Ball From the Final Out of the World Series
 

Can a dollar figure be placed on the ball from the last out of the 2016 World Series this year? Kris Bryant fielded it....and threw to Rizzo at first....who immediately put it in his back pocket. I believe that the ball technically belongs to Rizzo now (?). Yes or no? What do you think this ball is worth? Or will Rizzo just donate it to the HOF? Thoughts?

he who ends up with the ball...owns the ball imo! i'm sure the ball will be given to the cubs organization or the hof...time will tell. as far as value...it's a $10 ball...that some people would pay a lot of money for!

The last out ball from the Red Sox curse-breaking 2004 win turned out to be a big headache for first baseman Doug Mientkiewicz. Interesting read....

Story on the saga of the 2004 last out ball

If David Ortiz ad the ball, it would never have been an issue. Rizzo is one of the most popular Cubs and a centerpiece of their future. Now if the last out was a strike out and the third string catcher had the ball, you would have a point.

Say it ain't so. --- Rizzo's Boner

25 years from now some auction house will claim they have it, together with a letter of authenticity from the son of the fan to whom a drunk Rizzo gave it that night.

Remember how much money Mark Mcgwire's HR ball sold for which was either number 72 or 73 when he and Sosa were battling. I would guess the value in that ball has been cut in half.

McGwire's 70th home run ball went for $3M if I remember right. Todd MacFarlane (did the Spawn comic books among other things) bought it and shouldn't be in any cash crunch, so we probably won't see it come up for sale, but if it did it would struggle to reach 10% of that price now I'm sure.

That was about the time I paid 125 for a raw Mcgwire rookie and then later sold it for about 40 bucks, graded an 8 at the time of sale.

I would believe the ball and all equipment the players wear and use including significant baseballs are property of the team and therefore the ball would have to be given to the Cubs organization. I am sure a first hit or first homerun the ball is collected for the player, with permission from the team the ball is given to the player. I wouldn't doubt that as soon as Rizzo entered the dugout or the locker room a Cubs Rep was their asking for the ball. The players are entitled to keep some equipment with the teams permission each year, this has been true for many years. The baseball's only place is in the Hall of Fame 108 years of waiting for a World Series win is historic.
Mike

Players used to buy their own uniforms but I don't know if that is still a thing. Equipment tends to come from a sponsorship deal, so I don't think equipment belongs to the team either. If the baseballs are provided by MLB and if someone were to claim ownership of a physical baseball I would think it would be MLB and not the individual team. Unless the team purchases the baseballs.

Maybe Rizzo will return the ball to the Cubs organization or MLB. Or return "a ball" (not necessarily that ball). How would anyone really know?

As the first baseman, he has access to lots of identical balls. There must have been dozens of balls (all with identical stampings/markings) used in that game alone. :eek:

Wasn't it Jack Clark that sold two versions of one of his homers?

Apparently the ball was already added to the Heritage auction. Should be interesting

Man, some people sure have balls. :cool:

I think the ball to be auctioned by Heritage is the last-out ball from the 1908 World Series.

Whoops, you're right. The owner was probably watching Game 7 just waiting to consign it once the Cubs won

http://www.auctionreport.com/heritag...tage-auctions/

So Jennings got it from Chance, but the ball says from Charlie Schmidt (the batter)?

Frank,

I am sure many women in Chicago would be interested in Rizzo's boner. LMAO

Yes, in his case, apparently two for every home run he hit.

Insert your own punch line here... :D

Rizzo handed the ball over to the owner today at the parade, so wonder no more.

Good to hear. I can't see how a particular player would have ownership over something like that anyway? I would think it would, and rightfully so, belong to whoever purchased the ball for use in the game. Either way, it's good to see it go to a place where hopefully the team and fans will get to appreciate it for years to come.

As if he wasn't loved enough by Cubs fans, now he's loved 8 billion times more!!

It doesn't apply here because the ball stayed on the field, but Barry Bonds' record setting home run set off a lot of legal analysis.

http://www.lookstein.org/links/homerun.htm

Who does the check get made out to for their time?

I don't know the answer but by the looks of that document it wasn't a cheap legal case(s)....The more writing the more billable hours, right? :)

How about selling the ball to the highest corporate sponsor (say $15 million) with the condition that: (1) the money goes to local childrens'
charities and (2) it must be publicly displayed into perpetuity. That's a sponsorship I could approve.

Talk about an idle sidebar to a good topic, but I can't help but wonder who pays for the baseballs in a WS game? Does the home team provide and then vice versa when the teams switch? Does each respective league share the cost? Or does MLB pick up the whole ticket? These are the issues that keep me awake at night.

I wondered that as well. If the home team purchases the ball and the ball stays in the field of play then, hypothetical, do they retain ownership? In other words, maybe Rizzo should have given in back to the owner of the Indians.;)
Drew

If the ball is in the stadium, but it is in the persons pocket who owns it? I can go to a store, put something in my pocket but not leave the store with it. That does not mean it is mine and I own it.

