batmagadanleadoff

The thread for all Met -related culinary stuff. The Best Place to Grab a Bite Before a Mets Game Before the national anthem rings out, take the No. 7 train one stop away from Citi Field for tamales, empanadas and tacos. I strongly believe that baseball is the kind of sport that you don't need to know much about in order to enjoy it. Long before the Atlanta Braves were the 2021 World Series champions, my Georgia-born friends and I would shell out $10 to watch them play the Mets at Citi Field in Queens. (Most of that time was spent just chatting and occasionally watching the action.) Mets games are a relatively affordable form of New York City entertainment, but that affordability doesn't always extend to the food sold at Citi Field. As much as I love to consume beer and chicken tenders in great quantities, some of the best and most enriching eating is just one stop away on the No. 7 train's express line at the Junction Boulevard stop. Underneath those well-worn subway tracks is a world of copious, no-reservation-needed eating that you'll miss unless you disembark and walk down to Roosevelt Avenue. A veritable market — mostly featuring foods of the Latin diaspora — is teeming with options. For about $12 — bring cash! — you can have four of the best tamales of your life from Evelia's Tamales at the northwest corner of Junction Boulevard and Roosevelt Avenue. You can order the bright salsa verde tamale, with rich shredded chicken tucked into the cooked masa, or the heartier adobo with spicy guajillo peppers and pork, among others. Or do what I did and ask for dealer's choice. It's impossible to go wrong. At another cart, I tried some of the crispiest and airiest cheese empanadas I may ever encounter. They came hot out of the frying oil perfectly crunchy with a sliver of salty, melted white cheese inside. I only bought one and I instantly regretted it. I could have eaten a thousand. My regrets to chicken tenders. When I returned this past weekend, the woman who sold those empanadas was nowhere to be found, but that's the nature of Junction Boulevard: It's always changing. So instead, I grabbed a piping hot chicharrón quesadilla from Homemade Taqueria at the corner of 40th Road and Junction, where you can watch the staff make tortillas in real time. Farther down Roosevelt Avenue at the corner of 78th Street, you'll find Birria-Landia, which will hopefully never disappear. There, they serve the kind of birria de res you'll find in Tijuana, Mexico. Back in 2019, the food truck heralded an obsession, now shared by TikTok users and the street-food scene alike, with consomé-soaked birria tacos. [FIMG=555]https://static01.nyt.com/images/2022/05/24/dining/24WTE-junctionblvd2/merlin_164187249_a29d5d0a-43af-44dc-8c0b-c5f5682a0f91-superJumbo.jpg?quality=75&auto=webp[/FIMG] Farther down Roosevelt Avenue, Birria-Landia has sold Tijuana-style birria tacos since 2019. “The meat, a blend of brisket, shank and top round, is rich and seems to grow softer as you eat it, like a square of chocolate,” wrote Pete Wells in his two-star review of the truck, which now has a second location near the Lorimer stop on the L line. These businesses are part of a rich network of ambulantes, or street vendors, some of whom started selling food only after the pandemic began to offset losing work or housing. In late 2020, my colleagues Juan Arredondo and David Gonzalez published a moving interactive article about these vendors, many of whom are undocumented. They all must contend with the city's limited number of available permits, and unlicensed vendors can face crippling fines. Please take time to read their stories — they share these experiences with thousands of others. That stretch of Roosevelt Avenue is just as much a part of the fabric of New York City as going to see the Mets play. There's no reason we can't enjoy and honor each. After all, it's only a train stop away. https://www.nytimes.com/2022/05/24/dining/where-to-eat-citi-field-mets.htmlhttps://www.nytimes.com/2022/05/24/dining/where-to-eat-citi-field-mets.html

Fuck Aerosmith.

