237 replies to this topic

[amh03]

So, apparently we're going for it:

Sox Play Tough on Memento

Some excerpts:

13 months after Mientkiewicz pocketed the ball, the team is playing hardball. Lawyers for the Red Sox filed suit yesterday in Suffolk Superior Court seeking permanent possession of the cherished symbol of suffering redeemed.

The club's legal team said that Mientkiewicz had gained possession of the ball only because he was a Red Sox employee and that the ball remained the team's property.

Count me amongst those who think the Sox should not be doing this. I feel that the tradition of the last person holding the ball gets to keep it should stay alive in Baseball. Otherwise, who's to say any ball caught by anyone actually belongs to the Red Sox. I think this is an unwise step by the F.O.

Edited by amh03, 01 December 2005 - 06:42 AM.

[someoneanywhere]

Nope, not a good move, IMO. Unless Eye Chart has some real emotional connection to the ball -- maybe he does -- this seems like something that could better be settled by a cash transaction.

In the abstract, a court case would be very interesting. On the one hand, I can see a compelling claim that the ball represents 86 years of organizational history -- of baseball history, in a sense -- and thus some distinctive status as a "collective," organizational possession. On the other, if history is to be the guide, the case is clearly one where EC has the upper hand. Where the baseballs have "mattered" as souvenirs, traditionally they have mattered to the individuals who possess them: fans and players. But as often as not, the balls have not mattered -- in many cases, no one knows what has happened to last outs or magical moments because no one bothered to retrieve the ball.

Edited by someoneanywhere, 01 December 2005 - 07:53 AM.

[ilikedonuts]

Not this again

Memo to Sox ownership- Stop acting like scumbags. For what you're going to pay in legal fees and lose in public perception, don't you think you could work out a deal to permanently display the ball

Is our ownership group really this friggin braindead?

[Butch Hobsons elbo chips]

...cherished symbol of suffering redeemed.

um, winning the World Series was the symbol, everything else is just a piece of equipment.
As a group symbol, It was probably one of the most meaningless baseballs in all the 2004 postseason. Hell, the Sox bought the opposing player who hit the stupid out. Shove a stick up Renteria's ass and plant him outside the front gate.

This is just being ruthless.
(wait, maybe I need a better word than "ruth-less")

At least everytime they show off that stupid baseball, I can remember how the Red Sox management strong armed it away from one of the actual players who won the games on the field.

Minky ought to hold a Press Conference and chuck it in to the Boston Harbor.
(and then secretly mail the real one to Nomar...LOL)

[5belongstoGeorge]

I've never understood the whole "pay huge cash for a baseball" thing. In fact, it astonishes me that people pay money for autographs. I can understand that some people find enjoyment in collecting stuff, but the whole memorabilia industry reminds me that a fool and his money are often parted.

Anyway, it appears to me that playing hardball over that baseball makes the Red Sox Front Office look like chumps.

[BigMike]

Minky ought to hold a Press Conference and chuck it in to the Boston Harbor.
(and then secretly mail the real one to Nomar...LOL)

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I always said Mientkiewicz should have done what some little league parents do and write this on the ball before giving it to the SOx

Doug Mientkiewicz
Game Ball
10-27-2004

But the team just looks sily.

I hope they waste millions and lose

[BoSoxLady]

This is just plain idiotic. MLB authenticated the ball, so it seems that they believe the ball belongs to Eye Chart. The shmuck should have given it to the Red Sox immediately considering its significance but IMO, he doesn't have a legal obligation to do so. It just would have been the generous thing to do.

That said, the ball is just a symbol. Let it go, Red Sox.

[bosoxgrl]

This is complete bush league..they are not doing themselves any PR favors with this move. Does anyone really care about this particular ball? I never even thought about the ball after it was caught..and the video of it being caught is good enough for me.

[behindthepen]

If the Sox really believe they have a case, why don't they go after all the bats, hats, gloves, uniforms, used champagne bottles, towels, jockstraps, sunflower seeds and used wads of chewing tobacco that were used during the World Series?

There's no precedent for what they're doing. There's no logic for it either. I hope they get creamed.

[Gambler7]

Ball Gate Part 2?

So they basically lie to eye chart to get the ball away from him "for a year" and then say no you can't have it back AND we are taking you to court

I'm not a big Mientkiewicz fan, but the Sox look ridiculous here

[Manny's Hammies]

I liked it when this was called "It's My Ball"...

