dgwphotography

Let me see if I have this right: The Mets paid $2 Million for Alex Cora, and the Dodgers just signed Orlando Hudson for $3.8 million....

When he first came here, Beltran stated that he was more comfortable batting in the second spot, IIRC....

="Iubitul"]hmmmm.... I always saw Matlack in that image... Actually, no. Bob Ojeda.

hmmmm.... I always saw Matlack in that image...

="metirish"] It's fitting that that's the last piece left...

Offerman sued in baseball bat attack Nathans seeks $4.8m for injuries he says ended baseball career By Daniel Tepfer Staff writer Posted: 02/12/2009 12:33:12 PM EST BRIDGEPORT -- In a lawsuit that seeks nearly $5 million, a former catcher for the Bridgeport Bluefish claims his baseball career was ended when he was struck in the head with a bat by former all-star Jose Offerman during a minor-league game a year and a half ago. The lawsuit by Johnathan Nathans, 29, was filed Thursday in U.S. District Court here against Offerman and the Long Island Ducks baseball team, alleging Nathans' career abruptly ended after he was struck by the bat-wielding Offerman. "I left the field on a stretcher," said Nathans, his eyes filling with tears, during a news conference at the Bridgeport office of his lawyer, Joshua Koskoff. "I wasn't able to walk away and leave the game I loved on my own terms, but Koskoff said the lawsuit seeks $4.8 million in damages. The Bluefish and the Ducks are owned by Frank Boulton, who founded the independent Atlantic League and still serves as the league's chief executive officer. "John Nathans tried to protect his pitcher," Koskoff said. "It was just instinctive for him, and that instinct to protect his pitcher cost him dearly." Offerman's lawyer, Frank Riccio, countered: "The evidence, as it develops, will be a completely different story than the allegations in the complaint." On Aug. 14, 2007, the Ducks were playing the Bluefish at the Ballpark at Harbor Yard when Bluefish pitcher Matt Beech threw a pitch that struck Offerman in the left leg. Offerman immediately charged the pitcher's mound with a baseball bat in his hand. In the ensuing melee on the field, Beech suffered a broken finger and Nathans was struck by Offerman with the bat in the head, according to the suit. As a result of being hit on the head, Nathans says, he suffered a concussion and permanent hearing loss in his right ear, and still suffers headaches. Offerman, 39, an all-star infielder with the Dodgers in 1995 and Red Sox in 1999, was subsequently arrested and charged with two counts of second-degree assault. During a hearing on Oct. 30, 2007, Superior Court Judge James Ginocchio granted Offerman accelerated rehabilitation. Under accelerated rehabilitation, Offerman did not admit guilt to the charges, but was placed on two years probation. If he commits no other crimes during that probation, the charges against him will be dismissed. The judge ordered Offerman to undergo anger-management therapy and to pay restitution for injuries suffered by Beech and Nathans. Although after the hearing Offerman apologized to the fans for what happened, Nathans said Thursday that Offerman has never apologized to him or paid his medical expenses. Offerman was suspended indefinitely from the Atlantic League after the incident and is now managing a professional baseball team in his native Dominican Republic. Nathans, who lives in Maine, played a season and a half with the Bluefish, earning about $1,800 a month, he said. He said his medical bills were paid under worker's compensation. Nathans said he was disappointed that Offerman got what he termed "a slap on the wrist," for the attack. "If this was somebody on the street who did this to another person, they would be in jail," he said. http://www.connpost.com/ci_11688962

