Wow! (Mientkiewicz refuses to share) [Archive]

View Full Version : Wow! (Mientkiewicz refuses to share)

Archive

01-07-2005, 10:12 AM

Posted By: ChrisWhat do you guys think about this? <a href="http://msn.foxsports.com/story/3304060" target=_new>http://msn.foxsports.com/story/3304060</a>

Archive

01-07-2005, 10:13 AM

Posted By: Hal LewisI think he is an idiot for wanting his kids to go to Florida State. I guess he knows they can't get into the GOOD school and be Gators. <img src="/images/wink.gif" height=14 width=14>

Archive

01-07-2005, 10:27 AM

Posted By: Kevin Cummings...I don't think anyone's going to be making "dumb jock" comments about Doug Mientkiewicz any time soon. Frankly, I don't think the Red Sox have a leg to stand on saying they "own" the ball especially in light of the fact that they encourage players to toss balls into the stands at the end of every half inning and game used equipment shows up for sale all over the place. Unless they said somehting beforehand, it was poor planning on their part. Wouldn't it be rich (no pun intended) if George Steinbrenner found out what Doug Mientkiewicz's price was and paid it? <img src="/images/wink.gif" height=14 width=14>

Archive

01-07-2005, 11:55 AM

Posted By: PaulMy reaction was exactly the same as Hal's.

Archive

01-07-2005, 12:04 PM

Posted By: MikeIf I was Keith Foulke, I would of just sprinted to 1st base and kept the ball myself.

Archive

01-07-2005, 12:22 PM

Posted By: Gilbert MainesAside from Steinbrenner, Id like to see Topps in the bidding. A piece of that ball should be owned by millions of fans.

Archive

01-07-2005, 12:24 PM

Posted By: andy beckeryou think tom house regrets giving up #715??? i can just see...the big unit wrestling with his catcher over the last pitch in his perfect game??? sheeeeeeeeeesh. i think we have a candidate for a coin shower...reggie, rickey, and mientkiewicz????

Archive

01-07-2005, 12:27 PM

Posted By: Juliebelongs to the team or the last guy to catch it...from all those home run balls, it sounds like it's the last guy to catch it. Where there's conflict, there could be--switching!

Archive

01-07-2005, 12:39 PM

Posted By: Bill KaselI'm sorry but Mentoahfdaafdicz is now on the same level of Patrik Ewing when it comes to idiotic statements about money. "We make a lot of money, but we spend a lot of money" - Ewings defense for the huge contracts demanded in the NBA. Memo to Doug: "You're a highly regarded, and paid professional baseball player!" If you need a ball to ensure your solid financial future you are a sad sad individual. Take some of that $2.8mil you made this year and invest in a financial planner, and give the damn ball back. Did he even get a full share of the title earnings? He sure didn't deserve it. (.215BA, and primarily used as a late inning replacement.) Bill

Archive

01-07-2005, 12:53 PM

Posted By: Bill CornellMaybe if the Sox hadn't previously told Dougie that he was on the trading block... at this point, they'd trade him for a resin bag. But, still, it's only a ball - if the light-hitting, ex-Twin wants to keep it, so what? Bill

Archive

01-07-2005, 12:57 PM

Posted By: hankronIf the ball is shown in a museum, it will be accompanied by a big photo of Doug catching the ball. I'd rather have my photo in a museum.

Archive

01-07-2005, 01:07 PM

Posted By: Kevin Cummings.....so I could pay to get into the museum and see your picture! <img src="/images/wink.gif" height=14 width=14>

Archive

01-07-2005, 01:23 PM

Posted By: hankronI beleive the final game was in St. Louis, which would (theory) mean the stadium equipment (ball) belonged to either the Cardinals or MLB. Let's start by having the Red Sox explain why the ball is theirs, and why they have any more right over the ball than Doug.

