I still don't understand why, if anyone besides Snook owns it, it isn't the Cardinals. Doesn't the home team provide (and own) all the game balls?
What a stupid, stupid thing. Someone rein in Boston-counters over there. I'm glad they're fiscally creative, but this is retarded and embarrassing.
The way they seem to regard this ball as some kind of magic talisman for the win is kind of odd. It's not some incredible symbol of the victory -- the trophy is. The ball is completely irrelevant, except as the centerpiece of some exhibit they can market with or charge people $5 to see I guess.
Full Version: World Series Ball - Red Sox or Mientkiewicz's?
QUOTE (PedroKsBambino @ Dec 1 2005, 09:35 AM)
In the view of essentially every legal scholar and practicing lawyer who has given a public opinion on it they own it legally, SJH! Just because you don't like that doesn't change it. There's perhaps six separate law professors quoted in the original thread on this and they all came out the same way, and for good reasons.
I also remember several quotes from other Lawyers that they felt Mient had more claim to the ball. Others thought MLB had the only claim and they publically stated it was Dougie's ball.Personally, I could care less. It's a ball. No one cared about it until that first article. I still don't. Although I did read this thread for whatever that's worth.
It is not inconceivable to me that some of Theo's angst about staying on as GM might have been due to philosophical differences on issues such as this. Between this PR fiasco and a few other little tidbits like Correnti's departure, etc. it's possible he was so disenchanted with some of the decisions being formulated (which, of course, he was privy to) that it made it impossible for him to continue on.
How embarrassing for the Sox to do this.
How about focusing on winning another World Series ?
Finders, Keepers.
Will St. Louis intervene and become a party ?
Stop crying and start winning.
No wonder Theo left.
How about focusing on winning another World Series ?
Finders, Keepers.
Will St. Louis intervene and become a party ?
Stop crying and start winning.
No wonder Theo left.
USA Todaycovered this after the 05 WS ...
But Eyechart had a sense of humor about it too ...
QUOTE
Players such as New York Yankees outfielder Bernie Williams say Mientkiewicz did nothing wrong. Williams has the final-out ball from the Yankees' 2000 World Series win and said the team would have to win a court case to get it from him.
"I think that whoever catches the final out has the right to do whatever he wants to with the ball," Williams says. "If he wants to donate it, fine. If he wants to sell it, fine. If he wants to keep it, fine.
"It is fate."
After Luis Gonzalez got the hit that won the 2001 World Series for the Arizona Diamondbacks, baseball officials authenticated the ball and told him he could do whatever he wanted with the ball.
"I think that whoever catches the final out has the right to do whatever he wants to with the ball," Williams says. "If he wants to donate it, fine. If he wants to sell it, fine. If he wants to keep it, fine.
"It is fate."
After Luis Gonzalez got the hit that won the 2001 World Series for the Arizona Diamondbacks, baseball officials authenticated the ball and told him he could do whatever he wanted with the ball.
But Eyechart had a sense of humor about it too ...
QUOTE
"I don't even have kids," he says.
Reporters camped outside his house and followed his parents, sister and wife. He said he got ripped by fans in every ballpark.
"And I was on that CNN crawl, sandwiched between the Laci Peterson murder trial and tsunami victims," Mientkiewicz says. "I didn't do anything wrong, but it's no fun when the whole world thinks the opposite. You would have thought I stole Ted Williams' body and wasn't going to give it back
Reporters camped outside his house and followed his parents, sister and wife. He said he got ripped by fans in every ballpark.
"And I was on that CNN crawl, sandwiched between the Laci Peterson murder trial and tsunami victims," Mientkiewicz says. "I didn't do anything wrong, but it's no fun when the whole world thinks the opposite. You would have thought I stole Ted Williams' body and wasn't going to give it back
We obviously don't know what's going on behind the scenes, but there are just so many ways this could have been resolved without anybody losing face. Minky, for example could have donated the ball to a Boston not-for-profit institution -- the Museum of Science comes to mind, pocketed a hefty tax deduction in the process, and still hold his head high knowing that he didn't cave to the Red Sox beancounters.
While I generally agree that the ball is a historical artifact that should be on exhibit somewhere in Boston, the Sox' approach to this has been totally counterproductive.
While I generally agree that the ball is a historical artifact that should be on exhibit somewhere in Boston, the Sox' approach to this has been totally counterproductive.
more from USA Today ...
QUOTE
Where are they now?
1990
The final out: The Cincinnati Reds complete a sweep of the Oakland Athletics when Carney Lansford's foul pop is caught by first baseman Todd Benzinger for a 2-1 victory in Game 4 in Oakland.
Where's the ball? On display at the Reds' Hall of Fame and Museum at the Great American Ballpark, although Benzinger is still considered the owner of the ball.
1991
The final out: Gene Larkin's bases-loaded single scores Dan Gladden in the 10th to give the host Minnesota Twins a 1-0 win in Game 7.
Where's the ball? No one knows. The ball rolled into the outfield, and nobody thought about it during the celebration. "The question comes up all the time, but no one has ever come forward," says Larkin, who has the bat displayed in his home. "A fan or a clubhouse worker could have picked up the ball, but all I know is that I am not in possession of it."
1992
The final out: Toronto Blue Jays reliever Mike Timlin picks up Otis Nixon's bunt and throws to first baseman Joe Carter as they beat the Atlanta Braves 4-3 in Game 6.
Where's the ball? It's on display in Timlin's office at his home, encased with his shoes, glove, hat, uniform top and six tickets.
1993
The final out: Joe Carter homers off Philadelphia Phillies reliever Mitch Williams with one out in the ninth inning of Game 6, giving the Blue Jays an 8-6 victory.
Where's the ball? Although it was a homer, the ball never went into the seats, falling behind the left-field fence at the SkyDome in an area accessible only to groundskeepers and officials. The ball was retrieved, and Carter has it on display in his Kansas home.
1995
The final out: The Cleveland Indians' Carlos Baerga flies to center fielder Marquis Grissom and the Braves win Game 6 1-0 to capture the series.
Where's the ball? The Braves don't know, and Grissom was unavailable for comment.
1996
The final out: The Braves' Mark Lemke hits a pop to third baseman Charlie Hayes, who catches it in foul ground to finish the New York Yankees' 3-1 Game 6 victory and give the Bronx Bombers a World Series title in manager Joe Torre's first season.
Where's the ball? Displayed in Hayes' living room.
1997
The final out: With the score tied at 2 in the 11th, the Marlins win Game 7 when Edgar Renteria singles up the middle off Indians pitcher Charles Nagy to score Craig Counsell.
