Interesting little "Phillie" tidbit.....

[suicide_squeeze]

Of late, there has been quite a bit of discussion on "rights" of things flying into the stands at baseball games.

It seems to be agreed that the one common "piece" that is universally accepted as "fan property" is a home run ball.

This following news bit will back that up. Apparently a 12 year old girl caught a ball in Phillie that Ryan Howard hit for a home run (a "historic" one at that.....I'm researching to see what history is behind it based on the date given). They (the Phillies organization) performed the old ritual of "Let's take advantage of a family that doesn't know any better" and offered up a different baseball in place of the historic one, because we want it!

Well, apparently somewhere along the line, the little girl and her family found out that ball could be worth several thousand dollars, so they eventually got an attorney involved, and the ball was delivered back to the girl.

Interesting.....although the story is a back lacking in details....

http://www.wsvn.com/news/articles/local/MI133210/#

As mentioned before in other threads, I have experienced this exact issue first hand with the Dodgers. I had to go to battle against them, albeit a one-day face-to-face meeting with the family and management, and we resolved the issue on the spot (no attorneys needed, thank you!).

But make no mistake about it, folks, if it enters the stands and you catch it..... it's YOURS......at least in regards to a home run baseball!

[notxpensv4u]

Re: Interesting little "Phillie" tidbit.....

Fastest player to 200 baseball.......At least the girl won in the end.

[suicide_squeeze]

Re: Interesting little "Phillie" tidbit.....

Hmmm.....

A quick search shows Ryan Howard didn't hit a home run against Florida on July 17, 2009. Chase Utley did....

Someone has their dates screwed up.....either the media, or the site posting the story.

[suicide_squeeze]

Re: Interesting little "Phillie" tidbit.....

The correct date was July 16, 2009, and that's what it was notexpensv4u, his 200th homer, the fastest in MLB history to accomplish the feat. A pretty nice ball to have caught!

[markize]

Re: Interesting little "Phillie" tidbit.....

Any way of knowing if she got the actual HR ball back? Who's to say the Phillies didn't give the real ball to Howard, and give a "regular" ball to the girl.

Mark

[treant985]

Re: Interesting little "Phillie" tidbit.....

This was the same conclusion the judge reached in the Bonds HR ball case, where multiple fans claimed ownership...and then the Giants tried to claim that THEY owned the ball because they paid for it.

The judge said homer balls are abandoned property, so the team has no rights to them (unless one of their employees catches it, I guess).

I suppose the same would apply to foul balls.

The question then becomes: why aren't you allowed to keep bats that fly into the stands? Maybe you are, but teams try to say that you aren't. I guess the other explanation is that a player is TRYING to hit a homer (or even a foul ball), but he isn't trying to throw his bat into the stands, so he never intended to "abandon" it.

Also reminds me of Doug Mientkiewicz trying to claim that he owned the final-out ball from the 2004 World Series. Considering he worked for the Red Sox, I don't think that would've gone too well for Doug if he'd had to take it to court...

[treant985]

Re: Interesting little "Phillie" tidbit.....

This was the same conclusion the judge reached in the Bonds HR ball case, where multiple fans claimed ownership...and then the Giants tried to claim that THEY owned the ball because they paid for it.

The judge said homer balls are abandoned property, so the team has no rights to them (unless one of their employees catches it, I guess).

As a correction, I don't think the giants ever claimed ownership, but showing that the ball wasn't owned by the team was key to deciding which of the two fans should own it. Like Solomon, the judge told them to sell the ball and split the money.

[sox83cubs84]

Re: Interesting little "Phillie" tidbit.....

Any way of knowing if she got the actual HR ball back? Who's to say the Phillies didn't give the real ball to Howard, and give a "regular" ball to the girl.

Mark

My thoughts exactly. The mere fact that the ball was, even temporarily, out of the kid's possession will kill any chance of a big sale for that precise reason.

Dave M.
Chicago area

[suicide_squeeze]

Re: Interesting little "Phillie" tidbit.....

Any way of knowing if she got the actual HR ball back? Who's to say the Phillies didn't give the real ball to Howard, and give a "regular" ball to the girl.

Mark

Good question. But there is an answer.

Imagine if the girl sold the ball in an auction for, let's say, $5,000.00.

Six years later, the Phillies open up a "Phillies museam" in the stadium. On display is "Ryan Howard's 200th career home run ball".

At that moment the girl first hear's that ball is on display, also known in the legal circles as "dicovery", the staute of limitations starts. She then has a certain amount of time (I believe 2 years) to file suit aginst the Philadelphia Phillies organization for fraud.

Upon completion of presenting the well publicized info we are discussing here, the jury finds the Phillies guilty of intentionally misrepresenting the ball as Ryan Howard's 200th home run ball they sent back to her.

Then during the punitive phase, the girl is awarded $50,000,000 by a jury who is disgusted with the lies perpetrated by ownership while defrauding a 12 year old fan of their team. Essentially, she becomes a majority owner of the Phillies by means of the wrath of the disgusted jury.