http://www.nydailynews.com/gossip/2009/02/10/2009-02-10_15m_lawsuit_claims_exmet_roberto_alomar_.html ]$15M Lawsuit claims ex-Met Roberto Alomar had sex knowing he had AIDS BY John Marzulli and Tracy Connor DAILY NEWS STAFF WRITERS Wednesday, February 11th 2009, 12:12 AM Seems like a long time now since Robert Alomar's days with the Mets. He's now making headlines for a surprising lawsuit. Simmon/News Seems like a long time now since Robert Alomar's days with the Mets. Baseball great Roberto Alomar has full-blown AIDS but insisted on having unprotected sex, his ex-girlfriend charged Tuesday in a bombshell lawsuit. The shocking claim was leveled by Ilya Dall, 31, who said she lived with the ex-Met for three years and watched in horror as his health worsened. In papers filed in state and federal court, Dall said Alomar finally got tested in January 2006 while suffering from a cough, fatigue and shingles. "The test results of him being HIV-positive was given to him and the plaintiff on or about Feb.6, 2006," the $15 million negligence suit says. Nine days later, the couple went to see a disease specialist who discovered a mass in the retired second baseman's chest, the court papers say. Alomar's skin had turned purple, he was foaming at the mouth and a spinal tap "showed he had full-blown AIDS," the suit says. Alomar, 41, who quit baseball over health issues in 2005, could not be reached for comment. His lawyer, Charles Bach, would not say whether Alomar is HIV-positive. "We believe this is a totally frivolous lawsuit. These allegations are baseless," Bach said. "He's healthy and would like to keep his health status private. We'll do our talking in court." Alomar's father, Mets bench coach Sandy Alomar, said the claims were news to him. "That's the first time we ever heard of that," he said from Puerto Rico. He didn't think his son could keep a serious illness secret. "I imagine I would know," he said. Dall, a mother of two who has run a massage spa in Queens, would not discuss the suit. "I have no comment," she said outside her lavish home in Whitestone, Queens, after getting out of a black Cadillac Escalade. She referred inquiries to her lawyer, Anthony Piacentini, who declined to comment. The suit was filed Jan. 30 in Queens Supreme Court. Alomar had it transferred to Brooklyn Federal Court Tuesday. The court papers outline the couple's relationship, starting in 2002. A month after they began dating, Alomar convinced Dall to have unprotected sex and assured her he was disease-free, the suit alleges. In 2004, Dall says she noticed cold sores in his mouth. In 2005, after a physical exam ordered by the Tampa Bay Rays, he was diagnosed with thrombocytopenia purpura, a blood disorder sometimes linked to HIV, she claims. The doctor told him to have an HIV test and he refused, she says, stating he had been tested and was AIDS-free. In April 2005, Alomar told Dall he was suffering from erectile dysfunction and confided "he was raped by two Mexican men after playing a ballgame in New Mexico or a Southwestern state when he was 17," the suit says. It goes on to say that around the same time Alomar developed a persistent cough and was bedridden with extreme fatigue. He developed thrush, a yeast infection, and was told by a doctor to take an HIV test - but refused, Dall claims. "I don't have HIV," he told her repeatedly, the suit charges. A few months later, the couple moved to Cleveland, where Alomar supposedly tested positive. Dall claims that after she learned Alomar had AIDS, she tested negative and no longer had unprotected sex with him. They broke up last October. She is demanding at least $15 million in punitive damages, claiming Alomar caused her emotional distress and exposed her children to the virus. "He jeopardized the health, well-being and life of the plaintiff, which caused her to have a fear of contracting AIDS, often referred to as AIDS phobia," the suit says. Considered one of baseball's greatest second basemen, Alomar stirred controversy in 1996 by spitting in the face of umpire John Hirschbeck. The incident prompted fellow ump Al Clark to say, "If I were John, I'd insist that Robbie Alomar take an AIDS test." HIV has never been transmitted through saliva, however, and last night Hirschbeck said he had no concerns about his safety - or hard feelings from their on-field run-in. "You're telling me something I'm shocked at," Hirschbeck said. "I wish him nothing but the best."

the first time we go there this year will be a shock.

="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!

I can't believe someone desecrated a Kelvin Torve jersey like that...

that's just brilliant.

I always felt a little icky after going through this thread...

It's not funny at all - Star Trek and Star Wars are as different as they are similar. The best Star Trek has always been thought-provoking, while holding a mirror up to ourselves. It's definitely more cerebral than Star Wars...