Where's the ball? No one knows. Mike Wallace, the Marlins equipment manager at the time, says his staff was too busy putting equipment away to notice. Marlins general manager Dave Dombrowski, now the Detroit Tigers GM, doesn't know of any club official who has the ball. Kenny Lofton, the Indians center fielder at the time, doesn't have a recollection of the ball either.
1998
The final out: The San Diego Padres' Mark Sweeney grounds to Yankees third baseman Scott Brosius, who throws to first baseman Tino Martinez to finish the sweep with a 3-0 home victory.
Where's the ball? With Martinez's glove in a safe-deposit box. "I'm never going to use the glove again," Martinez says.
1999
The final out: The Yankees complete a sweep when the Braves' Keith Lockhart hits a fly to left fielder Chad Curtis to end New York's 4-1 victory at Yankee Stadium.
Where's the ball? Curtis gave it to a security guard, Dan Weiss, who helped Curtis and his family when they lived in New York. When Weiss said he wanted to give the ball back, Curtis said he autographed it, "To Dan," and said, "Now what am I going to do with a ball that says, 'To Dan?' He would have never sold it, but I wanted it to have value to him as a friend."
2000
The final out: At New York's Shea Stadium, the Yankees celebrate a Subway Series win against the Mets after center fielder Bernie Williams catches Mike Piazza's fly ball to end Game 5, a 4-2 victory.
Where's the ball? Williams had it signed by his teammates and keeps it in his trophy case at home.
2001
The final out: Luis Gonzalez's RBI single against Mariano Rivera over the Yankees' drawn-in infield scores Jay Bell and caps a two-run rally, giving the Arizona Diamondbacks a 3-2, Game 7 win on their home field.
Where's the ball? Yankees outfielder Bernie Williams picked up the ball and gave it to Gonzalez, who gave it to team owner Jerry Colangelo. It was in Colangelo's desk drawer until he left the team last year. "I've been chasing that dream of a championship my whole life, as a competitor, an athlete and then in terms of management and ownership," Colangelo says. "It signifies the culmination of a lifetime pursuit."
2002
The final out: In Game 7 at Anaheim, San Francisco's Kenny Lofton flies out to center fielder Darin Erstad, giving the Angels a 4-1 win and their first World Series title. "As the ball came down, I heard this voice say, 'Use two hands,' like my dad had taught me my entire life," Erstad says.
Where's the ball? In a box at Erstad's house. He tried to give it to Angels closer Troy Percival as he did with each of Percival's saves that season but Percival told him to keep it. "It's a cool thing, and I know the importance of it," Erstad says. "But if the Angels want it, they can have it."
2003
The final out: Marlins pitcher Josh Beckett fields a grounder from the Yankees' Jorge Posada and tags him out, giving Florida the series victory in Game 6 at New York.
Where's the ball? It has not left Beckett's glove. The glove and ball sat in his baseball bag in his garage for a couple of months after the World Series, but now the glove and ball are displayed in Beckett's home in Texas.
1990
The final out: The Cincinnati Reds complete a sweep of the Oakland Athletics when Carney Lansford's foul pop is caught by first baseman Todd Benzinger for a 2-1 victory in Game 4 in Oakland.
Where's the ball? On display at the Reds' Hall of Fame and Museum at the Great American Ballpark, although Benzinger is still considered the owner of the ball.
1991
The final out: Gene Larkin's bases-loaded single scores Dan Gladden in the 10th to give the host Minnesota Twins a 1-0 win in Game 7.
Where's the ball? No one knows. The ball rolled into the outfield, and nobody thought about it during the celebration. "The question comes up all the time, but no one has ever come forward," says Larkin, who has the bat displayed in his home. "A fan or a clubhouse worker could have picked up the ball, but all I know is that I am not in possession of it."
1992
The final out: Toronto Blue Jays reliever Mike Timlin picks up Otis Nixon's bunt and throws to first baseman Joe Carter as they beat the Atlanta Braves 4-3 in Game 6.
Where's the ball? It's on display in Timlin's office at his home, encased with his shoes, glove, hat, uniform top and six tickets.
1993
The final out: Joe Carter homers off Philadelphia Phillies reliever Mitch Williams with one out in the ninth inning of Game 6, giving the Blue Jays an 8-6 victory.
Where's the ball? Although it was a homer, the ball never went into the seats, falling behind the left-field fence at the SkyDome in an area accessible only to groundskeepers and officials. The ball was retrieved, and Carter has it on display in his Kansas home.
1995
The final out: The Cleveland Indians' Carlos Baerga flies to center fielder Marquis Grissom and the Braves win Game 6 1-0 to capture the series.
Where's the ball? The Braves don't know, and Grissom was unavailable for comment.
1996
The final out: The Braves' Mark Lemke hits a pop to third baseman Charlie Hayes, who catches it in foul ground to finish the New York Yankees' 3-1 Game 6 victory and give the Bronx Bombers a World Series title in manager Joe Torre's first season.
Where's the ball? Displayed in Hayes' living room.
1997
The final out: With the score tied at 2 in the 11th, the Marlins win Game 7 when Edgar Renteria singles up the middle off Indians pitcher Charles Nagy to score Craig Counsell.
Where's the ball? No one knows. Mike Wallace, the Marlins equipment manager at the time, says his staff was too busy putting equipment away to notice. Marlins general manager Dave Dombrowski, now the Detroit Tigers GM, doesn't know of any club official who has the ball. Kenny Lofton, the Indians center fielder at the time, doesn't have a recollection of the ball either.
1998
The final out: The San Diego Padres' Mark Sweeney grounds to Yankees third baseman Scott Brosius, who throws to first baseman Tino Martinez to finish the sweep with a 3-0 home victory.
Where's the ball? With Martinez's glove in a safe-deposit box. "I'm never going to use the glove again," Martinez says.
1999
The final out: The Yankees complete a sweep when the Braves' Keith Lockhart hits a fly to left fielder Chad Curtis to end New York's 4-1 victory at Yankee Stadium.
Where's the ball? Curtis gave it to a security guard, Dan Weiss, who helped Curtis and his family when they lived in New York. When Weiss said he wanted to give the ball back, Curtis said he autographed it, "To Dan," and said, "Now what am I going to do with a ball that says, 'To Dan?' He would have never sold it, but I wanted it to have value to him as a friend."
2000
The final out: At New York's Shea Stadium, the Yankees celebrate a Subway Series win against the Mets after center fielder Bernie Williams catches Mike Piazza's fly ball to end Game 5, a 4-2 victory.
Where's the ball? Williams had it signed by his teammates and keeps it in his trophy case at home.
2001
The final out: Luis Gonzalez's RBI single against Mariano Rivera over the Yankees' drawn-in infield scores Jay Bell and caps a two-run rally, giving the Arizona Diamondbacks a 3-2, Game 7 win on their home field.
