Rickey Henderson PSA "10" 1980 Topps Rookie Card - Tops $30,000.00!!
384292611.jpg)
Dboneesq
Posts: 18,219 ✭✭
One sold last night in the Mile High Auction for $30,325.19 with the BP. WOW!
STAY HEALTHY!
Doug
Liquidating my collection for the 3rd and final time. Time for others to enjoy what I have enjoyed over the last several decades. Money could be put to better use.
Doug
Liquidating my collection for the 3rd and final time. Time for others to enjoy what I have enjoyed over the last several decades. Money could be put to better use.
0
Comments
<< <i>I hate to tell anyone how to spend their money, but with a little patience a beautiful 9 can be had for under $500. Where is the logic in paying $30,000 for a 10? Put it next to a nice 9 and cover the flips, you can't tell the difference. >>
I totally agree that the difference between a nice 9 and a 10, if there is any, can't justify the astronomical jump in price. But I hope the people with that much money don't start buying 8s and 9s of these kinds of cards and driving the price up for poor saps like me. I suppose it's all just a matter of perspective and budget, though. I could never justify even $500 for a Henderson. I recently got mine for $60. Nobody is likely to mistake it for a 9 if you cover the flips, but the difference in condition between my 8 and a 9 isn't worth 8x the price for me. Everybody has to make their own judgments about that cost to condition ratio, though, which I suppose is what makes collecting challenging and fun no matter your budget.
Gorgeous Henderson above! How can another cost 30k more than that one? A bit more, ok.
Instagram: mattyc_collection
We need to remember that many of the people that are buying these cards throw around $30,000.00 like we do five bucks.
Doug
Liquidating my collection for the 3rd and final time. Time for others to enjoy what I have enjoyed over the last several decades. Money could be put to better use.
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
Dave
Call me crazy, but I'd rather have 100 PSA 9s
<< <i>Call me crazy, but I'd rather have 100 PSA 9s >>
Seriously!!
I just sold a PSA 9 on the Bay last month for $347, and it looked perfect. Someone paid an extra $30K for a different number on a slip of paper inside some plastic.
The 9 I just sold - no difference!
Hey there are only 10 Barry Bonds opc 1987 cards. 1987 opc is probably rarer than 1980 topps. they sell for $300. What am I missing?
<< <i>
<< <i>Call me crazy, but I'd rather have 100 PSA 9s >>
Seriously!!
I just sold a PSA 9 on the Bay last month for $347, and it looked perfect. Someone paid an extra $30K for a different number on a slip of paper inside some plastic.
The 9 I just sold - no difference! >>
+1
If PSA/high reputation grading company decided to just authenticate and encapsulate, the world as we know it would be a lot different.
<< <i>I just sold a PSA 9 on the Bay last month for $347, and it looked perfect. Someone paid an extra $30K for a different number on a slip of paper inside some plastic.
The 9 I just sold - no difference! >>
How many times (if any) did you resubmit yours?
<< <i>What Doug said. 30K to you is much different from 30K to others. Why do people spend a grand a plate for dinner when you can get an outstanding meal at a beautiful restaurant for $50? For some, the 10 is worth the premium when you have the cheddar. >>
I think spending a grand on dinner when a nice $50 dinner is available is more like buying '52 Mantles instead of '68 Mantles. Not everyone can afford to do it, but it is a markedly different experience for those who can, and makes perfect sense to me if you have the money to do it and enjoy the '52 Mantle.
Buying a 10 of a card like a Henderson at this kind of price, though, is more like going to a restaurant that sells one $60 meal and the waiter comes out with two plates of the same meal made with the same ingredients by the same chef and an expert. The expert says "I've examined this meal cooked by this chef 13,000 times, and the plate on the left is easily in the top half of meals this chef has cooked, and is very near perfect. You will be very pleased and have a very nice meal. The plate on the right, though, is as close to perfect as is reasonably possible. The chef has only cooked this meal this well about 10 times. The spices are just right and it was cooked exactly the right amount of time. We don't know when the chef will cook it this well again." Then he tells you you can have the plate on the left for $60 or the plate on the right for $30,000. People who buy these 10s are buying the $30,000 meal on the word of the expert. Maybe it's just that my palate isn't sophisticated enough, but I can't see paying that kind of premium for a tiny increase in the quality of the meal.