[yecul]

Yeah, I have no idea why people would put Lucciano in a poor light.

[mr guido]

Wow. Pathetic.

No one cares about the ball. What people will care about is mocking the Red Sox forever because of this.

PR wise, this is even less hip and cool than demanding a forfeit vs the Rays.

I think it would be hilarious if the Sox lose the lawsuit.

[John Marzano Olympic Hero]

Jeez, the Red Sox' off season of bad publicity just keeps rolling along ...

Don't the Sox have other things to worry about this fall, I don't know, like finding a General Manager, a first baseman, signing Johnny Damon, bullpen help, etc. I'm glad that they're burning the midnight oil over on Yawkey Way trying to get a freaking ball back.

If this isn't an LL venture, then it has to be a Dentist one. Forget the Bronx Zoo, this is the Franklin Park Zoo.


---

Check this out:
www.room19comics.com

[Winger 03]

Really small by the Sox. Really, whose idea was this. For a organization which is pretty PR savvy, they really dropped the ball here (pun intended).

Imagine the outrage if this was happening 200 miles to the south!

[Smiling Joe Hesketh]

What a dumb thiing to do by the Red Sox.

And of course, this "story" gets Page 1, top of the fold treatment in the local house organ, the Boston Globe. For what reason I cannot possibly guess (coughcoughCARTELcoughcough).

Bush league stunt by the Red Sox. Classless. Lack of tact. Bullies. Anything else you can say about it would also be apropriate.

[smastroyin]

EV, you have no problem telling anyone here when they are being stupid. Can't you tell someone in the Sox front office how collosally stupid this is?

[Paradigm]

Take the money that you're spending on the lawsuit and sign a first baseman.

the Golden Sombrero - my baseball blog

[soxfaninyankeeland]

At the time this controversy arose, Mientkiewicz said he wanted the ball because of its value. Couldn't the FO just offer him some cash? If ownership is willing to invest the cost of a lawsuit which may or may not result in the "return" of the ball, why not see if Mientkiewicz can be bought? Filing suit against the guy just looks terrible.

[Smiling Joe Hesketh]

The Red Sox are acting indignant that someone else besides them might make a buck off winning the World Series.

It's petty and juvenile and terrible PR. Whose bright idea was this anyway?

[TonyJalaPena]

Don't the Sox have other things to worry about this fall, I don't know, like finding a General Manager, a first baseman, signing Johnny Damon, bullpen help, etc.

Don't we have other things to discuss? It amazes the trivial and stupid items that regularly come up for discussion on the main board. Let's talk baseball, the sport and not baseball, the memento.

[Jim Burton]

When this issue first came up, didn't the great legal minds here pretty much decide that if any party could claim ownership, it was the St. Louis Cardinals?

So the Sox are really going into court saying the only reason Minky had a chance to *steal* the ball, was because he was working for us!?!

Idunno, Mientkiewicz must have been asking for some serious coin, is all I can figure.
.
.Pat.

[PedroKsBambino]

This is just plain idiotic. MLB authenticated the ball, so it seems that they believe the ball belongs to Eye Chart.

That's not of much legal weight, though, because it's a ministerial function performed by MLB properties, not anything evaluative by MLB itself.

I've thought all along the Sox held all the legal cards here (there's arguments that MLB and the Cards own the ball--it depends if you get at it via labor law or property law. But I'd imagine amongst the club of owners MLB and the Cards will, if needed, relinquish their rights to the Red Sox), but I really don't understand why they are pursuing this course of action rather than simply buying the ball from Mientkiewicz. It's possible, I suppose, that he simply won't sell or that they somehow feel there's a larger issue here (though I can't see it myself). Perhaps they are doing this as leverage to force a negotiation with Minky---if he's faced with $25,000 or more in legal fees on this perhaps that changes his view on negotiating a transfer of possession?

I wonder if the better play here wasn't to wait for him to ask for it and then try to negotiate something. This may well be what occurred behind the scenes, too...we'll have to read the chronology I guess.

The Sox are legally correct here, and I can understand why they want the ball, I guess. An awkward way to get there though, for sure.

Edited by PedroKsBambino, 01 December 2005 - 09:07 AM.

[Worst Trade Evah]

It's embarrassing for Sox fans they're doing this. It's so not worth it. Buy it from Mientkiewicz or let it go.

