Why are Mattingly rookies going up in price?

Writer11 · June 28, 2006 12:55AM

I have been noticing a trend in the past few months in the SMR that high-grade (PSA 9 or 10s) Mattinglys (both 1984 Donruss and Topps) have been going up in value. They have also been selling for more on eBay. Why do you think this is?

shagrotn77 · June 28, 2006 12:58AM

Probably just an anomoly (sp?). I don't think Mattingly will ever really come close to a HOF induction, so that can't be the reason.

cmoking · June 28, 2006 1:11AM

Maybe Mattingly and Guidry cards have been doing well because they have a slightly higher profile now as coaches for the Yankees than they had in the past 5-10 years. Yankee fans see them almost every day during the games on TV so they are visible.

aro13 · June 28, 2006 1:24AM

I would agree with what cmoking said. Mattingly is getting plenty of exposure on the Yankees bench. People might wonder if he was a good hitter, look up his stats and discover that for a few seasons he was as good as anybody in the game. Although the Hall of Fame is a longshot he is still a highly respected Yankee and Yankee star cards always tend to sell quite well.

ralstonpurina · June 28, 2006 2:02AM

For guys my age, the 84 donruss Mattingly was the card to have when we were younger. For the most part, we buy stuff we collected when we were kids, that is a major component of our hobby.

The donruss issue is also a very popular set

bri2327 · June 28, 2006 2:41AM

The article in SMR a few months back didnt hurt.

I agree the exposure of seeing Mattingly and Guidry every day has helped. I am working on both the Mattingly and Guidry sets since they were my 2 favorite players growing up. The popularity of Mattingly cannot be under stated. Of all the great players in every sport who have passed through NY Mattingly may be the most revered. I forget where it was mentioned, but of every athlete who ever played here he very well may be the only one who NEVER got booed.

Take a look at Mattingly's registry sets and you will notice a very large interest. Maybe even more so than most of the hall of famers who were his contemporaries. Day in and day out his cards are going for amazing prices in PSA 10. Not just his rookie cards but any of his cards.

To me his rookie cards are still a very good bargain considering his popularity.

CDsNuts · June 28, 2006 3:12AM

I've noticed every time an SMR article comes up about a set or player, there is a little hike in what they bring on ebay. Sometimes it's fairly significant. I can remember the 91 Desert Shield set taking a big jump after the article. A Dirk Nowitzki article would be nice for me right about now.

Lee

Stone193 · June 28, 2006 3:16AM

<< A Dirk Nowitzki article would be nice for me right about now. >>

While you're at it, why not throw in a Cal Eldred, Jay Buhner, Pete Incaviglia, Brien Taylor lovefest also!

Seraph · June 28, 2006 4:24AM

Could it be because of his son?

DeutscherGeist · June 28, 2006 6:49AM

Mattingly is simply a popular and likeable player and his cards are solid investments. No downward turn, just a slow steady rise in the post-retirement period. Its the PSA 10s that fetch real coin since they are harder to find. His 1984 donruss rookie was undervalued last year in my opinion. It will go up, but very slowly. Nothing to start hoarding, but something to buy and enjoy. I think all of us here already have a Mattingly donruss rookie anyway.

edit for grammar

Axtell · June 28, 2006 7:49AM

Not sure if the rookie card of a solid player who won't see the hall of fame can be undervalued, can it?

bri2327 · June 28, 2006 8:17AM

<< Not sure if the rookie card of a solid player who won't see the hall of fame can be undervalued, can it? >>

Very simply, YES.

Southerncards · June 28, 2006 8:51AM

Perhaps Matty is finally getting the attention he deserves. One of the finest hitters since Ted Williams. Boggs, Gwynn et al got alot of attention but for 13 seasons, Donnie Baseball was New York.

And to all those naysayers who say that he never won a championship - thats not his fault. Day in, day out, Donnie was awesome.

Matty deserves the HOF. No question.

ToppsCo1lector · June 28, 2006 10:41AM

I grew up watching him play. Simply Donnie Baseball was/is my favorite baseball player. In my opinion he's not only Hall-Worthy but was definitly one of the Top 10 players in the game during his run. I mean literally Baltimore had Cal and New York had Don.

tkd7 · June 28, 2006 12:01PM

I'm a big Yankee fan and was a big Mattingly fan as a kid. That being said, anyone else besides me notice that his '84 Donruss card has one of the worst photos of any of the post '81 topps/fleer/donruss era?