Archive

01-07-2005, 01:40 PM

Posted By: bobA slow news day in Boston, this has been a big story. Doug called into a local talk show (quote below). His wife also posted similar comments on redsox.com. The Shaughnessy he mentions is Dan Shaughnessy a sportwritter for the Boston Globe who writes with a poison pen. The whole thing about me wanting to sell it, I was saying it laughing. The other guy (Shaughnessy), he was laughing. I thought it was going to be a light-hearted article, I was just joking around with him and kidding about it and the whole thing about I can be bought, it was all in jest, it was one of those things. I’ve tried to keep my mouth shut all winter, but when someone backs me into a corner that way, I’m going to come out fighting. If someone portrays me as as someone I’m not, I’m going to have a problem with that. Red Sox fans have not had a chance to know me, to know my personality. The last thing I am is money crazy but I’m also not going to give the thing away either. Not in the near future (does he have plans to sell the baseball)… I would like to keep it. I’ll be more than happy to loan it out, that’s part of baseball history. That’s why I had it authenticated…” -- Doug Mientkiewicz with WEEI's Dale and Neumy

Archive

01-07-2005, 01:48 PM

Posted By: jay behrensGee, imagine that. A sportswriter taking things out fo context to write a sensational story about something that is far from sensational. Jay Wow upside down is Mom. Mom upside down is what dad wants to see.

Archive

01-07-2005, 02:19 PM

Posted By: Scott ElkinsI agree with a couple board members on this one definitely - taking some of the contract $$$ that he did not earn (.215 batting average - I could probably do that with a broken disc and SI joint out of place), and investing it. However, investing it in vintage cards like Leon and Hal! If one player on that team deserves the ball (and truly earned it) - it should be Curt Schilling, not a .215 hitter!!!!!!! What happened to players like Ted Williams - who gave money from their contracts back during off-performance years!?!?!?!?

Archive

01-07-2005, 02:47 PM

Posted By: hankronAccording to the article I read, MLB authenticated the ball after the game and stated that Doug is the owner. Not much more to argue on this front, unless the Red Sox proves MLB wrong. Sorry if a teary tear doesn't come to my eye for a million dollar team that likely would charge admission to view the ball or otherwise make $$$$$ by selling more hot dogs, beer, t-shirts and video tapes. If they want my sympathies, sell the ball and give it to a Thailand tsunami fund. Otherwise, they're going to have a hard time convincing me that they are righteous because they really really want a ball that doesn't even belong to them.

Archive

01-07-2005, 03:06 PM

Posted By: Max WederFrom a legal point of view, I'd been interested from David in hearing why he thinks MLB's thoughts are determinative of ownership of the ball. If I recall correctly (which is perhaps dubious), the home team must purchase baseballs from MLB. Title of the ball would rest with the Red Sox, unless it is lost by some means. Certainly custom and practice play a great part here in determining if ownership has passed to Doug. However, since I am not qualified to comment on the law of personal property in MA and only practice tax law (and in Canada I must add), to me, the more interesting (okay, not really) question is whether the IRS could assess him a taxable benefit by acquiring this very valuable ball by virtue of his employment. Any tax lawyers have any thoughts? Max

Archive

01-07-2005, 03:14 PM

Posted By: hankron"MLB authenticated the ball after the game and stated that Doug is the owner. Not much more to argue on this front, unless the Red Sox proves MLB wrong." In both my posts, I said the Red Sox are welcome to prove that they are the owner of the ball. When they've proven the ball is theirs, they've proven the ball is theirs. Until then, they haven't proven that the ball is theirs. In particular considering MLB has said the ball is someone else's. P.s., the game was placed in Saint Louis not Boston, and the home team was the Cardinals not the Red Sox.

Archive

01-07-2005, 04:04 PM

Posted By: Richard LloydSO, does this mean I can keep my computer at work when I retire!!! reality check...

Archive

01-07-2005, 04:07 PM

Posted By: hankronRichard, it means the computer doesn't belong to the Red Sox.

Archive

01-07-2005, 04:14 PM

Posted By: DGT..that ball will be the beginning of a new 90 year curse <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14>

Archive

01-07-2005, 04:33 PM

Posted By: Richard LloydNo..it means the computer belongs to the employer because they PAYED for it and the ball belongs to the red soxs because they payed for it.. simple... but thats how I see it...anyway...

Archive

01-07-2005, 04:36 PM

Posted By: Julietitle of this thread seems sort of silly to me. How do you share a ball? You may own it and lend it (seems proper), or you may give it away (a lot to ask), or you may sell it for your own profit or that of others (I think the mention of the tsunami earlier in this thread was the very first one on the board since it happened--NOT BEING HOLIER THAN THOU-- I didn't mention it either!) I do hope it winds up in a public place. I'd like a peek myself, even though it looks like a thoudsand other balls!

