@TinkishDelight: Did I mention that this was going to be on the test?

People are building it into this shady back room deal where the Phillies are try to "steal" this ball from the girl. Even if the team was seeking to get the ball for Ryan Howard, it's not like they have a direct financial gain in this. Their player is ending up with the ball, not them and I doubt he is selling it (it's not like he is Pete Rose).

But beyond all of that, I think that this sets a rather ugly precedent for fan/player interactions whichever way it comes out. It's no wonder there are a lot of athletes who don't want to interact with fans or sign autographs when it has just become about the money for the fans. That's just twisted.

@Dodger88: Leave it to a commenter with Dodger in their sn to school us all. With references for further reading to boot!

@BklynHotniss: Erm I think someone beat you to the joke about 6 and a half hours before you.

he can buy it back if he wants it so bad. He shoulda made an offer. Being a rich baseball player & all.

@FiorellaMajumdar:

"forcing him to give it up is selfish and petty"

No one is forcing him to give anything up. In order to give it up he needed to own it legally. He never legally owned it, therefore he couldn't be forced to give it up.

"rather than teach her the lesson of 'If you want something, take from the person who has it.'"

Funny, but I was thinking the same thing, except it was the Phillies who wanted something, so they took it from the little girl who had it by negotiating with a child who didn't understand the economic significance of the transaction...

Here's an analogy for you: A little kid finds a rare penny on the ground that is worth $100k. Adult asks her what she wants for it. She says a piece of gum. Adult gives her the gum and she gives adult the $100k penny. Parents find out and demand the return of the rare penny. Adult says "Tough sh*t that's not my problem, she made a deal." Parents sue to get coin back. In your bizarro-world, the child and the parents are the bad guys and the adult who ripped off a clueless child is the injured party… Yeah, that makes sense.

Maybe the Phillies should have let this go to court after all. They could have raised the classic "No Backsies" legal defense. Certainly that would hold up in court!

@HammRadio:

Well, you actually have that kind of backwards. Under the law, a minor does not have contractual capacity. Therefore they (the minor) can raise it as a defense and void the contract (this is the general rule... there are a few limited exceptions that are not relevant here). You, as an adult, cannot raise this as a defense unless there is another reason for your incapacity (ex. mental retardation, insanity, etc).

By the way, statutory rape is based on the same theory- Since a minor cannot legally consent to sex and since rape is essentially sex without an individual's consent... by statutory definition, sex with a minor is rape.

@Colonel Jack O'Neill:

According to the Mirriam-Webster Dictionary, Frivolous (as used in this context) is defined as "having no sound basis (as in fact or law)". In other words, the case has no legal merit.

Since the girl's family is 100% correct as a matter of law, then by definition this was not a frivolous lawsuit.

Perhaps you meant to say that this lawsuit was unnecessary? In that case I agree. The girl's family should never have needed to file the suit since the Phillies should not have made a deal with a minor in the first place. And once the family voided the "deal" the Phillies should have immediately returned the ball.

The problem here was not that the mother sued to protect the rights of her daughter, the problem was that the Phillies refused to obey the law until their hand was forced by a lawsuit.

@yevarechecha: Its what the girl asked for...

@Tomorrowmorrowland:

Once she got the ball in the stands, it belonged to her. Neither the player nor the team has any right to it. This is pretty straight forward. In 1921 a 31-year old fan named Reuben Berman caught a foul ball. Back in those days, the "custom" was for the team to get all balls back. Berman refused and when the security guards came after him demanding that he give the ball back he threw it into the crowd. Berman was removed from his seat and thrown out of the ballpark. 3 months later he sued for mental and physical distress for the humiliation he suffered in front of the crowd. The judge found in favor of Berman and a jury awarded him $100 (not an insignificant amount for 1921) and precedent was set. [There is a nice article discussing this in a 1995 issue of Baseball Digest]

Subsequently, in 1923, an 11-year old boy named Robert Cotter caught a foul ball in Philadelphia and refused to give it back. A guard for the Phillies dragged the kid to a police officer demanding he be arrested for theft. In spite of the reluctance of the officer, the Phillies pushed for the arrest as a "test case" and had the child thrown in JAIL overnight. The Phillies argued to the judge that they had the right to force fans to return their property. The judge basically ripped the Phillies a new a** and said he wasn't going to rule that a child was a thief just so the Phillies could save the cost of a baseball. He told them, you wanted a test case, well, there it is! [By the way, there is actually a nice article discussing this in much better detail written by Daniel McQuade on Philliesnation.com].

