Girl sues Phillies for Ryan Howard ball

[Lathum]

and wins

Back in July, when the Phillies' Ryan Howard hit his 200th career home run, it was noteworthy because he achieved the milestone in fewer games than anyone in major league history.

And now it's noteworthy for another reason: 12-year-old Jennifer Valdivia, who ended up with the historic ball, was ushered to the Phillies clubhouse after the game to exchange it for an autographed one. Her mother sued the organization and now Jennifer has Howard's 200th home run ball back in her possession.

"My ball,'' Jennifer beamed, according to the Miami Herald. "I have it, finally.''

On Wednesday, NPR's Melissa Block spoke with Norm Kent, Valdivia's attorney, and he explained why the family decided to file a lawsuit.



"The Philadelphia Phillies' team representative, knowing not only the historic value of that baseball, but its financial value, sent a team representative to Marlin security to retrieve young Jennifer from the stands," Kent said. "And she was there, 12-year-old Jennifer, with her 15-year-old brother, neither of the age of majority, offered her some cotton candy and a baseball worth 100 bucks in exchange for one that was worth thousands."

The baseball also had value to Howard, who had just made history, Block countered, before noting that the comments on the Miami Herald web site (Howard set the record in Miami against the Marlins) didn't support the lawsuit.

"Mr. Kent, you probably would not be surprised to know that the comments ... are not favorable to your side," Block began. "I wanted to read one of them to you: 'Way to teach a 12-year-old how to extort money at an early age.' And you know that extorting money for baseball, ball hawking, is becoming a big business among fans."

Kent's response? "I think that if there was extortion that occurred here, it was the Phillies holding the baseball hostage from her for two months after they unlawfully deprived her of it."

According to the Associated Press, the Phillies declined to comment.

The lesson: when in doubt, sue somebody.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Umm ... this would probably have worked better if the girl wasn't from Miami.

[DaddyTorgo]

this is true. being a scumbag starts young for lots of people.

seriously...wtf? what is wrong with people.

next thing you know it'll be printed on tickets that all balls hit into the stands are the property of the home team and fans may keep them only at the discretion of the home team.

actually...wouldn't that kind of language on the ticket solve it? sort of like the rest of the contractual language on a ticket...

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Umm ... this would probably have worked better if the girl wasn't from Miami.

so, doesn't say she isn't a philly fan

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by Lathum

so, doesn't say she isn't a philly fan

also doesn't say she isn't a Giants fan, or a Mets fan, or a Cardinals fan, or a Kenny G fan.

[Greyroofoo]

I'm not sure how a 12 year old girl could afford the taxes on that ball anyways.

[Logan]

Originally Posted by Lathum

OK OK, I couldn't resist taking a little shot with the thread title.

And everyone, including those who hate Philly people, will take shots at you now.

Seriously stretching man.

[Subby]

Being a scumbag starts young for Philadelphia sports fans, even against their own.

Top ten all time thread title fail.

Even against their own?

[Samdari]

I don't understand this. The ball originally belongs to major league baseball, not to the player who hits it. Precedent has them allowing balls hit into stands to be kept by whoever catches it.

I never understood the feeling that the ball 'belonged' to the player. I think the person who catches it has the strongest claim, unless major league baseball (the original owner) starts reclaiming ALL balls hit into the stands.

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by Subby

Top ten all time thread title fail.

Even against their own?

yeah, changed it...

[Lathum]

dola- I really just wanted to annoy the Philly fans here, then in the spirit of my reform decided to change it.

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

[ISiddiqui]

I don't see anything wrong here. The mother was right, the kid was under the age of majority and couldn't really make a binding deal.

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by Ronnie Dobbs2

lol

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by Samdari

I don't understand this. The ball originally belongs to major league baseball, not to the player who hits it. Precedent has them allowing balls hit into stands to be kept by whoever catches it.