Trust me.......the Phillies did NOT give her a bogus ball. There is no way they would ever misrepresent such a thing, and open themselves up to the sports lawsuit of shame for all time. It's the correct ball. No question about it.

[suicide_squeeze]

Re: Interesting little "Phillie" tidbit.....

I have determined I need a new keyboard based on the typos in my last post.

"museam" = "museum"
"dicovery" = "discovery"
staute = statute
aginst = against

My apologies for the ghost keystrokes

[allstarsplus]

Re: Interesting little "Phillie" tidbit.....

Good question. But there is an answer.

Imagine if the girl sold the ball in an auction for, let's say, $5,000.00.

Six years later, the Phillies open up a "Phillies museam" in the stadium. On display is "Ryan Howard's 200th career home run ball".

At that moment the girl first hear's that ball is on display, also known in the legal circles as "dicovery", the staute of limitations starts. She then has a certain amount of time (I believe 2 years) to file suit aginst the Philadelphia Phillies organization for fraud.

Upon completion of presenting the well publicized info we are discussing here, the jury finds the Phillies guilty of intentionally misrepresenting the ball as Ryan Howard's 200th home run ball they sent back to her.

Then during the punitive phase, the girl is awarded $50,000,000 by a jury who is disgusted with the lies perpetrated by ownership while defrauding a 12 year old fan of their team. Essentially, she becomes a majority owner of the Phillies by means of the wrath of the disgusted jury.

Trust me.......the Phillies did NOT give her a bogus ball. There is no way they would ever misrepresent such a thing, and open themselves up to the sports lawsuit of shame for all time. It's the correct ball. No question about it.

Since it is so tough to photomatch HR balls, I wish the team would do what they did for Bonds significant balls. Mark the ball with a serial # in the umpires handwriting like they did with Bonds700th HR or mark the ball with invisible ink like they did with HR 756.

So basically you know Ryan Howard is coming up to bat with a chance for HR 200, you place the special balls in play.

The kid catches the marked ball and it is like winning a downpayment on her college education. So what is she really going to get for the ball, $2,500 to $5,000? If the ball was a no doubter, it sells for double to triple that. MLB doesn't profit directly but indirectly I think more fans show up knowing they have a chance to catch the ball and a chance to witness some history---even though 200HRs now is more of a milestone on the way to history

I own now 3 no doubter significant HR balls and plenty of others that have no provenance and their worth and provenance could easily be challenged.

[allstarsplus]

Re: Interesting little "Phillie" tidbit.....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=duDHpxmztvs

I just saw this video so probably with this video and the Phillies letter and sworned affadavits the ball should fetch some nice money if she decides to sell it.

[suicide_squeeze]

Re: Interesting little "Phillie" tidbit.....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=duDHpxmztvs

I just saw this video so probably with this video and the Phillies letter and sworned affadavits the ball should fetch some nice money if she decides to sell it.

That's outstanding Andrew.....thanks for posting.

I just got through posting my estimation range of what this ball could go for on gingi79's post (duplicating this topic), but what you just added to this post, Andrew, is very interesting, and here's why.....

When an item like this gets a lot of attention, good or bad, it has a way of actually driving up the value of the item due to the added exposure. Just by posting this youtube video, you may have added to the value of that ball by $2,000 to.....who knows, maybe $10,000 higher than my "guesstimate range" ($2,500 - $8,000 based on my collecting experience of home run balls). Could it go for a lot more? Of course, especially in light of the added attention. The young girl states she's going to keep it...."Hide it somewhere".

My guess is, she'll sell it within a year or two. We'll see.

[allstarsplus]

Re: Interesting little "Phillie" tidbit.....

That's outstanding Andrew.....thanks for posting.

I just got through posting my estimation range of what this ball could go for on gingi79's post (duplicating this topic), but what you just added to this post, Andrew, is very interesting, and here's why.....

When an item like this gets a lot of attention, good or bad, it has a way of actually driving up the value of the item due to the added exposure. Just by posting this youtube video, you may have added to the value of that ball by $2,000 to.....who knows, maybe $10,000 higher than my "guesstimate range" ($2,500 - $8,000 based on my collecting experience of home run balls). Could it go for a lot more? Of course, especially in light of the added attention. The young girl states she's going to keep it...."Hide it somewhere".

My guess is, she'll sell it within a year or two. We'll see.

She needs to strike while the irons are hot! If she waits 2 years, she will never get a price close to what she achieve now while the pubicity is going.

I would pay $2,500 to her right now just because it is a significant HR item and would probably go as high as $3,000 and that includes all auction premiums.

My thinking is it would sell for several thousand more if they got it on eBay quickly and created a buzz with more publicity so my estimate is $6,000 to $10,000 and if they waited 2 years I agree with your estimate although 2 years is a long time so if Ryan Howard has some mis-steps in his career it would negatively impact that range.

[markize]

Re: Interesting little "Phillie" tidbit.....

I think creating a national buzz is going to be key as well. I know Philadelphia fans are passionate, but I see a collector more along the lines of Steve wanting this ball more. Nothing against Phily fans, but I don't see a fan wanting it as bad. Do you think Howard will perdue the ball himself?

Mark