Where's the ball? Yankees outfielder Bernie Williams picked up the ball and gave it to Gonzalez, who gave it to team owner Jerry Colangelo. It was in Colangelo's desk drawer until he left the team last year. "I've been chasing that dream of a championship my whole life, as a competitor, an athlete and then in terms of management and ownership," Colangelo says. "It signifies the culmination of a lifetime pursuit."
2002
The final out: In Game 7 at Anaheim, San Francisco's Kenny Lofton flies out to center fielder Darin Erstad, giving the Angels a 4-1 win and their first World Series title. "As the ball came down, I heard this voice say, 'Use two hands,' like my dad had taught me my entire life," Erstad says.
Where's the ball? In a box at Erstad's house. He tried to give it to Angels closer Troy Percival as he did with each of Percival's saves that season but Percival told him to keep it. "It's a cool thing, and I know the importance of it," Erstad says. "But if the Angels want it, they can have it."
2003
The final out: Marlins pitcher Josh Beckett fields a grounder from the Yankees' Jorge Posada and tags him out, giving Florida the series victory in Game 6 at New York.
Where's the ball? It has not left Beckett's glove. The glove and ball sat in his baseball bag in his garage for a couple of months after the World Series, but now the glove and ball are displayed in Beckett's home in Texas.
Think Lucchino will be having a little chat with Beckett when he arrives at spring training explaning how it is a violation of team policy for Red Sox players to have stolen property in their possession?
QUOTE (behindthepen @ Dec 1 2005, 11:17 AM)
more from USA Today ...
It seems like in nearly every case a player has the ball. I don't know why the Red Sox are making such a big deal about it.
Frankly, I think Mientkiewicz was a trouper for giving the Sox usage of the ball for a year, and it's shady of them to use legal machinations to retain possession. It's petty on the Red Sox' part.
I can't believe this is so serious an issue with the Red Sox. It's a joke, and an embarrassment to an ownership who came in looking to clean up its image.
And to think two weeks ago I was label as not being a "true fan" for criticizing ownership for the botched Theo negotiations.
And to think two weeks ago I was label as not being a "true fan" for criticizing ownership for the botched Theo negotiations.
Save the legal costs, agree that Doug owns it in perpetuity, make an annual donation in Doug's name to the charity of his choice in return for the annual right to keep possession of the ball. Sign the papers to make it so, hold the press conference with Doug and the charity, and move on.
60 posts and counting on this, and not one Sox fan has come out and said they are glad that the Sox are doing this. So not only is this a low-class bush league move, it's playing incredibly poorly with this group of fans anyway, an indication that it's a PR nightmare.
What a clueless move this is. I wonder whose idea it was?
If the Sox are able to strong-arm the ball away from one of the 25, they will no doubt give it to charity, so they can say they did it for the kids, or whatever. I'm sure they'll get a sweet tax break for doing it. It's still a ridiculously dumb move, embarrasing the whole organization.
They should sue Renteria for The Bat he hit The Ball with. He hasn't been doing much with it anyway.
And since they're suing Monkeywrench for the ball, they need to also demand the whole uniform he wore, down to the jock and the sox, since that was team property. Maybe they could send some security guys over to his house to rip the uniform off of him, and go through his belongings to see if there is any other Red Sox property there. Trash the place, whatever it takes. Go Sox!
What a clueless move this is. I wonder whose idea it was?
If the Sox are able to strong-arm the ball away from one of the 25, they will no doubt give it to charity, so they can say they did it for the kids, or whatever. I'm sure they'll get a sweet tax break for doing it. It's still a ridiculously dumb move, embarrasing the whole organization.
They should sue Renteria for The Bat he hit The Ball with. He hasn't been doing much with it anyway.
And since they're suing Monkeywrench for the ball, they need to also demand the whole uniform he wore, down to the jock and the sox, since that was team property. Maybe they could send some security guys over to his house to rip the uniform off of him, and go through his belongings to see if there is any other Red Sox property there. Trash the place, whatever it takes. Go Sox!
QUOTE (Fratboy @ Dec 1 2005, 11:35 AM)
It seems like in nearly every case a player has the ball. I don't know why the Red Sox are making such a big deal about it.
They obviously think there's money in it for them. Or they're just so obnoxiously arrogant that they stubbornly have a need to always get their way.
QUOTE
In January, days after he was traded to the New York Mets, he and the team announced that the Red Sox would hold the ball temporarily and could display it across New England, along with the World Series trophy. But the agreement said he would get it back at the end of this year ''unless the ultimate issue of ownership has been otherwise resolved."
There must be more to it than that language, because if that is the only controlling language, then it's pretty clear that the RS are obligated by the contract to return the ball to DM. Filing suit in court is not a "resolution" of the ultimate issue of ownership, but rather a continuing dispute over ownership. Of course, it's possible that the suit includes a claim that the agreement should be null and void for some reason.
In any event, I join the rest of you in concluding that this is a monumentally short-sighted, stupid and petty thing for the Red Sox to do.
Filing suit is a way to "otherwise resolve" the ownership of the ball though...that's why they are doing it.
Maybe if the Red Sox and MLB hadn't been making a fortune selling "game-used" memorabilia from the World Series, there would be more public sympathy.
I don't know how the Red Sox can claim with a straight face that the ball is so historically significant that it must be on public display, and yet the team (or at least MLB) allowed a hedge fund manager I know to pay five figures for Terry Francona's Game 4 lineup card.
I don't know how the Red Sox can claim with a straight face that the ball is so historically significant that it must be on public display, and yet the team (or at least MLB) allowed a hedge fund manager I know to pay five figures for Terry Francona's Game 4 lineup card.
Hey maybe THIS is why Theo really quit, just kidding, maybe he was just tired of working for scumbags in general.
I posted something in the last thread about this when CHB "broke" the original story, but almost all of the past game balls are in the hands of the players that ended the game or got the final out, way to go red sox.
Eyechart: "Hey Larry it's been a year, I'd like my ball back now."
LL: "What ball?"
Heard in the background...
LL: "Hey Charlie you know anything about a ball that Doug says he gave us?"
The Dentist: "Doug, who's Doug?"
LL back on the phone...
LL: "Nope sorry no ball here"
I posted something in the last thread about this when CHB "broke" the original story, but almost all of the past game balls are in the hands of the players that ended the game or got the final out, way to go red sox.
Eyechart: "Hey Larry it's been a year, I'd like my ball back now."
LL: "What ball?"
Heard in the background...
LL: "Hey Charlie you know anything about a ball that Doug says he gave us?"
The Dentist: "Doug, who's Doug?"
LL back on the phone...
