PDA

View Full Version : Red Sox file suit to keep World Series ball



ch19079
12-01-2005, 12:16 PM
sorry if its been posted..

Red Sox file suit to keep World Series ball

Mientkiewicz, who clutched the ball in his glove and joined teammates in celebration, later put the ball in a safe deposit box and claimed ownership when the Red Sox asked for it.

In January, days after he was traded to the New York Mets (http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/teams/nym/), he agreed to lend the ball to the Red Sox for one year. He would get it back "unless the ultimate issue of ownership has been otherwise resolved," the agreement said.

That clause, The Boston Globe reported, led team lawyers to Suffolk Superior Court on Wednesday. The suit asks the court to place the ball in a "secure location" until ownership is decided.

When he agreed to lend the ball to the team, Mientkiewicz said: "I want the fans to see it, and that's what both the Red Sox and I agreed on."

At that time, he said it was "very cordial, and we worked something out." He also said he "probably" would get the ball back after a year.

http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/news?slug=ap-redsox-worldseriesball&prov=ap&type=lgns

FaninPatsyLand
12-01-2005, 01:38 PM
Good.. who the **** does Mientkiewicz think he is? He was in Boston for 2 damn months. Give it back to the organization where it belongs..

ch19079
12-01-2005, 01:46 PM
Good.. who the **** does Mientkiewicz think he is? He was in Boston for 2 damn months. Give it back to the organization where it belongs.. football players keep footballs. how is this diffrent. teams dont file suit to get HR balls back.

right place, right time.

if the team wants it that bad, simply buy it back. with the millions they pay the players and millions teams make, i think they have the funds to do that.

FaninPatsyLand
12-01-2005, 01:49 PM
football players keep footballs. how is this diffrent. teams dont file suit to get HR balls back.

right place, right time.

if the team wants it that bad, simply buy it back. with the millions they pay the players and millions teams make, i think they have the funds to do that.

How can you compare this to any random football? This baseball has historical significance to the Red Sox organization. What significance does it have to Mientkiewicz? He was here two months, and he wasn't even a regular in lineup. He was strictly a devensive replacement in the latter innings.

He got his signifcant item this past year, the World Series ring. Give the ball back.

Ray Finkle
12-01-2005, 01:51 PM
Geez the off season is really dragging huh?

ch19079
12-01-2005, 02:18 PM
How can you compare this to any random football? This baseball has historical significance to the Red Sox organization. What significance does it have to Mientkiewicz? He was here two months, and he wasn't even a regular in lineup. He was strictly a devensive replacement in the latter innings.

He got his signifcant item this past year, the World Series ring. Give the ball back. when GB won the SB (after taking the last knee) farve gave the ball to WR D. Beebe. GB didnt sue Beebe or farve to get the football back.

would it make a diffrence if Mientkiewicz (jesus thats a long name) was a full time starter? i dont think so. he ended up with the ball. what if he gave it to some kid in the stands, would the socks sue the kid to get it back?

then they wait untill an agreement was made for the team to have possession of the ball, on loan, to display for the fans... and then they throw it in a safety deposit box, and say, "talk to our lawyers". talk about some BS. that alone shows the team has no class at all.

its like a bully at school saying, "i just want to hold it, ill give it right back", only to have him run away once he gets it.

QB2RonnieTD23
12-01-2005, 06:09 PM
when GB won the SB (after taking the last knee) farve gave the ball to WR D. Beebe. GB didnt sue Beebe or farve to get the football back.

would it make a diffrence if Mientkiewicz (jesus thats a long name) was a full time starter? i dont think so. he ended up with the ball. what if he gave it to some kid in the stands, would the socks sue the kid to get it back?

then they wait untill an agreement was made for the team to have possession of the ball, on loan, to display for the fans... and then they throw it in a safety deposit box, and say, "talk to our lawyers". talk about some BS. that alone shows the team has no class at all.

its like a bully at school saying, "i just want to hold it, ill give it right back", only to have him run away once he gets it.

Yeah but Beebe deserved the ball after spending his career with the Perennial losers in Barfalo.....:lol:

Martel
12-01-2005, 07:18 PM
Man he needs to let them have that ball. That's Bostons ball, not Doug's. What is this fool thinking?

finfansince72
12-01-2005, 08:19 PM
This guy is a selfish fool. This is part of Boston's history, he needs to give it back. Hes basically holding it for ransom, I guarantee you if Boston offered him a million dollars he would give it back. This isnt an individual achievement. Its been a time-honored tradition to let a player keep a 300 win ball, 3000k ball, 3000hit ball, etc, but this is Bostons first title in what 100 years and a guy that came onto the team late in the season and played alright keeps the ball? Konerko gave the WhiteSox's gamewinning ball to Reinsdorf, a classy gesture, one that Dougie could learn alot from.

Jimmy James
12-01-2005, 08:28 PM
It seems to me this turns on the extent of the contractual relationship between the player and the team. I could see the argument that he is their agent and that he doesn't deserve the ball any more than the bank teller who accepts that $12,000 check on behalf of the bank deserves that money. I can also see the opposing point. Instead of dragging everybody through this, I'd personally like to see the parties agree to donate the ball to somewhere like the HoF.

MikeO
12-01-2005, 10:55 PM
1) I can't believe we are tying up the courts time with this nonsense.

2) Players are allowed to keep the ball at the end of the game if they want it for any reason.Just because its the red sox or a world series doesn't change that. If Doug wants the ball who gives a crap. It's a friggin ball!

Jimmy James
12-01-2005, 11:02 PM
1) I can't believe we are tying up the courts time with this nonsense.

Eh.

Courts impose costs, and I'm sure there are far dumber disputes pending on that court's docket. At the same time, I feel much the same way you do about pretty much any and all civil suits.


2) Players are allowed to keep the ball at the end of the game if they want it for any reason.Just because its the red sox or a world series doesn't change that. If Doug wants the ball who gives a crap. It's a friggin ball!

I think you just got to the issue here. Are players *allowed* to keep the ball? If so, that suggests the authority that allows it could decide not to allow it at will. For instance, imagine that you work at 7-11 and your manager allows you to drink two free Slurpees a day. One day, he informs you that the Slurpee machine is low so he doesn't want you to drink your Slurpees. That's within his rights. What I wonder here is who allows this. I'd guess it is the home team, which would suggest that St. Louis would really be the team with the say in this matter.

MikeO
12-01-2005, 11:08 PM
Eh.

Courts impose costs, and I'm sure there are far dumber disputes pending on that court's docket. At the same time, I feel much the same way you do about pretty much any and all civil suits.



I think you just got to the issue here. Are players *allowed* to keep the ball? If so, that suggests the authority that allows it could decide not to allow it at will. For instance, imagine that you work at 7-11 and your manager allows you to drink two free Slurpees a day. One day, he informs you that the Slurpee machine is low so he doesn't want you to drink your Slurpees. That's within his rights. What I wonder here is who allows this. I'd guess it is the home team, which would suggest that St. Louis would really be the team with the say in this matter.

When a foul ball is hit into the stands do you see people go up there and wrestle the fan who got it trying to get it back? NO! It's a stupid suit and a judge should throw it out of court and fine everyone involved for wasting the courts time.

Jimmy James
12-01-2005, 11:23 PM
When a foul ball is hit into the stands do you see people go up there and wrestle the fan who got it trying to get it back? NO!

While what you say is true (I think foul balls caught by fans are deemed abandoned), the situation we're speaking of in this case is distinguishable from the foul ball situation. An employee of the Red Sox was in possession of the ball, not a fan.


It's a stupid suit and a judge should throw it out of court and fine everyone involved for wasting the courts time.

This isn't the way our justice system works. It is in society's interest to provide for a forum for grievances, even if they do seem really petty. If we didn't provide such a forum, parties would take the law into their own hands. As dumb as it is to waste time on some things, it would be even dumber for somebody to wind up dead because of them, for the government to have to prosecute the murderer, and for the people to have to pay for the murderer's incarceration. As I said before, courts do impose their costs on the parties.

Ray Finkle
12-01-2005, 11:25 PM
1)If Doug wants the ball who gives a crap. It's a friggin ball!

I agree who does care? As a Sox fan I could care less if they have the baseball but I could understand why some fans would want it in with the Red Sox.

The way I look at it is the Red Sox won the World Series; having the ball doesn't make it sweeter and not having the ball doesn't make it any better.