Perhaps the little girl should be happy they didn't try to have her thrown in jail for reneging on a deal and making the big-bad baseball player cry?

There are a lot of comments regarding legal issues. Underage girl entering legal contracts and the team "stealing" the ball. But at what point did the baseball (Purchased and owned by Major League Baseball for use by the team) become legal property of the girl? If I remember correctly from the Barry Bonds case, doesn't transfer of the ownership occur when the ball is hit AND the team/MLB has no intention of retrieving it thus it becoming abandoned property? Clearly the team wanted the ball, thus intent to retrieve and it no longer being abandoned and remaining property of the team/MLB.

Treating the ball as property of the girl just for catching it is fairly loose ownership. If a peanut guy throws a bag to someone and a random guy jumps up and grabs it before the intended party, do they then gain ownership of the peanuts? Does it matter if the person is a 12yo girl?

Not trying to place blame, just gain an understanding about the comments where people are calling the team "thieves" and assuming ownership for catching a ball. If I am wrong and it is stadium policy that ticket holders can catch and keep balls I would love to know.

I bet she didn't get the actual ball back anyway. It's sitting on a shelf in his house and he is laughing his ass off over it.

@whey: That happens A LOT more often then you might think, it's truly sick.

@TinkishDelight: Ah, Roman Polanski would be proud...
The ball player should have just asked for it nicely. She's only a little girl who without the influence of any adults would have accepted something else in return.

if a 12 year old can't enter a legal contract... then I should be able to go to any kids lemonade stand. Get a glass of lemonade. And not pay for it?

So even discounting that she was not competent to execute a contract, there was clearly no meeting of the minds. She thought she was getting something that the Phillies did not deliver.

"The ball was caught by 12-year-old Jennifer Valdivia. She says she was quickly approached by stadium security guards who escorted her to the Phillies locker room..."

Where are the parents in this whole meeting in the locker room? Who in their right mind would let their kid go to the locker room by herself????

She's twelve. She does imply in the linked article that she was intimidated- she said her mother was mad, and she said, "What did you want me to do? They were asking for it back." That, to me, says she felt intimidated.

The bottom line is that it was totally inappropriate for the Phillies to bring her in alone and start making deals with her. She's twelve years old- no one exercising an iota of good judgment would have brought her in there and started making offers without an adult present unless they were trying to take advantage of the situation (which I think they were). What the kid agreed to and what she's saying now aren't really relevant to the fact that it's fairly evident that the Phillies exercised poor judgment in the way they handled the situation and probably were trying to pull the wool over this kid's eyes.

And really, the fact that all she asked for (according to this other article) was an autographed ball doesn't mean that they couldn't have given or offered her more or better stuff. It had to have been evident to the adults doing the negotiating that she didn't really know how much the ball might be worth, but instead of saying, "Sure, we'll get you an autographed ball, but how about a jersey and stuff," they jumped on the first thing she said. A soda, some cotton candy and a three-dollar baseball? Sold, and for a lot less than we would have spent buying the ball off an adult!

It was a scummy way to handle it, and I suspect the people handling the situation on the Phillies' end had enough experience to know that. They just hoped they wouldn't get caught.

So I'm wondering if the IRS is going to descend on this too, because I can totally see this ending up being a case where the tax on that ball would bankrupt them if they didn't sell it.