Harvey is/was a junkie. He is a victim of the same crime baseball is punishing him for. There was seemingly no malicious intent. Whatever else i might think about Harvey as a person, I don't think less of him for his struggles with drugs, I feel for him. Bauer, on the other hand, has been an unrepentant asshole and harasser of women for many years. He's a bad character, and not one MLB need associate themselves with. And that's the BEST case scenario for his image. Three different women have come forward (Some of who did not officially, legally, press charges, but spoke to MLB) to assert that Bauer went above and beyond the concept of consent. He should be in jail, he's one of the few actual people you might say is _actually_ a danger to society and should be locked up. I can't think of any good reason to doubt that he deserves at least what MLB gave him. My posts were obviously based on the the accusations made by the first accuser only, and covered in depth by Tbe Athletic, which broke the story. That accuser was full of shit. If there are other episodes of more credible accounts of rape or sexual abuse made against Bauer, and if the suspension is based on those more credible accounts , I would have a different opinion. And in that vein, I found an article about a third accuser that sound pretty disturbing, where Bauer exceeded consent, and even went as far as videotaping the sexual encounter. He also sent a text message to that accuser that might prove that he had anal sex with her without her permission. But I think that he was suspended before this incident came to light. I'll post a link in the next post. OE -link. https://sports.yahoo.com/trevor-bauer-3rd-accuser-columbus-2-year-mlb-suspension-001954342.htmlhttps://sports.yahoo.com/trevor-bauer-3rd-accuser-columbus-2-year-mlb-suspension-001954342.html

You've heard of innocent until proven guilty right? Until you're tried and convicted of a crime, you have not committed a felony. Matt Harvey is not a felon. Any archaic voter suppression, or other, laws that apply to felons do not apply to him. But this is a 'private' company. I'm just saying MLB choosing to punish him looks a like like they're putting on a tough on drugs act. I don't give a crap about the other asshole. Someone says he was a rapist, certainly fits his profile. Maybe he was only 90% as bad as it seems? big whoop, screw him. That's not remotely true. The world is full of people who were never convicted for the felonies they committed. He's not a felon because he's not convicted. Because he wasnt indicted. Because he was granted immunity. But under oath in a court of law, he testified to committing every single element of a felony. Therefore, Harvey committed a felony. Where are you going with this? What's your point? If Bauer's conduct merits a two year suspension without pay, Harvey should be banned from baseball for the rest of his life. If you dont give a crap about Bauer, "the other guy", that's perfectly fine. But that's the whole point of this latest debate in this thread, whether Bauer's punishment is fair or arbitrary compared to Harvey's.

That Harvey was granted immunity doesnt mean that he didnt commit a felony. It means that the State won't prosecute him for whatever he was given immunity for. Harvey was drug-dealing. And to a fellow teammate, no less. But still, let's do this your way. OK. Harvey didn't commit a felony (sez you). And Bauer didnt commit any crime at all either. Bauer wasnt even indicted. So Bauer didnt even need a grant of immunity or an acquittal from a jury. Bauer's accuser was so obviously full of shit that the State vacated the order of protection that it initially issued in her favor when it gave her the benefit of the doubt to err on the side of caution.

Matt Harvey swore in court under oath that he provided oxycodone to Tyler Skaggs, who died when he choked on his own vomit. Fentanyl, oxycodone and alcohol were found in Skaggs's system after an autopsy was conducted. Harvey committed a felony. Bauer engaged in consensual and legal conduct, as distasteful and repulsive as that conduct was. Nothing should outweigh the fact that what Bauer did was legal. It doesn't matter that you dont "approve " of what Bauer did. I don't approve, either. But that's not how these matters should be decided. Harvey committed a felony. Bauer didn't. And how did this thread "lose its center"?

This idea that a baseball player wouldn't be allowed to claim "consent" as a defense to an accusation of sexual assault under MLB's domestic violence policy is, come to think of it, off the walls looney tunes territory. Besides the fact that the union would never agree to waive what would usually be a player's strongest defense in such an action, and that the policy would be legally vulnerable for denying a player that right so that MLB wouldn't even want that in the first place ... such a policy would expose players to accusations for any kind of sexual contact, even regular old missionary position straight sex without any striking or hitting, etc. All the accuser would have to say is that she never gave sexual consent and so therefore, she was raped. And then she'd be off to the races to collect her money jackpot. How the fuck is a player supposed to defend himself under that scenario when he can't claim consent? Even if he can prove that his accuser is lying, MLB would deem his defense irrelevant insofar as consent isn't a recognized defense. According to one poster here, anyways. He'd need to get a written release from his sexual partner before they have sex. And even then, it wouldn't count for anything since MLB doesn't recognize consent here, at least according to one poster here. Either that or hope to prove that they never had sex in the first place, even though they did have sex. He'd have to lie to win his case.

