Josh Beckett has a ball in a safe, and people aren’t calling his mother with streams of verbal abuse (as they are doing with Mientkiewicz’s mom). Of course, it’s a lot easier to call all the Mientkiewicz’s in the phone book than to call all the Becketts.
Does it have to be Minty Green arguing for the Sox? My instincts are to shorten Mientkiewicz to Mint, but with Minty in here, there would be confusion to use the shorthand. Grumble.
I think Doug has learned a very hard lesson. Never, ever, EVER say anything to Dan Shaughnessy in a joking manner that could potentially place you in a bad light. He can, and will, throw you under the bus without hesitation. Comments made by Doug on WEEI and by his wife Jodi on the Sox message board both state that the “college tuition” and “retirement plan” comments were made in jest, and that Sox management were well aware that Doug had the ball and had not contacted him about it. Doug also kept the ball from the last out of the ALCS, but gave it to D-Lowe because he thought he deserved it. In Shaugnessy’s logic, shouldn’t Lucchino and co. be banging down Derek’s door for that ball as well?
Such a silly thing to make into a media issue.
Yeah, enough with “the law.”
Tradition, schmedition. I’m talking about the law here. If no teams have wanted to assert their legal rights in the past, that’s their perogative. The Red Sox do want to assert their legal rights.
Please note the distinction between a “fan” and an “employee.” The Red Sox would not have a superior claim over a mere fan, because the fan is not employed by the Red Sox to catch balls hit into the stands. It is, however, Mientkiewicz’s job to catch balls at first base (and good thing too, since he can’t hit for shit anymore).
My post went on to say that Mientkiewicz isn’t paid to make balls, he’s paid to make outs. His play is what they’re paying him for. He’s not paid to “catch balls” and give them to the RedSox. He’s paid to “catch balls” and put people out in the course of play. Let me repeat that. He’s paid to make outs, not balls. Hence, all arguments referring the actual baseball as “the fruit of his labor,” are invalid and irrelevent. You can argue that the ball is the property of the Sox (it isn’t) and he has to return it (no he doesn’t), but you have absolutely no ground arguing that the Sox pay him to make baseballs or create baseballs or collect baseballs in any context except for game play. When the out is made, and the game is over, the contract between the player and the Sox is done. He’s done what he’s paid to do. Please tell me you understand this before my head bleeds.
Anticipating your next move, let me advise you that repeating your assertion that the baseball is the “fruit of his labor” (I’m quite sick of that expression) will not serve as refuting my much more valid argument that “no it isn’t.”
Might I also suggest that all attempts to speak “about the law here” have citations showing the exact law you mean.
In short, you have two tasks. The first is to explain how the baseball is “the fruit of his labor” (an expression I am bloody sick of), and the second is to indicate the actual law you’re talking about.
No, again you’re missing the easement here. Players have ALWAYS (well, since roughly 1910 or so) collected balls in play that have some significance to them. First MLB hit, 1000th hit, whatever. Players have ALWAYS done so. In fact, many times management intervenes to acquire such a ball for a player. Managers and other team staff waving balls in from the outfield, for example, for a players first hit. Or ushers intervening for specific home run balls by offering team incentives to fans to return balls to players.
So not only is it accepted custom that the players have and keep balls of significance but owners representatives will work to make this happen.
And if that’s not an easement I don’t know what is.
I am not aware of any such precedent.
He’s not an ordinary employee. All players are contractors, unionized at that, and their “employment” follows contract law and collective-bargaining law. Unless there’s a specific clause requiring return of the ball there, it would seem to revert to the catch-all “both parties agree to abide by MLB rules” etc. clause that has to be in there. MLB has so ruled. The union is certainly not going to throw one of its members under the bus, either - what precedent would that set for union-management relations?
His hitting dropoff might be attributable to playing on solid concrete in Minnesota for too long, and then spending too much time on the bench there and here. One can hear a lot of speculation in Boston that if he were to play every day, on grass, he’d recover and be the perfect Fenway doubles hitter.
Uniforms (jerseys, pants, caps) are supplied by the clubs, which in turn get them from sporting equipment suppliers like Russell or Starter. Gloves, shoes, bats, and masks come from multiple suppliers, which are normally given by them directly to players in return for or as part of promotional efforts.
Oh, well that settles that, then. Thanks for clearing everything up!
IAAL, but I am not currently in the middle of a law library. Your cites will have to wait a little while.
No problem. Happy to help.
[QUOTE=ElvisL1ves]
He’s not an ordinary employee. All players are contractors, unionized at that, and their “employment” follows contract law and collective-bargaining law. Unless there’s a specific clause requiring return of the ball there, it would seem to revert to the catch-all “both parties agree to abide by MLB rules” etc. clause that has to be in there. *Nice thought, but that unless the current agreement between MLB and MLBPA or Mientkiewicz’s contract with the Red Sox have a provision that alters the common law rule, the common law rule will remain in effect and govern their relationship. And cricetus’ incredulity notwithstanding, it is the common law that the employer, not the employee, is entitled to the fruits of the employee’s labor.
That’s not an easement.
You have yet to demonstrate that the baseball is the fruit of labor, Minty. Your deflections of that crucial point are not refutations.
Um, yeah. Pro sports is the entertainment industry, and the players labor to produce entertainment. The fruit of Mientkewicz’ labor, and of the rest of his teammates, seems to be the multiple metric shitloads of entertainment that were provided to their (contractual) employer’s customers. That doesn’t seem to compare to a sweatshop seamstress sneaking a shirt she just sewed into her purse.
I did refer to the agreement that MLB makes the rules and they’ll abide by them (and no, I can’t find the text of the Uniform Player’s Contract online, oddly). Unless there’s some law that would be violated and nullify that part of the contract, and you haven’t told us which one that might be, why do you not think MLB has the right to dispose of its property as it sees fit?
We’re all waiting for some evidence or a logical argument that equipment that ISN’T the “fruits of the employee’s labour” by any definition of that term I’ve ever heard, and that was never owned by the employer in the first place, is the “fruits of the employee’s labour.”
FWIW
A foul ball in the stands or a fly ball in the bleachers is fair game for the fans. 
Any ball on the field is property of the management the supplied the ball.
Any one with that much moolah doesn’t need a few paltry thosusand or two more. :rolleyes:
Yeah, because God knows it’s better for billionaires to have more money than millionaires.
That mgmt is MLB, and they say Doug can keep the ball.
I think you are grossly underestimating the worth of this ball.
So if the ball was owned by MLB and they directly gave ownership of it to Mientkiewicz, what does that have to do with the Red Sox or the fact that Mientkiewicz is an employee of the Red Sox? If Mientkiewicz took it to MLB to get it authenticated and then MLB decided to give the ball to me - would the Red Sox have a claim over me? Isn’t the fact that Mientkiewicz made the last out, collected the ball, and presented it to MLB for authentication immaterial to the ownership of the ball? (I am assuming that his employment contract doesn’t have clauses prohibiting gifts from 3rd parties, etc.)
MLB apparently does not think it’s immaterial, and fairly long precedent would suggest it’s quite material.
I guess I wasn’t clear enough. I meant immaterial to the legal question of ownership. Of course, MLB thinks it is material and they use that as their criteria of who to give ownership of the ball to. They can use whatever criteria they want to decide who gets the ball. The criteria can be obvious and consistent or crazy and inconsistent - it is up to MLB. Since MLB owned the ball and they gave it to Mientkiewicz what argument could the Red Sox have that it is theirs legally? How does the fact Mientkiewicz works for the Red Sox have any bearing on its ownership?