His face is in the shadow from the brim of his hat. I know that collectors love this set, but Donruss blew it with this photo.

bri2327 · June 28, 2006 12:16PM

<< I'm a big Yankee fan and was a big Mattingly fan as a kid. That being said, anyone else besides me notice that his '84 Donruss card has one of the worst photos of any of the post '81 topps/fleer/donruss era?

His face is in the shadow from the brim of his hat. I know that collectors love this set, but Donruss blew it with this photo. >>

blasphemy

CDsNuts · June 28, 2006 12:30PM

He didn't sustain his All-Star numbers for long enough to get into the Hall. 5 great years and 3 above average years does not make a Hall of Famer. Granted, he was a top 3 hitter from '84-'89, but Jim Rice had more MVP-type years and was just as dominant, and he's not in the hall. Dale Murphy's career would probably be the best comparison to Mattingly's, and neither of them will ever get in. You gotta draw the line somewhere, and history says that Mattingly didn't sustain good numbers for nearly long enough to get into the hall.

Also, his prices are at a level much higher than other players that have had similar careers. It's the hoards of Yankee collectors that drive his prices up, not his numbers or likeability. Lots of players during his era had numbers that were just as good and were just as likeable.

Lee

Buccaneer · June 28, 2006 1:01PM

I guess some of the people here are much smarter than the baseball writers. What, only 26 or so of them thought he was hall worthy - that means an awful lot thought he was not. But what do they know, all they have to do is listen to some here who says he deserves the hall. No Doubt.

Uh huh.

Also, I like the crack about "no downward turn". I guess you have been living under a rock since the early 90s when his cards were 2x what they are now.

But Mattingly has always inspired irrationality. Almost no one would even remember him if he played for the Cleveland Indians during 80s.

CDsNuts · June 28, 2006 1:02PM

Below are the stats of three players from the same era, all not in the hall. Mattingly is the first, and his cards on average go for significantly more in PSA 10 condition from sets 1987-present than the other two. No way you can call him undervalued. Anybody care to guess the other two without looking it up?

--------------- HR RBI AVG
Year 1-------23 110 .343
Year 2-------35 145 .324
Year 3-------31 113 .352
Year 4-------30 115 .327
Year 5-------18 88 .311
Year 6-------23 113 .303
Year 7---------5 42 .256
Year 8---------9 68 .288
Year 9--------14 86 .288
Year 10-------17 61 .291
Year 11-------6 51 .304
Year 12-------7 49 .288

--------------- HR RBI AVG
Year 1-------19 65 .282
Year 2-------25 72 .253
Year 3-------25 92 .275
Year 4-------17 87 .308
Year 5-------24 64 .302
Year 6-------23 83 .301
Year 7--------20 78 .284
Year 8-------49 137 .287
Year 9--------24 79 .303
Year 10-------21 77 .252
Year 11-------27 100 .310
Year 12-------31 104 .272
Year 13-------22 90 .277
Year 14-------13 67 .273
Year 15-------16 48 .240
Year 16-------8 37 .257

--------------- HR RBI AVG
Year 1-------22 102 .309
Year 2-------25 85 .282
Year 3-------39 114 .320
Year 4-------46 139 .315
Year 5-------39 130 .329
Year 6-------24 86 .294
Year 7--------17 62 .284
Year 8-------24 97 .309
Year 9--------39 126 .305
Year 10-------28 122 .280
Year 11-------27 103 .291
Year 12-------20 110 .324
Year 13-------13 62 .277
Year 14-------15 72 .264
Year 15-------3 28 .234

Boopotts · June 28, 2006 1:04PM

<< 

<< A Dirk Nowitzki article would be nice for me right about now. >>

While you're at it, why not throw in a Cal Eldred, Jay Buhner, Pete Incaviglia, Brien Taylor lovefest also!

>>

OK, I give it up--- funniest post of the month goes to Stone (sorry Lee, you're always in the running, but this one takes the keg)

CDsNuts · June 28, 2006 1:05PM

That's ok Boo, it was an honor just to be nominated.

Lee

Carew29 · June 28, 2006 1:18PM

I remember the talk of Mattingly trying for the triple crown and one of the commentators listed his weakness. And that was Wade Boggs, as Mattingly could never hit for Wade's avg.

