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.

If MLB or the Cards are the "true owners" then they can assign their rights to the Sox.

The issue is whether the owner of the ball (or its assignee, the Red Sox) or Minky have the better claim. Did the owner abandon its rights to the player? Or does the owner (Red Sox by way of Cards-MLB) still have those rights?

And you are correct, when people litigate over property, lawyers for both sides get paid. Unless they go with trial by combat, and then doctors (and undertakers) get paid.

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!!!!!

An important point here ... based on what I've read this case is being arbitrated NOT between the RS and Eyechart, but between MLB and the MLBPA.

I've read it's MLB and Mientkiewicz, not MLBPA.  Not sure on that, though.

The Major League Baseball Players Association issued a statement Friday which said the MLBPA, Doug Mientkiewicz, the Boston Red Sox and the Commissioner's Office have agreed to submit to arbitration the Red Sox's claims regarding ownership of the baseball used to record the final out of the 2004 World Series.

"The Players Association strongly believed that this dispute belonged in the grievance procedure. It appreciates Doug's help in protecting the integrity and reach of the Basic Agreement to the benefit of all players," said Michael Weiner, the association's general counsel.

The MLBPA statement added that "consistent with the Basic Agreement, the parties will meet regarding the matter, probably in January, to begin processing the grievance, which will include discussions about possible resolution of the matter. No date for hearing before the Arbitration Panel has been set."

remember the list of previous WS ball owners I posted earlier in this thread ... only 2 or so are with the actual teams, the rest with players. So the PA clearly is interested in this issue. Plus, any opportunity to allow MLB and/or a team to make itself look like a money-grubber is an opportunity too juicy for the PA to pass up, and the Sox are gift-wrapping this one.

I think you're right; Eyechart argues that there is a tradition of allowing players to keep balls for their individual achievement.

I could really care less what happens to the damn thing, but I wonder why Mientkiewicz really wants it other than to sell it down the road.

This is what is humorous about people calling the team money-grubbers for wanting the ball.  He's even characterized it in monetary terms himself, there's little question what he plans to do with it eventually.

A win-win would be that Mientkiewicz gives the ball to the Sox in exchange for them making a contribution in a charity of his choice...that way, both sides come out looking good.

He gave it to Reinsdorf, the White Sox owner.

As has been noted repeatedly, fixating on the list of what happened to other last-out balls is not a very accurate way to view a legal proceeding.

I have no idea who is "right", but it seems like the ball would be enjoyed more in the hands of the Red Sox than in the hands of Mientkiewicz. 

If I owned 3 cars for my personal use, would you take away the 3rd one simply because someone else could enjoy it more?

He gave it to Reinsdorf, the White Sox owner.

Because of these two parties we will forever be concerned with the ball that made the last out. 

A quick show of hands.  Does anyone here feel the 2004 World Series championship has been tarnished by the controversy over this ball?  Anyone?  Hello?

I don't care enough about the issue to debate the points Mr. Chass makes, but this has to be one of the dumbest articles I have read in a long time.

and yet you put money in his pocket by linking to it ....

.... Yet when the Red Sox had an opportunity to preserve another important piece of World Series history--Red Sox manager Terry Francona's lineup card from the deciding Game 4--posterity took a backseat to profit. The Red Sox sold the lineup card and other World Series mementos in a December 2004 online auction run by Major League Baseball. "Clearly it's hypocritical," says baseball historian Glenn Stout, co-author of Red Sox Century. "The fact that they'll take other items like the lineup card and sell them for money shows that at some level that's where the interest is."

The winning bid for the lineup card was $165,010, the most ever paid in an MLB auction. The winning bidder was Sky Lucas, a lifelong Sox fan who grew up in New Hampshire. A partner in New York hedge fund firm Vicis Capital, Lucas says he was surprised the lineup card was put up for sale: "For a Red Sox fan, it's a definitive historical document." He says he bought it not so much as an investment--though he would like to sell licensed replicas--but rather to keep it in New England. "I'd like to share it with the rest of Red Sox Nation," he says.

To that end Lucas and his lawyer, David Campbell, approached Sox limited partner Sam Tamposi Jr. and later team management about putting the lineup card on display at Fenway Park. All they asked is that the team insure it while on exhibit. The Red Sox were not interested.....

I figured the MLB.com auctions were for charity?  The ball is much more symbolic than the scorecard and has more meaning -- it is the out that ended that blasted "curse" but this does seem a tad hypocritical.  Still, I care little and my hope is that it doesn't impede anything team-based.

the Golden Sombrero -- not hypocritical, just baseball