Brooks Guillorme!

One of the key provisions of MLB's own policy on domestic violence is to protect the legal rights of players. I dunno where Ceets is getting that Bauer's a serial rapist, let alone a one-time rapist, but if he's a rapist, I'll surely re-assess what I've written so far. I doubt that the union would forfeit what is a complete and legally exonerating defense to such charges. Bauer's accuser wasnt pressured to claim consent and in fact, never ever alleged that she consented. Instead, the evidence overwhelmingly shows that she fabricated all of the criminal charges. Bauer's accuser is a scamming bullshit artist and this was all obvious to anyone who bothered to read the initial in depth and deep.dive coverage. Also, the punishment should be proportional not only to the bad conduct but to other punishments for other bad conducts. Bauer makes an excellent point comparing his situation to that of Harvey's. Bauer's punishment comes off as random and arbitrary. Its disgusting that one poster here could totally dismiss the consensual nature of the Bauer incident without any logical explanation, just because consent gets in the way of his predetermined and hoped for outcome. But this is where we are now as a nation - two or three days away from his beloved fascist political party burning books and if they take back power, they're so fucking out of control that they might go all Khmer Rouge and disappear all the doctors, scientists and Intellectuals. People who think it's ok to overthrow the US government by violence aren't credible. Oh my! Consent doesnt matter. And he invents a straw man scrnario that she was forced to consent to justify this loopy idea that consent shouldn't matter. But how is this any different from boxing if she really did consent? It isnt any different. Here's the actual, in the flesh, MLB policy on Domestic Violence and Abuse, word for word for word. http://content.mlb.com/documents/2/9/2/296982292/Major_League_Player_Joint_DV_SA_CA_Policy_English_2018.pdfhttp://content.mlb.com/documents/2/9/2/296982292/Major_League_Player_Joint_DV_SA_CA_Policy_English_2018.pdf Here's the second line: protects the legal and procedural rights of Players; Nowhere in the document does it say that consent is immaterial or that consent may not be used as a defense. In fact, the policy specifically states that "sexual assault" occurs, among other instances, when the victim is "legally incapable of consent." This clause unquestionably proves that consent is relevant and would constitute a defense to any accusation. He's fucking nuts. Yeah, right, the union's gonna agree to waive consent. Consent is the difference between going to jail and not going to jail. What a vile nut.

One of the key provisions of MLB's own policy on domestic violence is to protect the legal rights of players. I dunno where Ceets is getting that Bauer's a serial rapist, let alone a one-time rapist, but if he's a rapist, I'll surely re-assess what I've written so far. I doubt that the union would forfeit what is a complete and legally exonerating defense to such charges. Bauer's accuser wasnt pressured to claim consent and in fact, never ever alleged that she consented. Instead, the evidence overwhelmingly shows that she fabricated all of the criminal charges. Bauer's accuser is a scamming bullshit artist and this was all obvious to anyone who bothered to read the initial in depth and deep.dive coverage. Also, the punishment should be proportional not only to the bad conduct but to other punishments for other bad conducts. Bauer makes an excellent point comparing his situation to that of Harvey's. Bauer's punishment comes off as random and arbitrary. Its disgusting that one poster here could totally dismiss the consensual nature of the Bauer incident without any logical explanation, just because consent gets in the way of his predetermined and hoped for outcome. But this is where we are now as a nation - two or three days away from his beloved fascist political party burning books and if they take back power, they're so fucking out of control that they might go all Khmer Rouge and disappear all the doctors, scientists and Intellectuals. People who think it's ok to overthrow the US government by violence aren't credible. Oh my! Consent doesnt matter. And he invents a straw man scrnario that she was forced to consent to justify this loopy idea that consent shouldn't matter. But how is this any different from boxing if she really did consent? It isnt any different.

I'd think "Of course he has to be a rookie all season." Move your example to Oct. 1, for example, and you'll see that if it's not set up like that, someone could win two straight ROTYs. Edgy's right. Otherwise, hardly anybody would ever qualify. A brand new every day playing rookie making his major league debut on Opening Day would surely exceed the rookie limits during the season. Yet under your rule, he wouldn't be eligible. Pete Alonso wouldn't have been eligible in 2019 your way.