It has not left the stadium, but I would think that technically one could argue that it was stolen. It was never that person's ball to put in their pocket and leave with, regardless of the sense of ownership.

But what about all the foul balls that fans take home?

Lawyers could have a lot of fun arguing this question.

...as opposed to John Kruk...

They could simply make a stadium rule stating that foul balls may be subject to retrieval.

I believe that if they wanted to pursue a stolen ball, they could, but they chose not to. That would not be to say that they had to post a generic rule to make a case for a single ball.

What if a player throws a ball into the stands during batting practice or during the game? It belongs to the person catching/retrieving in, right? Would it be the same if this ball was handed off to his wife?

I'm pretty sure you guys are all overthinking this matter. A team like the Indians, even if they could say the last WS ball was their ball, wouldn't do something like that, regardless of possible value. It's an unwritten rule in baseball, and something they never even discuss. The home team pays for the baseballs, but they don't claim ownership over any baseball for any reason.

Once a fan has a baseball, it belongs to them. That should be obvious to anyone who has heard about negotiations for a significant ball. A team wouldn't negotiate with a fan and fail in some cases if they had the right to take the ball back.

Ah, I respectfully disagree. I am sure balls in the stands belong to the team that purchased them. The fact that they try to negotiate with people nicely is strictly for good public relations. If they wanted a cop to take it out of your hand I have reason to think they could. Nowhere on the back of your ticket to my knowledge does it say balls, bats, and other things that end of in the stands are the property of whoever retrieves it. Yes the practice is not to do take it back but it doesn't mean anything legally.

There are actually a few stadiums that do mention on tickets that balls hit in the stands are the property of the fan who catches it. I'm thinking Seattle and maybe San Francisco but it is definitely not on most but rather just a possible few.
Drew

Right. Practice and good relations versus what is legal are two very different things.

I don't claim to be a lawyer, but here is my take on this:

They may be told that they CAN throw a ball into the stands, or they may have not been told they can or can't at all. Regardless of what they are told, does not change who the technical owner of the ball is. The person tossing or hitting the ball into the stands or catching the ball was potentially not involved in the negotiation of what can and can't be done with the ball(in one case a player which is technilcally an employee and in another a fan nor person which the previous owner has no imposing power over). They are simply the catcher/potential new owner of the ball and may be subject to different rules and guidelines since MLB or the team can impose rules upon its employees.

Even if a player were given explicit permission to throw a ball, or multiple balls that doesn't mean they can throw all balls. Even if you threw all balls into the stands that still wouldn't necessarily constitute an ownership change. I think the distinction is that just because you hold it doesn't mean it is yours, but I may be very wrong about this.

Pretty sure in NFL games when a field goal evades the netting there is no option. Three or four burly guys come up to you and say lets have it. Unless things have changed since I last attended a pro football game about 15 years ago.

(Why anyone goes to a pro football live for any reason other than to get drunk and act stupid in public is beyond me. . . . but clearly a subject for another board.)

At baseball games I've been to, it seems like they always take back bats that are inadvertently thrown. Legal issues aside (I'm a lawyer but not on a clock so won't think of those for now), it's nice to see a ball that is special for more than just an individual end up in a place where more people can hopefully enjoy it--assuming the owner will display it for fans, etc.

Like I said, people here are putting too much thought into this. The difference between what I am saying and what you are saying is something that wouldn't happen. MLB would NEVER have someone take the ball from a fan regardless of value, so there is no reason to look into the legal aspect of it.

Teams try to get back baseballs all the time from fans for various milestones and if they can't work out a reasonable deal, then the fan keeps the ball. Fairly simple, no legal detective work needed, it doesn't happen.

Also not a lawyer, but I don't see how a baseball team could claim ownership of a ball that goes into the stands, and at the same time say that they aren't liable for any injuries causes by a ball that is hit into the stands. :confused:

My understanding is that they do that because a player generally prefers using the same bat until it becomes unusable (broken, &c.) - tradition, or superstition, or something like that. Generally, the fan who "catches" the bat is given another bat from the player, I guess one the player never actually used.

Here's a screen capture from the Fox broadcast of Rizzo putting the ball in his pocket...

https://c2.staticflickr.com/6/5668/3...97e86af2_b.jpg


...and here's another one showing the Cubs celebrating. You can clearly see where the ball creates a large, uh, bulge, in Rizzo's back pocket.

https://c2.staticflickr.com/6/5632/3...375c25f6_b.jpg

So, you're saying Rizzo is juicing? ;)

If he is, that is not the knob end of a dong-a-long from what I heard about the side affects.

Ouch.

I'm trying to laugh on the inside, but it's tough. :D:D:D