Monday, December 12, 2005

Rebuttal to "Who Owns The Ball".....

This rebuttal comes from a contributing editor, Marc Agdish, who wanted to give his rebuttal to a post i made earlier.

Rebuttal to "Who Owns The Ball".....

After giving much consideration it is this novice's opinion that the Red Sox are the third in line for possession of the famed ball. My thoughts are that the famed ball should be owned by the following parties.

1) MLB Baseball--Since this game was property of MLB Baseball and all baseball were provided by MLB Baseball wouldn't they be the logical choice. While during the regular season baseballs are provided by the home team, in the postseason the baseball are provided by MLB Baseball. Therefore with this logic they should have ultimate ownership of the prize.

2) Doug Mienkiewicz--While this is the unpopular choice of the Nation; ownership is nine-tenths of the law. And since he had ownership of the ball why shouldn't he be awarded the ball. While many say that he was an employee of the Red Sox therefore it should be there's, the only problem with that logic is what ownership did they have of the ball previous to it being the famed last out. The answer is none. If you use past precedents it should belong to the players since never before has a team sued for possession of such an object why start the precedent now?? (more to follow on this logic later).

3) Boston Red Sox--They should have been awarded the ball since historically the last out goes to the winning team (a time tested honor). The only problem with this logic is we are opening another can of worms. This would then open other teams to sue for possession of other famed balls. Can you imagine the Red Sox suing for Roger Clemens 20 strikeout performance. While this was an individual accomplishment he was an employee of the Red Sox and what would stop them from claiming ownership of such an object.

My main issue this the Red Sox are suing for possession of something that can open a real Pandora's Box. That would mean that every team would be able to sue their employees for possession of any such item. Can you imagine the Dallas Cowboys suing for Emmitt Smith record breaking yardage ball. Or the Red Sox suing for the before mentioned Roger Clemens ball. Or what is to stop the Red Sox suing for the famed Billy Buckner ball....why aren't they suing for that ball??? While some of these accomplishments are individual what would stop other teams from using this logic to gain possession of such items? Also this would also open another avenue of potential litigation, since the home team provides that equipment used (baseballs, footballs, pucks, etc..) what would stop the home team for suing possession of such memorable items since it is their property to start with? Just something else to think about during this pending litigation. Why open such potential circumstances, should the Detroit Tigers sue for Roger Clemens second 20 strikeout baseball?? Think about the potential here before you side with the Boston Red Sox.

My secondary issue is while Doug Mienkiewicz is not using the baseball for monetary gain, I have a feeling that the Boston Red Sox would. If the famed Red Sox Nation would pay a membership to be a fan, what would stop them to charge a fee for photograph opportunities with such an item. Nothing. And a team that would charge membership dues to be a fan, this isn't such a stretch. If they are truly interested in a piece of Red Sox lore, why not also sue for the Bill Buckner ball if they are interested in Red Sox memorabilia.

In closing, stop the insanity and let things be. While I agree Doug Mienkiewicz should do the honorable thing and give the Red Sox the ball, ultimately while he has possession of this object it is his decision to make. And until then the case should be dismissed for reason of insanity and the Red Sox should spend their efforts toward finding a shortstop (an even more important pressing need presently).

Posted by beisbolct @ 11:47 PM