"These are your cliches. They are your friends"

She's not insane - this has been considered the best of all the Trek films by most. I think First Contact supersedes it slightly, bymmv. One of the best things about this movie is the scenery chewing contest between Shatner and Montalban

="Benjamin Grimm":14pfejpr]If the Mets moved away I'd be done. It would be the end of my days as a baseball fan. No way would I pick up on another team. My interest in the wins and losses of the 25 guys who wear the Mets uniform is irrational and a holdover from my childhood that I haven't let go of. I'd have absolutely no interest, at my age, in starting over with another team. I couldn't convince myself to care.[/quote:14pfejpr] What Ben said. John Cougar Lunchbucket Jan 16 2009 02:51 PM It would have to be some wild circumstances that would lead to a Mets departure, so I guess I'd need to know that first, but I'd go for their NYC replacements like my dad did to from the Dodgers, prolly. sharpie Jan 16 2009 03:02 PM At least in the early days I would probably root for the team that the Mets became until there was a NY replacement team. If the Mets were contracted however that would drive me away from the game. SteveJRogers Jan 16 2009 03:36 PM It would depend on the circumstances. Tell me the reason WHY they moved and I'd root, or not, for the team. In most cases though, the fans do not go with the team. Oiler and Browns fans did not join the TItans and Ravens bandwagons. Rockin' Doc Jan 16 2009 03:43 PM Since my time living in Chicago when I frequently attended games at Comiskey Park, I have always followed the fortunes of the White Sox. I believe I would shift my allegiance over to the White Sox, though I'm pretty sure that my fandom would be more casual than it is for the Mets. dinosaur jesus Jan 16 2009 03:50 PM Rooting for your team after it leaves town is like rooting for your ex-wife. You have to transfer your affections somehow. Kong76 Jan 16 2009 04:00 PM If the Mets moved I'd just be a baseball fan. The last two years have almost pushed me to that some days as it is. Fman99 Jan 16 2009 05:52 PM I might end up rooting for the team affiliated with the AAA Syracuse squad. Only problem is those things change regularly. So I have no clue I guess is what I'm saying. I'd wait until I was an old Jew in Florida and become a Rays fan (Gulf coast all the way baby!). Gwreck Jan 16 2009 06:03 PM I was at that arena in Kansas City this past summer and it is top-notch; even the upper level looks pretty good and is not way up in the clouds like so many of the newly-constructed arenas these days. Anyway, as to the Mets, if they left town I'd probably disown them forever and be a man without a team. I would still hate the Yankees however. MFS62 Jan 16 2009 07:00 PM ="Vic Sage":17shm725]I'd root for the NL team that inevitably moved into the NYC market. [/quote:17shm725] Exactly. That's what we Brooklyn Dodger fans did. Later G-Fafif Jan 16 2009 09:09 PM In the mid-'90s, when talk of replacing Shea first gained traction and the Mets were going nowhere in the standings and drawing few while doing it, I began to fear the worst, that they would leave if they didn't get a new ballpark, so I considered the question. I couldn't go with an American League team, save for whoever's playing the MFYs. I thought about the Phillies for proximity's sake (I was able to get their games on the radio through static and in their post-Dykstra phase, I still had a vaguely lukwarm feeling for them, long since dissipated); I thought about the Giants since it would bring the whole NY thing back around then, and if the Mets abandoned NY, how could I hold the SF thing against them?; and I settled, eventually (as the question lingered and rearose once in a while in my closet of anxieties), on the Pirates as my doomsday choice, especially once PNC Park opened. I liked the Pirate history. I didn't hate the Pirates as a kid the way I hated the Cubs. I considered the Cubs a little, for Wrigley, but I hate the Cubs. I also thought about the Rockies, because Coors Field is so nice and the Rockies never did anything of lasting psychic damage to the Mets, but what am I going to do with the Rockies? No, it would be the Bucs. Maybe if the Expos were still alive, but they're not. (Dodgers, Cardinals, Diamondbacks, Brewers, Braves, Padres, Nationals, Reds, Astros and Marlins all nonstarters for various reasons and bad associations.) But I now realize that was all folderol. I'd become one of those former fans who groused about the good old days and maybe clung to the old days, like the guys I know who remain NY Giants fans long after the fact (like me, except they actually saw them and my Giants thing is historical and maybe a little fetishistic). Or I'd be like a publisher I had who grew up in Brooklyn but washed his hands of the whole thing once the Dodgers moved west (but liked to mention he once saw a triple play). But I couldn't follow the Carolina Cosmopolitans or whatever they'd become if the Mets moved. I accepted Citi Field on the condition that once and for all I could put this nightmare scenario behind me, but between Citi's nonsense and Madoff and who knows what the Wilpons will shoot themselves in foot with...nah, I think we're safe. I would doubt, however, if the Mets ever blew it and blew town that we'd necessarily see National League baseball here again. The whole "National League town" thing that carried such resonance in 1962 no longer exists per se. It's a baseball town. If it wasn't a baseball town big enough for two, and the one that couldn't make it happened to be the National League entry, I think we wouldn't get the same makegood Bill Shea and Branch Rickey engineered on our behalf. Hail to them for doing so, not incidentally. We should name a stadium after one of them. For what it's worth, I still root, however lightly I follow basketball, for the Nets because they were a Long Island team more than 30 years ago. But they're still in the same ADI. If they moved, as Howie Rose once suggested they should, to Louisville, then I'd be completely detached. G-Fafif Jan 16 2009 09:28 PM Just catching up on the KC Isles coverage on Newsday here and find this headline regarding my town supervisor: Isles game in KC doesn't phase Hempstead's Murray Yes, but will she be fazed by it? Some editor should catch flak, perhaps from a flack for Merriam-Webster. Zvon Jan 16 2009 09:41 PM I would step back from being a fan of any baseball team. In time I might follow another. They would have to be accessible and I guess that means the Phillies, who are very available to watch as part of my basic cable package. That transition would take quite a while though, if it did ever take root. If it happened I would never be a fan of any baseball team in the same way that I am a fan of the Mets. Mind and body.Heart and soul.Win or lose. In many ways the Mets have been moving away from me. Have been making themselves more inaccessible to me. In that respect a move wouldn't make much difference. I keep myself attached to the team because thats the way I roll. I grew up Mets. I love the Mets, have since I found I loved the game of baseball. I love that I have witnessed its entire history. I love the name (Mets or Metropolitans), the uniform, the way Mets is written across the chest, the logo. The orange NY on the blue cap. I love the way and the reason they came to be. And that's the thing. If they left New York they would no longer be the Mets I love. I guess if they came to New Jersey that wouldn't be the case. Still, seeing the New Jersey Mets would be very strange. It would not be the same. If they moved out west or to the other coast, that would be the end of that chapter of my baseball life. I would close the book on the Mets. It would take a while to come to terms with that, to get over it. But I would. I might even just give up on MLB all together and follow my local minor league team. Because, on the whole, I don't like what has become of the game at the major league level. I'd find a way to enjoy the game again. Because the only thing in sports that equals or even surpasses my love for the Mets is my love for the game of baseball. Frayed Knot Jan 17 2009 06:21 AM Leaving aside for a moment that I can't even imagine a set of circumstances that it would take to drive the Mets out of NYC -- I'd still follow baseball but probably not the Mets. Most likely there'd be a replacement team and I'd pick up on them. If not I guess I'd be a man without a team for a while, following baseball but without the nightly obligation to see a game. The one option that hasn't been discussed here is that you could pick up stakes and move to whatever city the Mets moved to and continue to follow them there. OK that's pretty stupid, but it is an option.

