11/21/24
October 08, 2009
Young Fan Gets Back Ryan Howard's 200th Career Home Run Ball: Back in July, when the Phillies' Ryan Howard hit his 200th career home run, it was noteworthy because he achieved the milestone in fewer games than anyone in major league history.
The ball has significant monetary value.
Where is the evidence of that? I'm curious to know because there is nothing in the article about what it could be worth. It's not a real record breaking ball. I think the whole thing is kind of icky on the girl and her parent's part. This is why athletes don't want to autograph stuff for kids anymore because it will end up on eBay. A kid being invited to the Phillies dugout seems to be a bigger deal and a better story than ending up with the ball. The only reason it wouldn't be is if you care about the monetary value instead of the experience.
posted by bperk at 02:16 PM on October 08, 2009
Exactly, rcade -- and if you read the comments below the linked story about the terrible parenting and bad example being set, what do you think those same parents would have done had their child been put in the same situation? Just said, "Well, kid, you got taken advantage of. Next time maybe you'll be smarter."
I'd like to think had it been my child, we would have returned the ball to Howard, but the negotiating sure as hell wouldn't have been done without me present.
Where is the evidence of that?
Check out any auction site and do a search for game-used baseballs. Considering I'm on the mailing list for the Detroit Tigers and they sell random GU balls for $35-75 and any home run ball for more than $200, this kid got jobbed.
posted by wfrazerjr at 02:49 PM on October 08, 2009
athletes do not sign anything for people any more because there is no money in it for them. You would think getting paid millions to play a game that they most likely grew up playing for free would be enough. I think none of them are worth the millions they get to play. But who pays them. The fans do and they get the shaft when the ask for an autograph. Professional athletes who do not give autographs should be ashamed of themselves....All I know is when I was younger all the players from the 80's and early 90's gave many autographs and very few declined... THANKS YOU SPORTS AGENTS like Scott Boros for ruining that for everyone... He cannot get his cut, so no autographs for you .....
posted by LaunyW at 02:55 PM on October 08, 2009
Where is the evidence of that? I'm curious to know because there is nothing in the article about what it could be worth. It's not a real record breaking ball.
If it wasn't a significant ball, the Phillies wouldn't have tried to get it.
I don't see what this has to do with athletes signing autographs. Howard wasn't doing her a favor by hitting the ball to her.
posted by rcade at 03:11 PM on October 08, 2009
The ball could have been significant to Howard without having a substantial monetary value. We aren't talking about Bonds homerun ball here. It's probably more valuable to Howard than to anyone else.
The point I was trying to make by mentioning the autographs is that fans like this girl take the fun out of the game by focusing solely on monetary value. The same goes for selling autographs. As a result, athletes aren't going to stand around and autograph when they know half the folks, including kids, are just going to sell them. When fans catching the balls become solely about the money as in this case, MLB can end that cash cow anytime it wants. All baseball has to do is claim ownership of those balls and make efforts to retrieve them. The college baseball games I have been to already do that.
posted by bperk at 03:19 PM on October 08, 2009
The point I was trying to make by mentioning the autographs is that fans like this girl take the fun out of the game by focusing solely on monetary value.
You really think she is taking the fun out of baseball? A 12 year old girl who legitimately got a ball that was hit into the stands is doing this? How about the Phillies staffer who decided to go make an underhanded trade with a 12 year old girl for a valuable ball, what is it that he was doing?
posted by myshtigo at 03:27 PM on October 08, 2009
Lawyers getting involved to sue to get the ball back doesn't seem like much fun. So, yeah, her and her family are fun suckers.
There is no reason to believe that the Philies staffer was trying to rip her off. Fans have made trades like this in the past, and everyone went home happy.
posted by bperk at 03:32 PM on October 08, 2009
I can understand both sides. The parents should have been present at the transaction. If it's important to Howard I'd offer to pay for the value of the ball if it's important to him, and then give it to the HOF.
On the other hand, the only word I can think of after watching the lawyer is smarmy. Then again, I hate lawyers.
posted by justgary at 03:37 PM on October 08, 2009
After the girl caught the ball, was it her idea to go to the Phillies clubhouse? No.
