Jump to content

(OT) Doug Mientkiewicz not giving up ball


Recommended Posts

Ask Buckner how routine the play was.....

197158[/snapback]

 

completely different play.

 

My Grandpa could NOT have made the play Buckner screwed up (bad back and bad knees). But he could most certainly catch a little lofted ball from the pitcher.

 

Again, though, I don't wanna go off on another tangent (similar to that of how GOOD Doug is).

 

The point is, it was a team victory - 86 years in the making. That ball was the FINAL play to solidify 86 years of "maybe next year's" and "damn, so close's"... yet, this one selfish prick thinks for some reason he should have it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 172
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

So, because he made the most routine play in all of sports, he gets to keep it?

 

Wow.

 

Honestly, and this isn't a bash to him, or any baseball player, but my 88 year old grandfather could have made that particular play.

 

Why shouldn't Manny Ramírez get to keep it for the catch he made in the 3rd inning?

 

Seriously, this argument is weak. The ball belongs in a museum.

 

And if the ball somehow had ended up in the hands of a fan, i could ALMOST see them wanting $$$ for it... but one of the players??? really, that's just wrong.

197147[/snapback]

 

Manny Ramirez can keep the ball he caught, I see no problem in that. But why should he get the ball that Doug caught? He shouldn't. It's Doug's ball.

 

Even Major League Baseball said it's Doug's ball to do with what he pleases.

CW

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think he's a closet Yankee fan and that's why he's keeping the ball. Just to be an ass.  :P  :P

197174[/snapback]

 

I think the key is he was only a Red Sox player for a few months. Thus, team loyalty doesn't enter into it.

 

CW

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the key is he was only a Red Sox player for a few months.  Thus, team loyalty doesn't enter into it.

 

CW

197179[/snapback]

 

 

Even so, if he gave up the ball graciously, he would be in "Red Sox Lore" forever. Im suprised that dosent mean anything to him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Even so, if he gave up the ball graciously, he would be in "Red Sox Lore" forever.  Im suprised that dosent mean anything to him.

197208[/snapback]

 

Apparently not as much as being able to blow all his money now so the Sox can send his kid to FSU.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Even so, if he gave up the ball graciously, he would be in "Red Sox Lore" forever.  Im suprised that dosent mean anything to him.

197208[/snapback]

 

He'll be in "Red Sox Lore" forever regardless.

 

CW

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Florida State for your kids? way to aim high!

197168[/snapback]

 

I work with Mientkiewicz's brother-in-law. That FSU comment is hilarious and we're giving it to him pretty good (lots of Gators in my office). Anyway, the guy's not a jerk. This is the same as when Ron Harper grabbed the ball after MJ sank the Jazz in '98.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You no likey Florida State?

197228[/snapback]

 

No problem with FSU... i went to a state school...

 

oh, that's right,... my dad wasn't a pro-baseball player with a world series ring either.

 

I just mentioned it because it seemed funny that he claimed the ball is worth more than any HR ball (Mcguire's 70th going for $3Million) and he said maybe he can send his son to 4 years at a public college. . . just seems humorous.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No problem with FSU... i went to a state school...

 

oh, that's right,... my dad wasn't a pro-baseball player with a world series ring either.

 

I just mentioned it because it seemed funny that he claimed the ball is worth more than any HR ball (Mcguire's 70th going for $3Million) and he said maybe he can send his son to 4 years at a public college. . . just seems humorous.

197238[/snapback]

 

 

Gotcha. Adding to this thread. There is no REAL loyalty in pro sports anymore, both from ownership and players. Regardless of his intentions with the Ball, its his.

 

 

 

Though 50 years from now, that sucker would be worth some serious cheese.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Seriously, this argument is weak.

 

yes, your argument is weak. He didn't run over and pick up the ball, he caught it himself. Maybe the classy thing to do would be to give it up, but this is an unbelievable piece of sports history that he was a part of, and to think everyone would give it back is silly.

 

If Marty Biron made the greatest save of all time with 1 second left that secured the sabres stanley cup victory, would you call him a prick for keeping the puck?

 

If Moulds caught a td pass to win a superbowl in overtime and he kept the football, would you call him a prick for keeping the ball?

 

are you bothered because he kept it, or because you think he's a bad player and he kept it or because it was a routine play and he kept it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

yes, your argument is weak. He didn't run over and pick up the ball, he caught it himself. Maybe the classy thing to do would be to give it up, but this is an unbelievable piece of sports history that he was a part of, and to think everyone would give it back is silly.

 

If Marty Biron made the greatest save of all time with 1 second left that secured the sabres stanley cup victory, would you call him a prick for keeping the puck?

 

If Moulds caught a td pass to win a superbowl in overtime and he kept the football, would you call him a prick for keeping the ball?

 

are you bothered because he kept it, or because you think he's a bad player and he kept it or because it was a routine play and he kept it?

197272[/snapback]

 

I'm bothered because he kept it, period. (when you're typing do you need to actually write the word period? Does it add to the point?) :P

 

A class move would be to give it up. You admitted that. So what is the argument?

 

You said: "Maybe the classy thing to do would be to give it up"

 

OK, so we agree, and can conclude that keeping it lacks class.

 

You then said: "but this is an unbelievable piece of sports history that he was a part of"

 

So, because of it's value, and because he had a tiny part in it, he should get to keep it?

 

That's total horse sh--. The only ball that has any real sentimental value is that one. Hundreds of others were probably played that night. And every other player had a chance to grab one.

 

And yes, in all of your examples, I would hope the player would know that it means more to the team.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...