How is it no ball ever mattered this way until this one? Do the Giants actually own Bonds's home run balls, or can teams go raid collectibles shows and seize all the balls being sold there that were gotten from games? McGuire's 70th? Where does this end? It's craziness.

I think it was Vaughn Eshelman who had a great post about this the last time -- take a picture of the ball next to a woodchipper with a note that says "pay me my $$$ or the ball gets it".

So sick of this stupid ball story. Can't believe they're doing this.

Edited by Worst Trade Evah, 01 December 2005 - 09:13 AM.

[yecul]

The Red Sox are acting indignant that someone else besides them might make a buck off winning the World Series.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Correct. The ownership is penny wise and pound foolish.

You know, John Henry comes on here and seems very intelligent and all. He's been very successful. Lucciano obviously isn't an idiot. And yet... It's like, go back to college and take Common Sense 101 and get your head on straight. The trophy, the players... that's what you use to promote the product and get people to turn out. No one gives two shits about the ball. There were like 50 balls used in that game...

Goddamn I hate this ownership group sometime. They're just such money grubbers sometime it's amazing. Take away the World Championship and I think attitudes toward them are very very very different.

[Smiling Joe Hesketh]

Correct.  The ownership is penny wise and pound foolish.

You know, John Henry comes on here and seems very intelligent and all.  He's been very successful.  Lucciano obviously isn't an idiot.  And yet...  It's like, go back to college and take Common Sense 101 and get your head on straight.  The trophy, the players... that's what you use to promote the product and get people to turn out.  No one gives two shits about the ball.  There were like 50 balls used in that game...

Goddamn I hate this ownership group sometime.  They're just such money grubbers sometime it's amazing.  Take away the World Championship and I think attitudes toward them are very very very different.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Or, if you want the ball that badly, just buy it off Eyechart. I mean, what's with the bullying tactics? The institutional arrogance to say, "That ball rightfully belongs to us and we're going to sue you for it." What kind of idiocy is that?

They want the ball? Write a check and be done with it.

[PedroKsBambino]

You guys are assuming that Minky is willing to sell it---keep in mind that's something we really don't know.

One reason you'd do this is because he refuses to transfer it at anything approaching a reasonable price.

Just something to think about. I personally would much prefer that the Sox paid for thing and I didn't have to read a collection of stories about litigation with a former player over the ball but that may not be an option yet.

[Smiling Joe Hesketh]

You guys are assuming that Minky is willing to sell it---keep in mind that's something we really don't know.

One reason you'd do this is because he refuses to transfer it at anything approaching a reasonable price.

Just something to think about.  I personally would much prefer that the Sox paid for thing and I didn't have to read a collection of stories about litigation with a former player over the ball but that may not be an option yet.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Eychart has already said he wants to pay for his kid's college education with the ball, so I'm guessing he'd ask for around $100K for it. Sounds about right; the Buckner ball sold for $93,500. My guess is that the Sox haven't bothered to even talk to Eyechart about selling the ball yet; they went for the nuclear option right off the bat IMHO.

Just negotiate with him and pay for it if it's that important to you.

[cutman1000]

Is there any doubt that as soon (if) the Red Sox get the ball, they will immediately auction if off?

"Buy this WS ball and get a piece of Fenway sod with it!"

Let it go, Sox. Focus on more important things. Donate the money you were willing to spend on this frivolous lawsuit to the Jimmy Fund.

[reggiecleveland]

We already payed 40 million for another piece of memorbilia associated with that play, what's a bit more for eyechart? This sure is petty.

[PedroKsBambino]

C'mon, SJH....that's a joke he made a full year ago...and as reported by CHB. That's an extreme stretch you're making

Plus, he said "kids" education so the number is higher than that, anyway!

What do you guys think the price of it should be? It's not an easy thing to estimate. $1 mil? $100,000? I have no freaking idea, really.

I don't like the way they are going about it, but I do wonder if he's just not willing to sell it, essentially. That would explain how they ended up pursuing what seems a bizarre lawsuit from a PR perspective.

[mr guido]

We already payed 40 million for another piece of memorbilia associated with that play, what's a bit more for eyechart? This sure is petty.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Nothing to add other than that this quote is very funny.