The ball stopped being the property of The Phillies or MLB the second it left the playing field. I would say the icky part of this story is the sneaky manner in which the team coerced the girl into giving up something that was hers at what can be argued as less than market value.
It's one thing to negotiate a trade with the girl if her parents were present. It is entirely something else to do so without them. And apparently the judge in this case would agree.
posted by THX-1138 at 04:33 PM on October 08, 2009
Why is it fun to give the multimillionaire one memento among 1,000 he will accumulate in his career, while it's fun sucking for the kid to want to keep and/or sell the ball? Taking home a ball you catch is part of what makes baseball fun. If baseball were to "claim ownership of those balls and make efforts to retrieve them," fun wouldn't be the guiding principle behind the decision. The league would be doing it for the money.
posted by rcade at 04:35 PM on October 08, 2009
Taking home a ball you catch is part of what makes baseball fun.
Is it as fun as going to the clubhouse, meeting the players and having your picture taken for with them, getting bats, balls, gloves, jerseys, in exchange for the ball?
I'd say for 99 percent of kids, no. Would have been a dream for 11 year old me (or me now). This is done all the time.
It's the money that makes it different (and it should).
posted by justgary at 04:59 PM on October 08, 2009
If baseball were to "claim ownership of those balls and make efforts to retrieve them," fun wouldn't be the guiding principle behind the decision. The league would be doing it for the money.
Sure, but baseball currently has the policy for the fun and enjoyment of fans. Where is the fun in this case? There is none. A greedy family killed it by suing for in excess of $15,000 because the Phillies "plied her with cotton candy" to get the ball from her. When we see more and more families like this family and less like this family, baseball will have to rethink their policies.
Oh, and the family should give back the autographed ball that they received. They shouldn't get the money for selling both of them, greedy sonsabitches.
posted by bperk at 05:38 PM on October 08, 2009
And really, where were the parents? They just let her go with someone official looking without going with?
posted by opel70 at 06:00 PM on October 08, 2009
I'd like to think that the parents could and should have set a better example. Is the $$ going to make the girl's future? Good thing she wasn't burned by a hot cup of Micket D's coffee on the way to the clubhouse. BTW what do you think they wound up with after the attorney's fee? The whole damn country is crazy with litigation for "whatever."
I think she got a good deal with the autographed ball....and the old story is...what are a 1000 lawyers on the bottom of the ocean?...a good start.
posted by wildbill1 at 06:06 PM on October 08, 2009
Good thing she wasn't burned by a hot cup of Micket D's coffee on the way to the clubhouse. ... The whole damn country is crazy with litigation for "whatever."
The Actual Facts About the McDonald's Coffee Case.
posted by rcade at 06:40 PM on October 08, 2009
First point, as many games as I have been to, I have never caught a ball. Not even close. Home run, foul or even batting practice. I would want the ball. Second point, the Phillies had no right to seperate her from her guardian with the intention to retrieve the ball. Third and most important, What is the importance of Howard getting the ball? So he can put it in his collection of personal memorabilia? My money is on the ball being in Howards collection as we speak. They gave her a dummy ball. Howard has his, the girl has hers and whoever purchases her ball will be screwed. They gave it up way to easy.
posted by scuubie at 07:14 PM on October 08, 2009
First point, as many games as I have been to, I have never caught a ball. Not even close. Home run, foul or even batting practice. I would want the ball.
Then you are a unique snowflake. Most fans would jump at meeting their favorite players over keeping a baseball.
"Mr. Fan, would you like to go to the club house to meet some of the players, take pictures, and have a signed jersey?"
Fan: "no, I'll continue to sit in the bleachers with my 5 dollar baseball"
On topic, the story has too many questions. Why wasn't her parents with her? What does 'talked her out of the baseball' mean?
I have a feeling that everything was fine until someone got a hold of the family and clued them into the value of the ball. Of course, I don't know that. Just a guess.
The parents should have been there. That's the whole problem with the story. Next time I'm sure the Phils will make sure they are.
Reading elsewhere she never got to meet Howard. That's kind of lame.
posted by justgary at 08:10 PM on October 08, 2009
Your scenario seems false to me, Gary. If it's just an ordinary baseball, the team wouldn't offer a chance to meet anybody in trade for it. And if it's a special one, it's not a "5 dollar baseball."
