December 01, 2005

I cant believe this is happening. The Red Sox should putting the team togather for next year, than to be worrying about a stupid baseball. I dont see this doing anything for next years team. Maybe they could sign Dougy boy as part of a "package" deal. What a joke!

posted by daddisamm at 02:02 PM on December 01, 2005

"I think this action is petty and pathetic and not the goodwill PR that the organization needs at this time. This story is actually one PAGE ONE, above the fold on the Boston Globe. Can you say mouthpiece....? Seriously this is just incredible to me. Not only that the Red Sox would take this action, but also to ensure that it appears on the front page of the Boston Globe. It just smacks of arrogance. What do they take us for? They truly have no shame."

posted by yerfatma at 02:17 PM on December 01, 2005

Donate the ball to Cooperstown. I think it has some pretty historical signifigance and would make a nice addition to the hall. It seems to me there are no good guys in this one. Both sides are selfish, petty, arrogant, ect. Or they give the ball to me so it can be destroyed and we can forget the travesty that was the 2004 World Series.

posted by HATER 187 at 02:52 PM on December 01, 2005

That means that if the issue of ownership is not resolved, he gets the ball back after one year. Which might mean something if it had been a year. The article says it was turned over in january. So it hasn't been a year. After a year, they should give it back. That doesn't mean they can't take it to court. And how is it tacky for the sox to want the ball, but it's not for a guy who played less than a season for the sox as a reserve and just happened to end up with the ball? Please explain the difference. Donate the ball to Cooperstown. That's exactly what should happen.

posted by justgary at 03:21 PM on December 01, 2005

And how is it tacky for the sox to want the ball, but it's not for a guy who played less than a season for the sox as a reserve and just happened to end up with the ball? Please explain the difference. I think it is tacky that they made an agreement and now do not want to stick with it. The agreement was to return the ball if ownership wasn't resolved. But, now part of the suit is to prevent him from getting the ball until ownership is resolved. I think the Red Sox are trying to rewrite common practice as far as baseball goes. This ball is valuable, so different rules should apply. If Doug Mienmrtljefs had thrown the ball to a fan, would the Red Sox have sued for the ball back since Doug had no ownership of the ball and, therefore, no right to transfer ownership to the fan?

posted by bperk at 04:05 PM on December 01, 2005

posted by yerfatma at 04:56 PM on December 01, 2005

artifact...historically significant item It is a baseball, you can get one at Wal mart for $7

posted by texoma-slim at 07:08 PM on December 01, 2005

This is an interesting topic- ESPN recently had a thing on SportsCenter showing who had the ball, and at what time, and they broke everything down. It was really complicated, but it looked like Mickeiwicz didnt have the ball the whole time. Did anyone else see it? But anyways, the Ball should go to Cooperstown, but it wont. Mickiewicz wants this to be his "retirement fund", but probally wont do anything with it, untill his career is over. He probally wont because hes a crappy player, and wont mkae much more money. Unless he signs a mega- deal, he wont give it to anyone. But if the Yankees want to give him like a 5 year- billion dollar deal, the he'll just probally just give it to cooperstown. But really, its not anyones ball- I mean, players give em' away all the time.... but this ball is "important"...... oh well, I say George SteinBrener buys it and uses it as some sort of Voodo Baseball or something. lol

posted by redsoxrgay at 08:22 PM on December 01, 2005

This ball is valuable, so different rules should apply. If Doug Mienmrtljefs had thrown the ball to a fan, would the Red Sox have sued for the ball back since Doug had no ownership of the ball and, therefore, no right to transfer ownership to the fan? Your logic fails me. The fact is he didn't throw the ball into the stands because he knew how valuable it would be. If he had, we've got a totally different situation (one, the fan isn't an employee of mlb or the red sox). If you want to think the sox are tacky for wanting the final out ball in their first series win in 2000 years fine. But please don't tell me a reserve who played for half a season and happened to catch the final out and then runs home with the ball and says 'mine' isn't equally tacky. This isn't emmitt smith keeping the football after scoring a record touchdown. He happened to be at the right place at the right time. Yes, like a fan, but he's not a fan. He's a millionaire employee claiming something from the office that isn't his. Legally, I don't see how he can claim it. And even if he can the classy thing would be to donate it to the baseball HoF. But he's not going to, and that's 'tacky'. If he's determined to hang onto it, I submit that they'll trash precisely what makes it valuable to them by going after it. If it goes to court and the sox win, and it's put behind glass at some museum and fifty years from now the sox still (gulp) haven't won another world series, and I take my grand kid to see it I promise you there will be no mention of the lawsuit. There will be no "wow, grandpa, that's the ball? Too bad we had to go to court to get it". I mean, I know that's what a yankees fan some people might want to believe, but they'd be wrong.

posted by justgary at 12:40 AM on December 02, 2005

I can't wait for the season to start so we can stop discussing non issues. Honestly who really cares who gets the damn ball. Do we know where the ball from this years world series is? Do we care?

posted by jtrluva at 07:55 AM on December 02, 2005

Just goes ta show ya that Canadians are nicer than 'Muricans, Weedy.

posted by wfrazerjr at 08:48 AM on December 02, 2005

Really? I've become a bigger Timlin fan. Though I wasn't trying to suggest that there was anything particularly Canadian about the scenario - no one got hit in the corner and no blood hit the ice. "He fucking sticked me, ref, eh?!?!" "Let's get'er goin', eh?"

posted by WeedyMcSmokey at 10:57 AM on December 02, 2005

After 86 years a guy who barely had enough time to get a hotel room in boston is hanging on to the ball for sentimental reasons? That sentence makes no sense. Mentkiewicz isn't 86 years old. And even if you believe that, it's not sentimental to the sox? He's sentimental, and the sox are greedy? Where exactly did I say any of that hoo-ha? Nowhere, that's where. Look, this isn't a contest to see who's the most sentimental: the fact that the Sox want to keep it for sentimental reasons doesn't preclude the possibility that that might also have been Mentkiewicz's reason for keeping it. Everyone has been assuming that Mentkiewicz's sole reason for wanting the ball was to sell it for the most he could get. I'm merely asking if you or anyone actually has a statement from Mentkiewicz to that effect.

posted by lil_brown_bat at 12:11 PM on December 02, 2005

(how nice, a picture of david cone donating his perfect game ball and uniform to the hall. Looks like he got over all that sentimitality doug has such a problem with) Or maybe he just couldn't find a way to masturbate with it.

posted by wfrazerjr at 04:13 PM on December 02, 2005

he just couldn't find a way to masturbate with it. When he warms up in the bullpen, he really warms up in the bullpen.

posted by chris2sy at 04:39 PM on December 02, 2005

Jeesuz, have you guys all lost your sarcasm detectors? Of course, I think becoming Canadian does immediately make you nicer. I mean, I moved here from the States last October and I haven't shot anyone the whole time!

posted by wfrazerjr at 07:19 PM on December 02, 2005

After 86 years a guy who barely had enough time to get a hotel room in boston is hanging on to the ball for sentimental reasons? That sentence makes no sense. Mentkiewicz isn't 86 years old. Whatever lbb. You know exactly what I'm saying. I don't care about the legal part, not a lawyer. But if you want to talk about the right thing to do, it's not for a guy who had so little to do with it to keep it in his basement. It belongs in the hall along with the other exhibits. Maybe you don't care about such things. Most people do. And even if you believe that, it's not sentimental to the sox? He's sentimental, and the sox are greedy? Where exactly did I say any of that hoo-ha? You say as much in your post. Don't back away from it now. Everyone has been assuming that Mentkiewicz's sole reason for wanting the ball was to sell it for the most he could get. I'm merely asking if you or anyone actually has a statement from Mentkiewicz to that effect. You're joking, right? You actually expect him and his wife to come out and say they're keeping it for the money? That would be great PR. And if they deny it, that's good enough for you? I'm sure he made enough money selling last out ball's on ebay. I don't think he's keeping it for the money. I think he's just greedy. Bottom line, this wasn't an individual accomplishment. It wasn't his 3000th hit ball. On the list of players who had anything to do with the win he's near the bottom. It should be an available part of history for fans. I really haven't read any argument from you that is anything more than "the sox are making themselves look like idiots". Fine, maybe they are. Wouldn't be the first time and won't be the last. But that really has nothing to do with what should happen to the ball. I'm guessing because you know any argument that begins with "Mientkiewicz deserves the ball" is absurd. Twins Legend Kent Hrbek offered this advice: "If Doug was playing in the U.S. Open tennis tournament and he won it on the final serve, then that tennis ball belongs to him. But baseball is a team game, so that's a team ball. That's what I would have done. Hrbek recalled Mientkiewicz's tenure with the Twins when he often angered his employers with bold comments. "There goes Dougie," Hrbek said. "Right in the middle of another controversy." Manager Tom Kelly: "He needs to give the ball back. Can you imagine him stepping on the field there if he doesn't?" He didn't need much time to determine what Mientkiewicz should do. "That ball is certainly not his," Kelly said. "... When Mr. Lucchino asks for the ball, I'm sure he'll hand it over. Right?"

