12 2009 11:36 AM ] As a player, John McGraw tripped so many base runners that baseball was forced to introduce an infield umpire -- and McGraw is in the Hall of Fame too. For fucks sake man get a grip . Ashie62 Feb 12 2009 05:04 PM ="metirish":1ih6vdd4]Let's just play ball.[/quote:1ih6vdd4] Yup...This whole steroid drama is wearing thin..Since no Ballplayers are beyond question as to taking performance enhancers why don't we do this to wrap up the issue for good. 1. On opening day for all teams at their own parks have every player in uniform do 200 Military squats as punishment and penance. Fans can use the time to boo or heckle to vent, or step out to get some delicious Wise snacks. 2. Have Selig sac up and designate 1996-2003 the "live ball era" or whatever you would like to call it. 3. Current Drug Testing Policies are in place to move forward. Lastly, I'm not going to hammer Arod or any other abuser as I won't should any of our boys get outed...I can't imagine David Wright ever being involved in this mess but as I said..no one is beyond question. Now play ball!!! soupcan Feb 13 2009 11:21 AM If anyone's interested - Pete Rose is going to be on WFAN with Francesa in a couple of minutes. I'm sure he'll be talking about Alex. seawolf17 Feb 17 2009 12:05 PM This press conference is insipid. PatchyFogg Feb 17 2009 12:09 PM ="soupcan":ko45fwv9]If anyone's interested - Pete Rose is going to be on WFAN with Francesa in a couple of minutes. I'm sure he'll be talking about Alex.[/quote:ko45fwv9] And, we're having Kirk Radomski live at 9:15PM tonight on LI's 90.3FM in case anyone is in the listening area. I'll put it up at http://hosted.filefront.com/patchyfogg after the show. In the meantime (at the same website), you can check out the 2 commercial-free hour Mets Preview that we did with Adam Rubin right before he left for Port St. Lucie. Nymr83 Feb 17 2009 12:12 PM ="seawolf17":3rs9xhqj]This press conference is insipid.[/quote:3rs9xhqj] What more did you want him to say? I relize the media needs to keep beating it to death because they have columns to fill, but I've heard all I need to hear already. metirish Feb 17 2009 12:52 PM It's ended.... Rodriguez ended by saying he wants "to make the world a better place" , words that would inspire Bernie Taupin. John Cougar Lunchbucket Feb 17 2009 12:57 PM John Harper in the meantime is suckered into taking Texiera's word he's never used, why he's "cleaner than Derek Jeter if that's even possible" (yes, he actually wrote that today). themetfairy Feb 17 2009 02:01 PM ="metirish":2kjyziqi]It's ended.... Rodriguez ended by saying he wants "to make the world a better place" , words that would inspire Bernie Taupin.[/quote:2kjyziqi] How does he feel about World Peace? holychicken Feb 17 2009 03:03 PM ="Ashie62":2gt1v9x0]2. Have Selig sac up and designate 1996-2003 the "live ball era" or whatever you would like to call it.[/quote:2gt1v9x0] The "small balls era" makes more sense. metirish Feb 17 2009 08:14 PM Johnny Damon - "using steroids is wrong but he didn't commit a crime or like go out their and kill someone"..... Edgy DC Feb 17 2009 08:20 PM Is that something he wrote or said? metirish Feb 17 2009 08:29 PM I was watching the news and he said it, not the exact quote from me but close . MFS62 Feb 17 2009 09:17 PM ="themetfairy":67aky83c]="metirish":67aky83c]It's ended.... Rodriguez ended by saying he wants "to make the world a better place" , words that would inspire Bernie Taupin.[/quote:67aky83c] How does he feel about World Peace?[/quote:67aky83c] It doesn't matter. He's not competing for Miss America. Later LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Feb 17 2009 09:57 PM ="metirish":cg5944xb]Johnny Damon - "using steroids is wrong but he didn't commit a crime or like go out their and kill someone".....[/quote:cg5944xb] You know, like Leyritz. /Why, yes, my tongue works fine-- why do you ask? Nymr83 Feb 18 2009 02:26 AM ="LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr":2ac33j35]="metirish":2ac33j35]Johnny Damon - "using steroids is wrong but he didn't commit a crime or like go out their and kill someone".....[/quote:2ac33j35] You know, like Leyritz. /Why, yes, my tongue works fine-- why do you ask?[/quote:2ac33j35] Sorry Johnny, whatever he took was probably illegal in the U.S. Edgy DC Feb 18 2009 05:59 AM I actually tihnk a human being must be sacrificed every time Madonna copulates. metirish Feb 18 2009 07:06 AM More from Johnny....to the print media he had this to say..... ] "It's unfortunate he made some stupid mistakes. He's a guy who definitely did not need it, and I definitely do not condone it....But there could be a lot worse things he could've been doing out there, (like) murdering someone"It's unfortunate he made some stupid mistakes. He's a guy who definitely did not need it, and I definitely do not condone it....But there could be a lot worse things he could've been doing out there, (like) murdering someone "We can go out there and support him," Damon added, "because we know we can't go out there and win a World Series without him." Rodriguez's amatuer hour defense defies logic , I didn't expect anything else from him but it couldn't have been more staged if he were on Broadway. Frayed Knot Feb 18 2009 07:06 AM ="Edgy DC":1kos7lsf]I actually tihnk a human being must be sacrificed every time Madonna copulates.[/quote:1kos7lsf] That would explain all the death and destruction in the world. Re: Damon -- His name came up in a round-table type sports discussion I was listening to and the panel was deftly using euphemisms like "an uncomplicated man" when describing him in order to keep from flat-out saying that he's basically box-of-rocks stupid. Edgy DC Feb 18 2009 07:19 AM Yes, Johnny, murder, manslaughter --- these things are worse than cheating at baseball. Thank you for your incisive analysis. For a counterpoint, here's Ambiorix Burgos.