You say that money has changed everything. It has. The players earn more, the tickets cost more, and high-profile memorabilia sells for more. Go back to when you were 11. Even if LilJustGary loved baseball, if you knew that a ball you caught was worth $1,000 or more, you wouldn't be tempted at all to sell it instead of getting to meet some players?
posted by rcade at 09:23 PM on October 08, 2009
Your scenario seems false to me, Gary. If it's just an ordinary baseball, the team wouldn't offer a chance to meet anybody in trade for it. And if it's a special one, it's not a "5 dollar baseball."
I've heard of it done for a players 1st home run. Not much money involved there. 5 dollar baseball, 500 dollar baseball, whatever. Adults have made that exchange many times. Again, as I've already said, the difference is this was a 12 year old kid making a decision they shouldn't be making.
You say that money has changed everything. It has...
That's absolutely not what I said nor believe.
I said that in this instance the money + a minor changed what is normally a non-event into a problem, and I've said that it was wrong of the team to do what they did.
Lilgary would have been starstruck and would have needed his parents present to negotiate, as this girl needed.
posted by justgary at 11:04 PM on October 08, 2009
That's absolutely not what I said nor believe.
Reading it again I'm confused about what you're saying. If you're saying I said money changes everything in this instance, yes, that's what I meant. In general, outside of this case, no, not what i meant.
posted by justgary at 11:35 PM on October 08, 2009
I'm saying that knowing the monetary value of a souvenir like that changes everything, and I can't blame anybody for valuing cold hard cash over sentimental considerations. Ryan Howard makes $61,000 a game. If the ball's genuinely important to him, he could fork over an inning's income and still go to bed $50,000 richer than he was the night before.
posted by rcade at 12:33 AM on October 09, 2009
I'm saying that knowing the monetary value of a souvenir like that changes everything, and I can't blame anybody for valuing cold hard cash over sentimental considerations. Ryan Howard makes $61,000 a game. If the ball's genuinely important to him, he could fork over an inning's income and still go to bed $50,000 richer than he was the night before.
Yes, I agree with all of this.
posted by justgary at 12:40 AM on October 09, 2009
CNN has a lot more details on how this went down:
... the Marlins sent a team representative to the stands. Jennifer and her brother, Gian Carlos, were escorted to the Phillies' clubhouse. Their grandfather, a Cuban immigrant who doesn't speak English, stayed in his seat.A Phillies employee, Jennifer says, told her if she handed over the ball, she could come back after the game, meet the slugger and get him to autograph it. She gave the ball up. In exchange, she got cotton candy and a soda.
Jennifer went back to her seat but returned to the clubhouse after the game -- this time, with her grandfather and the rest of her party. They waited. The Phillies slugger never showed up.
A security guard walked up and gave Jennifer a ball autographed by Howard. But it wasn't the one she caught. ...
Jennifer has no plans to sell. She keeps the ball in her room, hidden near her bunk so friends can't take it.
"When I grow up and everything, I'm going to show it to my kids," said Jennifer, who wants to be a pediatrician. "Then, they're going to tell their kids, and their kids are going to tell their other kids."
posted by rcade at 04:45 PM on October 09, 2009
The more details that come out the worse it makes the phillies look.
In these type situations I've seen fans rack up. Signed Jersey, a glove, several signed baseballs, a picture with the player, and game tickets. They gave this girl cotton candy, a soda, and one ball, and she never met Howard. And all this without an adult around.
And to make it worse if Howard wanted the ball he certainly hasn't show any sign of it. Bizarre.
posted by justgary at 11:20 PM on October 09, 2009
Yep. The kid sounds like she just wants the ball for sentimental reasons. If Howard and/or the team had kept the promise to meet her and sign something, it would never have needed the involvement of an attorney.
posted by rcade at 08:15 AM on October 10, 2009
I love the presumption among some commenters elsewhere that the ball rightfully belongs to Howard and it's wrong for this girl to claim it. She caught it and only agreed to trade it to Howard after Marlins security escorted her to the Phillies dugout without any adults present.
The ball has significant monetary value. A minor can't negotiate financial deals without her parents, which is one way of looking at the exchange.