Joe Pepitone Bat

[doug.goodman]

Originally Posted by rats60

If they don't give Joe his bat, who would ever loan the HOF anything again?

Anybody who got paperwork that Mr. Pepitone evidently did not get.

[rats60]

Originally Posted by doug.goodman

Anybody who got paperwork that Mr. Pepitone evidently did not get.

Why would Joe Pepitone get paperwork for a bat taken without his consent? A player like Joe Pepitone would have signed an endorsement deal with the bat manufacturer. Part of that deal would be providing Joe bats to use in games.

[bgar3]

I can’t speak to modern times, signing players and whether or not they supply bats for free, or if the teams buy them. However, in the 1960’s players were approached in their first spring and asked to sign with Louisville Slugger in return for a set of golf clubs made by them or 125 dollars. When you ordered bats, you could get your name on them, but you paid for them. I am not sure if and when that changed and if it was different once you made the majors or if you were a star but I believe it was a one time thing whether you made it or not. It would not surprise me if it were vastly different today. . I think it likely that there was a difference in the procedures, pre and post about 1980 or so. No, I do not know this because I did it. I know it because several teammates did do it and I have seen the contracts they signed. They took the money by the way.

[rats60]

Originally Posted by bgar3

I can’t speak to modern times, signing players and whether or not they supply bats for free, or if the teams buy them. However, in the 1960’s players were approached in their first spring and asked to sign with Louisville Slugger in return for a set of golf clubs made by them or 125 dollars. When you ordered bats, you could get your name on them, but you paid for them. I am not sure if and when that changed and if it was different once you made the majors or if you were a star but I believe it was a one time thing whether you made it or not. It would not surprise me if it were vastly different today. . I think it likely that there was a difference in the procedures, pre and post about 1980 or so. No, I do not know this because I did it. I know it because several teammates did do it and I have seen the contracts they signed. They took the money by the way.

https://nypost.com/2021/07/10/yankee...y-mantles-bat/

The Brooklyn-born Pepitone, 80, claims in the suit that the bat, a “Joe Pepitone” model that includes a facsimile of his signature, was his through an endorsement deal with Louisville Slugger, and that Mantle borrowed it to make history on May 14, 1967.

https://www.sportingnews.com/us/mlb/...k1bnhchdcefl50

Pepitone and the Hall are locked in a he-said-he-said conundrum, with no paperwork involved that landed the bat in Cooperstown, according to The Athletic.

[jakebeckleyoldeagleeye]

The question is will Joe wear his oversized wig to court?

[Casey2296]

The Yankees should write a check to Joe for the value of the bat and re-donate it to the Hall.

[carlsonjok]

Originally Posted by rats60

Why would Joe Pepitone get paperwork for a bat taken without his consent? A player like Joe Pepitone would have signed an endorsement deal with the bat manufacturer. Part of that deal would be providing Joe bats to use in games.

That the bat may have been taken without his consent seems immaterial inasmuch as he has known where the bat was and hasn't demanded it's immediate return to him at any time in the past 54 years.

If I understand the article correctly, Pepitone claims that the HoF told him that he could get the bat back any time he asked and is now reneging. That seems just like the type of agreement that should have been memorialized in writing. Otherwise, you are left right where we are: competing claims regarding a decades old conversation with no documentary evidence one way or the other.