="Kong76":1usziact]Kinda sneaks up on ya that he'll be pitching in his 7th season already for the Mets.[/quote:1usziact] wow, is he the senior Met? John Cougar Lunchbucket Feb 06 2009 05:52 PM He has a gap where he belonged to a team in Taiwan Iirc. So in terms of continuous service, following the trade of Heilman your senior Met became one Jose Reyes. Kong76 Feb 06 2009 06:11 PM Good memory, the Fukuoka Daiei Hawks (Japan Pacific) according to bbrdotcom.

heres hoping james is right

thats going to be a question for the collective bargaining agreement, his last contract, and/or worker's comp laws. this is probably a good opportunity for the brewers to sign him for 2 years backloaded for cheap, maybe with a semi-expensive option for 2011 that kicks in with 200 innings in 2010. they'll probably be paying for his rehab anyway so they might as well be able to direct it and benefit from it

Damn. I saw this thread title and thought we had signed Bugs Bunny!

its strange that Sheets, if he knew he might need surgery, didn't accept arbitration from the Brewers.

if the US doesnt win the tournament I want to lose on a Jeter doubleplay grounder with the bases loaded and 1 out.

sounds like a good time to sign him for cheap and hope he can help out in the second half or even for 2010

="Edgy DC":c8pm0iyy]So, do you think that Dennis Kucinich, who bills himself as "America's Congressman" is maybe using this as a means of self-promotion?[/quote:c8pm0iyy] No, really? Frayed Knot Feb 04 2009 11:31 AM Kucinich was doing the same thing with the land valuation question of the area around YSIII -- basically acting as a self-appointed over-seer for what is essentially a local issue far from his particular locality. G-Fafif Feb 04 2009 12:22 PM ]...the location of the stadium guarantees that the Citi logo will be visible to hundreds of millions of people each year. Citi Field is a giant billboard that will be visible not just to the 4 million-plus people who attend Mets games each year but to the tens of millions of people who drive past it on the Grand Central Parkway, the Van Wyck Expressway, and other roadways and the 25 million or so passengers who fly into and out of LaGuardia Airport each year. I wouldn't mind Gross coming on for Delgado in the ninth for defense. He can really stretch. Citigroup could also buy a few actual billboards and accomplish much the same goal as the author describes. While I agree that this company, if it is to survive, has to (and is entitled to) market itself, reading Gross' article tells me that he has no idea why having the company's name on a ballpark accomplishes that. "Well, people will see it...people who might use their product." If anything, spelling out the reasons as he does, with the "I want a Coke" example and such, makes the whole thing sound more like a vanity-driven sham than I thought before. ]Many companies use Mets games to entertain and schmooze prospective clients. If they used the games from the last two late Septembers, those companies must have been recruiters from Guantanamo Bay. metsguyinmichigan Feb 04 2009 02:16 PM I don't mind the banks buying these things as much as the utilities. Why does a monopoly need to advertise? Especially since they just pass their costs on to the consumer, who has no choice but to use their electricity or natural gas? G-Fafif Feb 04 2009 02:26 PM ="metsguyinmichigan":1nrfin6h]I don't mind the banks buying these things as much as the utilities. Why does a monopoly need to advertise? Especially since they just pass their costs on to the consumer, who has no choice but to use their electricity or natural gas?[/quote:1nrfin6h] To take up lots of space[/url:1nrfin6h], of course. metsmarathon Feb 04 2009 02:48 PM ]Citi Field, of course, will always be known as Citi Field. of course. G-Fafif Feb 04 2009 03:11 PM Should Citi Field never actually be Citi Field, it would be accessible via a number of appropriate thoroughfares, listed here[/url:qvhcvi31]. Benjamin Grimm Feb 04 2009 04:25 PM They should call it by Shea's original name: Flushing Meadows Stadium. Or since "stadium" is out of vogue, they can replace it with Park or Field. G-Fafif Feb 04 2009 05:00 PM More and more, Citi Field, its plainly visible structure notwithstanding, is beginning to remind me of this outstanding historical marker[/url:2p1f2s91] to which TMF introduced Mrs. Fafif and me recently. Citi Field...did it really land? G-Fafif Feb 04 2009 05:01 PM Whoops, impatient double post. themetfairy Feb 04 2009 05:22 PM LOL OlerudOwned Feb 04 2009 05:32 PM In a span of of two paragraphs, he called the naming rights "a classic vanity move" and an "essential, entirely justifiable expense." Kong76 Feb 04 2009 08:25 PM I'm kinda fickle on this subject now that it's become fodder for some folks. What's 20 million a year for twenty years when ya really boil it all down? dgwphotography Feb 05 2009 04:36 AM ="Kong76":2tla5kgq]I'm kinda fickle on this subject now that it's become fodder for some folks. What's 20 million a year for twenty years when ya really boil it all down?[/quote:2tla5kgq] Right now, it wouldn't even pay for Manny. 20 years from now, it wouldn't even pay for a utility infielder.. Edgy DC Feb 05 2009 05:50 AM ="OlerudOwned":1hwowprl]In a span of of two paragraphs, he called the naming rights "a classic vanity move" and an "essential, entirely justifiable expense."[/quote:1hwowprl] Well, he was distinguishing some deals from others. Vic Sage Feb 05 2009 10:34 AM ]But naming rights, especially if they endure, can perform another vital function for brands. It can help make them part of the vernacular. The greatest desire of any marketer is for her product's name to work its way into conversations. When I was growing up, it was common to say, "I want a Coke" when you were referring to any kind of soda. People ask for a Kleenex when they mean a tissue, say they're going to Xerox a document even if they're using a Ricoh copier, and speak of Googling when they refer to an Internet search. Stadium naming rights can help products and brands gain that sort of status. um... while those that control corporate brands want their brands to be ubiquitous, they do NOT want their trademarks to become generic. That's called "genericide", a sort of "public domain" status for trademarks, and thus costs the owner exclusive control over their mark. Of course, the naming of a stadium isn't likely to cause this phenomenon (oh look at that new Citi they're building in Montreal! I bet that'll bring baseball back!), so the point is not only incorrect, it's irrelevant. Now that's journalism! batmagadanleadoff Apr 16 2009 09:56 AM ="batmagadanleadoff":2ibvgs3w] I'll probably refer to the new park as Shea Stadium.[/quote:2ibvgs3w] Making money off my idea. Drats. Edgy DC Apr 16 2009 10:15 AM A good re-read. Here's Soupy with the Turning Point of the Thread: ="soupcan"]="Ashie62"] It seems like Citifield is a Brooklyn Dodger sandwich being shoved down Met pants. Oooh! A sandwich shoved into my pants!