Yes...they are idiots. "Hey, multi-billion dollar franchise that pays grown men millions of dollars to play a kid's game...please take back this ball for free that I might have passed on to my grandkids, or made a few hundred or thousands of dollars off of on Ebay. It might even have made up for some of the outrageous park and merchandising fees I've paid to MLB, but I insist...please take this item, as a gift from me to your rich ball club, at no charge."

Also..why the hell does an 8 year old have a $100? I'm 35 and the highest denomination I carry around is $20s.

I'm pretty sure the parents must be present for most contracts with minors, verbal or not, especially regarding items worth a decent chunk of change.

Keep your disgusting misogyny to yourself, pal. It isn't welcome here.

The team knew what they were doing when they opted not to wait to contact her folks or at least have her grandfather come back and find someone to translate for him (this is Miami, after all- I'm sure that could have been done without a lot of trouble). If they really wanted to make a transparent, above-board deal with the kid for the ball, they would have done so. The fact that they didn't says more to me about the team than someone who admits he's biased and a huge fan proclaiming that the kid is a "spoiled brat." They took advantage of a kid to get a potentially valuable baseball for basically nothing. For a team that rakes in millions and a player that rakes in millions every year, that's pretty scummy, whether the kid agreed to it or not. A baseball, some cotton candy and a soda? Jesus, at least give the kid a jersey or a trip to Philly to tour the stadium or something.

And frankly, as an adult, had the kid told me, "Okay, I'll swap it for an autographed ball," my first reaction would have been, "Sure, we can do that, but let's see if we can't get you some other memorabilia, too." Knowing what the ball might be worth, most people would want to at least get them something approximating that value. Not these people!

And the picture you paint is different from what she does - she said she had the option of getting anything, and that's the price she named. Not "they were all telling me to give it back" or anything like that. I can see how she might be intimidated, but if that's the case, I can't imagine why she wouldn't say she was when she was reporting it.

I kinda don't trust her story on this since she's told two very different versions, one seemingly designed to garner sympathy and get what she (her parents) want. Which is probably her parents getting involved, but who knows.

The Phillies behaved sleazily even before they allegedly switched the balls out; trying to get a kid on their own so you can take advantage of their lack of maturity to sucker them is pretty sleazy, in my book. It's also stupid; they should have realized that this could come back and bite them in the ass.

Frankly, I don't think they would have talked to her sans adult supervision if they weren't trying to put one over on her. They knew that the ball could be pretty valuable and were hoping to get it in exchange for basically nothing. Knowing that the kid probably wouldn't realize what kind of leverage she had for negotiation, they cornered her alone to try and make a deal. I have no sympathy for the club or the player now that it's backfired.

Still...who'd expect anything BUT this from an organization in Philadelphia. Break out the D batteries folks!

I didn't watch the interview, but read this second article, and I agree with the attorney; the club was trying to get one over on this kid by giving her something that they knew full well was of far, far lesser value than the ball she caught. I don't think for a second that it was accidental that they left her grandfather sitting in the stands and instead had her and her brother come up to the clubhouse without any adult there besides team bigwigs asking for the ball. Most kids would cave faced with that and just ask for whatever, especially if they didn't fully realize how much the ball they caught could be worth.

Even if the girl agreed to the swap and then changed her mind, the Phillies set the tone of this situation by being skeevy and underhanded first. You don't spirit a couple of kids off to the clubhouse without their chaperon and start trying to wheel and deal with them for the baseball they caught in a deliberate attempt to lure them into giving up something that's potentially worth a significant chunk of money. Can you conduct yourself like that? Probably. Should you? No, for just this reason- it looks pretty blatantly underhanded, makes the player himself look like a jerk, and if the kid changes their mind, you don't have a leg to stand on. Shame on the Phillies for being underhanded and stupid about the whole thing.

Yeah, I can see how wanting a home run ball is totally like lying about being raped. Except that I can't. And your example reeks of misogyny.

Again, it's a different discussion on whether or not they should have made such a deal without a parent present (they shouldn't have), but things didn't go down the way the CNN article states.

Simply put with all boo hoo's aside, that ball is not the girls property. Just cause she caught it doesn't make it hers. The ball belongs to the team, stadium or whomever PURCHASED it.

