The Toronto Maple Leafs announced on Saturday that they have placed centre Tyler Bozak on long-term injured reserve. Jim Plunkett Jersey . He is eligible for reinstatement on November 21st when the Leafs host the Nashville Predators. Bozak has been out since sustaining a lower-body injury in last Fridays 5-2 loss to the Columbus Blue Jackets. In 11 games this year, the 27-year-old Bozak has three goals and three assists. Terry Kirby Jersey .The Canadiens will visit the Boston Bruins at Gillette Stadium in Foxborough, Mass., on New Years Day 2016, taking hockeys oldest rivalry outside.It was special in 2010 just to be there with the history behind Fenway Park and all that, Bruins centre Patrice Bergeron said. Norm Snead Jersey . Playing in his fourth major league game, Polanco broke a tie in the 13th inning with his first homer, helping Pittsburgh to an 8-6 victory over the Miami Marlins after the Pirates had a ninth-inning meltdown. http://www.custompatriotsjersey.com/custom-curtis-martin-jersey-large-681f.html . - Defensive end-linebacker Mike Neal apparently is returning to the Packers.Well, Rector was none too pleased. When he awoke from his slumber, he sued ESPN, MLB, the Yankees and ESPN announcers Dan Shulman and John Kruk for defamation and intentional infliction of emotional distress. He is asking for $10 million.To say the least, the language in the claim is peculiar, complete with misspellings and ambitious grammatical choices. Page two of the Claim gets right down to business: "On or about April 13, 2014, the plaintiff was at the rivalry game between the Boston Red Sox and New York Yankees. It is well known that the rivalry between the New York Yankees and Boston Red Sox is always the biggest in all of sport. For decades millions of people all over the world turn out or tune in to watch these games. Plaintiff accordingly was at this game." Claims Being Made In his lawsuit, he alleges that ESPN and MLB engaged in "unending verbal crusade" against the sleepy plaintiff. Specifically, his claim states as follows: (a) "Announcers like Dan Shulman and John Kruck (sp) unleashed avalanche of disparaging words against the person of and concerning the plaintiff. These words, include but not limited to stupor, fatty, unintelligent, stupid". (b) "John Kruck (sp) in his verbal attack insinuated that the plaintiff is individual that know neither history nor understood the beauty or rivalry between Boston Red Sox and New York Yankee." (b) "The defendant Major league Baseball continually repeated these vituperative utterances against the plaintiff on the major league baseball web site the next day. These words and its insinuations presented the plaintiff as symbol of anything but failure." (I think they meant to write "these works and its insinuations presented the plaintiff as a symbol of failure".) He goes on to say that the defendants "negligently or maliciously published false, defamatory statements of fact about the plaintiff, a private individual". As a result, his reputation was damaged. The false statements alleged include the following: - Plaintiff is unintelligent and stupid individual. - Plaintiff is not worthy to be fan of the New York Yankee. - Plaintiff is a fatty cow that need two seats at all time and represent symbol of failure. - Plaintiff is a confused disgusted and socially bankrupt individual. - Plaintiff is confused individual that neither understands nor knows anything about history and the meaning of rivalry between Red Sox and New York Yankee. - Plaintiff is so stupid that he cannot differentiate between his house and public place by snoozing throughout the fourth inning of the Yankee game. Defamation Defamation refers to a false statement that is likely to lower the reeputation of a person in the eyes of reasonable people. John Taylor Jersey. The law protects your reputation against defamation. If someone defames you, you can sue for money (called "damages") for harming your reputation. Heres what Kruk and Shulman said: Shulman: This guys oblivious to how good [MLB TV] is... Kruk: Sometimes you have to turn it off to get some sleep. This is not the place you come to sleep. I tell you what though, how comfortable is that? Probably wont have any neck problems tomorrow. Shulman: I mean, is that guy to his left his buddy? Is he just letting him sleep, or is he here alone? Whats the deal with this guy?Kruk: Maybe thats his buddy and he likes him a lot better when hes asleep.Shulman: I think the other guys more concerned with the food and the game.Kruk: Chicken fingers are a special item at the ballpark. Why share? Get em while hes asleep so he wont ask for one.Shulman: Weve gotta see how long this guys out for.Kruk: Its only the fourth inning, you dont think he could sleep through –Shulman: Did he sleep through the Beltran homer? I mean, 45,000 people stand up and cheer and he sleeps through it?Kruk: Youd think itd be tough to, but he seemed comfortable. It didnt look like he just started to sleep.Is this defamation? No. To be clear, Im saying no. Contrary to Rectors allegations, it is simply untrue that Kruk and Shulman "unleashed (an) avalanche of disparaging words". They did not refer to him as stupid, unintelligent or a fatty cow. Frankly, the guy sitting to Rectors left may have gotten the worst of it when Shulman said hes more "concerned with the food and the game". Even that is fine. So Kruk and Shulman did not engage in defamatory comments. Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress In order to make out this claim, the statements need to be outrageous and extreme. Its conduct that goes beyond all reasonable bounds of decency, and when a reasonable person hears it, he or she needs to respond with something like "Thats outrageous!!!". Courts have even repeatedly concluded that insults and indignities fall short of that test. So Rector will also fail on this count. The comments were not outrageous or extreme. Rather, the comments were innocuous and playful. If anything, restraint was exercised. By the way, the lawsuit alleges that ESPN and MLB engaged in unlawful activities. The Yankees were just hosting the game, and should not have been named as a defendant. They werent involved. That being said, no one should have been named as a defendant. The lawsuit lacks merit. As a result, expect the parties to move to have this lawsuit kicked out of court on the basis that it is frivolous. ' ' '