Bingo.
I’d always dreamed of making the big leagues as a pitcher or shortstop but now I think I want to be a first baseman.
This is pretty far from “Roger Clemens’s hitting streak” but at least it’s something that actually happened, so–maybe poster was trying to rememeber Mike Piazza’s 300th home run? He somehow was able, from the dugout, to have some goons strongarm the fan into unhanding the ball. The fan was later given some compensation, but he was not given an option to keep the ball. Piazza justified himself by stressing the small size of his collection of balls thitherto. And going way off topic, I’d sure like to see the day when contrived “records” like most HR’s hit while playing catcher are struck from the books. Unless he’s up there in mask and chest protector while hitting them out. And crouching, too.
Another burning question–the fan who caught Mark McGwire’s (seemingly, then) historic 61st or 62nd HR of whatever season that was gave the ball to McGwire in exchange for just a uniform and a hitting lesson (the final stage of hitting, where it’s just a matter of swinging the bat and connecting) from MM–jerk? or just a true baseball fan?
Firstly minty_green is wrong, flat out and completely wrong. And I can say that safely because he/she has already made sweeping generalizations about Doug Mientkiewicz with basis only in opinion (ex: He’s being a douchebag.)
Firsly, you are incorrect with your carpet assumption that “an employer is entitled to the fruits of their employee’s labor.” That is not the case, the employer is entitled to whatever fruits of said labor the employer decides they want to be entitled to contractually.
If a salesman makes a $40,000 sale and he receives 3% commission then you can’t just make the blanket statement that the company is entitled to the money from that sale. The company is entitled to a share of that sale, not the entire thing.
Secondly the ball is not a fruit of anyone involved’s labor.
Saying the Red Sox are entitled to the ball make no sense whatsoever.
Let’s put this in a real world scenario.
Mighty Microcomputer Company leases 100 computesr to KrebStar incorporated for a period of three years. Joe Smith uses one of those computers every day at work for a three year period. At the end of the lease period Joe Smith decides to take his computer home and use it as a home PC.
He’s informed by his employers that MMC would like their computer back, and he is probably going to be fired at this point and if he doesn’t make it look like a big mistake and apologetically give the computer back he’ll probably be charged with some sort of theft.
Why isn’t Joe entitled to the computer? Well, because MMC made it, leased it, and at the end of a lease the entity leasing the thing gains all the rights to it that they had prior to leasing it. Just like you have no legal right to a place you stopped renting 10 years ago, your lease expired and since then the land lord had the right to move in himself, destroy the place, or lease it out to another party.
If KrebStar said, “Well we’ve had these 100 computers for 3 years, we’re just going to keep them now, because these computers are the fruit of our employee’s labor” they’d be sued and forced to give the computers back.
Now, take this to the baseball example.
MMC = MLB, KrebStar = Red Sox, and Joe Smith = Dough Mientkiewicz.
We could also throw in Triforge International, a company that worked in tandemn at times with KrebStar and also used the MMC computers, TI has the exact same legal claim to the computers post-lease that KrebStar has, and that is absolutely none. And that is the same claim Joe Smith has, absolutely none.
If MMC decides to gift one of those computers to Joe Smith then that’s their business, and not the business of KrebStar, TI, or anyone else for that matter.
A baseball is not the fruit of a player’s labor, a baseball is a tool used by a player to do his job. Furthermore it’s a piece of equipment that is only loaned out on a per game basis by MLB to the said teams. In this situation the St. Louis Cardinals have just as much claim to the ball as the Red Sox. Because eventhough the Red Sox made the play, the Cards had to hit the ball to put it into play (which is the product being produced, entertainment.) SO they were using it just as much as the Sox were.
And since the original leasing entity in this case has already said who they’ve given the ball to, the matter is ended. At no point during any baseball game in history have either teams involved had a right to a game ball or any value said game ball may have stored in it because of historical significance. MLB could if it wanted confiscate all balls hit into play and keep them; they give out the balls and they don’t give them out for one team to own or the two teams playing to own.
MLB does give the home team leftover and game-used balls for use in batting and fielding practice, but so what?
Is it me, or is the Curly-Haired Boyfriend off his feed ever since (1) the end of the “curse” he invented and which has made him so much money, and (2) the shot on national TV during the Series showing him two knuckles deep, excavating a big one?
Best call on the WEEI Whiner Line the day after the Series: “Here’s the Shaughnessy household this morning; ‘Kids, wake up and start packing. We’re moving to Chicago.’”
You’re mixing up “fruits of labor” (i.e., things created or obtained as a result of the employee’s labor) with “tools of the trade.” The reason this baseball is the fruit of Mientkiewicz’s labor is simple: It is a valuable item that he obtained by reason of and in the ordinary scope and course of his employment. Mientkiewicz is, after all, paid to catch balls thrown to him at first base.
The problem is that MLB did not “give ownership” to Mientkiewicz. MLB’s policy is to relinquish or abandon ownership of balls once they are hit. Title to abandoned property rests with whoever finds and claims it, and the former owner gets no say in the matter. This is entirely consistent with MLB’s “finders-keepers” policy.