Archive

01-07-2005, 04:49 PM

Posted By: Max WederDavid To show my disconnect with modern baseball, I had immediately forgotten where Game 4 was played. I don't think the Red Sox would thus have any claim to the ball, as prior to Doug's catch, it either belonged to St. Louis or to MLB. I don't think the visiting team ever buys the baseballs. The question is whether the "common law of baseball" enables ownership of such a ball to be transferred to Doug. I found an interesting article (marked "draft") from a University of Tulsa law professor, dealing with ownership of baseballs, written around the controversery surrounding the Bonds home run ball. Here's the link <a href="http://www.lookstein.org/links/homerun.htm" target=_new>http://www.lookstein.org/links/homerun.htm</a> Max

Archive

01-07-2005, 05:05 PM

Posted By: jay behrensRichard, what part of THE GAME WAS PLAYED IN ST LOUIS don't you understand? The Red Sox have ZERO claim to the ball. Jay Wow upside down is Mom. Mom upside down is what dad wants to see.

Archive

01-07-2005, 05:31 PM

Posted By: hankronRichard, I don't argue with your basic employer ownership point. But, if that's the legal argument that decides the case, the ball would appear to belong the Saint Louis Cardinals as the game was played at Busch Stadium in Saint Louis and the Red Sox were merely guests.

Archive

01-07-2005, 06:01 PM

Posted By: tbobHe is just bitter that a rookie took his position at Minnesota and he isn't nearly as good as he thinks he is. Let him have the ball- that and his homer in the Olympics are the only things he'll have to look back at in his old age. I agree with Hal. FSU? Ya gotta be kidding me.

Archive

01-07-2005, 06:14 PM

Posted By: Richard Lloydyes Jay... I know the game was in St louis..I live in Boston..!!! HE has no claim to the ball in my mind... and maybe st louis will sell the red soxs the ball..ha-ha..

Archive

01-07-2005, 07:11 PM

Posted By: DanYou are saying that all of the Bonds homerun balls are owned by the Giants? That the Buckner ball is owned by? That the McGuire 73 is owned by? That the... Doug caught the ball, everyone rushed the field, he held the ball and thought that it was important enough to keep it with him... as any fan would. Not saying that it is right, but he owns the ball. If the Red Sox wanted the damn thing, they should have recovered it that night. Not, 3 months later. I am glad that all of you that voted in favor of him just giving it to the Red Sox club would have done just that if - as a fan you may have caught a Game 7 bottom of the 9th inning Homerun hit by the Red Sox... You are full of it, you would have held that ball tighter than your most valuable card or item in your collection, just knowing that it was worth MILLIONS!!!

Archive

01-07-2005, 07:18 PM

Posted By: Richard Lloydfans are not employed by the team.. he is an employee and NOT a fan... to me , apples and oranges.. anyway.. I would rather talk about baseball cards!!! DONE..

Archive

01-07-2005, 07:22 PM

Posted By: Julieby a fielder on the field of play, and one caught in the stands by a fan, but I'd rather not think about it.

Archive

01-07-2005, 07:29 PM

Posted By: DanAs I said before, if they thought that it was important, it should have been addressed that night, not three months later. It had sat in his possession all that time and now all of the sudden, they want it. It could have went like this... "so, how did it feel to catch the final out at first base? Well, it feels great! So, are you going to give this ball to the Red Sox organization? Yes."

Archive

01-07-2005, 07:40 PM

Posted By: qualitycards.comI always thought that the pitcher gets handed the ball after the game ends, after all its his win or save if his team wins.

Archive

01-07-2005, 11:08 PM

Posted By: jay behrensPlayers keep balls from games all the time. Why now does a team seem to find it neccessary to claim ownership of a ball when every other ball that enters the field of play, they have no interest in claiming ownership? I now fully expect the Red Sox to confiscate and claim ownership of eery single ball that is not hit into the stands during a game at Fenway. Jay Wow upside down is Mom. Mom upside down is what dad wants to see.

Archive

01-07-2005, 11:14 PM

Posted By: Scottmaybe because the Red Sox haven't won a World Series since...1918?