LL: "Nope sorry no ball here"
QUOTE (Doza @ Dec 1 2005, 11:38 AM)
And to think two weeks ago I was label as not being a "true fan" for criticizing ownership for the botched Theo negotiations.
You're still not a true fan. Perhaps some day, you will be.
Stupid move, but then what do you expect. If the people in the FO all had PHDs in scientific diciplines they'd probably try to clone the ball. However, they don't they and the lawyers among them are using one of their own precious tools, the lawsuit.
Where are all the 'big picture' guys? Please...
Where are all the 'big picture' guys? Please...
QUOTE (Fratboy @ Dec 1 2005, 06:35 PM)
You're still not a true fan. Perhaps some day, you will be.
Well that may be the case. But you don't have to rub my face in it!!!
I still think this ballgate crap is a big black eye.
QUOTE (SpikeMyOwen @ Dec 1 2005, 01:34 PM)
Hey maybe THIS is why Theo really quit, just kidding, maybe he was just tired of working for scumbags in general.
I posted something in the last thread about this when CHB "broke" the original story, but almost all of the past game balls are in the hands of the players that ended the game or got the final out, way to go red sox.
Eyechart: "Hey Larry it's been a year, I'd like my ball back now."
LL: "What ball?"
Heard in the background...
LL: "Hey Charlie you know anything about a ball that Doug says he gave us?"
The Dentist: "Doug, who's Doug?"
LL back on the phone...
LL: "Nope sorry no ball here"
I posted something in the last thread about this when CHB "broke" the original story, but almost all of the past game balls are in the hands of the players that ended the game or got the final out, way to go red sox.
Eyechart: "Hey Larry it's been a year, I'd like my ball back now."
LL: "What ball?"
Heard in the background...
LL: "Hey Charlie you know anything about a ball that Doug says he gave us?"
The Dentist: "Doug, who's Doug?"
LL back on the phone...
LL: "Nope sorry no ball here"
More likely, the Dentist said "Didn't we sell that thing to a hedge fund buddy of JHW's for a hundred thou?"
Hence the lawsuit to "resolve the ownership."
Some very weealthy people get that way by being obsessively tight-fisted beyond a normal person's level of comprehension. This move by the Sox has the same smell as the ridiculous low-ball offers to Theo at the start of his negotiations.
QUOTE (PedroKsBambino @ Dec 1 2005, 12:07 PM)
Filing suit is a way to "otherwise resolve" the ownership of the ball though...that's why they are doing it.
Umm...no...it's not. The language clearly states that the ultimate issue of ownership of the ball be ultimately "resolved" not attempt to resolve or any other open-ended way of resolving.
By the language in the article, the Red Sox have no case. Of course, I'm sure the reporter did not review the whole agreement, because I doubt very much that the RS would file suit if they knew they had no case.
QUOTE (PedroKsBambino @ Dec 1 2005, 01:07 PM)
Filing suit is a way to "otherwise resolve" the ownership of the ball though...that's why they are doing it.
Assuming it has been quoted correctly, doesn't the language suggest that it's Minky's ball unless the question of ownership is resolved by the end of this year -- i.e., that the lawsuit is decided, and not merely filed, at the end of the year? [edit: yeah, what Bleedred said....]
I think it's at best debatable that the Sox "own" the ball anyway; it sure looks like MLB and the franchises have condoned the "player who has the ball owns the ball" argument for years. In any event, who cares. The Sox shouldn't have done this, regardless of whatever technical claim of "ownership" they may have. It the damn thing is that valuable, then the Cardinals should sue too.
I keep thinking there must be something more to this than meets the eye -- can the organization really be this silly?
Now is the time for Minky to come out and say, "Well the joke is on you, I switched the MLB Authentic tag with another ball from a TB game, enjoy your baseball".
< heavy sarcasm > I still can't figure out why Theo didn't want to work for these scu.. guys anymore. < / heavy sarcasm>
So let me get this straight, if a Red Sox employee goes outside to get some fresh air and decides to buy a lottery ticket and wins 100,000,000, the red sox would sue saying the money was rightfully theirs because the winner was an employee of the team and at the time he bought said winning ticket he was being paid by the red sox?
How about if I won 100,000,000 and at the press conference said, "I owe it all to my Lucky (pun intended) Red Sox hat", would the sox sue me for the money claiming they own the copyright on the Red Sox logo that I gave credit to for my good luck?
I'm getting less concerned with "will" this ownership sell the team and starting to look forward to it happening. Time to burn the "red sox nation card", oh wait I never got one, never felt I had to prove I was a member to anyone, and have it cost me money.
< heavy sarcasm > I still can't figure out why Theo didn't want to work for these scu.. guys anymore. < / heavy sarcasm>
So let me get this straight, if a Red Sox employee goes outside to get some fresh air and decides to buy a lottery ticket and wins 100,000,000, the red sox would sue saying the money was rightfully theirs because the winner was an employee of the team and at the time he bought said winning ticket he was being paid by the red sox?
How about if I won 100,000,000 and at the press conference said, "I owe it all to my Lucky (pun intended) Red Sox hat", would the sox sue me for the money claiming they own the copyright on the Red Sox logo that I gave credit to for my good luck?
I'm getting less concerned with "will" this ownership sell the team and starting to look forward to it happening. Time to burn the "red sox nation card", oh wait I never got one, never felt I had to prove I was a member to anyone, and have it cost me money.
QUOTE
Umm...no...it's not. The language clearly states that the ultimate issue of ownership of the ball be ultimately "resolved" not attempt to resolve or any other open-ended way of resolving.
I disagree and think that misunderstands the clause, at least as applied here. The reason you file is to resolve the issue of ownership, as I stated before. Interim possession of the ball is not very relevant once the ownership issue is being litigated; this is particularly true since the Sox asked in the suit that a third party keep control of the ball until the litigation is concluded, i.e. until it is "resolved"...from the article:
QUOTE
The suit asks the court to place the ball in a ''secure location" until ownership is decided.
The Sox goal is to file before the interim possession agreement expires so that the ball's identity and location will remain known until ownership is resolved. They are essentially indifferent as to whether the court or the Sox have the ball during the litigation itself.
QUOTE
By the language in the article, the Red Sox have no case. Of course, I'm sure the reporter did not review the whole agreement, because I doubt very much that the RS would file suit if they knew they had no case.
I don't think the language of the agreement (at least that we've seen) does anything at all to resolve actual ownership of the ball. It just addresses possession for a certain period of time and what happens to possession at the end of that period, with a condition. That is not really an agreement as to ownership rights, which is different than possession. Though, without the whole agreement we can't know for sure that no substantive rights were affected by it, obviously.