[William Robertson]

Silly, silly. As noted, if EC just wants money, give him enought to send his kids to school. The organization wouldn't miss it, and it could all be handled out of public view. I actually give the Sox credit enough that I don't think this is about making money; I think they see the ball as a tangible and obvious marker of the end of the 86 years.

But moving on, I thought game balls belonged to the home team anyway. Are the Cards out-classing the Sox here by not pressing that point?

[Smiling Joe Hesketh]

C'mon, SJH....that's a joke he made a full year ago...and as reported by CHB.  That's an extreme stretch you're making

Plus, he said "kids" education so the number is higher than that, anyway!

What do you guys think the price of it should be?  It's not an easy thing to estimate.  $1 mil?  $100,000?  I have no freaking idea, really.

I don't like the way they are going about it, but I do wonder if he's just not willing to sell it, essentially.  That would explain how they ended up pursuing what seems a bizarre lawsuit from a PR perspective.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Considering the way the Sox have handled this whole issue from Day 1, assuming that the ball belonged to them by some divine right, I highly doubt they've entered into any negotiations with Eyechart for the ball. I could be wrong, but that doesn't seem to be their MO in this case.

I am simply not inclined to give the Sox the benefit of the doubt in this case considering the way they've handled things up to this point.

And why would the Globe consider this to be front page news? The whole issue of the partial ownership by the Globe stinks. There's no reason for them to have put this story on the front page except to further cash in on their ownership. And it stinks.

[Green Monster]

Just to echo the sentiment of the rest of the thread. The Red Sox have no leg to stand on here. With many players from WS past still owning the final out ball, they have to know that they will get killed in court. They are just trying to bully Minky and are making themselves look foolish in the process.

Terrible job by the Red Sox!!!! As the saying goes, "When you get in the end-zone, act like you have been there before." If you want people to see you and remember you as a winner, try acting like one!

[CR67dream]

Mientkiewicz says he was joking about the college fund thing- I believe he said that he doesn't even have kids. My guess is that Doug does not want to deal with the Red Sox- that he feels he really does have ownership of the ball. After all the crap he dealt with, I can't say I'd blame him. No matter what PKB or JWH may say about ownership of the ball, the long standing precedent is that players are allowed keep such souvenirs.

This is the most ridiculous, petty, embarrassing move that the Red Sox could have made. You'd think that they may want to resolve some other more pressing matters rather than waste time chasing down a symbol of past glory. A symbol that really doesn't mean jack, to boot. Absolutely ridiculous.

Edited by CR67dream, 01 December 2005 - 09:33 AM.

[Lose Remerswaal]

Jeez, the Red Sox' off season of bad publicity just keeps rolling along ...

[snip]

If this isn't an LL venture, then it has to be a Dentist one. Forget the Bronx Zoo, this is the Franklin Park Zoo.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Exactly.

And I bet you see it for sale by the Sox somewhere down the line. After all, if they win the case, they "own" it.

[PedroKsBambino]

Considering the way the Sox have handled this whole issue from Day 1, assuming that the ball belonged to them by some divine right, I highly doubt they've entered into any negotiations with Eyechart for the ball. I could be wrong, but that doesn't seem to be their MO in this case.

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.

In fact, as was widely reported, the Sox actually did negotiate for both ownership and temporary possession of the ball last year, too. It seems biased and baseless to suggest otherwise so far as I can see.

To be clear, as I've noted, I think this is a bizarre thing to do and I'd much prefer they not have done this. I can easily see the PR value of this thing being several hundred thousand dollars, and personally I'd rather they just pay it. Why that didn't occur is interesting to me....either they feel there's some issue they need to address publically, or Minky just won't sell. Either way I think it's a shame.

Edited by PedroKsBambino, 01 December 2005 - 09:38 AM.

[someoneanywhere]

Not to take away too much from the main thrust here, but IMO it's a mistake to view the play given the story by the Globe as somehow in the interests of ownership. It's front page, above the fold, precisely because most readers will be very interested -- and because most readers will find it petty on the part of the Sox. That is what makes it newsworthy. [There is also some chest-pounding going on: the Globe wants to remind everyone that they broke the story first with the CHB column after the WS.]

One should also be careful of a guy who says trust me, but trust me. I've sat through my fair share of editorial meetings in my day, and I'm pretty sure I understand the thinking. Whether one agrees with the thinking is another matter: but that's the thinking.