="Edgy DC":37gbfrv1]Seriously, as a taxpayer, do you think Citi is going to recover faster by taking away their ability to market themselves professionally or humiliating them for attempting to do so?[/quote:37gbfrv1] Nope. I also think there isn't a worse thing they can do right now than take their name off a stadium where it already is, thats not a great way to inspire confidence that your business is (now) sound and here to stay. Edgy DC Feb 04 2009 10:58 AM So, do you think that Dennis Kucinich, who bills himself as "America's Congressman" is maybe using this as a means of self-promotion? I understand being against these rescue plans, but imposing terms on the corporations after the fact is crap. Lookit me, I'm castrating Citibank and everybody hates them. Eh, shaddup. (off soapbox) Nymr83 Feb 04 2009 11:25 AM ="Edgy DC":c8pm0iyy]So, do you think that Dennis Kucinich, who bills himself as "America's Congressman" is maybe using this as a means of self-promotion?[/quote:c8pm0iyy] No, really? Frayed Knot Feb 04 2009 11:31 AM Kucinich was doing the same thing with the land valuation question of the area around YSIII -- basically acting as a self-appointed over-seer for what is essentially a local issue far from his particular locality. G-Fafif Feb 04 2009 12:22 PM ]...the location of the stadium guarantees that the Citi logo will be visible to hundreds of millions of people each year. Citi Field is a giant billboard that will be visible not just to the 4 million-plus people who attend Mets games each year but to the tens of millions of people who drive past it on the Grand Central Parkway, the Van Wyck Expressway, and other roadways and the 25 million or so passengers who fly into and out of LaGuardia Airport each year. I wouldn't mind Gross coming on for Delgado in the ninth for defense. He can really stretch. Citigroup could also buy a few actual billboards and accomplish much the same goal as the author describes. While I agree that this company, if it is to survive, has to (and is entitled to) market itself, reading Gross' article tells me that he has no idea why having the company's name on a ballpark accomplishes that. "Well, people will see it...people who might use their product." If anything, spelling out the reasons as he does, with the "I want a Coke" example and such, makes the whole thing sound more like a vanity-driven sham than I thought before. ]Many companies use Mets games to entertain and schmooze prospective clients. If they used the games from the last two late Septembers, those companies must have been recruiters from Guantanamo Bay. metsguyinmichigan Feb 04 2009 02:16 PM I don't mind the banks buying these things as much as the utilities. Why does a monopoly need to advertise? Especially since they just pass their costs on to the consumer, who has no choice but to use their electricity or natural gas? G-Fafif Feb 04 2009 02:26 PM ="metsguyinmichigan":1nrfin6h]I don't mind the banks buying these things as much as the utilities. Why does a monopoly need to advertise? Especially since they just pass their costs on to the consumer, who has no choice but to use their electricity or natural gas?[/quote:1nrfin6h] To take up lots of space[/url:1nrfin6h], of course. metsmarathon Feb 04 2009 02:48 PM ]Citi Field, of course, will always be known as Citi Field. of course. G-Fafif Feb 04 2009 03:11 PM Should Citi Field never actually be Citi Field, it would be accessible via a number of appropriate thoroughfares, listed here[/url:qvhcvi31]. Benjamin Grimm Feb 04 2009 04:25 PM They should call it by Shea's original name: Flushing Meadows Stadium. Or since "stadium" is out of vogue, they can replace it with Park or Field. G-Fafif Feb 04 2009 05:00 PM More and more, Citi Field, its plainly visible structure notwithstanding, is beginning to remind me of this outstanding historical marker[/url:2p1f2s91] to which TMF introduced Mrs. Fafif and me recently. Citi Field...did it really land? G-Fafif Feb 04 2009 05:01 PM Whoops, impatient double post. themetfairy Feb 04 2009 05:22 PM LOL OlerudOwned Feb 04 2009 05:32 PM In a span of of two paragraphs, he called the naming rights "a classic vanity move" and an "essential, entirely justifiable expense." Kong76 Feb 04 2009 08:25 PM I'm kinda fickle on this subject now that it's become fodder for some folks. What's 20 million a year for twenty years when ya really boil it all down? dgwphotography Feb 05 2009 04:36 AM ="Kong76":2tla5kgq]I'm kinda fickle on this subject now that it's become fodder for some folks. What's 20 million a year for twenty years when ya really boil it all down?[/quote:2tla5kgq] Right now, it wouldn't even pay for Manny. 20 years from now, it wouldn't even pay for a utility infielder.. Edgy DC Feb 05 2009 05:50 AM ="OlerudOwned":1hwowprl]In a span of of two paragraphs, he called the naming rights "a classic vanity move" and an "essential, entirely justifiable expense."[/quote:1hwowprl] Well, he was distinguishing some deals from others. Vic Sage Feb 05 2009 10:34 AM ]But naming rights, especially if they endure, can perform another vital function for brands. It can help make them part of the vernacular. The greatest desire of any marketer is for her product's name to work its way into conversations. When I was growing up, it was common to say, "I want a Coke" when you were referring to any kind of soda. People ask for a Kleenex when they mean a tissue, say they're going to Xerox a document even if they're using a Ricoh copier, and speak of Googling when they refer to an Internet search. Stadium naming rights can help products and brands gain that sort of status. um... while those that control corporate brands want their brands to be ubiquitous, they do NOT want their trademarks to become generic. That's called "genericide", a sort of "public domain" status for trademarks, and thus costs the owner exclusive control over their mark. Of course, the naming of a stadium isn't likely to cause this phenomenon (oh look at that new Citi they're building in Montreal! I bet that'll bring baseball back!), so the point is not only incorrect, it's irrelevant. Now that's journalism! batmagadanleadoff Apr 16 2009 09:56 AM ="batmagadanleadoff":2ibvgs3w] I'll probably refer to the new park as Shea Stadium.[/quote:2ibvgs3w] Making money off my idea. Drats. Edgy DC Apr 16 2009 10:15 AM A good re-read. Here's Soupy with the Turning Point of the Thread: ="soupcan"]="Ashie62"] It seems like Citifield is a Brooklyn Dodger sandwich being shoved down Met pants. Oooh! A sandwich shoved into my pants!

