Do moving objects "contain" kinetic energy? We know that kinetic energy is relative to the reference frame.  In a frame moving with the object, the K.E. will be zero.  So is it misleading, or completely wrong, to say that a moving object "contains" or "has" kinetic energy?
Suppose I calculate the kinetic energy of a baseball as being 200 joules.  Am I wrong to say, "the baseball has 200 joules of kinetic energy"?
 A: I suspect your question will be closed, because it is a question about language and not about physics. It would be misleading to say that the baseball 'contains' KE, as the word 'contain' implies that the energy is inside the baseball, or enclosed by it. To say that the baseball 'has' a KE  is the conventional way of explaining the idea, and is no different to saying that the baseball 'has' a speed or 'has' a position. Saying the baseball 'has' a certain speed is simply a shorthand way of saying the the position at which the baseball may be found is changing at a given rate. Likewise, when we say the baseball 'has' a given KE, we are simply using a shorthand way of conveying a more abstract relationship between the baseball and its capacity to do work.
A: 
So is it misleading, or completely wrong, to say that a moving object "contains" or "has" kinetic energy?

It is seemingly "more wrong" to say "contains" than to say "has." But, in any case, it is a matter of semantics, not physics. The word "has" has many meanings in English.

Suppose I calculate the kinetic energy of a baseball as being 200 joules. Am I wrong to say, "the baseball has 200 joules of kinetic energy"?

It's not "wrong" per se. If you want to be more clear you could throw on a caveat such as "in this reference frame." But that is already implicit to anyone who has a basic understanding of kinetic energy in physics.