I never understood the feeling that the ball 'belonged' to the player. I think the person who catches it has the strongest claim, unless major league baseball (the original owner) starts reclaiming ALL balls hit into the stands.

at what point does MLB legally relinquish claim to the balls though? i think they could hire enough well-paid lawyers to say that they never do, and that the act of the ball leaving the field of play does not necessarily mean that they relinquish their claim to it and that to the extent that they allow fans to keep balls that is at their express discretion and they retain the right to recollect any ball at any time.

[RomaGoth]

Originally Posted by Samdari

I don't understand this. The ball originally belongs to major league baseball, not to the player who hits it. Precedent has them allowing balls hit into stands to be kept by whoever catches it.

I never understood the feeling that the ball 'belonged' to the player. I think the person who catches it has the strongest claim, unless major league baseball (the original owner) starts reclaiming ALL balls hit into the stands.

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

I don't see anything wrong here. The mother was right, the kid was under the age of majority and couldn't really make a binding deal.

Essentially the Phillies bullied this girl into giving back a ball that is hers unless otherwise stated. As Samdari says, unless MLB is going to claim ALL balls hit into the stands, how do they decide which ones the fans are allowed to keep without looking like complete douchebags?

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

at what point does MLB legally relinquish claim to the balls though? i think they could hire enough well-paid lawyers to say that they never do, and that the act of the ball leaving the field of play does not necessarily mean that they relinquish their claim to it and that to the extent that they allow fans to keep balls that is at their express discretion and they retain the right to recollect any ball at any time.

This would be a media nightmare for a sport that already loses out in the ratings the second the NFL pre-season begins. I am no lawyer, but wouldn't they have to have some type of disclaimer before claiming this as well?

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by RomaGoth

This would be a media nightmare for a sport that already loses out in the ratings the second the NFL pre-season begins. I am no lawyer, but wouldn't they have to have some type of disclaimer before claiming this as well?

put the disclaimer on the ticket. set the precedent that the fan will be compensated with an autographed ball of whoever they took plus say...a meet n greet with the player or something like that and i don't think so

[RomaGoth]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

put the disclaimer on the ticket. set the precedent that the fan will be compensated with an autographed ball of whoever they took plus say...a meet n greet with the player or something like that and i don't think so

Exactly, but wouldn't you say it is too late for this particular situation?

[Travis]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

put the disclaimer on the ticket. set the precedent that the fan will be compensated with an autographed ball of whoever they took plus say...a meet n greet with the player or something like that and i don't think so

So for every home run, foul ball, etc, they're going to have ushers running around doing these replacements/setting up meet and greets (that the MLBPA would have to agree to)?

It's probably cheaper in the end to fork over for the landmark balls than it is to go to these steps for any ball hit into the crowd. Because while they may try to include a clause with something to the effect of "at the discretion of Major League Baseball" or the home team, etc, you know if precedent is set for compensation for a ball, somebody (or more likely, lots of somebodies) who doesn't receive that same treatment is going to try and cause a big commotion that they didn't get fair treatment for whatever reason.

And even if you flat out exclude foul balls from the equation, how many home runs are hit per year that you're talking about potential compensation for? That's where the trouble will lie, especially with trying to establish which one's should and shouldn't receive compensation.

[DaddyTorgo]

oh yeah. in this situation yeah. i'm just saying...moving forward.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by Travis

So for every home run, foul ball, etc, they're going to have ushers running around doing these replacements/setting up meet and greets (that the MLBPA would have to agree to)?

It's probably cheaper in the end to fork over for the landmark balls than it is to go to these steps for any ball hit into the crowd. Because while they may try to include a clause with something to the effect of "at the discretion of Major League Baseball" or the home team, etc, you know if precedent is set for compensation for a ball, somebody (or more likely, lots of somebodies) who doesn't receive that same treatment is going to try and cause a big commotion that they didn't get fair treatment for whatever reason.

And even if you flat out exclude foul balls from the equation, how many home runs are hit per year that you're talking about potential compensation for? That's where the trouble will lie, especially with trying to establish which one's should and shouldn't receive compensation.

no. only for the balls that they determine are historically significant and they want back.

[rowech]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

I don't see anything wrong here. The mother was right, the kid was under the age of majority and couldn't really make a binding deal.

I agree...my question is where was the adult with the kids while they were at the game but that ball belongs to the girl.

[Travis]

Add in, if you're making them all MLB property, then what onus do you place on the league vs the player for a HR ball that has significance for the player, but not so much for the league? In this case it's a player's milestone, but a big enough one that the league will care a bit. What about a player's first HR? Would the league have to compensate the fan to get it back or would that fall to the team or the player and if so, would their compensation have to be less than that of what MLB does? What about a player who wants to recoup any ball that he considers a milestone (will vary player to player)?

[lighthousekeeper]

Originally Posted by Greyroofoo

I'm not sure how a 12 year old girl could afford the taxes on that ball anyways.

...or legal fees

[DaddyTorgo]

okay, so my idea isn't perfect. but it's better than people treating going to the ballpark like a lottery ticket and the ineveitable scuffles and frivilous lawsuits that occur now.

[Travis]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

okay, so my idea isn't perfect. but it's better than people treating going to the ballpark like a lottery ticket and the ineveitable scuffles and frivilous lawsuits that occur now.

In theory I agree with you, but in practice, well, no matter what the potential rewards people are still going to fight over home run balls and you'll still see lawsuits, they'll just be of a different variety.

The difference is that currently the league/players wait until a HR is hit and see what it'll cost them to get it back, then decide if it's worth it.

Your way they'd have to get language in place between at least MLB and the MLBPA as well as all the teams, pay lawyers to come up with the language/provisions to go on tickets and still likely have to deal with similar headaches that they do already, but probably face fewer big individual payouts (which would balance out the money put out up front to create the guidelines, etc to establish this system).

And odds are, if you cap the "reward" for the HR balls you're going to get some negative publicity and in the end there's every chance that people will find a loop hole in the provisions the league comes up with and still get their pay day for the bigger significance home runs.

As annoying as it is, trying to find a working solution to this problem probably ends up being more than it's worth.

[Dr. Sak]

She obviously isn't a Mets fan...she actually won.

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by Dr. Sak

She obviously isn't a Mets fan...she actually won.

zing....

[MrDNA]

What do you put the odds at that Howard actually gave her the ball back? 1 in 50? That thing is still sitting on his mantle and that girl's family is going to be selling a BP ball on eBay tomorrow.

[RedKingGold]

It's ok Lathum, I still heart you!

[Young Drachma]

Originally Posted by MrDNA

What do you put the odds at that Howard actually gave her the ball back? 1 in 50? That thing is still sitting on his mantle and that girl's family is going to be selling a BP ball on eBay tomorrow.

This.

[DanGarion]

You guys are looking at this the wrong way. The only reason there is an issue is because she was underage. If an adult was asked to trade the ball there would be no story.

[Denial Of Freedom]

Originally Posted by DanGarion

You guys are looking at this the wrong way. The only reason there is an issue is because she was underage. If an adult was asked to trade the ball there would be no story.

I think it is being looked at the right way. If there was a set policy in place of what happened if MLB or any of its clubs wanted a ball back then the age of the individual would not matter. For which I think is a great idea, a player should not have to spend potentially hundreds of thousands or a few million dollars to get a ball back.

[TroyF]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

okay, so my idea isn't perfect. but it's better than people treating going to the ballpark like a lottery ticket and the ineveitable scuffles and frivilous lawsuits that occur now.

I don't think your idea is better though. MLB would then have to go after every ball to enforce this policy. (going after certain balls would scream discrimination) if it's your kid who catches the ball and wants to keep it, what do you do?

Mom throws the ball in her purse. People play hot potato with the ball until ushers leave. (you think any group of fans is going to stand idly around while some usher tries to take a baseball from a kid?)

The screwed up thing here is how the team went about getting the ball back. The rules now are fine.

[fantom1979]

If the MLB really wanted to keep all the homerun balls, they would just hang a big freaking net over the fence, so no homerun balls leave the field of play.