]Steve Phillips: I would just recommend avoiding Mo Vaughn, Roger Cedeno and Kevin Appier. http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=3864280 in context, he's responding to a question by Neyer about budgetting his roster in a mock draft they are doing with Olney and Stark.

With Perez back in the fold I'm at least confident that this team is as good as last year's was on opening day. I want more.

Whatever the economic situation, the Mets can outbid the Royals (or any other hypothetic bidder.) If the Mets are truly at a point where they can't offer 2 years 20 million (assuming they wanted to) then the Royals sure can't offer 2 years and 20 million either. Right now the Mets have an advantage because there are at least 3 reasonable hitting alternatives out there (Ramirez, Dunn, and Abreu) and it is very unlikely that all 3 of those players find a 3rd year somewhere, the Mets should be able to get one of them, even if its not their first choice, for 2 years. Theres also the pitchers that are still out there... Perez and Sheets are getting nothing right now from what i can tell of the rumor mill, its time the Mets made a "who can jump first" offer to the both of them. It really looks like the bargains are there to be had and now is the time to lock them in for a smart GM. A few teams will be patting themselves on the back next offseason when prices are higher and they've got these guys at cheaper rates for another year.

="Number 6":2lro33xa]The biggest issue regarding Dunn would be the risk in a long-term deal (he's got a healthy dose of the dreaded "old-person skills"). None of the models available like his chances for maintaining his skill-set over the length of a 4-year contract. If he's available for 1 on the cheap though, somebody is getting a bargain. To me, this still all goes back to Perez. It seems like the Mets are not going to shoot their payroll far beyond $135 million, and if that's the case I'd much rather see them pick up Dunn and a pitcher, preferably Sheets on an incentive-laden "prove-it" contract, for a price possibly a few million more than what they'd pay for Perez. They'd do that without the risk inherent in doling out longer-term deals. If Sheets has a dynamite year - which he is clearly capable of provided he pitches - and meets his incentives, then you're quite possibly getting a positive return on investment anyway. I like Church a lot, but you just can't count on him to stay on the field. Right now, left field is stitched together with wishes and dreams. It's nice that we have 3 huge producers and 1 with potential, but that might not mean much if our offense is significantly below league-average in the other 4 lineup slots.[/quote:2lro33xa] "3 huge producers" is a bit optimistic as well. heres what i would consider a reasonable range of OPS+ numbers from our projected lineup, though of course you're free to disagree: SS Reyes (100-120) RF Church (100-135) 3B Wright (130-155) CF Beltran (120-140) 1B Delgado (100-140) LF Tatis/Murphy (90-120 from the LF spot combined) 2B Castillo (75-95) C Schneider/Castro (75-95 from the spot) obviously thats alot of range, but i think only 2 guys (Wright, Beltran) are capable of having a truly huge year, while 3 more (Delgado, Reyes, Church) are at least likely to be a positive force in the lineup. But you've got LF which is really a wild guess at this point, and C and 2B where you can pretty much expect a drag on the lineup. I realize that C is pretty much unaddressable at this point (look whose out there), but LF could be very easily addressed with players who would hit in the top 5 of any lineup (Ramirez, Dunn, Abreu) and 2B could at least be made into a great defensive strength with better offensive production than Castillo (Hudson) Number 6 Feb 02 2009 01:09 AM Yeah, the word "huge" was a bad choice, for several reasons. My fear is that we get significantly less from RF when we're playing back-ups due to injury, and I think we can reasonably expect less than the range you project for LF. Personally, I'd be surprised if the OPS+ we get from our LF platoon, as currently cast, approaches 100. Combine that with 2 other slots which I think you have pretty accurately down as offensive black holes, and it could get ugly. Yeah, it's a bad-case scenario, but I'd argue it's at least as likely as other probable outcomes. Even if we assume that Delgado, Wright, Reyes and Beltran are nearer to the upper bound of your ranges, can we expect that production to carry what could be some pretty hideous drag? Meanwhile, Dunn has averaged an OPS+ of 133 for the past 5 seasons. If it winds up being true that his price could come down to 1 year and $7 million or so, that's