BugOnTheRug · June 28, 2006 1:59PM

<< ......anyone else besides me notice that his '84 Donruss card has one of the worst photos of any of the post '81 topps/fleer/donruss era? >>

huh?........... your kidding right?? Ever look at Kevin Mitchell's 1987 Topps rookie card??

Lots of reasons for Mattingly's popularity, in no particular order:

Donny Baseball
New York Yankees
His popularity within the hobby in the mid-80's
1984D,T popularity
Mr. Nice Guy
No steriods, corked bats, or bad attitude
Shoulda,Woulda,Coulda been a HOF if not for his back problems.
Psa's magazine article

He's locked into the above and the only way he will ever be knocked out of it is if he does something extremely stupid or irrational in his personal life - and even if he does I doubt his popularity will sink that much.

1984D PSA 10's have most always sold for way more than SMR and 9's right around it. There are only 34 or so PSA 10's so they don't hand them out like candy, although I've seen a few that are less than stellar. The one pictured is a self submission and is in my set. BTW - I like the shot and think it's a pretty cool close-up of Donny Baseball...............

tkd7 · June 28, 2006 2:05PM

<< 

<< ......anyone else besides me notice that his '84 Donruss card has one of the worst photos of any of the post '81 topps/fleer/donruss era? >>

huh?........... your kidding right?? Ever look at Kevin Mitchell's 1987 Topps rookie card??

>>

Not kidding. I think the shadow detracts from the photo, but hey, its just my opinion. I haven't looked at the Mitchell card in a long time (probably since '87), if you have a scan, let's see it.

Boopotts · June 28, 2006 2:22PM

<< That's ok Boo, it was an honor just to be nominated.

Lee >>

Gracious in defeat-- the mark of a true wit. But fear not, mon ami--I have no doubt you'll have ample opportunities to hoist the hardware in the months to come.

Also, I have no chance of naming both of the hitherto-unnamed players who belong to the stats in your prior post, but one of them I am sure is either Butch Wynegar or Oddibe McDowell. To borrow from Porky's, "I'd recognize those stats anywhere!'

Axtell · June 28, 2006 2:59PM

<< Perhaps Matty is finally getting the attention he deserves. One of the finest hitters since Ted Williams. Boggs, Gwynn et al got alot of attention but for 13 seasons, Donnie Baseball was New York.
>>

And how much do Boggs' and Gwynn's cards sell for? Mattingly was similar, thought Boggs was a better hitter. I'd say his cards are priced according to his talent.

<< 
Matty deserves the HOF. No question. >>

Quit drinking the NY koolaid once in a while and see he's only going to hall on a day pass like you and I.

BugOnTheRug · June 28, 2006 2:59PM

you want an ugly rookie?

here's ugly......................

Axtell · June 28, 2006 3:01PM

Ahh good ole Kevin Mitchell...the very epitome of steroids in the late 80s early 90s. Almost had forgotten about that guy.

MantleMarisFordBerra · June 28, 2006 10:44PM

I always thought the 84 Donruss Mattingly was a very attractive card, but then again I think that Kevin Mitchell card looks cool as well so what do I know?

scooter729 · June 28, 2006 10:58PM

<< Below are the stats of three players from the same era, all not in the hall. Mattingly is the first, and his cards on average go for significantly more in PSA 10 condition from sets 1987-present than the other two. No way you can call him undervalued. Anybody care to guess the other two without looking it up?

--------------- HR RBI AVG
Year 1-------23 110 .343
Year 2-------35 145 .324
Year 3-------31 113 .352
Year 4-------30 115 .327
Year 5-------18 88 .311
Year 6-------23 113 .303
Year 7---------5 42 .256
Year 8---------9 68 .288
Year 9--------14 86 .288
Year 10-------17 61 .291
Year 11-------6 51 .304
Year 12-------7 49 .288

--------------- HR RBI AVG
Year 1-------19 65 .282
Year 2-------25 72 .253
Year 3-------25 92 .275
Year 4-------17 87 .308
Year 5-------24 64 .302
Year 6-------23 83 .301
Year 7--------20 78 .284
Year 8-------49 137 .287
Year 9--------24 79 .303
Year 10-------21 77 .252
Year 11-------27 100 .310
Year 12-------31 104 .272
Year 13-------22 90 .277
Year 14-------13 67 .273
Year 15-------16 48 .240
Year 16-------8 37 .257