I think it's safe to say the Red Sox fully reviewed all relevant information before filling. While most of us may not like the way they are conducting things I'd be stunned if they actually had signed away their rights and then filed this suit.
QUOTE
I think it's at best debatable that the Sox "own" the ball anyway; it sure looks like MLB and the franchises have condoned the "player who has the ball owns the ball" argument for years.
Not sure that this is going to carry much legal weight. It's not course of performance, as there's different parties involved (and likely different contracts as well, depending on how you view the CBA); it's unlikely any form of trade usage, though you can argue that I suppose. If I were Minky's lawyer, I'd focus on that and maybe they'll convince someone. In essence, Minky has to argue that in the CBA the right to keep equipment was included by "custom" even though it wasn't spelled out. Not impossible, I don't think, but not a great bet given background labor law and the specificity of the baseball CBA on most issues.
The problem is that I'm unaware of any situation where ownership has tried previously to get possession back; thus it looks a lot like a past waiver of property rights by the owners involved in those past situatuations. Permissive action by owners (i.e. allowing players to keep equipment) is unlikely to create an enforceable right for other players to keep equipment.
Though, I fully agree it looks ridiculous given the history...
<rant>
Don't often respond to many postings but in this case .... the Sox FO is just wrong on this issue and they look like greedy buzzards. Maybe Theo had it right ..... I hope Minky gets to keep the ball and the Sox FO gets nothing but a legal bill.
</rant>
Don't often respond to many postings but in this case .... the Sox FO is just wrong on this issue and they look like greedy buzzards. Maybe Theo had it right ..... I hope Minky gets to keep the ball and the Sox FO gets nothing but a legal bill.
</rant>
I agree it's bad publicity, but looking at it from the Boston's brass side, I think it would be a no-brainer to file the lawsuit. (1) Yes, you'll take a publicity hit, but really--is that going to make a difference to ticket sales? Jersey sales? Revenues? Probably not. (2) You have an expiring agreement. I have to believe that they've been trying to negotiate an extension of some sort. I'm sure every internal and external lawyer the Sox advised to file suit to make sure that "something" doesn't happen to the ball. (3) It certainly has value; probably more PR value than actual monetary value. (4) The law appears to be on the Sox's side. (5) Lawsuits are just a part of doing business these days.
While we might all think it's a horrible PR move, really, if we were the ones running the show, who wouldn't file the lawsuit?
While we might all think it's a horrible PR move, really, if we were the ones running the show, who wouldn't file the lawsuit?
So is there anyone out there who applauds the Red Sox for doing this? Anyone glad that the team is suing its former playerr over this stupid baseball?
So far no one here has said so. Looks like a total PR fiasco to me. Over a baseball.
So far no one here has said so. Looks like a total PR fiasco to me. Over a baseball.
"...until ownership is resolved..."
Too bad Doug M. didn't just give The Ball to the baseball HOF, which I'm sure has a Red Sox WS 2004 exhibit by now. Trump THAT, Red Sox brass!!
Since he didn't though, and abid by the mutual agreement that the Red Sox take temporary possession for a year, this looks more like a case for mediation, not litigation.
I think MLB should horn in right about now and assign one of those mediators they use in arbitration cases. The players usually wins those, don't they? (....heh...)
Too bad Doug M. didn't just give The Ball to the baseball HOF, which I'm sure has a Red Sox WS 2004 exhibit by now. Trump THAT, Red Sox brass!!
Since he didn't though, and abid by the mutual agreement that the Red Sox take temporary possession for a year, this looks more like a case for mediation, not litigation.
I think MLB should horn in right about now and assign one of those mediators they use in arbitration cases. The players usually wins those, don't they? (....heh...)
It may have been a joke way back on the "It's my ball" thread but soemeone did mention that the Cardinals were the rightful owners of the ball after all. Ironic if true, good joke if not.
QUOTE (Route101 @ Dec 1 2005, 09:27 PM)
"...until ownership is resolved..."
Too bad Doug M. didn't just give The Ball to the baseball HOF, which I'm sure has a Red Sox WS 2004 exhibit by now. Trump THAT, Red Sox brass!!
Since he didn't though, and abid by the mutual agreement that the Red Sox take temporary possession for a year, this looks more like a case for mediation, not litigation.
I think MLB should horn in right about now and assign one of those mediators they use in arbitration cases. The players usually wins those, don't they? (....heh...)
Too bad Doug M. didn't just give The Ball to the baseball HOF, which I'm sure has a Red Sox WS 2004 exhibit by now. Trump THAT, Red Sox brass!!
Since he didn't though, and abid by the mutual agreement that the Red Sox take temporary possession for a year, this looks more like a case for mediation, not litigation.
I think MLB should horn in right about now and assign one of those mediators they use in arbitration cases. The players usually wins those, don't they? (....heh...)
Actually since the ball is registered by MLB and authenticated as official, under minky's name, I bet he could "loan it to" the HOF, and let them fight the sox for it, that would be a thing of beauty.
QUOTE (The Gray Eagle @ Dec 1 2005, 03:50 PM)
So is there anyone out there who applauds the Red Sox for doing this? Anyone glad that the team is suing its former playerr over this stupid baseball?
So far no one here has said so. Looks like a total PR fiasco to me. Over a baseball.
So far no one here has said so. Looks like a total PR fiasco to me. Over a baseball.
I am...I'll probably get shredded in this thread, not that I particularly care, but I think the Sox should go after the ball if they can. As PKB's posts have discussed, legal ownership is probably theirs.
As for legal fees, the Red Sox have in-house Counsel as well as outside. The report says the lawsuit was filed by Fabiano, who was at last check at Wilmer, Cutler et al (formerly H & D). These guys are probably on retainer and a small civil suit such as this probably won't cost all that much between what their in-house (ie. salaried) lawyers and outside litigators are going to cost them. On the flip side, Minky now has to hire Counsel to take on this case, and his pockets aren't quite as deep.
I, like PKB, believe that Minky is probably playing hardball (sorry about the pun) and looking for a number well into the 6 figures or he's not selling at all, so what do they have to lose by filing?
I don't think the PR hit is as big as anyone here thinks it is. Nobody is going to withhold money they would otherwise spend on the Sox as a result of this, except for maybe if Minky has family in the area...
For those that think it's just a stupid baseball and you can't understand why somebody would pay that much money for it or why the Sox would want it: It's no different in my mind than someone spending millions on a painting of sunflowers or boxes. Some people appreciate and covet things that others do not. I'm of the belief that Eye Chart has no right to that ball. I don't believe in custom, as it pertains to this situation. The only reason the other players in prior years have those balls (you know, the ones that haven't sold them yet) is because nobody else cared enough to go after them.
FWIW, PKB, according to the article, the Orioles filed suit against former manager, Phil Regan for the lineup card for Cal Ripken's record setting game...It was settled out of court. Regan later sold it...
QUOTE (Deathofthebambino @ Dec 1 2005, 10:45 PM)
As for legal fees, the Red Sox have in-house Counsel as well as outside. The report says the lawsuit was filed by Fabiano, who was at last check at Wilmer, Cutler et al (formerly H & D). These guys are probably on retainer and a small civil suit such as this probably won't cost all that much between what their in-house (ie. salaried) lawyers and outside litigators are going to cost them. On the flip side, Minky now has to hire Counsel to take on this case, and his pockets aren't quite as deep.
Yeah, but you start using three or four lawyers at $400 per hour and up, and these fees can get to exorbitant in a blink of an eye.
QUOTE
As for legal fees, the Red Sox have in-house Counsel as well as outside. The report says the lawsuit was filed by Fabiano, who was at last check at Wilmer, Cutler et al (formerly H & D). These guys are probably on retainer
I can assure you that whatever wilmer hale touches will ultimately cost over $100,000. That doesn't mean it's not worth it to the RS, but the suit, if disputed, will cost them some money.
As for my reading of the language in the article, let me just say, for the last time, that filing a law suit to resolve ownership is absolutely irrelevant to the plain language of the agreement that the ball be returned to DM if the "ultimate" ownership of the ball is not resolved. The mere fact that the RS have to file suit alleging ownership of the ball is ipso facto proof that the ownership of the ball is not resolved. That is, DM is entitled to a return of the ball. Now, that doesn't mean he's the rightful owner of the ball (this, I suspect, is what the RS are going to argue), but if the language in the article is the only language in the agreement, then there is no question that DM is entitled to its return.
QUOTE (wade boggs chicken dinner @ Dec 1 2005, 06:09 PM)
Yeah, but you start using three or four lawyers at $400 per hour and up, and these fees can get to exorbitant in a blink of an eye.
That's for damned sure, but I don't think that will happen here. I'll bet the cost of filing the Complaint, and then smacking Minky with discovery will cost them less than 10k. Meanwhile, he has to hire an attorney, pony up a retainer, answer discovery and basically outlay a lot of dough he doesn't need to. No matter what happens, I don't see this costing the Sox more than 50k, which is probably still less than what Eye Chart is asking for, if he's negotiating with them at all. It really isn't complex litigation. They won't be hiring medical experts and such, its' pretty much a straight civil suit with a couple of interesting legal questions...
QUOTE
As for my reading of the language in the article, let me just say, for the last time, that filing a law suit to resolve ownership is absolutely irrelevant to the plain language of the agreement that the ball be returned to DM if the "ultimate" ownership of the ball is not resolved. The mere fact that the RS have to file suit alleging ownership of the ball is ipso facto proof that the ownership of the ball is not resolved. That is, DM is entitled to a return of the ball. Now, that doesn't mean he's the rightful owner of the ball (this, I suspect, is what the RS are going to argue), but if the language in the article is the only language in the agreement, then there is no question that DM is entitled to its return.
Well, here is where I'm curious. If they return the ball to him, what stops him from selling the ball? I'm not necessarily convinced the language of the article is correct. I think they have basically sought an injunction against his sale of the ball and coupled that with the civil suit related to ownership, while asking the Court to take possession in the interim. Seems reasonable. I suppose they could have returned the ball, then sought an injunction, but if Minky got wind, could he have not sold the ball to someone or given it to someone as a gift before the Court ruled. What if he gave it to someone who lived outside the country?
My first reaction to all of this was "Not again!"
There is CLEARLY precedent, as evidenced by other posts in this thread for the player that catches the ball keeping the ball.
IMHO this really isn't about the ball, but instead some kind of overriding bad blood between the FO and Minky. Otherwise one would imagine that this kind of silly thing could be easily settled.
It all does make you think that perhaps Theo was the 'conscience' of the organization, and now that he's gone, and his advice against doing things like this taken with it, those forces inside the organization that would otherwise run amuck, are doing so.
I have no idea what the FO is up to, really. There's been enough bad PR lately, quite honestly.
Yes, the ball has to be destroyed, before it consumes us all.
There is CLEARLY precedent, as evidenced by other posts in this thread for the player that catches the ball keeping the ball.
IMHO this really isn't about the ball, but instead some kind of overriding bad blood between the FO and Minky. Otherwise one would imagine that this kind of silly thing could be easily settled.
It all does make you think that perhaps Theo was the 'conscience' of the organization, and now that he's gone, and his advice against doing things like this taken with it, those forces inside the organization that would otherwise run amuck, are doing so.
I have no idea what the FO is up to, really. There's been enough bad PR lately, quite honestly.
Yes, the ball has to be destroyed, before it consumes us all.
Bleedred, the reason the Sox file is that once the item's ownership is questioned, the court likely will act to insure it's safety---by taking control of it or by issuing an injunction against its transfer. As DOTB notes, there's nothing otherwise preventing Minky from making the ownership moot (other, of course, than the fact that a buyer would likely be on notice that Minky may not actually own the ball himself).
Thus, for all practical purposes filing the lawsuit obviates the clause you are focusing on. The court (or the parties, with the court's assent) will control its future until the end of the proceeding. That's why I say filing is really all you need to do.
The lineup card is also interesting precedent, though I suppose one can argue that it's differently situated because the manager is not a party to the collective bargaining agreement, so they default to the standard contract or background state law, I'd guess.
Thus, for all practical purposes filing the lawsuit obviates the clause you are focusing on. The court (or the parties, with the court's assent) will control its future until the end of the proceeding. That's why I say filing is really all you need to do.
The lineup card is also interesting precedent, though I suppose one can argue that it's differently situated because the manager is not a party to the collective bargaining agreement, so they default to the standard contract or background state law, I'd guess.
Why the hell are the Red Sox brass the rightful owners to the ball anyway? Lawyers, please tell me how they can lay claim to this when the game took place in St. Louis? This is absolutely asinine. I would love for the red sox to take this to court, only to have the cards take the SOX to court. (just like i am hoping for Manny to reject any and all trades that the sox throw at him).
Tri-star productions New England Show
Maybe the Sox can serve papers on him when he steps foot in Mass. in a couple of weeks.
Hanley's appearance seems to have been cancelled.
Maybe the Sox can serve papers on him when he steps foot in Mass. in a couple of weeks.
Hanley's appearance seems to have been cancelled.
The Sox's release:
QUOTE
Thursday, December 1, 2005
RED SOX STATEMENT REGARDING LEGAL ACTION ON
WORLD SERIES FINAL OUT BALL
BOSTON, MA -- The Boston Red Sox yesterday filed a request for a judgment to determine who is the rightful owner of the ball that was used in the final out of their 2004 World Series victory.