<< <i>
<< <i>What Doug said. 30K to you is much different from 30K to others. Why do people spend a grand a plate for dinner when you can get an outstanding meal at a beautiful restaurant for $50? For some, the 10 is worth the premium when you have the cheddar. >>
I think spending a grand on dinner when a nice $50 dinner is available is more like buying '52 Mantles instead of '68 Mantles. Not everyone can afford to do it, but it is a markedly different experience for those who can, and makes perfect sense to me if you have the money to do it and enjoy the '52 Mantle.
Buying a 10 of a card like a Henderson at this kind of price, though, is more like going to a restaurant that sells one $60 meal and the waiter comes out with two plates of the same meal made with the same ingredients by the same chef and an expert. The expert says "I've examined this meal cooked by this chef 13,000 times, and the plate on the left is easily in the top half of meals this chef has cooked, and is very near perfect. You will be very pleased and have a very nice meal. The plate on the right, though, is as close to perfect as is reasonably possible. The chef has only cooked this meal this well about 10 times. The spices are just right and it was cooked exactly the right amount of time. We don't know when the chef will cook it this well again." Then he tells you you can have the plate on the left for $60 or the plate on the right for $30,000. People who buy these 10s are buying the $30,000 meal on the word of the expert. Maybe it's just that my palate isn't sophisticated enough, but I can't see paying that kind of premium for a tiny increase in the quality of the meal. >>
Cool analogy...but this is a life long plate of food we are talking about.
I wonder what would happen if you took every graded 9 out of it's case and the 13 10's out of their case and submitted all the cards. It is my opinion that there would be a statiscallly significant change in quantity of cards and specific cards that would make the grade of 10..That is why I would examine the 9's and pick a great one for my pc. I feel the same way about certain Mantles in an 8 that look better to me than some of the 9s. Great discussion.
<< <i>I don't dislike, Rickey, but I am not sure what all the hype is with him. There are 12 10's I think. So its not like there are 2 of these. I doubt anyone would even consider him a top 50 player of all-time. There are like 18 tony gwynn opc rookies. I think he was alot better than Rickey, the card is really hard to find in a 9 or 10, there are much fewer opc cards laying around, but the last on sold for $999. HMMM. Should those two cards be $29,000 apart?
Hey there are only 10 Barry Bonds opc 1987 cards. 1987 opc is probably rarer than 1980 topps. they sell for $300. What am I missing? >>
As a huge baseball fan of the era, Rickey will always be one of my favorite players. It was combination of his athletic skill, personality, and his flair for the dramatic that made him popular. He had his peak years when Sportcenter started to get big so I got a chance to see him more even though I lived in the Midwest. I liked Gwynn, Boggs, Ripken, and Mattingly as well, but Rickey was cooler than those guys.
I'm not sure if his PSA 10 is worth $30K, to someone it is, but I'm not surprised he has a passionate fan base. Strawberry, Gooden, and Mattingly rookie cards sell for much more than they are statistically worth, but their fans are still loyal.
<< <i>
<< <i>What Doug said. 30K to you is much different from 30K to others. Why do people spend a grand a plate for dinner when you can get an outstanding meal at a beautiful restaurant for $50? For some, the 10 is worth the premium when you have the cheddar. >>
I think spending a grand on dinner when a nice $50 dinner is available is more like buying '52 Mantles instead of '68 Mantles. Not everyone can afford to do it, but it is a markedly different experience for those who can, and makes perfect sense to me if you have the money to do it and enjoy the '52 Mantle.
Buying a 10 of a card like a Henderson at this kind of price, though, is more like going to a restaurant that sells one $60 meal and the waiter comes out with two plates of the same meal made with the same ingredients by the same chef and an expert. The expert says "I've examined this meal cooked by this chef 13,000 times, and the plate on the left is easily in the top half of meals this chef has cooked, and is very near perfect. You will be very pleased and have a very nice meal. The plate on the right, though, is as close to perfect as is reasonably possible. The chef has only cooked this meal this well about 10 times. The spices are just right and it was cooked exactly the right amount of time. We don't know when the chef will cook it this well again." Then he tells you you can have the plate on the left for $60 or the plate on the right for $30,000. People who buy these 10s are buying the $30,000 meal on the word of the expert. Maybe it's just that my palate isn't sophisticated enough, but I can't see paying that kind of premium for a tiny increase in the quality of the meal. >>
My analogy may have been apples to oranges, but the premise is the same~for some collectors only the best or the highest grade will do. You may disagree with the premise for that kind of rationale, but I think it's important that we try not to impose our perspective as the way others should approach their collecting preferences. There are many examples in life where people choose to pay much more for goods than necessary for any number of reasons. We may not agree that such conspicuous consumption is frugal or wise, but for those that can afford it, hey, collect what you like and can afford. If you can afford to drop 30K on a Henderson PSA 10, you've probably made better decisions in life than the vast majority of the public to begin with, lol..
