1918 Red Sox Babe Ruth Contract (VERY COOL)

JimStinson · #1 10-11-2013, 08:20 AM

Some excellent points made here ! Has evolved into a very interesting thread. Making no judgment one way or another (on the documents in question) my BIG question would be this , By 1918 it has been well documented that Ruth himself wanted to PLAY MORE and PITCH LESS , not counting the periodicals of the day or information contained in numerous biographies ...a simple wiki search confirms this

"In the years 1915�1917, Ruth had been used in just 44 games in which he had not pitched. After the 1917 season, in which he hit .325, albeit with limited at bats, teammate Harry Hooper suggested that Ruth might be more valuable in the lineup as an everyday player.

In 1918, he began playing in the outfield more and pitching less, making 75 hitting-only appearances. Ruth himself wanted to hit more and pitch less"

So with the above in mind , why would Ruth sign an agreement to the contrary ?? basically stating that he would "pitch more" ?? which would obviously be required to win 30 games. It was not an "on the spot" decision either as the idea was floated throughout 1917 of converting him to a full time player with Babe Ruth himself pushing hardest for the transition ...Just my two cents but like "Casey" used to say "You can look it up"
_____________________________
jim@stinsonsports.com

Vintage autographs For Sale Daily
stinsonsports.com

#2 10-11-2013, 03:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JimStinson

...In 1918, he began playing in the outfield more and pitching less, making 75 hitting-only appearances. Ruth himself wanted to hit more and pitch less"

So with the above in mind , why would Ruth sign an agreement to the contrary ?? basically stating that he would "pitch more" ?? which would obviously be required to win 30 games. It was not an "on the spot" decision either as the idea was floated throughout 1917 of converting him to a full time player with Babe Ruth himself pushing hardest for the transition ...Just my two cents but like "Casey" used to say "You can look it up"

1) Why does it matter what Ruth wanted to do or not do? Didn't the club make those decisions?

2) How does the incentives agreement state that Ruth would "pitch more"? The way I read it is IF he pitches more, he'll get MORE compensation.

Why couldn't Ruth have signed his standard contract, then mentioned that he expected to play mostly in the outfield in the coming season, then be told that the team will use him however they see fit? The team tells Babe it has every intention to get him a lot of at bats, but they can't make any guarantees; however, since they want him to be happy, they say IF, IF, IF, they decide they need to use him mostly as a pitcher, they'll give him extra compensation. Then they write up a hasty side agreement in an effort to pacify him.

If the letter is bogus, then is multimillionaire Pardell part of the scheme, and is his acquisition story a lie? All for $50K (or whatever he got for it 8 years ago), when he was already rich? Or was Pardell duped back in 1982, and the forger at that time mixed this one fake letter in with a number of other authentic contracts and documents for which he got a whopping $5K? And have Guernsey�s, Steve Geppi, Clean Sweep, JSA, two subsequent owners of the letter and a dozen or more high stakes bidders all been fooled?

Runscott · #3 10-12-2013, 11:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JimStinson

In 1918, he began playing in the outfield more and pitching less, making 75 hitting-only appearances. Ruth himself wanted to hit more and pitch less"

Given that the typed piece is a 'boilerplate' template, and there wasn't such a pre-typed template for addendums such as the handwritten one, containing incentive agreements, it isn't extremely far-fetched that both could have been created on the same day; however, parts of the typed one are actually typed, not handwritten, so why couldn't whoever typed that one, have typed up the addendum to it?

And if Ruth and Frazee were going to go to the trouble of agreeing on the verbiage in the handwritten one, why not put something in it related to hitting? Why waste time, as Jim points out, writing something up for pitching?

Not saying it's fake - just saying that it defies logic.

#4 10-12-2013, 02:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Runscott

Given that the typed piece is a 'boilerplate' template, and there wasn't such a pre-typed template for addendums such as the handwritten one, containing incentive agreements, it isn't extremely far-fetched that both could have been created on the same day; however, parts of the typed one are actually typed, not handwritten, so why couldn't whoever typed that one, have typed up the addendum to it?

And if Ruth and Frazee were going to go to the trouble of agreeing on the verbiage in the handwritten one, why not put something in it related to hitting? Why waste time, as Jim points out, writing something up for pitching?

Not saying it's fake - just saying that it defies logic.

I'm sure they could have typed up the addendum. We'll never know why they didn't.

Why couldn't they have written up the addendum later in the day at the bar or restaurant when the subject of pitching came up? Or why couldn't Frazee have done the addendum in writing because it gave him the opportunity to say it wasn't legitimate and not honor it later? Why couldn't the handwritten agreement have been done the next day, Saturday, when the office was closed, or the weekend after that, or at any time or any informal place after Jan 11 and been pre-dated to match the agreement it amended?