Also, the article says they were suing for the ball and $15,000+. Where does the 15k come in?? Distress caused by switching a new ball for one that was hit once with a bat? I don't think so.

This is probably why it is a scummy idea to offer deals to kids. "Your honor, my client said "a" ball, not "the" ball, under article so and so, blah blah blah, the 12 year old should know from common law that this means..."

She might have "accepted", but she is not an adult. You don't go offering deals to kids. "Yo..Johnny...that is a really nice diamond ring your mommy gave you to drop off over there at the jeweller to be cleaned. I'll give you this nice ice cream cone for it." "Sure mister!"

Even in the inaccurate CNN article, it doesn't say he played a hand in this, so at the very least let's stop blaming him, by all accounts he's a standup guy.

I haven't decided where I sit on this, because as many people who RTFA have pointed out, there are some serious discrepancies in the stories. I suspect the adolescent probably should keep the ball and all will be right with the world. But, if she made a deal and greedy mommy don't like it, that's a shitty lesson to teach a child and a shitty thing to do to a player who has broken a record and is by all accounts as nice a person as the darling little angel who got her ball stolen by the big mean men.

"The ballclub wanted to give the ball to its star player. And that's where things got complicated. "

That doesn't sound like he had anything to do with it, or even had knowledge of it.

@ScarletsWalk: never mind the fact that we all know he did it, it goes in record books, he may be able to keep the next one or buy this one, he makes tons of money to do this....

she is a little girl.

@TinaBringMeTheAx:

Uhh...This is common in baseball. First/significant home run balls have sentimental value to a player (Because they are people too, not emotionless automations blinded by the almighty dollar like some on here seem to think). They'll often offer autographed balls, bats, photo ops, tickets, etc in return for them.

In any case Phil Villareal completely sensationalized and modified the story for his own purposes. The girl was told she was going to be given a DIFFERENT ball. Granted they shoud have asked to speak to an adult in this situation as the failure to do so is the single factor that created this mess.

In the end, this whole story is nothing more then a tale of greed on the part of the girls family.

@Trai_Dep: It was funny. No explanation necessary :o)

Ever see a bat fly into the stands when a player swings and misses? You know what they do? They ask for it back from the fan who caught it, then make sure he or she gets something in return. It's common fucking courtesy. Now we're teaching children that being gracious is an undesirable trait to have? We're okay with that? Just because someone happens to make money, we can automatically be assholes towards them? Ryan Howard, whose parents marched with MLK Jr., whose mother handles all of his finances and literally gives him an allowance, who donates more time and money to charity then any of you ever will, is a prima donna because he accomplished something no one else in baseball ever had and he wanted something to commemorate it? Screw you dickwads, I'm going home.

Shame on the team for trying to swindle her. Fans aren't morons - they know if they're holding something priceless. If the player wants his record-setting ball, then he can buy it fair and square.

The 200th homerun of a player's career is pretty important, and forcing him to give it up is selfish and petty. They should have maybe forced a photo op or something else that would provide memories for this child rather than teach her the lesson of "If you want something, take from the person who has it."

It's in times like this when the joke about 20,000 lawyers chained together at the bottom of the sea seems appropos.

WTF?

If you want to comment on whether or not the girl should have been able to make such a decision, etc, that's different. But the Phillies did not switch the ball against her knowledge.

The fans are EVERYTHING. Do not anger the fans, especially little girl fans.

Stay classy baseball. You have yet to win my viewership and my ticket money back.

@bonzombiekitty: It was a trick if she had no clue what that ball was worth. She obviously had no clue. That would be called taking advantage of her since they conveneiently left out the part about the ball being worth enough to pay for her first year of college.

@Cyco: She was tricked b/c she is a child and had no idea what that ball was worth. Unless they told her the ball was worth $15,000 or so when they asked her to switch, then they were wrong. Kid's aren't really capable of making informed decisions like that.

So, to me, it is still as bad as it originally sounded.