FaninPatsyLand
12-01-2005, 11:30 PM
This guy is a selfish fool. This is part of Boston's history, he needs to give it back. Hes basically holding it for ransom, I guarantee you if Boston offered him a million dollars he would give it back. This isnt an individual achievement. Its been a time-honored tradition to let a player keep a 300 win ball, 3000k ball, 3000hit ball, etc, but this is Bostons first title in what 100 years and a guy that came onto the team late in the season and played alright keeps the ball? Konerko gave the WhiteSox's gamewinning ball to Reinsdorf, a classy gesture, one that Dougie could learn alot from.

Yup... good post!

I have no issue with a player wanting a ball. Doug is just holding it for ransom cause he's a greedy SOB.

Ray Finkle
12-01-2005, 11:35 PM
Yup... good post!

I have no issue with a player wanting a ball. Doug is just holding it for ransom cause he's a greedy SOB.

Well considering he was awful last year and is going to take a huge pay cut this year if/when he finally gets signed to a new team, wouldn't you hold the team ransom for some extra pocket change ;)

MikeO
12-02-2005, 08:42 AM
An employee of the Red Sox was in possession of the ball, not a fan.



They got rid of him after the year he hasn't been employed by them for a while. And so what, employee or not. The Red Sox don't own the ball.

ch19079
12-02-2005, 10:24 AM
this has to have happened in the past.
a player keeping a "notable" ball. i think the only reason people even care, is becasue the redsocks have made such a big deal, and embarassed the team so publicly.

ch19079
12-02-2005, 10:29 AM
I think you just got to the issue here. Are players *allowed* to keep the ball? If so, that suggests the authority that allows it could decide not to allow it at will. For instance, imagine that you work at 7-11 and your manager allows you to drink two free Slurpees a day. One day, he informs you that the Slurpee machine is low so he doesn't want you to drink your Slurpees. That's within his rights. What I wonder here is who allows this. I'd guess it is the home team, which would suggest that St. Louis would really be the team with the say in this matter.
but you cant change it after the fact. if before the game, they said, "if there is a game winning ball, it belongs to the team." ok, i would understand the teams ownership of it. but you cant say, a few days later, that "thats our ball because we want it".

just like saying, "you can have 2 free slurpees a day." then a week later say, "o you have to pay for the 2 slurpees you had on sunday. those slurpees where special to me..."

i still cant believe the sox agreed to have it on "loan" to display it for the fans, then threw it in a saftety deposit box and called in the lawyers.

MikeO
12-02-2005, 10:33 AM
there has to have happened in the past.
a player keeping a "notable" ball. i think the only reason people even care, is becasue the redsocks have made such a big deal, and embarassed the team so publicly.

THE CURSE OF MANKEVIOTICH (or however the hell you spell it). I see it coming! :rofl3: :lol:

ch19079
12-02-2005, 10:34 AM
think of it this way, a player hits his 3000 hit, resulting in a game winning RBI. a defensive player who fielded the ball keeps it. a few days later the team that won, wants the ball back. they want to put it in their clubhouse. or maybe the player who hit it wants it back.

the defensive player has no obligation to give it back. most will do it just because, but if he wants to be an *** hole, he can, and force the team or player to buy it back.

ch19079
12-02-2005, 10:35 AM
THE CURSE OF MANKEVIOTICH (or however the hell you spell it). I see it coming! :rofl3: :lol: :rofl3:
you arent kidding. baseball teams have always found a way to blame others for their losses, insted of the team.

im starting to hate the sox more and more every day.

Jimmy James
12-02-2005, 11:52 AM
They got rid of him after the year he hasn't been employed by them for a while. And so what, employee or not. The Red Sox don't own the ball.

What matters is that he was an employee at the time he recovered the ball.

The only theory of the case that suggests the Sox don't own the ball that I can think of is the one that indicates the Cardinals own the ball. I don't think that's good for either side, so I doubt they'll argue that.

Jimmy James
12-02-2005, 11:58 AM
but you cant change it after the fact. if before the game, they said, "if there is a game winning ball, it belongs to the team." ok, i would understand the teams ownership of it. but you cant say, a few days later, that "thats our ball because we want it".