I've worked for corporations and with contracts for 30+ years. I've seen hundreds of agreements covering tens of millions of dollars of business that don't amount to much more than signed cocktail napkins. The company I currently work for rarely even uses lawyers to draft or approve its agreements. For all kinds of reasons things don't always get done in the most formal, appropriate or "lawyerly" way.

And I'm not following why you think drafting an addendum for pitching and not hitting defies logic? Why couldn't the original agreement presume the hitting part, and after signing it Ruth makes it clear he doesn't want to pitch, the club says "Babe, if Jones or Pennock go down with injury you'll HAVE to pitch full-time, but we'll throw you another thousand or two if that happens." What's illogical about that? It makes more sense to me that the incentives covered the thing he DIDN'T want to do.

JimStinson · #5 10-12-2013, 03:23 PM

All valid points but you missed the first part of my post that said ..............
"Some excellent points made here ! Has evolved into a very interesting thread. Making no judgment one way or another (on the documents in question)".....
No where did I ever say anyone was "duped" or a "forger" , I just asked a question, which is (I think) what public forums are all about , That being said ...it IS true that Frazee fought tooth and nail to have Babe Ruth remain a pitcher (Frazee did not know much about baseball and THATS a fact) and DID start Ruth as his pitcher on opening day 1918. It was RUTH that wanted to play every day (as did most of his team mates) and Frazee that wanted him to pitch.
_________________
jim@stinsonsports.com

Buying and Selling Vintage autographs see my web site
stinsonsports.com

Runscott · #6 10-12-2013, 04:41 PM

Karl, those are very good points.

As Jim points out, the fact that Frazee wanted Ruth to remain a pitcher is also a good reason for Frazee to have offered that incentive to Ruth - perhaps to warm Ruth up to the idea of remaining a pitcher.

I honestly wasn't thinking anything was a forgery when I began this thread. Looking at the signatures on both documents, I felt they were reasonable enough to move on to other issues surrounding the documents. If the handwritten item has impeccable provenance for at least 60 years, as the story goes, if the document(s) were bad I would expect at least one of the signatures to be obviously forged, but neither are. Also, for the price that was originally paid (again, 'as the story goes'), if they were forged documents, I would think that the quality would indicate a more lucrative plan. But the story could be off on some of the details.

thebigtrain · #7 10-12-2013, 08:06 PM

I won't bother re-hashing the "legalese" points I already raised in this thread about the parol evidence rule and the merger clause in the boilerplate "formal" printed contract.

I will say that, per the auction house description, this is the earliest known "incentive" contract in baseball, and possibly in all of professional sports. It also just so happens to involve Babe Ruth, Harry Frazee, and the 1918 Red Sox. If this doesn't strike you as not "smelling straight," then so be it.

I'll again note that the specter of WWI had seriously cut into team revenues, which came almost exclusively from gate receipts and concessions (this was of course even pre-radio). Spring training was shortened that year to save money. Many able-bodied men were either already in the military or about to be drafted (they took a lot of "older" people for WWI, my great grandfather was in his early 30s). It was certainly not expected to be a banner year.

I'd also like to know if Ruth ever negotiated a similar "incentive" contract when he went to the Yankees. Seems like hitting incentives would make more sense, since its an individual achievement over which the player himself has much more control vs. pitching "wins," which are a team effort and have a large element of luck involved re: run support, errors, which opposing pitchers you lock horns with, etc.

Thus, given the above, I'm sticking with my guns and calling this a forgery. Just way too many things about it don't make logical sense, and the "attic" provenance story we've all heard before. Remember Barry Halper and the Ollie O'Mara uniform tales? Per Mr. Halper the guy basically had more clothes/uniforms in his attic than a Modell's store! Of course it was all total BS, the old codger was penniless and Halper forged all the unis and basically just lied thru his teeth, even ripping off the HOF for a few million bucks on that 1919 Joe Jackson jersey that scientific testing proved was manufactured in the 1960s.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
FS: Cool 1935 Babe Ruth Newspaper Weekly reader	GrayGhost	Baseball Memorabilia B/S/T	1	07-26-2013 08:15 AM
FS: Custom 1918 World Series Game 1 Ticket & Newspaper Display! Babe Ruth Shutout Win	Augy44	Baseball Memorabilia B/S/T	0	10-30-2012 12:30 PM
1918 or 1919 Griffith Stadium / Babe Ruth?	Brian Campf	Net54baseball Sports (Primarily) Vintage Memorabilia Forum incl. Game Used	13	06-05-2012 04:44 PM
1915 New York Yankees Player Contract with VITAL Babe Ruth tie in!	btcarfagno	Baseball Memorabilia B/S/T	0	05-27-2011 03:54 PM
More info on that Babe Ruth contract	Archive	Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions	14	11-10-2004 01:51 PM