PDA

View Full Version : Doug's Retirement Fund


Oski
01-07-2005, 07:25 PM
I don't know why this would be his ball. I understand how a fan comes to be an owner of the ball (and then once the fan gives it [or sells it] back to a player how the player owns it) but I don't see how the athelete can claim an ownership just because he "had it" at the end of the game.

I would think that by being an "employee" ownership of the employer's property (or ownership of otherwise, nonperfected property) would NOT vest. I think that there has been a custom to allow employees (atheletes) to keep mementos of personal achievements, like a ball from a no-hitter, or a bag from a historical game or steal, or a puck, football, etc. from some other historical event. However, those are usually personal in nature.

For those who like to think absurd thoughts: What would happen if with 2 out in the 9th of the W.S. the first baseman dives for a ground ball ... he catches it, but decides to beat the runner to the bag rather than toss to the covering pitcher so that he can keep the ball. Well, he loses the footrace and the tying run scores.

Or, what if the left fielder runs all the way in to the infield, fights his way though all of the infielders, the catcher and the pitcher, to catch the popup that ends the W.S. What if they start doing that for all "historical" games.

What if the catcher shakes off a sign from the dugout, because with 2 down and 2 strikes, he wants the pitcher to strike out the batter so that the catcher can keep the ball and start a "retirement fund."

[ QUOTE ]
Sox First Baseman Won't Give Up Ball

BOSTON — Calling it "my retirement fund," Boston first baseman Doug Mientkiewicz stashed in his safe deposit box the ball used in the final out that sealed the Red Sox's first World Series championship in 86 years. Now, his boss wants it back.

"We want it to be part of Red Sox archives or museums so it can be shared with the fans," Red Sox CEO Larry Lucchino told The Boston Globe on Thursday. "We would hope he would understand the historical nature of it."

Mientkiewicz seems to understand it very well, which is exactly why he held on to it.

Historic baseballs have recently fetched impressive sums. The baseball Red Sox catcher Carlton Fisk banged off the foul pole in the 1975 World Series sold for $113,373. The ball Barry Bonds hit for his 73rd home run went for $450,000. The most expensive baseball of all time is Mark McGwire's 70th homer, which went for $3 million.

Mientkiewicz said he thinks the Boston's World Series ball has more value than a home run ball.

"Those are important and all, don't get me wrong, but there are always going to be more home runs," he said. "This is something that took 86 years, and 86 years is a long time. Personally, I went through hell and back this year. But winning the World Series is something I'm going to remember for a long time."

Mientkiewicz came to Boston from Minnesota in a three-team midseason deal that sent Boston shortstop Nomar Garciaparra to the Chicago Cubs.

Mientkiewicz, who batted .215 for Boston, was used primarily as a late innings defensive replacement, and has indicated his unhappiness with the role.

Boston broke its championship drought by beating the New York Yankees in seven games in the AL championship series, then sweeping the St. Louis Cardinals in four games in the World Series.

After the game, Mientkiewicz said he put the ball in his locker, then gave it to his wife, Jodi, who put it in her purse. The next day, the ball was authenticated by Major League Baseball.

Carmine Tiso, spokesman for MLB, told the Globe that Mientkiewicz owns the baseball, though Joe Januszewski, Red Sox director of corporate partnerships, said he thinks the team owns it.

Mientkiewicz couldn't be reached for comment Thursday by the Globe after Lucchino said the club wanted the ball back. But on Wednesday, he left no doubt that he believes the ball belongs to him.

"I know this ball has a lot of sentimental value," Mientkiewicz said. "I hope I don't have to use it for the money. It would be cool if we have kids someday to have it stay in our family for a long time. But I can be bought. I'm thinking, there's four years at Florida State for one of my kids. At least."

[/ QUOTE ]

J.R.
01-07-2005, 07:31 PM
The red sox will agree with you but there may be some notion of relinquishing ownership (analagous to abandoned property) or giving the ball away as a gift (implied or express) in the fact that the ball was put into play. Plus the final game was in st. louis and I believe the home team provides the ball, so the ball was never technically the property of the red sox. But I'm just thinking out loud here.