If the judgment results in a determination that the ball belongs to the Red Sox, the club intends to display and preserve the historic artifact for all of Red Sox Nation to enjoy. The Red Sox have no intent or desire to derive any commercial benefit from the ball.
Despite the legal language that can suggest otherwise, the action seeking a declaratory judgment in no way reflects on our feelings or respect for our alumnus, Doug Mientkiewicz, who caught the throw that gave us our first World Championship in 86 years, said Lucinda Treat, the Red Sox Chief Legal Officer.
We have made numerous approaches to the Mientkiewiczes, and to their representatives, to seek an amicable private settlement, and to ensure that this piece of club history remains accessible to all of our fans, Treat said. All were rebuffed. That is why we now seek a judgment.
--- RED SOX ---
RED SOX STATEMENT REGARDING LEGAL ACTION ON
WORLD SERIES FINAL OUT BALL
BOSTON, MA -- The Boston Red Sox yesterday filed a request for a judgment to determine who is the rightful owner of the ball that was used in the final out of their 2004 World Series victory.
If the judgment results in a determination that the ball belongs to the Red Sox, the club intends to display and preserve the historic artifact for all of Red Sox Nation to enjoy. The Red Sox have no intent or desire to derive any commercial benefit from the ball.
Despite the legal language that can suggest otherwise, the action seeking a declaratory judgment in no way reflects on our feelings or respect for our alumnus, Doug Mientkiewicz, who caught the throw that gave us our first World Championship in 86 years, said Lucinda Treat, the Red Sox Chief Legal Officer.
We have made numerous approaches to the Mientkiewiczes, and to their representatives, to seek an amicable private settlement, and to ensure that this piece of club history remains accessible to all of our fans, Treat said. All were rebuffed. That is why we now seek a judgment.
--- RED SOX ---
Well, that seems to confirm the suspicion that they tried to avoid this and couldn't...that seemed the most likely way they'd end up here.
As to the basis of the team's claim, my understanding is that in the World Series the commissioner's office actually provides the baseballs, not the home team. The view of the commissioner's office has been that the winning team rightfully owns the ball. I haven't heard anything from the Cardinals, but it would be surprising if they opposed a fellow owner's claim in favor of a random player they have no connection with, I think.
The Sox claim to the ball is that Mientkiewicz obtained it while an employee of the Boston Red Sox. All property obtained by an employee within the scope of their employment and while on the job is presumptively under the control of the employer, as a general matter. Note that if Mienkiewicz found the ball rolling around on the street on an offday and picked it up he could keep it---that wouldn't have occurred while he was working. This conclusion is generally supported by the baseball CBA, which I believe specifies that all forms of compensation are listed in the CBA, i.e. "baseballs and other equipment" aren't included.
Thus, the Sox would argue that this is analogous to a Fed Ex guy trying to keep (say) the only copy of a signed delivery receipt when the person who signed for the delivery is famous. While the signed form is, at the end of the business day, in the possession of the delivery guy, it was obtained in the ordinary course of business for the employee, and it's rightfully the property of the employer.
Similarly, Mientkiewicz obtained the baseball while performing his duties within the scope of his employment contract with the Red Sox (i.e. playing baseball)...just like the Fed Ex guy obtained the signature. He had possession of the ball, they'd argue, but since it was obtained only because he was performing the task he was contracted to the Red Sox to do, it's presumptively their property and not his. Or so the argument would go.
Someone may be able to do better than that, but it's a start on a real-world analogue. Rip it apart, and I'll try to think of a better one
As to the basis of the team's claim, my understanding is that in the World Series the commissioner's office actually provides the baseballs, not the home team. The view of the commissioner's office has been that the winning team rightfully owns the ball. I haven't heard anything from the Cardinals, but it would be surprising if they opposed a fellow owner's claim in favor of a random player they have no connection with, I think.
The Sox claim to the ball is that Mientkiewicz obtained it while an employee of the Boston Red Sox. All property obtained by an employee within the scope of their employment and while on the job is presumptively under the control of the employer, as a general matter. Note that if Mienkiewicz found the ball rolling around on the street on an offday and picked it up he could keep it---that wouldn't have occurred while he was working. This conclusion is generally supported by the baseball CBA, which I believe specifies that all forms of compensation are listed in the CBA, i.e. "baseballs and other equipment" aren't included.
Thus, the Sox would argue that this is analogous to a Fed Ex guy trying to keep (say) the only copy of a signed delivery receipt when the person who signed for the delivery is famous. While the signed form is, at the end of the business day, in the possession of the delivery guy, it was obtained in the ordinary course of business for the employee, and it's rightfully the property of the employer.
Similarly, Mientkiewicz obtained the baseball while performing his duties within the scope of his employment contract with the Red Sox (i.e. playing baseball)...just like the Fed Ex guy obtained the signature. He had possession of the ball, they'd argue, but since it was obtained only because he was performing the task he was contracted to the Red Sox to do, it's presumptively their property and not his. Or so the argument would go.
Someone may be able to do better than that, but it's a start on a real-world analogue. Rip it apart, and I'll try to think of a better one
QUOTE (Deathofthebambino @ Dec 1 2005, 06:13 PM)
That's for damned sure, but I don't think that will happen here. I'll bet the cost of filing the Complaint, and then smacking Minky with discovery will cost them less than 10k. Meanwhile, he has to hire an attorney, pony up a retainer, answer discovery and basically outlay a lot of dough he doesn't need to. No matter what happens, I don't see this costing the Sox more than 50k, which is probably still less than what Eye Chart is asking for, if he's negotiating with them at all. It really isn't complex litigation. They won't be hiring medical experts and such, its' pretty much a straight civil suit with a couple of interesting legal questions...
and I bet the MLBPA won't have anything to say about this at all. [/sarcasm]
QUOTE (BigJimEd @ Dec 1 2005, 08:23 AM)
I also remember several quotes from other Lawyers that they felt Mient had more claim to the ball. Others thought MLB had the only claim and they publically stated it was Dougie's ball.
Personally, I could care less. It's a ball. No one cared about it until that first article. I still don't. Although I did read this thread for whatever that's worth.
Personally, I could care less. It's a ball. No one cared about it until that first article. I still don't. Although I did read this thread for whatever that's worth.
I thought so too. I'm pretty sure some lawyers interviewed by MLB.com weren't so unanimous.
But the lawyers in the Boston Globe all thought it was the Sox's ball. Oh, wait...
QUOTE
The Red Sox have no intent or desire to derive any commercial benefit from the ball.