Archive

01-08-2005, 07:52 AM

Posted By: Rich KleinLet him get the ball from Doug M and say, OK we're going to auction the ball off for tsuami relief and 100 percent of the proceeds and the cost of the auction will go to that fund and we'll take in NOTHING. Now, THAT would be worth doing Rich

Archive

01-08-2005, 09:16 AM

Posted By: warshawlawAt every game I have ever attended, the PA announcer says that the home team (fill in the name here) is happy for you to keep whatever ball goes into the stands. This also implies to me that the team supplying the balls (the home team) owns the balls until title is transferred in some respect. I checked the back of my latest Dodgers tickets and did not see any reference to it, so the announcement would stand as the team's position on the issue. We've also had many, many instances of significant balls being caught and never has a team claimed ownership. Given that the home team supplies the game balls and offers to transfer title to them to customers if they leave the field, my conclusion in the case of the cursed Botox ball from last year's horrid WS is that the Botox have no standing (legal right) to claim ownership of the ball. Only the Cardinals, who supplied (hence owned) the ball would have a superior claim to title than Menkacwhatever does. If the chowderheads sue Menkcablahblah for the ball, the case would likely be thrown out on the basis of lack of standing because the team cannot show an ownership interest in the ball. Given that MLB says Menkawhoozie owns it, I seriously doubt that the Cardinals would bother to enforce their ostensible ownership rights, leaving the chowderheads where they belong, SOL. There is one more wrinkle on the situation, which also favors Menkamoron: the venerable tradition of a player being able to keep a memento of a significant event that is otherwise "team property". We see examples of this every year: bases being taken when milestone stolen base is attained, game balls being taken by pitchers, etc. If I represented Menkashmuck in defense I would present all these instances as establishing an implied contract between the player and the team that the player gets to keep mementos of significant events in his career and that this is just one more instance of such an event. In the early days, fans were asked to give back a ball hit into the stands because there were so few game balls that they did not want to run out. As far as old famous game balls go, the items were not considered to be valuable, hence the issue was never a concern. Lastly, given the huge price increase in these things and the whining about this ball, I would not be surprised if the issue creeps into the next collective bargaining agreement so that the rights of the parties are better defined.

Archive

01-08-2005, 10:00 AM

Posted By: Scott ElkinsI think even those of us who are siding "against" Mientkiewicz on this agree he has a right to the ball (at least I do). The only problem I had is that he was "childish" enough to state more or less he only wants the ball to profit from it. He could have handled the situation much better and I think more people would have been on his "side", instead of coming right out and stating the money factor - I guess he feels that .215 average might not land him a contract with any team next year!?!?

Archive

01-08-2005, 12:39 PM

Posted By: hankronWhether it's home team or league or home stadium that owned the footballs or baseball or basketballs in college or the pros, I'm sure they were happy to let the visiting have a few balls so they could award them to the players of the game and take one back home to the trophy room. The gifting would be reciprocated when their team played away. So, the balls belonged to the home team or whatever, but they chose to let the visting team or home player keep some of them. I'm sure that the legal issues were rarely of passing thought, even to the team's lawyer. "Who cares who owns them?," the Chicago Cardinals lawyer might say. "They're stupid dirty footballs. My 9 year old has two from the Sears catalog. I didn't graduate 2nd in my class from Harvard so I could argue the legal merits of a dirty footballs." However, I bet that if the 1921 University of Chicago football team won the national championship at home and the visiting U of Cincinnati took the winning TD ball home, I'm sure the University of Chicago would want the ball back and would press the issue to get it back for the trophy room.

Archive

01-08-2005, 02:01 PM

Posted By: Tim MayerIn 96 charlie hayes caught the winning ball he kept it....in 98 mariano kept his. it is common in baseball that whomever catches the ball keeps it. If the game ends on a strikeout the catcher hands the ball to the pitcher on the mound. If this was any other team but the redsox this would be a non issue. I am unsure what the problem is. I personally think larry lucciano has no class. Most teams would have kept this as an internal manner, but the redsox handle stuff funny. The real reason they want the ball so bad is they think they might not win another one for 80 more years. For the Braves and Yankees they would just move on and say they will get a new better one next year <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14>

Archive

01-08-2005, 04:20 PM

Posted By: warshawlawPlayers have frequently kept the final out from the game they were in. Menkawhomaomao's no different. He said he'd lend the memento to the team, so why they are pressing for ownership is hard to understand.