PhatTBoll
01-07-2005, 07:55 PM
[ QUOTE ]
The red sox will agree with you but there may be some notion of relinquishing ownership (analagous to abandoned property) or giving the ball away as a gift (implied or express) in the fact that the ball was put into play. Plus the final game was in st. louis and I believe the home team provides the ball, so the ball was never technically the property of the red sox. But I'm just thinking out loud here.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you are right about the abandonment issue. I think MLB owns the balls until it is no longer being used in a game, and MLB has said Minky owns the ball. Since MLB has abandoned it, and Minky has legal possession of it, and he wants to hold onto it, it should be his.
I guess.

Oski
01-07-2005, 08:36 PM
Good point: I forgot the final out came at Busch. That changes things to the point where I can't see how the Sox can make a claim.

If this was at Fenway, the Sox would have a stronger argument.

Nevertheless, notwithstanding long-observed policies, I think there is a tremendous grey area here. As, I previously pointed out, some absurd results may flow from the "last player to have it, keeps it" rule.

What would happen if Barry Bond's 900th homerun is caught by a teammate warming up in the bullpen? Can he claim it as his own, and start a retirement fund?

J.R.
01-07-2005, 08:41 PM
I hated all the property stuff about english fox hunts and such but am thankful for that simple line I overused on my exams about possession being 9/10ths of the law.

Here's another silly thought: Is catching a home run ball in the bullpen within the course and scope?

Oski
01-07-2005, 08:50 PM
[ QUOTE ]
I hated all the property stuff about english fox hunts and such but am thankful for that simple line I overused on my exams about possession being 9/10ths of the law.

Here's another silly thought: Is catching a home run ball in the bullpen within the course and scope?

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course it is. When Big Mac hit 62, a Cards employee caught the ball, STL. claimed it and gave it to Mac. Why would a player be any different? The player is still an employee.

Didn't some guy on the Dodger's catch Hank's 715? Of course, (IIRC, Furillo?) gave it to Hank. But, that's just the way things were back then.

This isn't a fox hunt or a harpooned whale, because ownership is easily traceable ... its just a matter of whether the true owner has chosen to give up ownership, or whether such is effected through a course of practice and custom.

J.R.
01-07-2005, 08:59 PM
[ QUOTE ]
im Forneris, 22, a St. Louis Cardinals groundskeeper who retrieved the 62nd home run baseball and gave it back to McGwire. "It was Mark's ball," Forneris said. "He lost it and I gave it back to him." "Life is all about experiences. They can't take this away from me. IT'S BETTER THAN A MILLION DOLLARS IN THE BANK."

[/ QUOTE ]

link (http://www.leagueoffans.org/homerunballs.html)

No need to get testy, I'm just throwing out ideas. My reference to fox hunts was meant to be a silly joke leading into the "real" point, that in many cases possession is the real test, epsecially when a fairly strong argument can be made for abandoment/bequest by the team who purchased the ball.

But I'm still not sure the course and scope issue is as easily dismissed as you present it. True the cardinals never had to push the issue because the guy gave the ball to mcgwire, but that doesn't mean they would have gotten if he wasn't so altruistic.

This spot is kinda like the sheriff solving a crime where a reward was offered for info leading to the arrest. the sherrif can't claim the awrad because it was his job to make the arrest, but is it a bullpen pitcher's job to catch a homerun ball? I dunno, but its time to go party. have a good weekend.

Oski
01-07-2005, 09:54 PM
Lol. I was not getting testy in the least bit.

Course and scope is very broad when it comes to property rights. Remember the case where the pool digger found the diamond? It belonged to the homeowner who never knew it existed.

If your office was on Waveland Ave. and Sosa's ??? hr crashes through the window and lands on your desk ... the ball will likely belong to your boss.