value, and it keeps us from needing to bank on the improbable. batmagadanleadoff Feb 02 2009 01:57 AM It would be nice to acquire Manny's next two seasons without having to pay for the two after that. But Manny and Dunn want long term deals. And if the price for either of those two drops low enough, then the Mets advantage in being one of baseball's wealthiest teams might be squandered, because at some point, even the Royals will put in a bid. Nymr83 Feb 02 2009 02:47 AM Whatever the economic situation, the Mets can outbid the Royals (or any other hypothetic bidder.) If the Mets are truly at a point where they can't offer 2 years 20 million (assuming they wanted to) then the Royals sure can't offer 2 years and 20 million either. Right now the Mets have an advantage because there are at least 3 reasonable hitting alternatives out there (Ramirez, Dunn, and Abreu) and it is very unlikely that all 3 of those players find a 3rd year somewhere, the Mets should be able to get one of them, even if its not their first choice, for 2 years. Theres also the pitchers that are still out there... Perez and Sheets are getting nothing right now from what i can tell of the rumor mill, its time the Mets made a "who can jump first" offer to the both of them. It really looks like the bargains are there to be had and now is the time to lock them in for a smart GM. A few teams will be patting themselves on the back next offseason when prices are higher and they've got these guys at cheaper rates for another year. Frayed Knot Feb 02 2009 07:09 AM And if all else fails ... Get Wiggy With It!!! batmagadanleadoff Feb 02 2009 09:32 AM ="Nymr83":2s7x82mb]Whatever the economic situation, the Mets can outbid the Royals (or any other hypothetic bidder.) If the Mets are truly at a point where they can't offer 2 years 20 million...[/quote:2s7x82mb] This'll probably fall into that vast category of things I believe are true but can't prove, but if Manny can't get more than a two year $20M deal, I'd be very suspicious of a lot of other things besides the economy. And if a team's offering Manny $10M a year, then it can hardly be said that his price has dropped to $7M. metirish Feb 02 2009 09:37 AM Hasn't Manny already turned down more than that from the Dodgers way back in FA , 2 years and $45 million IIRC. batmagadanleadoff Feb 02 2009 10:15 AM ="metirish":e0gp3ri2]Hasn't Manny already turned down more than that from the Dodgers way back in FA , 2 years and $45 million IIRC.[/quote:e0gp3ri2] Probably. We were only "what iffing" on Manny's price. Frayed Knot Feb 02 2009 10:21 AM ="metirish":3ko8tdnw]Hasn't Manny already turned down more than that from the Dodgers way back in FA , 2 years and $45 million IIRC.[/quote:3ko8tdnw] Yes, LA put that deal out there early on and is waiting for a counter-offer from Boras but hasn't heard anything. And word leaked out the other day that Manny supposedly let it slip via his buddy A. Pujols that he hasn't received an offer other than that one. The Giants showed some brief interest and continue to stick their nose in every once in a while but that now seems to be more in making sure the Dodgers don't get him cheaply than it is in snagging him for themselves. Presumably that same Dodger offer is still on the table although they might just reduce it themselves. Meanwhile Boras is still talking about wanting 4 years. Frayed Knot Feb 02 2009 08:35 PM From Jayson Stark - espn.com: A two-year, $45 million offer three months ago didn't get it done. So on Monday, the Los Angeles Dodgers made a new offer to Manny Ramirez -- for one year and $25 million, according to a major league source. Dodgers GM Ned Colletti confirmed to ESPN.com that he met with Ramirez's agent, Scott Boras, on Monday and presented the new offer in person. Colletti declined to confirm any details of the offer. But the offer was confirmed by another source with knowledge of the discussions. It's believed that Ramirez and Boras were given a 48-hour deadline to accept the offer. John Cougar Lunchbucket Feb 02 2009 09:00 PM They stole my idea! metsguyinmichigan Feb 02 2009 09:35 PM That's more than the entire Marlins payroll. Number 6 Feb 02 2009 11:31 PM Of course, he could be referring to talks that happened a while ago, were not substantial, or are dead due to the Perez signing and/or Castillo, but Hudson is still name-dropping the Mets. http://mlb.mlb.com/media/video.jsp?mid=200902023793126 Frayed Knot Feb 03 2009 06:46 AM Manny/Boras turn down the Dodger proposal ... and the beat goes on. Benjamin Grimm Feb 03 2009 07:34 AM Report this morning that the White Sox have offered Abreu one year, $8 million. John Cougar Lunchbucket Feb 03 2009 07:45 AM Take it, Bobby.