--------------- HR RBI AVG
Year 1-------22 102 .309
Year 2-------25 85 .282
Year 3-------39 114 .320
Year 4-------46 139 .315
Year 5-------39 130 .329
Year 6-------24 86 .294
Year 7--------17 62 .284
Year 8-------24 97 .309
Year 9--------39 126 .305
Year 10-------28 122 .280
Year 11-------27 103 .291
Year 12-------20 110 .324
Year 13-------13 62 .277
Year 14-------15 72 .264
Year 15-------3 28 .234 >>

The second list of stats look like they belong to Andre Dawson (noting the 49 homers in Year 8) and the third group of stats belong to Jim Ed Rice (I'd recognize his '78 season of 46 homers and 139 RBI anywhere). There has been quite a push in Boston recently to get Rice into the HOF, esp. in light of having made his accomplishments in the pre-steroid era.

bri2327 · June 28, 2006 11:01PM

Ok, let me state this very emphatically once and for all. Don Mattingly should not get into the hall of fame. I am a Mattingly worshiper, he was hands down my childhood idol and favorite all time baseball player. Words cannot express the love I have for everything he ever accomplished, but he just did not do it long enough. Please fellow Yankee and Mattingly fans, do not let your love for the guy cloud your judgement. Take a moment and a deep breath, contemplate your passion for the mans career, then put it aside and make a rational, emotionally sound decision.

There are many, many players in the hall of fame that I feel Mattingly superior to, but that is based on his prime, healthy years. During a 5 years stretch I would put him up against many of the greats who ever played, save Ruth, Gehrig, Cobb, Musial, Williams, Mays, F. Robinson, Mantle, and of course a few others. The fact remains that a hall of famer is based on a long career of success, something Mattingly did not have no matter how much we wish and dream.

tkd7 · June 28, 2006 11:05PM

<< you want an ugly rookie?

here's ugly......................

>>

If the focus is off on the card like it is on the scan, it is a terrible photo.

CDsNuts · June 28, 2006 11:15PM

You're right scooter, the first is Dawson and the 2nd is Rice. What amazed me about Dawson is that he consistently put up good stats in the pitching heavy National league, which not many players were able to do in that era (Sandberg and Murphy are the others I can think of). Plus, he did it for the worst teams in the league (Expos and Cubs). How bad does your lineup have to be to hit .302 and 25 HRs, and only have 64 RBIs?

bri- You might be the first Mattingly/Yankee diehard I've seen that can admit that he doesn't belong in the Hall. Even though I don't think he should be there, I'd put him there above Don Sutton, Catfish Hunter, and Luis Aparicio, and a few others.

Lee

BugOnTheRug · June 28, 2006 11:17PM

The focus of Topps '87 Mitchells' is fine from the factoy. This scan is from an online scan and doesn't represent the clarity at all.

Still a butt-ugly card regardless how crystal clear it comes from Topps.

Courvoisier · June 28, 2006 11:20PM

<< I have been noticing a trend in the past few months in the SMR that high-grade (PSA 9 or 10s) Mattinglys (both 1984 Donruss and Topps) have been going up in value. They have also been selling for more on eBay. Why do you think this is? >>

Hmm, maybe because New Yorkers are buying them up for working with slumpin' Rodriguez and helping him get his swing back. New yorkers love anything, or anyone who help them win.

Play On....

softparade · June 28, 2006 11:40PM

Lee,

I have always said Mattingly does not belong in the Hall. There is no "bigger" Yankee fan than me! So, I am #2 on your list

Writer11 · June 29, 2006 12:06AM

<< Ok, let me state this very emphatically once and for all. Don Mattingly should not get into the hall of fame. I am a Mattingly worshiper, he was hands down my childhood idol and favorite all time baseball player. Words cannot express the love I have for everything he ever accomplished, but he just did not do it long enough. Please fellow Yankee and Mattingly fans, do not let your love for the guy cloud your judgement. Take a moment and a deep breath, contemplate your passion for the mans career, then put it aside and make a rational, emotionally sound decision.

There are many, many players in the hall of fame that I feel Mattingly superior to, but that is based on his prime, healthy years. During a 5 years stretch I would put him up against many of the greats who ever played, save Ruth, Gehrig, