But I think this is a bad example. It is not common practice for employees to open crates and take boxes of cash from them.

This is more like a case where a company has created a whole bunch of nice pens that they use to clients. the pens are company property, but it is pretty common for the employees to take one for personal use. Maybe they grab a couple to give to their wife and kids. It happens every day. Extremely common.

And surely the White Sox would have sued Konerko for the ball if he wanted to keep it, right? Just like every other team has sued to get their championship balls back from the players who kept them, right?

I don't want my team to be the one to break new ground here in excercising their legal rights by suing one of the players who won it all over a baseball. Don't the Red Sox have enough memorabilia and totems and symbols of winning it all? What the hell is that trophy all about?

Why stop at the ball, why not sue every player to get the uniforms that they wore, down to the hats and socks and jocks? Some fans would love to see that company property displayed in a museum, so sue them all!

I would LOVE to see JH come on here and defend all this bullshit. Maybe he can spin it so that everyone is blameless, just like when Theo walked. Such a farce.

Just say the team is arrogant and whiny little bitches who have to have to have to get their way. Always. Regardless of how fucktarded it is and makes them look.

BTW, I find this all annoying, can you tell?

He did it because he made the decision that it was what he wanted to do. Maybe he wouldn't have done it had the Minky case never happened. who knows. We do know that it is extremely common for players to keep it.




It it wasn't for the fact that this team will sell anything that they can dig up if they can make a buck, then I might believe they were in it for the historical significance and so they can display it in a museum.

but when they are the ones running around selling lineup cards to the highest bidders, and tearing up the sod so they can sell it, etc. i have a really had time seeing someone claim they want it for the historical value.



Grey Eagle makes my point. I'm half surprised they didn't demand the players turn in their hats that they used in teh WS. Those were team property, every bit as much as the ball was. they could have sold those hats and probably make a quarter mil

there is no difference

OK, but even in that scenario if the company walks up to employee X and says 'we want the pen back that you took yesterday' do you really think that they have no right to it?

That's what I find bizarre here.

I can certainly see the view that the Sox have handled this poorly (and very, very publically) and that there likely was a better way. I can't see the argument that they don't have a right to ask him for it at all, though.



I think this is why so many people are trashing the Sox on this, and it's a good point. Really, we should all (as Sox fans) want that ball to be in Fenway and on display. But the relentless (and in the case of the sod, asinine and totally embarassing) marketing of stuff has really soured many on it, IMO.

Who says they don't have the right to ask? People are saying that it's petty to demand it be handed over, or else they're going to court. It's petty and bush league, and it's not something that I want my favorite team to do.

It is possible for me to t imagine that someone who's about to make millions of dollars a year making a decision on his employment because the Sox are trying to figure out who owns a ball and happens to use legal channels to do so?

Does that mean free agents aren't going to sign with the Yankees because they voided Aaron Boone's contract? The Eagles because of their treatment of TO? The Pacers because of the Artest thing?

Really.

I think its safe to say that most Sox fans (or at least those of us on SoSH) couldn't care less about the ball.

You mean the way that all those other players cited in the USAToday article earlier who have kept the ball have done?

Benzinger, Timlin, Carter, Hayes, Martinez, Williams, Erstad and Beckett all still own the balls they left with.

Of the players that are cited as having done something else with the ball - Curtis, Gonzalez - give it away (to a friend and to the team owner).

I guess everybody else on the planet knows that Benzinger, Timlin, etc... are fine upstanding citizens but that Mientkiewicz is "Bush League."

Equitable estoppel.

To answer one question: MA Superior Courts are both legal and equitable, so yes the judge could exercise equitable concepts/remedies here.

But the bottom line is this: Eyechart is an employee. Companies can let people take home pens, notepads, laptops, computers, and the ilk. That doesn't mean that they have a legal right to keep it.

And for crying out loud people, just because the Sox and Eyechart have an agreement governing the first year, it would be a really poor lawyer to let that be dispositive. I would be very surprised if it's not the case that the Sox wanted something so that they could show the ball so they agreed to a clause allowing Eyechart to get the ball back if the agreement terminated knowing that they would either file suit or have a settlement.

BTW, it's entirely possible that the clause requiring the ball to be returned to Eyechart really forced the Sox to file suit.

Many people in this thread have indicated the Sox shouldn't even have asked for it and that they should have let Minky keep it.

The point that the way they've chosen to do so in a pretty ugly and very public way is one you and I agree on, though.

PKB, the difference in that scenario is that the company actually OWNED the pen before the employee took possession. The Red Sox did not own the baseballs used in that game. From all I can tell, MLB did, and they let their people authenticate it and return it to Mientkiewicz. Apples and oranges.

Also, there was an implication that "The Ball" may make an appearance at the SOSH trophy bash, yet it never showed up. If the Sox were so hell bent on sharing history, then why the hell did they not let us see it? And guess what? No one at the bash gave two damns. That's because the trophy is what matters. That's the symbol.

This whole episode is mind numbingly stupid.

Come man, it's a friggin baseball. How many baseballs were used in that game?

Should we hunt each and every single one down and throw it in a safe deposit box?

It's the trophy that matters, plain and simple. If you took Minky's Ball ™ and paraded it around like they did the WS trophy, do you think you would have the same result?

Forest. Trees.

Not really though, I don't think.

MLB properties authenticated it, but that's a ministerial act. They weren't passing judgement on ownership, only on possession and that it was actually from the game. If Minky walked up to them with Manny's batting helmet they'd have authenticated it, too, but that hardly means Minky owns that!

The distinction about the company owning the item it is why I previously used examples where it's a package delivery person who tries to keep something, to make that part similar. I responded to Big Mike's point to show that there's a difference between custom and legal rights.

Actually, IIRC, the home team provides the baseballs to be used in the games.

Since this was an away game, the ball belongs to the Cardinals.

Judge Weebles has ruled!

Next case!

Acxtually, Weebs, I think it's different in the playoffs, but I could be mistaken. Either way, the Red Sox never had ownership of the ball. Regardless, this whole situation is mind numbingly stupid, as I have said before, and will continue to believe. If the FO had extended an olive branch from the get go instead of treating Dougie like a criminal, this would have all turned out differently, most likely. Now, the lawyers will never shut up....

Like PKB, I agree entirely with this point. They have sold out on a lot of fronts, but they have also said publicly in the past, and in the article at the front of this thread that their intention with respect to this ball is to put it on display.



I'm not so sure that the uniforms worn in the games are team property. In fact, I have no idea who owns the uniforms. Curt Schilling gave his bloody sock to the HOF, didn't he? The actual baseball equipment seems to me that it may have a different status than that of the uniform. If Minky had dug up first base and taken that home with him, I'll bet a lot of people here would have a problem with it...



Seriously, tell me which of those balls has 1/10 the financial value on the open market as this one? Which one has the historical value of this one? Now, tell me which of those players (a) currently needs the money or can sell it for a big number.

More importantly, what do you think will happen to those balls when those players die? I'm guessing their family will immediately sell them on the open market as part of an estate sale. Thus, the teams have lost the ability to show them, but since these teams don't seem to care enough about them, they can do whatever they want...



If someone offered me the WS Trophy for free or the Ball, I'd take the ball every day and twice on Sunday. The trophy is symbolic. The Ball actually played a part in winning the WS. It's not just a ball. It's THE BALL. I still have every game ball I ever received in little league or school. And all of those balls were the ones that were used during the final out. The final out balls' importance is ingrained in this sport, as it is in almost every other. The argument about "how many balls were used" has no merit, because everyone knows the only ball that matters is the one that was in play when the game went final.

Maybe I should pick a new avatar so long as this thread is active.

You're in the minority on this. My bet is most would take the trophy over Minky's ball™.

I doubt it. Anyone who cares about making a quick buck would take the ball. The trophy is just not worth as much. It's like when you have an autograph that says "To Bob" instead of just having the straight autograph without the header, it's worth more.

Be that as it may, I'm clearly in the minority around here, which is fine by me and I knew it was coming as my first post in the threadd pointed out. I think this ownership has made a lot of mistakes, TONS, but on this issue, I'm glad they are fighting for it. I see no logical explanation for why Minky "deserves" the ball, other than "Everyone else does it." Meanwhile, the Sox brass has 700$ million reasons as to why that ball should belong to them...

Yes, but maybe they woulnd't be so obsessed about the ball if they hadn't auctioned off the lineup card for $150K.

Clearly, money talks louder than anything else. But if the dollars are similar in two competing offers, a free agent might reasonably decide not to join an organization where such obvious enmity exists between players and executives.

Yes, I think free agents will be wary of the Eagles. The Yankees can easily overpay to ease someone's insecurity. Artest was suspended by the NBA.

Really, I just hate seeing Boston look so ridiculous, expending effort to retrieve a ball -- a ball -- from a former player. I have to stop thinking about this.

If Minky and his wife weren't greedy sob's, we wouldn't be having this discussion. During the clubhouse celebration, Mrs. Minky asked for the ball and put it in her purse for "safety". The next day, the ball was brought to Fenway so MLB could authenticate it. Minky wants "his" ball returned so he can eventually hawk it on Ebay. The Sox offered to purchase the ball, but Minky's playing hardball (no pun intended). BTW....Bud Selig's signature is on the ball, so I suppose one could make a case that it's "his".