=batmagadanleadoff post_id=93022 time=1653158810 user_id=68] That's less than two months of a season. Technically possible but unlikely. That's be one hell of a run of 130 at bats. He'd have to be way better than Yoenis2015. OE: Yoenis2015 as a Met.

Edgy MD wrote: More importantly, I think I need to get through to MLB and get this vote tossed and recast. How could this have slipped by all these years? Someone had to notice immediately, including Jones himself. Maybe there was a special rule in effect that year because of the strike? A special rule that benefitted 1993 rookies wouldn't make sense.

Edgy MD wrote: More importantly, I think I need to get through to MLB and get this vote tossed and recast. How could this have slipped by all these years? Someone had to notice immediately, including Jones himself. Maybe there was a special rule in effect that year because of the strike?

I'd think "Of course he has to be a rookie all season." Move your example to Oct. 1, for example, and you'll see that if it's not set up like that, someone could win two straight ROTYs. Yes. I see your point. But it'd be virtually impossible for a player to win the award in consecutive years under the present rules, even if he uses up his rookie status. A player is a rookie until he exceeds 130 at-bats, 50 innings pitched or 45 days on the active roster of a Major League club. So a position player, would have to win his first ROY award in less than 131 at bats to still qualify the following season. That's less than two months of a season. Technically possible but unlikely. That's be one hell of a run of 130 at bats. He'd have to be way better than Yoenis2015. OE: Yoenis2015 as a Met.

=batmagadanleadoff post_id=93016 time=1653151941 user_id=68] Does a player have to be a rookie all season long to qualify for that season's ROY award? What about a player who's a rookie on May 1st, 2022 but loses his rookie status on the very next day, May 2nd, 2022? Is he eligible for this year's ROY award? I think I used to know this but ain't so sure anymore.

Does a player have to be a rookie all season long to qualify for that season's ROY award? What about a player who's a rookie on May 1st, 2022 but loses his rookie status on the very next day, May 2nd, 2022? Is he eligible for this year's ROY award? I think I used to know this but ain't so sure anymore.

=RealityChuck post_id=93013 time=1653150512 user_id=82] It's morea matter of the sportswriter not checking.

Most glaring omissions? Rusty Staub? Lee Mazzilli? Ron Hunt? Most appearances (it figures) Gary "Camera" Carter. Unlikeliest inclusion(s)? Dom Smith?

Edgy MD wrote: [bauer] wins that money in court, he's claiming funds that I'm sure MLB will claim (true or not) were earmarked for charities devoted to the safety of women. I find it hard to believe someone would make that claim, and that seems pretty farfetched. Farfetched? For sure. And that testimony would never see the light of day in a courtroom, anyways. It's irrelevant, and thus inadmissible. And if it is relevant to anything, (which it isn't -- I'm simply playing Devil's Advocate here), it's only microscopically relevant and would be outweighed enormously by its prejudicial nature. It's plainly a sympathy ploy. I'm going to suspect MLB's domestic abuse policy recognizes that choking women until they are unconscious and punching them in the face and elsewhere is inappropriate behavior. Whether or not one of the parties claims the actions were consensual doesn't make a difference. I doubt that consent wouldn't make a difference. I also doubt that MLB even anticipated this kind of incident when drafting its CBA, as nutty and unique as this all is. And if its in there, I think its vulnerable to a legal challenge insofar as the clause would be grossly inconsistent with state laws and to the extreme and outrageous detriment of Bauer. Bauer wasn't even indicted, and you know how the saying goes --- "] He'll never play again. I'm very OK with that.

I think MLB's gonna get crushed in a lawsuit against it by Bauer. I think MLB, internally, probably recognizes the probability of this outcome but is willing to accept the financial hit. MLB doesn't care. Anything to get rid of Bauer.

I was there.

If the ol' double the prognosis formula works here, that means see ya next season.

I'll post this here even though it could, just the same, appear in the Trevor Bauer douchebag thdead. Bauer complains about his two year suspension for engaging in lawful and consensual activities while Harvey only gets 60 days for committing at least one felony and supplying illegal substances to a teammate that then died from using those substances. Lotsa truth spoken here.

=whippoorwill post_id=92679 time=1652901087 user_id=79] What's your problem with Rey Rey?