I'd rather have Dunn than Ramirez given their respective ages and attitudes. Dunn also has the added ability to play 1B, meaning that at the end of next season we can look to replace Delgado OR shift Dunn to 1B and find an outfielder. If we sign Manny we are locked in to replacing Delgado with a firstbaseman, and options are good to have. I admit that Ramirez's stats are more impressive and wouldn't fault anyone for preffering him.

come on Omar, slip it under the radar on superbowl sunday... Adam Dunn is a NYM.

="Centerfield":3e8zl7im]You know, if we really wanted Manny, we'd ask Mike Francesa to make it happen.[/quote:3e8zl7im] i havent even listened to the fat slob since mad dog left, whats he have to do with anything SteveJRogers Jan 31 2009 04:41 PM ="Nymr83":jel5ptoj]="Centerfield":jel5ptoj]You know, if we really wanted Manny, we'd ask Mike Francesa to make it happen.[/quote:jel5ptoj] i havent even listened to the fat slob since mad dog left, whats he have to do with anything[/quote:jel5ptoj] I think it is just a reference to him constantly demanding that something SHOULD happen, no debates. metsmarathon Jan 31 2009 08:45 PM or the fact that, if you listen to him tell it, he's the reason the mets got piazza way back when. SteveJRogers Jan 31 2009 08:50 PM ="metsmarathon":192yr4eq]or the fact that, if you listen to him tell it, he's the reason the mets got piazza way back when.[/quote:192yr4eq] Well there is truth to that. Apparently Wilpon and Phillips were both okay with not going after Piazza and sticking with Hundley, even with him on the shelf. Then Nelson Doubleday just happened to hear the show while both Mike and Chris were ranting about the Mets getting the guy. Next thing you know, Nelson tells Phillips to make the move. That story became so well known that when Mike Piazza first appeared on with Mike & Chris he says "Oh yeah, just wanted to say thanks for getting me here!" batmagadanleadoff Jan 31 2009 09:24 PM ="SteveJRogers":2p4dcmq4]="metsmarathon":2p4dcmq4]or the fact that, if you listen to him tell it, he's the reason the mets got piazza way back when.[/quote:2p4dcmq4] Well there is truth to that. Apparently Wilpon and Phillips were both okay with not going after Piazza and sticking with Hundley, even with him on the shelf. Then Nelson Doubleday just happened to hear the show while both Mike and Chris were ranting about the Mets getting the guy. Next thing you know, Nelson tells Phillips to make the move. That story became so well known that when Mike Piazza first appeared on with Mike & Chris he says "Oh yeah, just wanted to say thanks for getting me here!"[/quote:2p4dcmq4] I believe this story. Well, not really. But it is consistent with my low perception of our owner, Fred Wilpon. Frayed Knot Feb 01 2009 08:14 AM ]Well there is truth to that. Well there is speculation about that. Phillips' line of thing was that with a catcher already under contract the "chips" might be best spent elsewhere or maybe saved for another day. But then the boss whispered (asked?, pleaded?, demanded?) in his ear he changed his tune and started looking into things. Whether Doubleday's action was as the result of the M&MD scream-a-thon is up to interpretation and even the duo never claimed that they were anything other than a small part in it. Centerfield Feb 02 2009 08:29 AM The Piazza rumor is what I was alluding to. I didn't think anyone really believed that rumor except the die-hard listeners of that show, but you learn something new every day. metsmarathon Feb 02 2009 08:33 AM well, it is steve. Edgy DC Feb 02 2009 08:50 AM I think this should be called the "We Want Attention" rally. SteveJRogers Feb 02 2009 09:55 AM ="Centerfield":1okcvwit]The Piazza rumor is what I was alluding to. I didn't think anyone really believed that rumor except the die-hard listeners of that show, but you learn something new every day.[/quote:1okcvwit] Actually it is more of the anti-Wilpon/Phillips and/or pro-Doubleday faction of Met fans that believe that rumor more so than any WFAN listener. As Frayed said, even Mike & Chris have down played it over the years. SteveJRogers Feb 02 2009 09:56 AM There is apparantly a second rally this week. batmagadanleadoff Feb 02 2009 10:05 AM ="SteveJRogers":1jsdgsxe]There is apparantly a second rally this week.[/quote:1jsdgsxe] That's great. Maybe they can get Piazza to unretire. I hope someone there remembers to rally for better tasting hot dogs, too. Edgy DC Feb 02 2009 10:06 AM The idea that the team makes decisions based on the loudest howling of the galoots is a fantasy of the loudest galoots. batmagadanleadoff Feb 02 2009 10:08 AM ="Edgy DC":qq882pog]The idea that the team makes decisions based on the loudest howling of the galoots is a fantasy of the loudest galoots.[/quote:qq882pog] Galoots? Were you watching TCM last night? Paul Muni's character's favorite word was "galoots". Benjamin Grimm Feb 02 2009 11:11 AM ="Edgy DC":241ookcj]The idea that the team makes decisions based on the loudest howling of the galoots is a fantasy of the loudest galoots.