1918 Red Sox Babe Ruth Contract (VERY COOL)

[JimStinson]

All valid points but you missed the first part of my post that said ..............
"Some excellent points made here ! Has evolved into a very interesting thread. Making no judgment one way or another (on the documents in question)".....
No where did I ever say anyone was "duped" or a "forger" , I just asked a question, which is (I think) what public forums are all about , That being said ...it IS true that Frazee fought tooth and nail to have Babe Ruth remain a pitcher (Frazee did not know much about baseball and THATS a fact) and DID start Ruth as his pitcher on opening day 1918. It was RUTH that wanted to play every day (as did most of his team mates) and Frazee that wanted him to pitch.
_________________
jim@stinsonsports.com

Buying and Selling Vintage autographs see my web site
stinsonsports.com

[Runscott]

Karl, those are very good points.

As Jim points out, the fact that Frazee wanted Ruth to remain a pitcher is also a good reason for Frazee to have offered that incentive to Ruth - perhaps to warm Ruth up to the idea of remaining a pitcher.

I honestly wasn't thinking anything was a forgery when I began this thread. Looking at the signatures on both documents, I felt they were reasonable enough to move on to other issues surrounding the documents. If the handwritten item has impeccable provenance for at least 60 years, as the story goes, if the document(s) were bad I would expect at least one of the signatures to be obviously forged, but neither are. Also, for the price that was originally paid (again, 'as the story goes'), if they were forged documents, I would think that the quality would indicate a more lucrative plan. But the story could be off on some of the details.

[thebigtrain]

I won't bother re-hashing the "legalese" points I already raised in this thread about the parol evidence rule and the merger clause in the boilerplate "formal" printed contract.

I will say that, per the auction house description, this is the earliest known "incentive" contract in baseball, and possibly in all of professional sports. It also just so happens to involve Babe Ruth, Harry Frazee, and the 1918 Red Sox. If this doesn't strike you as not "smelling straight," then so be it.

I'll again note that the specter of WWI had seriously cut into team revenues, which came almost exclusively from gate receipts and concessions (this was of course even pre-radio). Spring training was shortened that year to save money. Many able-bodied men were either already in the military or about to be drafted (they took a lot of "older" people for WWI, my great grandfather was in his early 30s). It was certainly not expected to be a banner year.

I'd also like to know if Ruth ever negotiated a similar "incentive" contract when he went to the Yankees. Seems like hitting incentives would make more sense, since its an individual achievement over which the player himself has much more control vs. pitching "wins," which are a team effort and have a large element of luck involved re: run support, errors, which opposing pitchers you lock horns with, etc.

Thus, given the above, I'm sticking with my guns and calling this a forgery. Just way too many things about it don't make logical sense, and the "attic" provenance story we've all heard before. Remember Barry Halper and the Ollie O'Mara uniform tales? Per Mr. Halper the guy basically had more clothes/uniforms in his attic than a Modell's store! Of course it was all total BS, the old codger was penniless and Halper forged all the unis and basically just lied thru his teeth, even ripping off the HOF for a few million bucks on that 1919 Joe Jackson jersey that scientific testing proved was manufactured in the 1960s.