@elysse: If they don't want her to sell it on Ebay, then they need to offer her an Ebay price.

She caught it, if she wants to sell it on Ebay, she should be able to.

Also, he didn't personally take it, the team did. So that giant bird thing of a mascot they have could kick the dog.

@bonzombiekitty: That is not in the slightest a reputable or notable source. CNN broke the real story and there's no doubt that CNN is a notable source. Sorry, the team's fans can't even make a 12-year-old girl look bad in this base, especially when the group on the other side of the fence makes multi-millions every year. Oh yes, I feel SO sorry for Howard, who is probably set to pay for his children's children's children's college education.

I am sure they didnt realize she would change her mind. This is just like a man having sex with a woman, then she changes her mind a day later, and calls it rape.

@jparadise: Less'n she's going to Zeb Turnipseed Community College, that ball isn't going to help all that much. That said, if she's going to sell it, now is the time - Howard is a one-dimensional player that will break down on the relatively early side of his career with decent stats, but not nearly as decent as people have him penciled in for. Oh, and he's now a proven no-class bum.

@TinaBringMeTheAx: I agree with you that parents/gaurdians should have been involved. My point is that CNN left out the fact that the reason why the girl got an autographed ball was because thats what she asked for.

I had NO IDEA the team tried to trick her under the pretense her ball would be signed, and then switched it with a fake duplicate ball-- that is appalling. Glad she got it back!

------------
The ball was caught by 12-year-old Jennifer Valdivia. She says she was quickly approached by stadium security guards who escorted her to the Phillies locker room, where, she says, a team official asked her -

"'Could we have the ball? We'll give you something back, anything,'" recounts Valdivia. "I'm like, 'Okay, can I have a baseball signed by Ryan Howard?'"
------------

The girl herself says she agreed to exchange. What apparently didn't happen was that she was supposed to be able to meet Howard, which didn't happen.

from [www.myfoxphilly.com]

The ball was caught by 12-year-old Jennifer Valdivia. She says she was quickly approached by stadium security guards who escorted her to the Phillies locker room, where, she says, a team official asked her -

"'Could we have the ball? We'll give you something back, anything,'" recounts Valdivia. "I'm like, 'Okay, can I have a baseball signed by Ryan Howard?'"

@burnedout: I cant say thats not how it happened, but like I said, I am just relating it how I read it somewhere else:
"Howard hit the home run at land Shark Stadium against the Florida Marlins on July 16, and as is customary, wanted the ball back.

So Phillies staff invited Valdivia to the club house for a one-on-one meeting with the star, which would have been enough for any other fan. But the Howard also autographed a baseball in exchange for the historic one.

The kid accepted the deal, but after she told her parents, the family told the Phillies and Howard they wanted the ball back. We think you see where this is going.

The family then hired an attorney, who then filed a lawsuit to get the ball back, claiming it was Valdivia's ball and that Howard took advantage of the little girl. Instead of playing baseball tug-of-war with a kid, Howard just gave the ball back."

[www.nbcmiami.com]

I'm not saying anything about whether or not the team should have asked for the ball in the first place or if they had the right to make such an exchange. I'm taking issue with the article saying the team switched the ball without her permission, when the girl herself says she agreed to the exchange.

Howard had nothing to do with it, he probably didn't even care about it, it's the team spokeperson, or the team rep. who wanted the ball.

One day that ball would have been in the Hall of Fame, but it's not cause of the mother.

This was not trading a cherry ices for a grape ices in the school yard. This should have been a serious negotiation with an offer, consideration and acceptance between competent adults.

The Phillies had no business making a deal with a 12 year old.

@TinaBringMeTheAx: If your read the article she doenst say she was tricked she asked for an autographed ball. She says the problem was she didnt get to meet him. All her words, not mine.

@Aladdyn: oops just read some more, I guess its CNNS fault for leaving a few inconvienient facts out of their story.

@TinkishDelight: You're right, she's not just a "little girl," she's a fan. They treated her like a "little girl," not like a fan.

Shame on the Phillies.