The Dentist is a bad liar.
And the ones interviewed by the wire services here and Eugene Volokh, a noted legal scholar, too. Maybe they are in on the conspiracy huh?
Who were the people cited on MLB.com and what did they say? I guess someone could buy the custom argument, but it's not that convincing to me or the scholars I've read on this.
Who were the people cited on MLB.com and what did they say? I guess someone could buy the custom argument, but it's not that convincing to me or the scholars I've read on this.
Whether they sought to resolve this "numerous times" or not, I think persuing it at this stage is greedy. They appear to be doing it on behalf of Red Sox Nation. Well, perhaps this board reflects Red Sox Nation and if that assumption is accepted, it appears that the Nation has no particular attachment to this ball. Therefore, the organization should not be pursuing the acquisition of this ball.
I truly don't understand the logic in this. If there were a Red Sox museum, where fans could come and browse through years' of memorabilia, I'd understand it. But, the Hall of Fame club does not qualify as this and holds little true memorabilia.
The club has long promoted itself as a guardian and promoter of tradition. Well, there is a tradition here, within the long history of the baseball community. It would have been so classy if they had said a very public thank you to the Mientkiewicz family and returned the ball to them. There could have been much fanfare and...who knows...down the road, you might have seen a settlement.
But, in this action, the Red Sox organization looks small...very, very small. It's embarrasing. I just don't think the fanbase cares if this ball is in the halls of Fenway. The trophy? That's a draw. But, the ball? Not so much.
I mean, jeez...the White Sox had 87 years between their World Series wins...is anyone talking about their last out ball?
Free the Ball!!!
I truly don't understand the logic in this. If there were a Red Sox museum, where fans could come and browse through years' of memorabilia, I'd understand it. But, the Hall of Fame club does not qualify as this and holds little true memorabilia.
The club has long promoted itself as a guardian and promoter of tradition. Well, there is a tradition here, within the long history of the baseball community. It would have been so classy if they had said a very public thank you to the Mientkiewicz family and returned the ball to them. There could have been much fanfare and...who knows...down the road, you might have seen a settlement.
But, in this action, the Red Sox organization looks small...very, very small. It's embarrasing. I just don't think the fanbase cares if this ball is in the halls of Fenway. The trophy? That's a draw. But, the ball? Not so much.
I mean, jeez...the White Sox had 87 years between their World Series wins...is anyone talking about their last out ball?
Free the Ball!!!
QUOTE (PedroKsBambino @ Dec 1 2005, 07:23 PM)
And the ones interviewed by the wire services here and Eugene Volokh, a noted legal scholar, too. Maybe they are in on the conspiracy huh?
Who were the people cited on MLB.com and what did they say? I guess someone could buy the custom argument, but it's not that convincing to me or the scholars I've read on this.
Who were the people cited on MLB.com and what did they say? I guess someone could buy the custom argument, but it's not that convincing to me or the scholars I've read on this.
They interviewed three Red Sox fans. Can we find someone unbiased?
QUOTE (PedroKsBambino @ Dec 1 2005, 09:46 PM)
Well, that seems to confirm the suspicion that they tried to avoid this and couldn't...that seemed the most likely way they'd end up here.
As to the basis of the team's claim, my understanding is that in the World Series the commissioner's office actually provides the baseballs, not the home team. The view of the commissioner's office has been that the winning team rightfully owns the ball. I haven't heard anything from the Cardinals, but it would be surprising if they opposed a fellow owner's claim in favor of a random player they have no connection with, I think.
The Sox claim to the ball is that Mientkiewicz obtained it while an employee of the Boston Red Sox. All property obtained by an employee within the scope of their employment and while on the job is presumptively under the control of the employer, as a general matter. Note that if Mienkiewicz found the ball rolling around on the street on an offday and picked it up he could keep it---that wouldn't have occurred while he was working. This conclusion is generally supported by the baseball CBA, which I believe specifies that all forms of compensation are listed in the CBA, i.e. "baseballs and other equipment" aren't included.
Thus, the Sox would argue that this is analogous to a Fed Ex guy trying to keep (say) the only copy of a signed delivery receipt when the person who signed for the delivery is famous. While the signed form is, at the end of the business day, in the possession of the delivery guy, it was obtained in the ordinary course of business for the employee, and it's rightfully the property of the employer.
Similarly, Mientkiewicz obtained the baseball while performing his duties within the scope of his employment contract with the Red Sox (i.e. playing baseball)...just like the Fed Ex guy obtained the signature. He had possession of the ball, they'd argue, but since it was obtained only because he was performing the task he was contracted to the Red Sox to do, it's presumptively their property and not his. Or so the argument would go.
Someone may be able to do better than that, but it's a start on a real-world analogue. Rip it apart, and I'll try to think of a better one
As to the basis of the team's claim, my understanding is that in the World Series the commissioner's office actually provides the baseballs, not the home team. The view of the commissioner's office has been that the winning team rightfully owns the ball. I haven't heard anything from the Cardinals, but it would be surprising if they opposed a fellow owner's claim in favor of a random player they have no connection with, I think.
The Sox claim to the ball is that Mientkiewicz obtained it while an employee of the Boston Red Sox. All property obtained by an employee within the scope of their employment and while on the job is presumptively under the control of the employer, as a general matter. Note that if Mienkiewicz found the ball rolling around on the street on an offday and picked it up he could keep it---that wouldn't have occurred while he was working. This conclusion is generally supported by the baseball CBA, which I believe specifies that all forms of compensation are listed in the CBA, i.e. "baseballs and other equipment" aren't included.
Thus, the Sox would argue that this is analogous to a Fed Ex guy trying to keep (say) the only copy of a signed delivery receipt when the person who signed for the delivery is famous. While the signed form is, at the end of the business day, in the possession of the delivery guy, it was obtained in the ordinary course of business for the employee, and it's rightfully the property of the employer.
Similarly, Mientkiewicz obtained the baseball while performing his duties within the scope of his employment contract with the Red Sox (i.e. playing baseball)...just like the Fed Ex guy obtained the signature. He had possession of the ball, they'd argue, but since it was obtained only because he was performing the task he was contracted to the Red Sox to do, it's presumptively their property and not his. Or so the argument would go.
Someone may be able to do better than that, but it's a start on a real-world analogue. Rip it apart, and I'll try to think of a better one
Thanks for your intellligent input, PKB. I am of the opinion that the Sox should be the rightful owner of the baseball in question. They won the World Series as a team and I think the ball should belong to the team, not the individual who happened to catch the last out.
QUOTE
I mean, jeez...the White Sox had 87 years between their World Series wins...is anyone talking about their last out ball?
The White Sox actually gave the last out ball to their owner.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.