If the court rules the ball belongs to anyone other than Minky, you can bet the ball will end up with the Red Sox. Even if that's the case, this entire ordeal is idiotic. Talk about petty.

What if the father had had 12 kids, and had not balked at the car thing six times?

If he had 12 kids, he couldn't afford a car.

Wow -- I just couldn't disagree more with this. That's completely crazy. The ball is as much or more of a symbol than the trophy? The ball is nothing. I hope Mientkiewicz gives it to some neighborhood kid to play with, or tosses it in the woodchipper.

I still don't understand why, if what the Sox is saying is true, teams aren't rolling into collectibles shows and seizing every ball there.

I couldn't care less about the legalities, though. The Red Sox look like complete chumps here -- and if Mientkiewicz does also that's completely irrelevant. I hope the Sox get laughed out of court.

I get the feeling that a lot of people around here never played sports. Game balls and their importance are as old as the sport. If you all don't understand it, I can't help you, but the evidence clearly indicates that you are wrong. People wouldn't pay millions for a ball if it was "nothing." Coaches wouldn't hand the game ball to a player if it was "nothing." Game balls wouldn't be given to people honararily if they were "nothing."

It's amazing that the multi-billion dollar sports collectible industry stays in business with all this "nothing" floating around.

I'll finish with this: If the ball is "nothing," then why does Minky want it so bad?

No & I haven't run into one person yet that applauds, agrees slightly or isn't completely embarrassed as a fan by this act by the Red Sox.
Had Mientkiewicz followed some sort of 'tradition' he would have given the ball to Foulke when he ran to the mound. But you can already tell by the way he talks that he's not into tradition and wasn't in Boston long enough to appreciate being a Red Sock. In my opinion, the RS and Mientkiewicz are both wrong here. And if I had a choice that ball would go to Cooperstown. DM had it in his mind that he was going to hang on to the ball before the last out. It bugs me that now I look to see where the ball is going after the last out of a big game. Greed is ruining our game. If you look at the list of balls caught after winning the WS there really isn't a cut & dry situation as to where the ball should go. Some had it for sentimental reasons, some kept it or have it because it meant so much to that person. It doesn't mean squat to Mientkiewicz or the RS brass in relation to what it means to 86 years of us, the fans.

Because giving it back would be an admission that CHB and Lucchino were right in the first place?

Again, if Lucchino hadn't come out swinging at the first opportunity presented by the Shaughnessy ambush interview with Mientkiewicz, this might have gone very differently.

Wrong in most respects, at least as to my experiences.

Nice segue into a strawman, however. Obviously I didn't mean literally nothing, as in I believed that no memorabilia had any financial value at all -- with all evidence to the contrary.

But if you poll Sox fans -- which is the more signicant symbol of the victory, ball or trophy? -- I don't have much doubt what the answer will be.

Actually the Cardinals purchased the balls. The home team is responsible for purchasing all the game balls. MLB authenticates that the ball or incident in which it played out is authentic.

I understand that game balls are important. But, if you think Minky's ball™ is a more significant symbol of the 2004 World Series victory than the WS trophy than I really can't help you.

I just read the last line of the SI article and it reads:

The organization intends to display the ball for its fans and has no desire to gain any commercial benefit, the statement said.

Weren't they charging a $5 admission fee to Fenway see the Trophy? and the ball?
I recall people paying $5 to go into Fenway to see something. Then even more to take a picture with it. Can someone post here that recalls this 'entrance fee' to view something?

I like that idea best! Let's hope MLB plays Soloman with this ball and offers to either cut it in half or donate it to Cooperstown.



I think they were asking for donations either to their charitable foundation or to help Katrina Relief (both occurred at different times during the season). They also probably had a FanFoto person shooting pictures and would have charged for those, if people wanted to buy them. But, there was no requirement and I believe the photographers were happy to shoot the picture with the fan's camera for free.

The whole "Getting money from the fans to see the ball" thing is stupid. They won't do that. What they might do, however, is to get their rich business friends to pay a large amount of $ to have that ball at a company function or somethign (along with other memorabilia). Isn't that a possible way to make $ off the ball?

Mientkiewicz and Red Sox headed to arbitration over WS ball

The wording of that article is that MLB filed the grievance and that it claims Minky has no ownership interest in the ball.

That's a poor procedural posture for Minky. MLB is going to argue it is representing the rights of the Sox, Cards and MLB...in other words, all parties with a good claim. And they seem to have put the burden of proof on Minky to show he has some legitimate interest in it.

On the other hand, Das has made some bizarre rulings; if I were Minky I'd much prefer him to either a Boston-based or a Federal judge.