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
<< <i>I don't dislike, Rickey, but I am not sure what all the hype is with him. There are 12 10's I think. So its not like there are 2 of these. I doubt anyone would even consider him a top 50 player of all-time. There are like 18 tony gwynn opc rookies. I think he was alot better than Rickey, the card is really hard to find in a 9 or 10, there are much fewer opc cards laying around, but the last on sold for $999. HMMM. Should those two cards be $29,000 apart?
Hey there are only 10 Barry Bonds opc 1987 cards. 1987 opc is probably rarer than 1980 topps. they sell for $300. What am I missing? >>
well, they have to be rare and in demand. Also, I think Rickey is top 15 all time. But even if you accept that as truth the price difference between this card and a pop 4 1979T Ozzie Smith doesn't make sense to me. The last sale I could find of that one was about $20K but that was in 2012. Maybe today it would sell for over $30K but probably not much more. Ozzie may not have been the player Rickey was, but he was extremely popular and played many years for one of the most popular teams in baseball.
<< <i>I don't dislike, Rickey, but I am not sure what all the hype is with him. There are 12 10's I think. So its not like there are 2 of these. I doubt anyone would even consider him a top 50 player of all-time. There are like 18 tony gwynn opc rookies. I think he was alot better than Rickey, the card is really hard to find in a 9 or 10, there are much fewer opc cards laying around, but the last on sold for $999. HMMM. Should those two cards be $29,000 apart?
Hey there are only 10 Barry Bonds opc 1987 cards. 1987 opc is probably rarer than 1980 topps. they sell for $300. What am I missing? >>
Gwynn was a great player, but Henderson was better, imo~pretty much hands down the best leadoff hitter in history and I'd put him in my top 50 all time, certainly.
More significantly, though, there have been just 13 Henderson RCs graded PSA 10 out of over 13,400 Hendersons submitted, a percentage of .0009%. Compare that to the 83 OPC Gwynn in PSA 10 which has a pop of 20 out of only 670 graded, a percentage of .03, and it is clear that the Gwynn is an easy 10 compared to the Henderson. Add to that a 3-year difference in the year of issue and the far greater popularity of Topps baseball over OPC from this era, and you get a better idea for the disparity in value between these cards.
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
<< <i>I think it's important that we try not to impose our perspective as the way others should approach their collecting preferences. >>
I agree with this, and I don't mean to put anyone else's collecting choices down (not that they would care what I think). Like I said in my first post, I'm trying to explore why it makes no sense to me. Maybe it would be different if I had more money--I do own a few 10s, but they are all post-1987 where the cost jump isn't as great--but I don't think it would be different for me because of the great disparity in cost for a small difference in condition.
Anyway, as with many other issues, I've found that the differing perspectives on the cost to condition balance I've seen expressed on the board over the few months I've been reading have been helpful in shaping my own thoughts on how to pursue my own collection. So I think it's valuable to hear from everyone on this. It would be cool if the buyer of the Henderson was a member and willing to explain their own thought process. It would be fun to hear from that kind of collector directly. Maybe it really is the same as my buying a 10 of a 1987 Fleer Larkin instead of a 9 because $40 bucks isn't much to me and I didn't see a centered 9 quickly. It seems different to me, but maybe that's just because I can't throw around 30K so easily. Hard to put yourself in such different shoes.
I think this is the key~for us, or the average collector, spending that kind of money on a 1980 baseball card in any grade, is just bizarre, but if you are wealthy enough so that 30K is like $300, not so much. I sure hope whoever did buy it is wealthy, though, lol!