That's cool - I'm lefty throwing, and righty batting... Unfortunately, so is Ray Liotta....

="batmagadanleadoff"]="soupcan"] That neon batter just reminded me of Gary Carter' follow through, particularly the way Gary would take an inside pitch and line drive one-bounce it to the outfielder for a single. Are there any other Mets that the neon hitter resembles? flip it around, and it's Mex.

They should have a patch designed like the old World's Fair patch from '64 celebrating the demise of the chop shops across the street...

I would have preferred Wiggington, too, but would he have come here for a back up role...

When I saw the headline, "Mets Reach Agreement With Cora" on my RSS reader, I thought, "Freakin' Omar - brought Joey Cora out of retirement". I'm old.

That's offensive to maroons everywhere... Obviously Rickey is a no-brainer. I think Rice should have been a just-miss, but I'm not terribly upset by his enshrinement. As mentioned earlier, Bonds and Clemens should prove interesting. the argument can be made that Bonds had already achieved HOF credentials pre-steroids. I don't think any such case can be made for Clemens if the story of his use starting in Toronto are true. Either way, neither cheater should be allowed in now.

Wayne when the moon is in the seventh housie vs. Carlos In Delgado Da Vita

Perez is the prototypical million dollar arm with a 5 cent head... I agree - I would prefer taking a flier on Sheets. He has more upside...