Finder's keepers. The ball is Minky's. It is in no way the Red Sox I think that would be strange. I hope he wins. The Sox look like paranoid freaks. Very sad indeed. What if the game ended on a home run ? Does the ball get ripped from the fan's hand by Lucky and Co. ?

I suspect the arbitrator will have a bit more nuanced analysis than that, but you never know.

I do think it's a rather sad spectacle, though. Hard to avoid that conclusion.

Yup, pathetic and stupid. I guess the Red Sox are figuring they'll have to wait another 86 years before they get a shot at another one. In any case, they're acting as if this were the case.

They should be ridiculed for this. I thought these guys are supposed to be smart and PR savvy.

Don't be so sure. I know I've mentioned this before but I think it bears repeating. The Red Sox and MLB auctioned off the Game 4 lineup card for about $100K. I know the guy who bought it, and when he called the Red Sox about putting it on display for a period of time, the team essentially blew him off.

Moreover, the lineup card was one of several dozen game-used items from the World Series that MLB auctioned off to the higher bidder. Personally, I'd be a lot more sympathetic to the Red Sox' argument if they hadn't allowed MLB to put dollars above history with the lineup card and all the other game-used memorabilia.

Leave Minky and his ball alone. He's playing baseball in Kansas City now. What more do you want to do to him?

I actually teach Property in law school, but I have never seen a case quite like this.

The so-called "true owner" is probably either the Red Sox or MLB

BUT....

there is a tradition of allowing players to keep game balls that they have some connection with (first hit, first homer, 500th homer, 3000th hit, last out of a save, etc). For example, I think DLowe has the game ball from game 7 of the ALCS (I think that's right).

So Minkalphabet's claim is that the "true owner" (MLB or the Sox) has abandoned the ball under this tradition, and that it is his since he caught the last out and walked off the field with the ball.

I don't know how I would decide this case if I were the arbitrator. Probably the fairest thing is for the Sox to offer Minky some reasonable $$$$ for the ball. Otherwise, I would give the ball to the player (or his wife might beat me up).

By the way, if Minky had sought my advice, I would have told him not to give the ball up for the Sox to exhibit without an agreement acknowledging his ownership rights in the the ball. Don't do anything without checking with counsel!!!!!

I'm answering my own post here, but I wanted to note that I was wrong.
During the World Series, MLB purchases the balls.

I think the Sox are being sleazy to sue him given the tradition of the players keeping the balls (and for that matter the bats that are paid for by the team). However, the part that really irks me about this (and makes me lose assume that John Henry is a sleeze for allowing it to happen under his name) is the Sox were given the ball in good faith by Minky with an understanding. For them to 'safe guard' the ball while the court case is going on might even be legal -- but sleazy. Give him back the ball and as you do so let him know that you are pursuing the legal case -- but are returning the ball (without sacrificing any claim on it) in the interim because he gave it to the team in good faith.

Do we have a short stop for 2006?
Do we have a centerfielder?
Do we have a first basemen?
Is Manny still in limbo?

I am so sick of hearing about this ball and whether or not Theo is coming back to the Sox. Please start making some real moves that will hopefully bring more World Series titles to Boston, so that it does not appear as though we need to covet this ball as the only one we will ever see.

UGH!

THe Sox have no claim. They didn't purchase the ball. It wasn't in their park. The front office is being viewed as a bunch of "anything for a buck" characters. Given that any decision regarding Fenway was made to increase revenues, it's not an inaccurate portrayal.

There is the precedemce of the tradition of players keeping game balls. MLB also authenticted the ball and gave it back to Minky. Would they have returned it if they had an ownership interest?

The only winners are the damn lawyers, and maybe the players association for having the arbitration system recognized and used in this process.

Nope, MLB only authenticates the validity of what the ball represents, i.e., last out of the '04 WS, not ownership. I guess they are smart & 'don't get involved'.

It is a business, after all, that is exactly what they should be doing. Also, because there is a direct correlation between wins and revenue, it's good for the fans.

But, that becomes a defensible property right in only two ways, I think. This is primarily going to be a labor law and contracts issue, I suspect, in the end...

1. If you argue that these past actions waived the Sox (or MLB) right to claim the ball, which is quite weak as a third-party waiver claim
2. If you argue that allowing players to keep baseballs is part of the cba or the standard player contract, either thorugh a "custom" or "trade usage" argument or via a "course of performance" argument.

This second one is where you'd have to go, I think, if you were Minky's lawyer. Given the history of such baseballs it's a nonfrivolous argument, I guess. However, there's a big labor law issue there: it's tough to argue that the right to keep such items isn't subject to collective bargaining, and if it was it clearly isn't included in the CBA. Compensation is strictly interpreted (and this is how the union and MLB want it) so I think it's an awful tough argument to carry that somehow this right exists and wasn't specified in any way.