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
<< <i>Maybe it really is the same as my buying a 10 of a 1987 Fleer Larkin instead of a 9 because $40 bucks isn't much to me and I didn't see a centered 9 quickly. >>
I'm not sure you can find a centered 9 of that card (or the Glossy version). L/R centering is what is keeping at least 99% of those 9s from being 10s. Heck, even most of the 10s aren't centered and are pushing (or slightly outside) the 55/45 limit.
<< <i>
<< <i>Maybe it really is the same as my buying a 10 of a 1987 Fleer Larkin instead of a 9 because $40 bucks isn't much to me and I didn't see a centered 9 quickly. >>
I'm not sure you can find a centered 9 of that card (or the Glossy version). L/R centering is what is keeping at least 99% of those 9s from being 10s. Heck, even most of the 10s aren't centered and are pushing (or slightly outside) the 55/45 limit. >>
These look good, no?
link1
link2
link3
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>Maybe it really is the same as my buying a 10 of a 1987 Fleer Larkin instead of a 9 because $40 bucks isn't much to me and I didn't see a centered 9 quickly. >>
I'm not sure you can find a centered 9 of that card (or the Glossy version). L/R centering is what is keeping at least 99% of those 9s from being 10s. Heck, even most of the 10s aren't centered and are pushing (or slightly outside) the 55/45 limit. >>
These look good, no?
link1
link2
link3 >>
Dang it, I guess to be consistent I'd have to sell my 10 and buy a centered 9 now. Good thing for me that foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds. Really, though, at the time I was looking none that good were listed, and I made a decision to buy the 10 and move on to the next one.
I do think it's more than just money, though, as there are many, many things I don't have the money to buy but understand the impulse to purchase from those who do. A PSA 10 Henderson at such a price disparity to an 8 or 9 isn't one of them, though. But hey, to each his own.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>Maybe it really is the same as my buying a 10 of a 1987 Fleer Larkin instead of a 9 because $40 bucks isn't much to me and I didn't see a centered 9 quickly. >>
I'm not sure you can find a centered 9 of that card (or the Glossy version). L/R centering is what is keeping at least 99% of those 9s from being 10s. Heck, even most of the 10s aren't centered and are pushing (or slightly outside) the 55/45 limit. >>
These look good, no?
link1
link2
link3 >>
The 3rd one is a 10 in a 9 holder centering wise (guessing the lower left corner keeps it in a 9) and one of the nicest 9s I've seen, the other two are perfect examples of when you finally find one fairly well centered R/L, the T/B is way off (75/25 & 65/35 approx).
IT CAN'T BE A TRUE PLAYOFF UNLESS THE BIG TEN CHAMPIONS ARE INCLUDED
<< <i>Also, I think Rickey is top 15 all time. >>
Top 15? Really? Guys I think were/are better than Rickey:
Mantle
Aaron
Ruth
Gehrig
Williams
Aaron
Mays
Pujols
Miguel Cabrera
Cobb
Dimaggio
Barry Bonds
A-Rod
Schmidt
Hornsby
Lajoie
Joe Jackson
That's 17 off the top of my head. Rickey belongs in that group, eliminating 3?
<< <i>
<< <i>Also, I think Rickey is top 15 all time. >>
Top 15? Really? Guys I think were/are better than Rickey:
That's 17 off the top of my head. Rickey belongs in that group, eliminating 3? >>
I think he'd be in my all-time starting lineup as a leadoff hitter/OF (perhaps he drops to top tier of 2nd team), but agree top 15 ever is a stretch.
<< <i>
<< <i>Also, I think Rickey is top 15 all time. >>
Top 15? Really? Guys I think were/are better than Rickey:
Mantle
Aaron
Ruth
Gehrig
Williams
Aaron
Mays
Pujols
Miguel Cabrera
Cobb
Dimaggio
Barry Bonds
A-Rod
Schmidt
Hornsby
Lajoie
Joe Jackson
That's 17 off the top of my head. Rickey belongs in that group, eliminating 3? >>
You listed Aaron twice... and take out Pujols, Arod, and Schmidt . Tempted to take out Bonds, despite being a favorite of mine as a kid... just don't like comparing tainted players to clean ones. That being said, I'd say he's top 25 or 30... not really top 15.
Anyone can own a Henderson rookie. Very few can say they own one that PSA has graded a 10. It is as simple as that.