The girl asked for a ball autographed by him in exchange for the homerun ball. I call shenanigans on Phil for his inflamatory writeup

[www.myfoxphilly.com]

And, while I'm no more lawyer than most (if not all) of the "lawyers" who are making their pronouncements today, I'd bet that the same goes for a baseball. MLB may have decided that it's just easier to let a caught ball go (for goodwill purposes) than it would be to track down every foul ball and home run. I'm not sure that is an automatic relinquishing of ownership, though. They might just as easily say, "sorry adolescent girl, that ball is ours and always has been; your ticket doesn't net you ownership rights to MLB/Phillies property just because you caught it or found it in the stands."

She may never have owned it in the first place. In any event, based on the articles, there certainly seems to be more to this than, "those meanies took my ball." Of course they should let her keep it, but if she agrees to give it up...

IF this is true, then it changes EVERYTHING!

And there's your money quote right there, no pun intended.

I'm a Philadelphian and a die-hard Phillies fan. Ryan Howard is, by all accounts, a stand up guy. This wasn't his doing.

Obviously most of you are not baseball fans. These situations happen all the time. Someone hits a milestone home run, the team asks for the ball in exchange for something else. It's very common. Most people, however, are not selfish little brats about it, and give the ball back.

Can we not think of any other ways to solve a problem? Maybe i need to be more of a sports fanatic, but I think if she got another autographed ball, she should say "thank you" not "gimme." And what 12-year-old says "My Ball?" That's what I'd hear from a 3-year old learning to talk for the first time. Everyone here needs to grow up.

Personally, if I was the little girl, I would now take the ball and publicly destroy it, just to prove to the world who really owns it.

Most likely the lawyer was trumpeting the value of the ball simply to bring attention. At least he wasn't saying it was worth hundreds of thousands of dollars :)

[www.cnn.com]

"A Phillies employee, Jennifer says, told her if she handed over the ball, she could come back after the game, meet the slugger and get him to autograph it. She gave the ball up. In exchange, she got cotton candy and a soda.

Jennifer went back to her seat but returned to the clubhouse after the game -- this time, with her grandfather and the rest of her party. They waited. The Phillies slugger never showed up.

A security guard walked up and gave Jennifer a ball autographed by Howard. But it wasn't the one she caught.

This ball was clean and polished. Jennifer calls it "the fake one.""

[www.cnn.com]

My friends was being an incredible jerk to a little kid. So was the team in this case.

Then on top of that they sued for $15,000 after fully admitting that the ball wasn't worth anywhere near that. Also they agreed to pay the lawyers legal fee? Seems like they went well out of their way for the girl (and her greedy parents).

Upon catching the ball, it became her property.

The "contract" to trade it for a signature was invalid on its face, so the ball was always her property and neither the Phillies nor Ryan Howard ever had legal possession of it.

@idip: Exactly. I would not have had a problem if Howard dried to trade her the ball for some of his personal items, perhaps a signed and framed jersey and his batting glove and a personalized note thanking her for returning the ball to him, but to try to do a bait and switch on a collector's item, that is just wrong.

@bonzombiekitty:

Ouch. Now I don't feel as bad for this young lady. They made an offer, she accepted. It no longer seems as deceptive a practice as everyone is playing it out to be.

@bonzombiekitty: The NBC Miami "report" is actually an opinion piece based on Fox Philly's write-up. Of course the rest of the details of what occured were conviently left out of NBC's piece.

The ball was caught by 12-year-old Jennifer Valdivia. She says she was quickly approached by stadium security guards who escorted her to the Phillies locker room, where, she says, a team official asked her -

"'Could we have the ball? We'll give you something back, anything,'" recounts Valdivia. "I'm like, 'Okay, can I have a baseball signed by Ryan Howard?'"

Jennifer received the autographed ball after the game, but not the face-to-face meeting with Howard she believes she had been promised.

"They lied to me and I was like really sad that I couldn't meet Ryan Howard," Valdivia tells Fox 29.

Not at all intimidating for a 12 yo.

