BF_in_Indiana

Well since you said I am spewing stupidity would you please answer the following questions with reasons why you agree or disagree with them. 1. Major League Baseball purchases the baseballs used in the World Series. Yes or no? 2. Major League Baseball allows players to keep balls from historic games for their own personal use. Yes or no? 3. The player is entitled to the ball from the last out of the World Series according to past precedent. Yes or no? 4. The Red Sox have no legal claim to this baseball. Yes or no?

OK, I already know this. What I want to know is, do you think he has the legal right to the ball?

Using gmacs post to make my point (so you can understand my previous sentence) timmy (sh--) wrote this: The guy was a nobody on the team (wrong) He wasn't a nobody. Most FANS would give that ball up (wrong, and you even said you wouldn't give back a famous ball yourself) In trying to make your point (this being a central point to the discussion) you stated you would keep the ball yourself, yet tell everyone he is a piece of trash for doing it with as much legal right to do so as you would have to do it. he's lucky they signed him at all (true in the sense that he's lucky he got traded to a good team, he could start for many teams though) Who cares, we aren't discussing that Steve. Barely a .200 average (wrong) Once again, who cares about this, not even a part of the discussion. and a backup fielder (yes, this year he was a defensive specialist...) See the last two.

I tried to discuss in a quality fashion until you turned it into a pissing match (I'm STILL willing to discuss).

I knew you would show up sooner or later. A glutton for punishment.

Yeah if that was the meat of the discussion, but since the discussion has nothing to do with his batting average and him being lucky to be on the Red Sox, I would say 0 for 2 is pretty bad.

Well don't let his own comments get in his way.

Yes.

Have you taken your meds today sh--?

Typical Shitstojan, your point isn't valid so start into name calling. Unless I've met myself Gavin is a different person by the way.

Why are you arguing with sh--?

I don't really disagree with that, but in PRINCIPLE it's the same thing.

Why it's correct?

Like I said, you are the same person that condoned taking a game you know you didn't pay for because the clerk screwed up. It's ok to steal from someone as long as they "aren't" your employer in your eyes I guess.

What the hell does that matter? The Red Sox don't own that ball. He's not "stealing" from his employer. EDIT: If you think about it, you are stealing from the Giants (if you consider them the owners of the ball as you do the Red Sox) because you are taking "their property" from Pac Bell Park which is owned by the Giants. The reason that doesn't hold true though is because it's common knowledge that fans are allowed to keep balls. This is something that's always been a courtesy from MLB and the teams such as it is with players keeping important balls.

Steve I take it that you would gladly turn over Barry Bonds 756th home run ball to the Giants then? You wouldn't want to get anything out of it? You are the same guy that advocated ripping off the electronics store because the clerk screwed up and gave you a free game.

Well maybe they pay him a yearly fee for the use of it then? How about 100,000? If he wants the money for it, that's a solution as well. It's better than nothing isn't it?

Steve I'm not debating the ethics of him keeping the ball, I agree with you actually, but as far as his right to keep the ball, baseball agrees and so do I.

You stupid sack of dog****, this issue has NOTHING to do with the salary cap, try changing the subject somewhere else. This is a simple debate. 1. MLB buys the balls. 2. MLB says a player making the final out has the right to keep the ball. 3. End of debate. I've already stated my solution to this situation. It was probably the most common sense used in any post in this entire thread. Maybe you missed it?

Well BASEBALL says it belongs to him, so why fret about it? If BASEBALL said they wanted it your argument might be a little more sound, but he is not obligated to give it to the Boston Red Sox.

Steve you have explained why you think the ball DOESN'T belong to him, but will you please explain why the ball belongs to the Red Sox? Major League baseball pays for the balls that are used durring the games, not the Boston Red Sox. Major League Baseball (the original owner of the baseball) has stated the ball now belongs to Doug. I would like to hear why you believe this belongs to the Red Sox seeing as they didn't pay for the ball and the ball ended up with the player and the original owner agrees that it belongs to the player.

I think there is a solution here. The ball is definately his, no doubt about it. What he should do however is get a contract drawn up with the team and allow them to show it off for a certain ammount of time (for free) and then he gets ownership of the ball back. Everyone can win here, but the ball belongs to him, not the Red Sox.

St. Louis has an 88 million dollar budget for this season according to our owner. That's 40 million less than Boston and 122 million less than NY. They should do well with that payroll but they are limited in who they can sign unlike Boston and NY.

While Red Sox fans are certainly obsessed with the Yankees, I would venture to say that if the Yankees had won the World Series that a good number of Yankees fans (here and elsewhere) would not allow the Red Sox fans to forget it. It's just the nature of the two fan bases. Hence "1918".

While I agree that Oakland didn't get "screwed" to say that these trades helped Oakland for the short term like they have helped Atlanta and St. Louis just isn't correct. The best player in either deal may be Darric Barton but he's probably a couple years away at least.