If I had to bet there are threads on various message boards that said the card was overvalued when it was $7,500 or when it was $10,000 and so on. Unless there is some bizarre surge in the population totals which would seem incredibly unlikely, at some point in the future it will find a higher plateau then this.
<< <i>
<< <i>Also, I think Rickey is top 15 all time. >>
Top 15? Really? Guys I think were/are better than Rickey:
Mantle
Aaron
Ruth
Gehrig
Williams
Aaron
Mays
Pujols
Miguel Cabrera
Cobb
Dimaggio
Barry Bonds
A-Rod
Schmidt
Hornsby
Lajoie
Joe Jackson
That's 17 off the top of my head. Rickey belongs in that group, eliminating 3? >>
Pujols, Cabrera, DiMaggio, a-rod and Schmidt id put behind him. Although a-rod is probably skittle better if you just go by the numbers. I gave a hard time comparing the dead ball guys to the modern era. I'd probably only put a couple guys in the top 15.
Is this supposed to be a top list of non-pitchers?
That said, if you have unlimited means to throw down for a flip, you could do worse than this card. The sheer pop numbers.....the desirability.....the badass look of the card itself......I know it would be near the top of my list. Many consider 30k insanity, but I'm personally more fascinated than anything. Besides, if there's one thing I've learned since rejoining this hobby, it's that today's premium could easily be tomorrow's bargain...
you'll never be able to outrun a bad diet
Yeah, slap that card down on the bar top at your local Hooters and see what you reel in. Maybe a middle aged guy with huge moobs.
<< <i> Conspicuous consumption
Yeah, slap that card down on the bar top at your local Hooters and see what you reel in. Maybe a middle aged guy with huge moobs. >>
I think I've made clear that I'm not interested in that card.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>Also, I think Rickey is top 15 all time. >>
Top 15? Really? Guys I think were/are better than Rickey:
Mantle
Aaron
Ruth
Gehrig
Williams
Aaron
Mays
Pujols
Miguel Cabrera
Cobb
Dimaggio
Barry Bonds
A-Rod
Schmidt
Hornsby
Lajoie
Joe Jackson
That's 17 off the top of my head. Rickey belongs in that group, eliminating 3? >>
Pujols, Cabrera, DiMaggio, a-rod and Schmidt id put behind him. Although a-rod is probably skittle better if you just go by the numbers. I gave a hard time comparing the dead ball guys to the modern era. I'd probably only put a couple guys in the top 15. >>
How is Rickey ahead of Pujols? Lower average, lower OBP, lower slugging. Neither one a great defender. Only thing Rickey has over Albert is steals.
Schmidt? All-time great defender who hits 500+ homers? C'mon.
Cabrera? C'mon. Miggy has a Triple Crown, 11 straight 100 RBI seasons and 400 homers.
Rickey was a great player, no question. But he seems to be getting overrated just a bit here.
And does anybody seriously think Henderson didn't do steroids?
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>Also, I think Rickey is top 15 all time. >>
Top 15? Really? Guys I think were/are better than Rickey:
Mantle
Aaron
Ruth
Gehrig
Williams
Aaron
Mays
Pujols
Miguel Cabrera
Cobb
Dimaggio
Barry Bonds
A-Rod
Schmidt
Hornsby
Lajoie
Joe Jackson
That's 17 off the top of my head. Rickey belongs in that group, eliminating 3? >>
Pujols, Cabrera, DiMaggio, a-rod and Schmidt id put behind him. Although a-rod is probably skittle better if you just go by the numbers. I gave a hard time comparing the dead ball guys to the modern era. I'd probably only put a couple guys in the top 15. >>
How is Rickey ahead of Pujols? Lower average, lower OBP, lower slugging. Neither one a great defender. Only thing Rickey has over Albert is steals.
Schmidt? All-time great defender who hits 500+ homers? C'mon.
Cabrera? C'mon. Miggy has a Triple Crown, 11 straight 100 RBI seasons and 400 homers.
Rickey was a great player, no question. But he seems to be getting overrated just a bit here.
And does anybody seriously think Henderson didn't do steroids? >>
If you're going to compare Rickey to sluggers like Schmidt and Pujols, I think you need to consider more than HRs and RBIs. 3000 hits and 500 HRs are pretty comparable achievements imo... and Rickey had nearly 300 HRs as a lead-off hitter to boot. His 1100 RBIs are really good considering he scored 2300 runs. That's far more run production than Pujols or Schmidt. OBP is right there with Pujols. Def wouldn't put him ahead of Miggy though.