Actually, he was an employee of the St. Louis Cardinals–a groundskeeper (IIRC) who picked up the ball after it went over the fence but fell short of the stands. The Cardinals probably could have required the guy to give it back to McGuire, but he turned out to be a nice guy who promptly and happily gave it back to McGuire in a ceremony following the game.
What is he, your brother?
FWIW, given the follow-up stories I read yesterday, it appears that Mientkiewicz was joking in his original comments on the matter, so I withdraw my douchebag comment.
Yes and no. The employer and employee certainly may establish the terms of the employment relationship in their contract. However, it is impossible for the parties to anticipate and expressly provide for every aspect of the relationship. That’s why the common law of agency/property/employment/etc. is there to step in and fill the gaps. One of the gap-fillers is the rule that (unless otherwise provided by the parties) the employer is entitled to receive the fruits of the employee’s labor.
That a baseball is a tool is irrelevent to the question of its ownership. MLB abandoned the baseball. Doug Mientkiewicz then acquired the baseball as a result of his employment by the Boston Red Sox and while acting within the scope of his employment. Because of that employment, the Red Sox have a superior claim to the ball over Mientkiewicz. The Cardinals have no claim at all, since they never acquired the abandoned property in the first place.
Of course, that’s it. And it’s not a far chain of free association, either. I got them backwards from that bat-splitting incident, is what it was. Damn, what an asshole move that was of his. But Piazza wound up with the ball.
Does it mean nothing that a representative of the ball’s previous owner, when shown the ball by Mientkewicz, validated it for him and that a representative of the ball’s previous owner has also stated that it’s his property now? That sounds more like giving than abandoning.
But first, there’s a contract clause (there has to be, I can’t find the text) that gives MLB first crack at resolving such issues via administrative decisions, which also cannot in violation of the CBA either. MLB has affirmatively filled that gap, and the union would certainly back the player if asked anyway.
FWIW, the Cardinal who hit the ball (or last “possessed” it), Edgar Renteria, has since signed *with * the Red Sox.
Lord what a mess. I can see it now, the 7th game of the 2005 World Series, Cubs vs. whoever. While the Cubs have had a great season, personally the team’s closer and its first basemen hate each other’s guts. The Cubs have a lead with 2 outs in the bottom of the ninth, when the batter taps one back to the Closer. Rather than toss it to first and give the first basemen the windfall financial bounty that comes with possessing the sacred Cubs World Series Win ball, the closer decides to sprint to first base and make the last out himself. He sprints over but the batter, a cousin of Don Beebe, beats him there. The Cubs go on to lose the game and the series.
I’ve got the solution. The Red Sox first basemen doesn’t own the ball himself, he only owns it jointly with the other guys on the team, including the coaches, front office, trainers and anyone else who gets a World Series share.
Nope. Once property is abandoned – which is what MLB does due to its we-don’t-care-who-gets-it, finders-keepers policy – the previous owner’s preferences as to who takes it are entirely irrelevant. Now if MLB’s policy was that it continued to own balls even after they go into play, that would be a different story, as they could then give it to anyone they wish.
But the “administrative decision” here is to abandon balls once they’re put in play, which takes us right back to where we were. If there is an “administrative decision” that players get to keep the balls even above the competing claims of their employers, that would likely be a different story. So far, all I’ve seen is some description of the practice as a custom, which is not exactly conclusive of the issue.
Renteria never possessed it. He just dribbled it back to the pitcher’s mound. 
We’re still talking about this specific case. Remember that Mientkewicz presented the ball to MLB’s duly authorized representative. At that moment, MLB had recovered possession of the ball. If one were to limit consideration to the specifics of this case, there is no point at which one could say that MLB had ever abandoned it (and don’t, btw, claim precedents to be applicable when they support you and deny them when they don’t; we can tell). Any intervening claim by the Red Sox was thereby nullified. The rep then gave it to Mientkewicz, with the public statement that it was now his property. Note, while we’re at it, that the cited precedents for finders-keepers including players don’t include such a positive action by MLB, but there’s no argument who owns those balls anyway.
One more precedent, from Gordon Edes in the 1/9 Globe:
.
The difference between a “custom” which has been practiced multiple times, without challenge, including acceptance by all the teams including the Red Sox as well as MLB, and an “administrative decision” to act that way being, well, what? Help us out with the definitions you’re using.
Use a if you like, but for that brief moment Renteria had control of the ball for purposes of this discussion.
Possession, but not ownership. Mientkiewicz gave it to MLB with the understanding that they were just authenticating it and that they would give it back. Sorta like if you give your car to the valet so he can park it, it doesn’t become the valet’s car.
The difference is between “That’s the way we’ve always done it” and “That’s the way we are required to do it by MLB/the basic agreement/the player’s contract/etc.”