Regardless you can't enter into a legally binding agreement with a minor. She still would have won her case if taken to court.

[quote]
The ball was caught by 12-year-old Jennifer Valdivia. She says she was quickly approached by stadium security guards who escorted her to the Phillies locker room, where, she says, a team official asked her -

"'Could we have the ball? We'll give you something back, anything,'" recounts Valdivia. "I'm like, 'Okay, can I have a baseball signed by Ryan Howard?'"
[/quote]

So she wasn't tricked into exchanging the ball like the article here states. But, she apparently didn't get to meet Ryan Howard and she says she was told she would be able to do.

The version of this I read last week was not as underhanded and this one. When I first read the story, they brought the girl to the back to meet the player and they offered her a trade, the homerun ball for an autographed ball, no devious tricks. When the girl meet up with the parents, they flipped out and charged that the girl was tricked, making it out that the parents were the greedy ones. In the end, they got the lawyer involed and the switch back was made without it going to trial. Not saying which story is correct, just posting about the first one I read.

"'Could we have the ball? We'll give you something back, anything,'" recounts Valdivia. "I'm like, 'Okay, can I have a baseball signed by Ryan Howard?'"

So they didn't trick her. She agreed to it.

She told her parents about it, and it seems that they didn't raise care about it until they found out the value of the ball.

I don't blame the family one bit for enlisting the help of a lawyer in this. Professional athletes have never passed up the opportunity to press their cases for more money. Are the rich the only ones who have the right to sue?

Besides, the 200 Homerun ball obviously meant more to Ryan Howard, who has already gone and sealed and marked it in a way to show it as a trophy.

This still seems a case of Buyers Remorse to me. The deal was already done, and a week later, someone said, "OH NOES!!!" and wanted to reverse it.

Earlier reports didnt state it like this. From all the stories I read last week they offered her a new autographed ball so he could keep his 200th homerun ball. She accepted but when she got home and told her parents they threatened to sue to get it back. Instead of drawing it out in a legal battle (which im sure he could do considering his has the money) he gave it back to the little girl. I dont know why this story made him out to be a villian that I highly doubt he is.

/

The good ole Solomon trick.

That said, it's truly pathetic that it took a lawsuit to get the Phillies to return the ball. the attorney also said that if athletes can sell their championship rings, belts, or specific balls to collectors than she should be offered the chance to as well.. even though the Phillies said that they should get the ball because "all she'll do is sell it on ebay"...

What in the world ever happened to sport for fun? The franchises, endorsements, city politics (i.e. "we're all broke but we can so totally afford this megamillion dollar staidum..").. it's all getting out of hand.

@swingchickie: One, can we stop referring to a 12 year old pre-teen as "little girl"? I know the orginal point of use was to highlight the dishonesty of the situation, but it's demeaning.

Two, I'm not sure how you can muster up any sympathy for Howard with his bait and switch. There was no reason for them to use such an underhanded tactic. Generally players will offer money, prizes, tickets, whatever but this time they went in with the assumption that the young fan with immigrant parents could easily be swindled. These goons just flat out lied because they thought they'd be able to get away with it. I hope she does sell it.

He can keep the bat, the batting gloves, the helmet, the uniform, etc. A child caught the ball and his team stole it from her and from what was implied from the article I read yesterday, he knew about it and refused to hand it back.

She said she had no intention of selling it and I believe her. She doesn't care who hit the ball or its significance. She's twelve and got a souvenir that she herself procured and not some lame-o consolation prize that the team tricked the minor into receiving without parental ok.

Or being used as a dog's play toy in the back yard.

Ryan Howard never owned the ball. The fact that she had it and then they tried to trick her to get it back is just terrible. She deserves keeping it. If she wants to sell it, that's also her choice as it is HER ball.

If Ryan Howard wanted to purchase the 'meaningful' ball from her, that is also an option. Yet.... he or his representatives tried to steal the ball.

@GyroMight: seriously.

i hope this little girl really appreciates this down the road... that ball is really meaningful to ryan howard.