posted by justgary at 11:34 PM on December 02, 2005

*yawn*

posted by jerseygirl at 08:49 AM on December 03, 2005

After 86 years a guy who barely had enough time to get a hotel room in boston is hanging on to the ball for sentimental reasons? That sentence makes no sense. Mentkiewicz isn't 86 years old. Whatever lbb. You know exactly what I'm saying. I don't care about the legal part, not a lawyer. But if you want to talk about the right thing to do, it's not for a guy who had so little to do with it to keep it in his basement. And if it had been hit into the stands for the win, and a guy who had even less to do with it had caught it? How would you feel then about the Red Sox pursuing some fan for it? It belongs in the hall along with the other exhibits. Maybe you don't care about such things. Most people do. The Hall of Fame? I'll confess, I had no idea that there were tangible pieces of memorabilia there for each and every World Series. And even if you believe that, it's not sentimental to the sox? He's sentimental, and the sox are greedy? Where exactly did I say any of that hoo-ha? You say as much in your post. Don't back away from it now. No, I don't say as much. If you think so, then let's see your construction. What did I say, and how does that imply that he is sentimental (note: I suggested the possibility, I didn't say he was) and that they are greedy (something I never said or suggested). Everyone has been assuming that Mentkiewicz's sole reason for wanting the ball was to sell it for the most he could get. I'm merely asking if you or anyone actually has a statement from Mentkiewicz to that effect. You're joking, right? You actually expect him and his wife to come out and say they're keeping it for the money? That would be great PR. And if they deny it, that's good enough for you? Good god, but you're sure of yourself. You know why he kept it and what he's going to do with it; you can't produce any statements of an intention to sell it, but you're sure that neither silence nor a statement otherwise could possibly mean anything, because you know why he's keeping the ball. There's nothing that anyone can say in the face of such, um, certainty...but if he wanted to sell it, at some point, there would likely be tangible evidence. So we'll just see, shall we? Bottom line, this wasn't an individual accomplishment. Of course not. Nothing in baseball ever is. It wasn't his 3000th hit ball. On the list of players who had anything to do with the win he's near the bottom. It should be an available part of history for fans. I really haven't read any argument from you that is anything more than "the sox are making themselves look like idiots". Bad interpretation again. I expressed the opinion that they were running a considerable risk of coming off looking bad. Whether they do or not is, of course, yet to be determined. Fine, maybe they are. Wouldn't be the first time and won't be the last. But that really has nothing to do with what should happen to the ball. I'm guessing because you know any argument that begins with "Mientkiewicz deserves the ball" is absurd. Actually, justgary, I can't recall any World Series where there was such a tempest in a teapot over the last ball in play. Perhaps there's ample precedent, however, in which case I'm sure you can provide references. Twins Legend Kent Hrbek offered this advice: "If Doug was playing in the U.S. Open tennis tournament and he won it on the final serve, then that tennis ball belongs to him. But baseball is a team game, so that's a team ball. That's what I would have done. If he's ever in that position, I'm so sure that's just what he'll do. However, I wonder if that's what's been the norm in the past with other last-ball-in-the-World-Serieses.

posted by lil_brown_bat at 08:57 PM on December 03, 2005