Nonsense. If he had control of the ball with his bat, he would have belted it out of the park. Instead, he dribbled it back to the pitcher’s mound, a pretty definitive demonstration that he did not control the ball. And of course, he certainly didn’t ever possess it, any more than I possess another car by colliding with it in traffic.
MLB didn’t “abandon” the ball. They loaned out the balls for the teams involved to use as to play an MLB sanctioned baseball game. The MLB had rights to do whatever they want with the balls after the game, and sometimes MLB will keep balls after a game if they’re investigating them for shenanigans.
MLB may be in the practice of giving out balls and then letting the teams who use them keep them after the games, but that’s their decision. The Red Sox have no legal right to these balls. It’s like saying if me and you played a game of catch in my back yard with your ball that I was entitled to keeping it just because I was playing with it, I’m not. And you aren’t entitled to keep it just because it is yours either, you’re entitled to keep it because you legally own the ball in the first place. What is done with it does nothing to change that fact.
And since the owners of the ball gave it to Doug in this case, the Red Sox have no valid claim on the ball whatsoever. You don’t have to be a lawyer to realize that if a third party leases out equipment that actual ownership of the equipment doesn’t intrinsically change hands. The lease agreement may stipulate cases where the equipment can revert to full ownershep by the party leasing it, but otherwise a lease is assumed to give a person a right to use something, not full and outright ownership. There’s no evidence that MLB passing out game balls is anything but leasing them to the teams involved, and so MLB can decide under what terms the balls leave their ownership.
Simple as that, fruits of labor has nothing to do with it. Period.
And the Cardinals certainly have a claim to it, they hit the ball, it bounced off their field. They have just as much claim to it as the Red Sox do, which is none, which seem to not understand very well.
Also many legal principles you know or purport to know that apply to the rest of the world do not apply to Major League baseball. Major League baseball has a special relationship with Congress that make it different from most other organizations.
Now, you are also quite wrong when you say that MLB abandons balls when they are hit into play. MLB gets to make all decisions relating to said ball as long as it is in play. So obviously it is not abandoned the second a bat comes into contact with it.
Furthermore, MLB has ruled in the past about when a fan has a right to a ball, that is, when MLB is ceding ownership or rights to the ball from the teams playing the game to the fans in the stands. And the rule is when the ball crosses the “berm” of the fences a fan has full right’s to that ball (and no interference can be called) when a ball is in that position, even if a player can easily make a play on said ball.
Since there is precedent for MLB deciding when it cedes ownership of a ball in one case, we can’t say that MLB simply cedes ownership willy-nilly, they obviously regulate it to some degree.
Furthermore if a janitorial services company employs janitors who are sent to an office building and one of those janitors finds a $20 on the ground neither the janitor or the company could be reasonably expected to have a claim to that money, it would be the office building’s and would be placed in said building’s lost and found.
So you could definitely argue the Cards have more of a claim to the ball than the Red Sox since the ball was played on their property. But this is ludicrous, just as the assertion that a) MLB cedes all balls hit into play, because it goes against precedent, b) that MLB cannot decide who exactly owns a ball post-game, and c) all employer-employee relationships are the same, or legally the same, when some are expressly governed by contracts, unions, and MLBs case congressional statute.
I’m on your side on the Mientkiewicz question, but this statement is just silly. MLB is SPECIFICALLY exempted from anti-trust legislation, by act of Congress. It does not otherwise enjoy any sort of "special relationship with Congress, or exemption from laws or legal precedent.
No, the point was that MLB did give it back, even if under your theory they didn’t have to.
No, you invoked administrative decision, which is not limited to explicit statements in the CBA. MLB has certainly always been aware that they’ve never asserted ownership of a played ball, and that knowledge has certainly limited them from ever trying. How is that awareness different from a written policy, and why is *that * the dividing line for you?
That was partial control, and more control than anyone else had at the moment.
Control with a bat, control with a jacket pocket, not a lot of diff, huh?
Just out of curiousity, has anyone seen the CBA or Doug’s contract? I know that most of our contracts explicitly deny an employer/employee relationship and then clearly define which work products belong to the company. I would assume that MLB has lawyers at least as good as ours and would have similarly protected themselves.
Elvis: If you can’t or won’t even acknowledge any difference between “That’s the way we’ve always done it” and “That’s the way we are required to do it,” or between an affirmative decision and mere indifference, then there seems little point in continuing to discuss this with you.
Zakalwe: If the contracts you describe really do deny an employer-employee relationship, what you are probably dealing with is what’s called an independent contractor. It’s a somewhat different kettle of fish, in that the person hiring an independent contractor does not have the right to control the details of the contractor’s performance and is not liable for the negligence or misconduct or the contractor. Baseball players, so far as I can tell, are employees, not independent contractors.
And to everyone who was saying “Cite?” over the weekend, will the Restatement (Second) of the Law of Agency suffice?
And yes, an employer-employee relationship is indeed a principal-agent relationship.
Also, for the benefit of Elvis, allow me to introduce you to the concept of a bailment: