PDA

View Full Version : FORTUNE rips Red Sox over World Series ball


Fenway
01-18-2006, 03:03 PM
http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/2006/01/23/8367042/


Yet when the Red Sox had an opportunity to preserve another important piece of World Series history--Red Sox manager Terry Francona's lineup card from the deciding Game 4--posterity took a backseat to profit. The Red Sox sold the lineup card and other World Series mementos in a December 2004 online auction run by Major League Baseball. "Clearly it's hypocritical," says baseball historian Glenn Stout, co-author of Red Sox Century. "The fact that they'll take other items like the lineup card and sell them for money shows that at some level that's where the interest is."
The winning bid for the lineup card was $165,010, the most ever paid in an MLB auction.

MUsoxfan
01-18-2006, 03:42 PM
Knowing the Red Sox, they're making a deal with St. Louis to be able to sell the dirt that their World Series was won on.

lumpyspun
01-18-2006, 03:43 PM
I got into an argument about this with my Red Sox friend....I told him the ball belongs to Doug. He disagrees using the argument stated in this article:

a California court ruled in 2002 that game balls are MLB property until hit into the stands.

If that is the case, then MLB owns every ball that the ball boy/girls give to 6 year old kids in the stands (b/c they weren't 'hit' into the stands).

Fenway
01-18-2006, 03:46 PM
Knowing the Red Sox, they're making a deal with St. Louis to be able to sell the dirt that their World Series was won on.

all to keep ticket prices down for their loyal fans

StepsInSC
01-18-2006, 03:54 PM
I got into an argument about this with my Red Sox friend....I told him the ball belongs to Doug. He disagrees using the argument stated in this article:



If that is the case, then MLB owns every ball that the ball boy/girls give to 6 year old kids in the stands (b/c they weren't 'hit' into the stands).

Just because that case over the Barry Bonds' HR ball involved a ball being 'hit' into the stands, doesn't mean that hitting a ball into the stands is the only way MLB can relinquish ownership of a ball. It's not exclusive. An employee of MLB giving away a ball, as bat boys do, transfers ownership as well.

lumpyspun
01-18-2006, 04:07 PM
Just because that case over the Barry Bonds' HR ball involved a ball being 'hit' into the stands, doesn't mean that hitting a ball into the stands is the only way MLB can relinquish ownership of a ball. It's not exclusive. An employee of MLB giving away a ball, as bat boys do, transfers ownership as well.

It's a convenient excuse. So, I'm supposed to believe that MLB has no rights to a ball in the following two cases (among others):
1) A ball hit into the stands
2) A ball given to someone in the stands by a 15 year old girl, who has been given the power to transfer property by MLB.

I believe that because that out ended the game, the ball doesn't belong to MLB anymore. If it was a ball that ended the 3rd inning, then that is a different story, the ball could be used again the next inning. Was MLB planning on using the ball in another inning on opening day 5 months later? No, they were going to sell it or put it into the Hall of Fame. Either way, they planned on making money off it.

RSN33
01-18-2006, 04:27 PM
Okay, here are issues:

1) it's plain STUPID for the team to have sold a lineup card from the most-important game in team history for money; it's embarassing. I don't know how any Sox fan can condone that. Instead of putting it on display somewhere for all to see, they sold it for - what amounts to - petty cash. Thumbs up, Henry/Lucchino!! :mad::rolleyes:

2) Regarding Mientkiewicz: Why even bother arguing with the team over the ball? Honestly, he was with the team for a half-cup of coffee and didn't even play until the 8th or 9th innings of some games. Then, we're supposed to believe that he deserves the ball because he caught it as the final out? There was even reports that he was yelling at Foulke "THROW ME THE BALL" so he could have it. Again, thumbs up! :rolleyes:

I would assume that the baseball 'connoseur' that he claims to be would have understood the importance of the ball to the team. I mean, even Paul Konerko gave the ball to the owner - albeit not until the parade/ceremony. Perhaps a bargaining tactic? :tongue:

Bottom line is, the team shouldn't have had to go through any kind of *legal* battle with Doug for the ball at all. It belongs either with the team or in an exhibition @ Cooperstown.

lumpyspun
01-18-2006, 04:43 PM
I guess we should just be happy we have a first basemen with class and dignity so we don't have to worry about this.

Baby Fisk
01-18-2006, 04:52 PM
I guess we should just be happy we have a first basemen with class and dignity so we don't have to worry about this.
POTW.

JohnBasedowYoda
01-18-2006, 05:37 PM
They are no longer the champs. I'd say to Dougie.... "Fine keep your damn ball"

:deadhorse:

StepsInSC
01-18-2006, 08:34 PM
It's a convenient excuse. So, I'm supposed to believe that MLB has no rights to a ball in the following two cases (among others):
1) A ball hit into the stands
2) A ball given to someone in the stands by a 15 year old girl, who has been given the power to transfer property by MLB.

I believe that because that out ended the game, the ball doesn't belong to MLB anymore. If it was a ball that ended the 3rd inning, then that is a different story, the ball could be used again the next inning. Was MLB planning on using the ball in another inning on opening day 5 months later? No, they were going to sell it or put it into the Hall of Fame. Either way, they planned on making money off it.

Well I was just pointing out that there are probably (probably because I know nothing for sure) other ways a ball can be relinquished, but like the article says MLB probably has the best case. Just b/c MLB might have made money off of it doesn't mean they gave up ownership rights (most of property humans keep is with the idea of some money value behind it), and just because MLB wasn't in possession of it doesn't mean they gave up ownership rights to it either.

It will be interesting to see how it turns out.

WhiteSoxFan84
01-18-2006, 10:45 PM
1) it's plain STUPID for the team to have sold a lineup card from the most-important game in team history for money; it's embarassing.


:?: ......... it's a LINEUP CARD. Some of these things get out of hand, but a lineup card?? Jerseys, maybe. Bases, okay. Bats, possibly. But a lineup card? I hope the White Sox sold our game 4 lineup card for whatever amount and used that money for Sox Charities. I'll live without seeing that thing at the Cell.

Daver
01-18-2006, 10:56 PM
Game balls tossed into the stands by players, and foulball shaggers, are done so by a directive from MLB, a directive that has been in place since the last players strike. MLB considered it a goodwill gesture to the fans.