That's a shame, because your moobs are spectacular.
Can anyone say the same about Pujlos?
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
<< <i>Rickey averages six more runs scored and 63 fewer RBI than Pujols per 162 games. He simply was not more productive than Albert has been. >>
That lends to efficiency rather than productivity, which could be more of a result of where they batted in the lineup. Pujols averaged 20 more HRs per 162 games... if you account for the fact HRs double count a produced run in player stats (i.e., solo HR is an RBI and R scored, despite only being one run for the team) the discrepancy is -63 in RBIs but +30 on R scored. Then consider the +67 in SBs and +30 in BBs per 162, I think Rickey holds his own considering where he hit. Although if Pujols stays healthy a couple more years, he'll def end up being better.
<< <i>And does anybody seriously think Henderson didn't do steroids?
Can anyone say the same about Pujlos? >>
You'll note from my list that I didn't exclude guys who used roids. Others were discounting Rodriguez, etc, for using them as opposed to Rickey. Hence my comment.
I wouldn't stake my life on it but, yes, I would bet that Pujols used steroids.
<< <i>
<< <i>Rickey averages six more runs scored and 63 fewer RBI than Pujols per 162 games. He simply was not more productive than Albert has been. >>
That lends to efficiency rather than productivity, which could be more of a result of where they batted in the lineup. Pujols averaged 20 more HRs per 162 games... if you account for the fact HRs double count a produced run in player stats (i.e., solo HR is an RBI and R scored, despite only being one run for the team) the discrepancy is -63 in RBIs but +30 on R scored. Then consider the +67 in SBs and +30 in BBs per 162, I think Rickey holds his own considering where he hit. Although if Pujols stays healthy a couple more years, he'll def end up being better. >>
Well, the reason I used the "per 162" stat is because simply throwing out there Rickey having 2300 runs scored vs Albert's 1500 is pretty misleading. At this point, Rickey has played in some 900 more games than Pujols has. His counting stats SHOULD be higher - he played until he was 173 years old
And it's kind of talking out both sides of your mouth to reward Rickey for his position in the lineup (2300 runs scored!) while punishing Albert for his.
As for the steals and walks: I don't really care about the steals. It's an overrated stat and obviously didn't have THAT much of an impact if he's only scoring 6 more runs per 162 while stealing 67 more bases. As for the walks, who cares? The name of the game is getting on base - and both guys have the exact same OBP (.401). If anything, walks are slightly less valuable than a hit so a guy with a higher average but same OBP is going to a little more valuable than a guy with a lower BA but same OBP. Add in the vast difference in slugging and it's obvious which guy was the more productive hitter.
Again, I'm not knocking Rickey. He was a great, great hitter. I just don't think he was a top 15 player.
I'm not huge on sabremetrics but for what it's worth he's 19th all time in war., behind a few dead ball players. Part of that was the number of years he played but hey, he was also an effective player for a quarter century.
I don't plan on changing anyone's minds but if I was doing an all time draft, he's not getting by me with the 15th pick.
<< <i>Tabe, I get that you're not a real fan of Rickey, but how can you throw out the roids accusation for Rickey? You're the 1st guy I've heard of that has mentioned Rickey as a roids user. Are you just thinking that because he played with McGwire and Canseco in the late 80s. The guy didn't have a change in physique during his playing career. >>
Uh, yeah, he did.
Early Rickey:
Later Rickey:
Not a HUGE transformation but he obviously became bigger and a lot more muscled over the course of his career.
It's not true that I'm not a fan of Rickey's. I generally liked the guy during his career and loved the way he (generally) played. Sure, one of my all-time favorite moments in baseball was when he got thrown out against the Tigers trying for #119 in 1982 (after the runner on 2B intentionally got picked off so Rickey could try to steal and break the record at home). But I liked the guy. I've stated he's a great player. I don't see how "he's not a top 15 guy" and saying he did roids makes me not a fan. Roids don't really factor into whether I'm fan of a player or not. Bonds? Not a fan. Clemens? Mostly a fan. Palmeiro? Fan. Pettite? Not a fan.
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.