12/21/24
January 23, 2005
First Baseman Way Off Base: Doug Mientkiewicz has little legal claim to the ball that ended the World Series for the Boston Red Sox, according to legal experts.
That is all nice except for that balls that ended up on the field, like Fisk's homerun off of the foul pole, ended up in the possession of players. Didn't Mientkiewicz give Lowe the ALCS game 7 ball, from the victory over the Yanks, that was the final out (I think I read that somewhere)...so, are they going to go and tell Lowe that its not his now too? They wouldn't even know it was the ball or where it was at all if Mientkiewicz hadn't kept it and said so. The part about Mientkiewicz not doing anything is great too, I guess he wasn't an important part and that is why he came in to play defensively at first at the end of every game...
posted by chris2sy at 09:55 AM on January 23, 2005
If the Cardinals, Red Sox and MLB have any PR sense here, they'll let the guy keep the ball. The bottom line here is money anyway.
posted by roberts at 10:06 AM on January 23, 2005
As a fan, Damon's Grand Slam ball in game 7 of the ALCS is the one that means the most to me. Everyone has their own spin on that. I think people and organizations put too much emphasis on this stuff. Grum is right, they (Red Sox org) probably wouldn't have given it a second thought if he didn't shoot his mouth off after 3 bottles of magnum...
posted by smithnyiu at 10:09 AM on January 23, 2005
This is a crock of _______________. If this was taking place in, lets say Colorado or the Twin Cities you wouldnt hear a word about it in the national media. Because it involves Red Son Nation, the media thinks thats the whole contry needs to hear about it over and over and over again. Its a non-issue. The part about Mientkiewicz not doing anything is great too, I guess he wasn't an important part and that is why he came in to play defensively at first at the end of every game... posted by chris2sy at 9:55 AM CST on January 23 If the Sox get rid of Dougy, boy they are stupid. Play him everyday and see what he can do. He tends to open his mouth at the wrong time, but he plays a mean 1b.... The Twins got rid of him because they were going younger, cheaper and more of a power hitter! The Sox fan dont know what he can do because they havent seen him play. If they use "ball gate" as they reason for trading him, they are, like I said stupid
posted by daddisamm at 10:28 AM on January 23, 2005
Great article, rcade......
posted by smithers at 12:53 PM on January 23, 2005
Legal experts, schmexperts, the historical precedence in baseball is that whoever ends up with a ball that is no longer used in the game owns it. Otherwise the recent high prices from record setting home runs would have gone to the homefield club and not the person who made away with it in the stands (and won the subsequent legal battle).
posted by billsaysthis at 02:03 PM on January 23, 2005
And the biggest question of all: is there anywhere within the world of sports a bigger "who cares?" than this "issue"? Even in curling?
posted by lil_brown_bat at 02:56 PM on January 23, 2005
I suppose. It does represent the end of a much-celebrated 86 year drought. But beating the Yankees was more fun.
posted by yerfatma at 03:05 PM on January 23, 2005
It does represent the end of a much-celebrated 86 year drought. The ball does? Really? Did anybody apart from Mientkiewicz even think about it until this burning issue somehow surfaced? Did even the most rabid Red Sox fan wonder what happened to the ball?
posted by lil_brown_bat at 04:01 PM on January 23, 2005
Actually, I presumed the team had the ball.
posted by jerseygirl at 04:40 PM on January 23, 2005
But you're partially right. As this goes on, I am caring less and less about it.
posted by jerseygirl at 04:42 PM on January 23, 2005
Uh, is it just me, or is every single legal expert quoted in that article a Red Sox fan? (With the possible exception of the Professor from Tulsa.) Anyway, I think MLB has already said they consider the ball to be Mientkiewicz's, not that that necessarily means anything.
posted by joehyuk at 05:06 PM on January 23, 2005
The ball does? Really? Let's see: the ball was caught for the final out in the 2004 World Series which the Red Sox won, their first series since 1918. I'd say that makes it a decent synecdoche.
posted by yerfatma at 07:20 PM on January 23, 2005
This is basically what I said in the other thread. In all the discussion over what he should do with the ball, no one seemed to pay attention to the fact that he had no legal right to it. Seems natural that whoever paid for the ball, and I'm guessing it's mlb, owns the ball. Emmit Smith might keep the ball after every touchdown, but I doubt he actually has a right to it. He's allowed to keep the ball. If it were the ball he scored the winning touchdown with and it were the cowboys' only super bowl victory after all these years, I doubt he'd get to keep it. Legal experts, schmexperts, the historical precedence in baseball is that whoever ends up with a ball that is no longer used in the game owns it. Otherwise the recent high prices from record setting home runs would have gone to the homefield club and not the person who made away with it in the stands (and won the subsequent legal battle). Legal experts, schmexperts indeed, as your example really has nothing to do with the situation. That fan's are allowed to keep home run balls really sets zero precedence in this case. And the biggest question of all: is there anywhere within the world of sports a bigger "who cares?" than this "issue"? Well, I care, so there you go. Each to his own, though you post in these 'who owns the ball' threads quite a bit for someone who doesn't care.
posted by justgary at 08:44 PM on January 26, 2005
That fan's are allowed to keep home run balls really sets zero precedence in this case. I disagree. This is not just precedent set by the, let's say, generosity of baseball clubs. This is case law as decided by judges in numerous cases over a period of years and jurisdictions.
posted by billsaysthis at 11:16 PM on January 26, 2005
doesn't the fact that mlb authenticated the ball for doug mean that they deemed it to be his?
posted by goddam at 11:39 PM on January 26, 2005
That fan's are allowed to keep home run balls really sets zero precedence in this case. Could you explain why the precedent of non-MLB ownership of used game equipment is irrelevant? I can see relevance quite easily.
posted by garfield at 09:11 AM on January 27, 2005
Meanwhile Doug's left the ball in Beantown for a year and taken his mitt to the Mets.
posted by billsaysthis at 02:59 PM on January 27, 2005
Did the Red Sox organization ask for the ball right away? Or did they start to raise a stink about it after the interview where Dougy Eyechart makes the joke about the "retirement fund"? If he hadn't said a thing, would Boston have come after him anyways? Could the Toronto Blue Jays go after Mike Timlin for having their first World Series-winning baseball? It's been almost 13 years, but based on the article above, they could. At what point does the whole "possession is 9/10ths the law" thing come into effect?