I'm not so sure about that. If I found a suitcase with a million dollars in it during the course of my employment and I considered it mine, I could imagine my company deciding that the million would be pretty nice to have and that they really should be the ones to get it since I found it during the course of my work for them.


just like saying, "you can have 2 free slurpees a day." then a week later say, "o you have to pay for the 2 slurpees you had on sunday. those slurpees where special to me..."

I like the point you make here, but it's clear that the situations aren't quite the same here. The Red Sox don't want *a* ball back -- they want *the* ball back because it has a special significance. The 7-11 employee couldn't give those specific Slurpees back if he tried because they were consumed. Also, the employer could just tell the employee that he wasn't going to get his free Slurpees today since he took ones the employer didn't want to give him on Sunday.


i still cant believe the sox agreed to have it on "loan" to display it for the fans, then threw it in a saftety deposit box and called in the lawyers.

I really don't think the team deserves criticism for that. Their agreement called for the ball not to be returned if the ownership hadn't been resolved, and the team filed suit precisely because that is the case at this point.

ch19079
12-02-2005, 12:30 PM
ok, but what about this:

is it the 1st baseman's ball, or the batters, or the pitchers, or the sox, or the cards, or MLBs?

on a regular basis players give away balls to the crowd, or keep a particular ball for themselves. so IMO, MLB has shown that this is ok, and have awarded ownership of that ball to the player who ends up with it. its just that normally if one player has a high sentimental value on a particular ball, the "owner" usually just gives it to them or they buy it back.

a person or team may put a sentamental value on an item (the ball in this case), but that doesnt mean they own it simply because they care more about it than the player who walks away with it. i think, its always been, if you end up with the ball, its yours.

and i just feel that this is the way it has been done, and all of a sudden it doesnt work out for the team, so they get lawyers involved. how can they change the rules after the fact, just because it didnt work out for them this time?

FaninPatsyLand
12-02-2005, 03:46 PM
:rofl3:
you arent kidding. baseball teams have always found a way to blame others for their losses, insted of the team.

im starting to hate the sox more and more every day.

OH NO!

Like anyone gives a ****!

Jimmy James
12-02-2005, 04:25 PM
ok, but what about this:

is it the 1st baseman's ball, or the batters, or the pitchers, or the sox, or the cards, or MLBs?

on a regular basis players give away balls to the crowd, or keep a particular ball for themselves. so IMO, MLB has shown that this is ok, and have awarded ownership of that ball to the player who ends up with it. its just that normally if one player has a high sentimental value on a particular ball, the "owner" usually just gives it to them or they buy it back.

a person or team may put a sentamental value on an item (the ball in this case), but that doesnt mean they own it simply because they care more about it than the player who walks away with it. i think, its always been, if you end up with the ball, its yours.

and i just feel that this is the way it has been done, and all of a sudden it doesnt work out for the team, so they get lawyers involved. how can they change the rules after the fact, just because it didnt work out for them this time?

I think if everything is as you suggest, you have laid out a good argument that the Red Sox have estopped themselves from making a claim.

What I'm not so sure about is whether everything is as you suggest. Think of batting practice. Surely, the team doesn't expect to lose those dozens of balls a day just because they're caught or gathered by players in the field of play. Similarly, I don't think the team actually expects the catcher to go home with the 90 or so balls that he ends up catching after the pitcher pitches them to him. This seems to me to be a pretty complex question, and it is going to look bad for the player if the answer to the question of what happens with the ball that makes the last out is that it usually goes to the team he plays for, the home team, or anyone but him.

If I were a judge hearing this case, I think I'd go the Solomon-esque route and order the ball sold with the proceeds to be split among those with a claim. That seems the best idea to me at this point. Screw all of them. :D

NJFINSFAN1
12-02-2005, 04:29 PM
The Red Sox's have no case. The Cards supplied the ball, it was in their home field. They bought it, they have the case. Not the Soxs!

Jimmy James
12-02-2005, 04:34 PM
The Red Sox's have no case. The Cards supplied the ball, it was in their home field. They bought it, they have the case. Not the Soxs!

I do have to wonder if some lawyer for the Cards is thinking exactly this right about now and if they won't join this suit in some capacity.

That said, I think you're wrong about the Sox. As I mentioned, they have an argument founded upon the law of agency. The player was their agent on the field, and they can argue that he can't take property he accumulates in the course of his work any more than Joe cable layer can accumulate old buried gold coins he finds while digging ditches for the cable.