[Frisbetarian]

Reading this article made me think back to the CHB column that first addressed the issue of the ball. Didn't old Danny boy claim that he thought of the idea for that piece while watching a tape of the clinching game? What a coincidence that he and the Sox front office share so many similar views.

[Philip Jeff Frye]

What a disgrace.

You think they'd being doing this if the ball ended up with Varitek or Schilling? But because it was some part timer that nobody really cares about, they think they can shit all over him.

Being on that field should be the finest moment of Minky's life, instead its turning into a huge pain in the ass for him because some beancounter in Boston sees another way to make a buck.

Edited by Kevin Mortons Ghost, 01 December 2005 - 09:55 AM.

[Wiffle Me Elmo]

Not to take away too much from the main thrust here, but IMO it's a mistake to view the play given the story by the Globe as somehow in the interests of ownership. It's front page, above the fold, precisely because most readers will be very interested -- and because most readers will find it petty on the part of the Sox. That is what makes it newsworthy.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

...and everyone else is going to pick up the story, too. It's already front-page stuff on ESPN.com.

This is total lunacy. A fine example of the present ownership group having to confront crises of their own invention. And I find it completely distasteful that the RS have justified the ball-grab by claiming to act in the best interests of their fans, who, they say, crave this ball. Sure we do.

If anything, the ball has become an object of interest not because it's a relic from the Series, but because it's the $14 ball that caused the Boston Red Sox to take one of the 25 to court. Good God. Totally embarrassing.

[ThePlantLady]

Interesting part of the article...


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."
That clause led Red Sox lawyer John G. Fabiano to the Suffolk civil clerk's office yesterday. The suit asks the court to place the ball in a ''secure location" until ownership is decided.



I believe the Sox are sincere about wanting it as a piece of history, and not because of money, but I think its wrong of them to try to bring this into court.

[MattCrashDavis]

I like the idea of Doug destroying the ball. IT'S A FREAKING BASEBALL. WHO CARES?

I also like the idea of figuring out how to put a winning team on the field in a few months. This is a waste of time, energy, ink, and electrons.

[xjack]

Bet you anything that the Red Sox spend more on legal fees than they would just buying the ball from Minky.

[PedroKsBambino]

Bet you anything that the Red Sox spend more on legal fees than they would just buying the ball from Minky.

Quite possible.

Which is why the only way this really makes sense is if he's basically said he refuses to sell at any price, I think.

[John Marzano Olympic Hero]

I actually give the Sox credit enough that I don't think this is about making money; I think they see the ball as a tangible and obvious marker of the end of the 86 years.

More tangible and obvious than say, a trophy? Or a gigantic flag? Or hundreds of pieces of crap with the 2004 WS Champs logo stamped on it?

Are the Red Sox afraid that MLB is going to pull an NCAA and take away their championship, like NCAA did to UMASS' Final Four appearance? Are they afraid that people will forget about 2004 and need proof? What is the ball going to be used for anyway?

Let it go people. How can one organization completely go blind during three months and forget what their constituency wants? All of this bad publicity started with the naming of the Fisk Pole and has gone down hill ever since.

---

Check this out:
www.room19comics.com

[FarvinMoosey]

Im curious as to how many pitches were thrown with that particular ball? Hell, the Sox at this point should just try to retrace every ball used during the series. Sue em all!

That's kinda why I can't see legal action going anywhere. At what point is the ball not the property of any particular conglomerate entity? If a ruling for this ball went in favor of the Sox, regardless of what circumstances weighed in the decision, would set a precedent. Then, for example, Bonds hits 715. Nope, sorry fan, cant have it, its property of X. Foul ball? Good catch kid, now stop jumping up and down, because the mean men in black are coming to take your ball away.

That and maybe Im crazy, but if any team were to make this ridiculous claim on the ball, wouldn't it be St Louis since it was in their park?!?

Oh well, at least someday I can hope to get my free piece of used plastic beer cups at Fenway with my purchase of 10 rooftop tickets.

Edited by FarvinMoosey, 01 December 2005 - 10:16 AM.

[Smiling Joe Hesketh]

Im curious as to how many pitches were thrown with that particular ball?  Hell, the Sox at this point should just try to retrace every ball used during the series.  Sue em all!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

My guess is 5 pitches. The 3 strikes to Edmonds and then the 2 pitches to Rent.