[/quote:241ookcj] Well, yes, but you often mention that, for example, we (the fans) share in the responsibility for Shea's destruction because we didn't advocate strongly enough or loudly enough for its continued existence. These guys, whether you agree with them or not, are trying to wield whatever influence they may have in order to get their desired result. They may be a bunch of loudmouth goofballs, and you may not agree with their position, but aren't they doing what they ought to be doing? Edgy DC Feb 02 2009 11:18 AM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Feb 02 2009 11:48 AM I'm all for advocating, it's true. But there's got to be some real responsiblity. I'm against the jungle advocacy or street rallies around such slogans as "Do It, Omar!" and calling hang-up radio shows. I'm also against the sort of two-faced advocacy that allows you to demand the same sort of moves that the advocate is ripping them for making in the past. (See: Waaaa[/url:t7bvepsr]!) G-Fafif Feb 02 2009 11:44 AM ="Edgy DC":qsnlyp29]I'm all for advocating, it's true. But there's got to be some real responsiblity. I'm against the jungle advocacy or street rallies around such slogans as "Do It, Omar!" and calling hang-up radio shows.[/quote:qsnlyp29] Appoint yourself their spiritual guide. "Hey fellas, instead of waving the signs, you should..." What? Edgy DC Feb 02 2009 11:46 AM Post on a website that nobody reads, of course. G-Fafif Feb 02 2009 11:47 AM Do that, and Manny signs, you can always take credit. Edgy DC Feb 02 2009 12:05 PM And to be fair, my frustration with the end of Shea is the lamentations of people who did advocate for its destruction. Just as my frustration with rallyers who push for an aggressive spending-spree pursuit of veterans portrayed as prima donnas tend also to have pushed for that in the past, only to rip the Mets when those moves haven't worked out, and go on to portray those failed veteran imports as prima donnas that the Mets should have been smart enough to avoid. G-Fafif Feb 02 2009 12:12 PM Consistency in philosophy is always going to take it to whatever might work best at any given moment within the realm of a pastime measured in wins and losses. The Mets shouldn't spend a lot of money on old players who are bad fits, unless it seems like a really good idea right now and we need a power-hitting leftfielder, cost, age and potential personality conflicts be damned. The Mets shouldn't replace the ballpark that defines their character and soul, but they've got to get a new ballpark that doesn't form puddles just by staring at it. Fans want results and gratification. Relatively few get hung up on how to get both or why either is elusive. Edgy DC Feb 02 2009 12:15 PM It's that last sentence that gets to me. G-Fafif Feb 02 2009 12:21 PM WE WANT MANNY!!! G-Fafif Feb 03 2009 07:35 AM ]Relatively few get hung up on how to get both or why either is elusive. ]It's that last sentence that gets to me. Rooting for a baseball team isn't math class. You're not required to show your work. That said, here's Casey Stengel's 10-80-10 formula as related by Don Rowe in William Ryczek's sublime The Amazin' Mets 1962-1969, best history I've ever read of that period (if you're going to read two books about the Mets this year, make this your second...after you've secured a copy of your first, he said crassly). ]Ten percent of the people in this stadium knew what was going on. Eighty percent think they knew what was going on but they don't. See those drunks out in centerfield who are beating on each other? That ten percent don't know and don't care. If you use that philosophy, the fans will never bother you because you'll be able to put them in whatever category you want. The Manny marchers, incidentally, are probably descended from the placard wavers who populated the Polo Grounds. They may have distracted Casey. They probably won't distract Omar. RealityChuck Feb 03 2009 07:41 AM The team might end up losing $20 million a year of income if the Citi Field naming rights thing falls apart (and it's looking more likely it will). They'll have to pony up at least that much a year for Manny, so the bottom line is they're probably out $40+ million. Are the people rallying for Manny also rallying for keeping the Citi Field naming rights (and payments)? Because if they're not, they're being delusional. G-Fafif Feb 03 2009 07:45 AM ="RealityChuck":1wjua3of]Are the people rallying for Manny also rallying for keeping the Citi Field naming rights (and payments)? Because if they're not, they're being delusional.[/quote:1wjua3of] My guess is they're as delusional as those chanting "Let's Go Mets" in 1963. Probably more so. Edgy DC Feb 03 2009 07:58 AM Can we glean anything from the fact that the Red Sox --- the rich, smart, informed team we hope ours will one day be, employing Bill James and all and defending a championship --- traded Ramirez in the heat of a race? That shouldn't kill the notion, but shouldn't it humble folks a bit in their demands that this is a no-brainer? G-Fafif Feb 03 2009 08:05 AM ]Can we glean anything from the fact that the Red Sox --- the rich, smart, informed team we hope ours will one day be, employing Bill James and all and defending a championship --- traded Ramirez in the heat of a race? That shouldn't kill the notion, but shouldn't it humble folks a bit in their demands that this is a no-brainer? The team that traded Manny got to the LCS. So did the team that acquired Manny. It's the Manny who went to L.A. people remember, not the Manny who got himself run out of Boston. Every time you see a clip package of Manny highlights, there's nothing sullen from his last days with the Red Sox. It's all home runs and smiles with the Dodgers. That's the part of the fan brain that's working this cold winter. Centerfield Feb 03 2009 08:06 AM I think we may have set some sort of record for assumptions in a single thread. ="SteveJRogers":a9e7kszf]Not only that, how about when all the things that caused him to be persona non grata in Boston rear it's ugly head. You can only take "Manny being Manny" so much.