Archive

01-10-2005, 09:15 AM

Posted By: jay behrensThis came off the SABR Halsey Hall chapter list. Very funny: I can see it years from now. Doug sitting by the fire telling grandkids of the story of the world series and how the red sox won. Grandson to Doug " tell me the story of the Red Sox winning the world series" Doug "Sure it had been many many years and we cam back from a 3 game to none lead against our enemies, the New York Yankees. THen we went on to win 4 more games against the Cardinals to win the series" Grandson " wow that is great. Did you hit a homer or something and they gave you the ball?" Doug "no I caught the last out to win the game" Grandson " well m sure you did great to help your team get there" Doug " well I sort of didnt play much but I did catch the last out" Grandson "it says in this clipping another first baseman hit a bunch of homers for the team in the playoffs and world series" Doug "well yes he did but I caught the last out" Grandson " It must have been great after all those years with the team winning the series" Doug " well I kind of joined the team in the middle of the year but look at this ball" Grandson "I bet you couldnt wait until next year and play 1st base for the champs" Doug "dammit kid I got the ball, shuttup" Grandson " wait a second granddad My favorite player Justin Morneau is on Tv, I will talk to you later" Brian Mohr Wow upside down is Mom. Mom upside down is what dad wants to see.

Archive

01-10-2005, 10:17 AM

Posted By: Gilbert PorterThis is an interesting question - not because of the real issue at play (the legal rights of ownership) but instead because it is an example of developing facts exposing an area that has been murky for years.Ownership of a baseball hit or thrown into the stands clearly belongs to the fan who catches it (and I will ignore, for this purpose, the niceties of how much pushing, shoving and mutilation is permitted among fans to achieve this objective).Baseballs used in play have always been the property of the home team. I cannot recall the exact details, but I do remember many years ago a player from the visiting team getting into trouble with the home team for throwing a ball into the stands - that's right, it used to be VERY clear that balls were property of the team and players were not allowed to toss them into the stands. BUT, times change, and now the practice of throwing balls into the stands is commonplace.That said, it was never specifically thought that players had a possessory right to balls or other team-supplied paraphernalia. Normally, the rule is that employees do not have the right to take employer-supplied equipment or inventory, even if that equipment/inventory is damaged, obsolete, etc. Thus, we have all accepted that an office paper clip thief is, indeed, a paper clip thief if he takes a box of clips home (even if damaged, partly-used, or every-one-else-does-it). Only if the employer expressly permits such practice (either by general policy or specific act), is it appropriate for the employee to do so. And assets which are acquired by an employee in the course of his/her employment belong to the employer absent specific agreements or policies to the contrary.And that is the problem. It has clearly become the practice for umpires, players, coaches and other "employees" to take used balls, bases, uniforms, etc. as momentos - with the team's knowledge and seeming assent - very much akin to an employer allowing employees to take home obsolete equipment or inventory. The practice has become so widespread that, I suspect, none of us can remember a single instance where an auctioned item has been withdrawn based upon a team's claim of theft.Therefore, the questions are threefold: (i) If the ball is not the property of the player, does it belong to the team for which he was acting as employee or the team that originally owned the ball? Hard to say - practice will probably outweigh the clear progression of title.(ii) Is the practice of allowing a player to keep momentos so definitive that a team has no rights, or is the practice merely one conditional upon the consent (implied or otherwise) of the team (in which case is there a deadline by when the team must assert its position)? I suspect that the answer to this one is very unclear.(iii) Finally, if the players are allowed to keep the ball by virtue of established practice, is there an established rule of practice that defines ownership (i.e., team consensus, etc.) or a strict "finders keepers" rule? The reason why these questions are so hard to answer is that, until now, there is no precedent I am aware of where it has been disputed. And because, until now, team comraderie probably was more important to the affected players than the value or the ball. But with the short-term tenure of players and teams these days, this dispute was inevitable.As far as the tax issue is concerned - the good/bad news is that, of course, the ball is taxable income to the owner (today at fair value and tomorrow at resale value), unless the original owner (Cardinals) still owns it (in which case no taxable event until resale).Ain't baseball fun!!!!!