[/quote:a9e7kszf] Manny reared his ugly head in Boston to the tune of a .927 OPS, which would have led all Mets. In July, he quit on the Red Sox by bumping that to 1.060. Afterwards, he got hot. ="SteveJRogers":a9e7kszf]Well there is truth to [Francesa and Russo being responsible for delivering Piazza].[/quote:a9e7kszf] No. There may be truth. It is all based upon speculation created by callers of the show who wanted to pat themselves on the back. ="Edgy DC":a9e7kszf]I'm all for advocating, it's true. But there's got to be some real responsiblity.[/quote:a9e7kszf] There is nothing here indicating that any of the street rallyers lack responsibility. They might all have legitimate plans. ="Edgy DC":a9e7kszf]I'm against the jungle advocacy or street rallies around such slogans as "Do It, Omar!" and calling hang-up radio shows. [/quote:a9e7kszf] This is not an assumption, but I'm just wondering why you would prefer one form of advocacy over another. ="Edgy DC":a9e7kszf]I'm also against the sort of two-faced advocacy that allows you to demand the same sort of moves that the advocate is ripping them for making in the past. (See: Waaaa!) [/quote:a9e7kszf] Nothing here suggests any of the rallyers are that type of fan. ="Edgy DC":a9e7kszf]Just as my frustration with rallyers who push for an aggressive spending-spree pursuit of veterans portrayed as prima donnas tend also to have pushed for that in the past, only to rip the Mets when those moves haven't worked out, and go on to portray those failed veteran imports as prima donnas that the Mets should have been smart enough to avoid.[/quote:a9e7kszf] Again, it is faulty to undermine the rallyers' credibility by unfairly associating with hypocritical thinking. There is nothing to suggest these rallyers think in that manner. ="RealityChuck":a9e7kszf]Are the people rallying for Manny also rallying for keeping the Citi Field naming rights (and payments)? Because if they're not, they're being delusional.[/quote:a9e7kszf] Are you aware of any out clause in the contract? Because my understanding of contracts is that if Citifield tries to back out, they are subject to damages. Centerfield Feb 03 2009 08:09 AM ="Edgy DC":1p7alcyl]Can we glean anything from the fact that the Red Sox --- the rich, smart, informed team we hope ours will one day be, employing Bill James and all and defending a championship --- traded Ramirez in the heat of a race? That shouldn't kill the notion, but shouldn't it humble folks a bit in their demands that this is a no-brainer?[/quote:1p7alcyl] I think the LCS demonstrated how much they missed Manny's bat. Especially if you turned the channel and watched what he was doing wearing blue. Also throw in the two World Series titles they won with him anchoring the lineup. Edgy DC Feb 03 2009 08:30 AM I'm aware of that and if louts were being loutish in killing the idea I'd feel similarly. It's a delicate choice, and no no-brainer by any stretch. Wasn't it your wife who said that we'd get David Ortiz when his weight hit 300 and his knees were shot? Edgy DC Feb 06 2009 08:28 AM ="Newsday"]Million Manny March only brings 10-15 Mets fans BY KATIE STRANG | caitlin.strang@newsday.com February 6, 2009 Compared to last week, the smattering of Mets fans willing to brave the cold outside SNY studios in Manhattan for the second "Million Manny March" accurately reflected the team's likelihood of landing Manny Ramirez - rapidly dwindling. About 50 fans gathered to chant and implore Mets management to sign the free-agent slugger last week, but only 10 to 15 people appeared for the second rally. "I wanted to promote the cause and get Manny over here, plain and simple," said Gustavo Medina, 20, of Ridgewood, Queens. "If we have a power bat like Manny, and you plug him between Carlos Beltran and Carlos Delgado, you're gonna have a respected lineup and an outstanding New York Mets club in 2009." Even though general manager Omar Minaya has been emphatic in dismissing fans' hopes of signing Ramirez, Medina thinks it remains a possibility. "Omar Minaya has coveted that man since high school," Medina said. Holding up the other end of Medina's sign was Cliff Korn, 38, of Manhattan, who said the acquisition still could happen even though Minaya has ruled it out. "Minaya likes to make the big splash," Korn said, citing previous players who ended up in Flushing when it initially looked unlikely. "I think it's possible." Medina said they won't be deterred until adding Manny no longer is possible. When will they stop congregating? "When he signs somewhere else," Medina said. Added Korn, "And then we'll start rallying for Matt Holliday." John Cougar Lunchbucket Feb 06 2009 08:31 AM Katie Strang, bringin it strong. Edgy DC Feb 06 2009 08:35 AM Great cub reporter assignment. Hey, Katie, go out in the cold and talk to some quixotic mooks. seawolf17 Feb 06 2009 09:13 AM For a quick second, I read that as Gustavo Molina. Frayed Knot Feb 06 2009 10:34 AM ="John Cougar Lunchbucket":1v6ar1zc]Katie Strang, bringin it strong.[/quote:1v6ar1zc] Considering that the only other time I've seen her name in Newsday sports is when she's covering human cockfighti ... I mean the "Mixed Martial Arts" scene, I suppose that talking to idiot Met fans in sub-freezing weather isn't so bad. Or maybe she's an MMA groupie and enjoys that stuff, who knows.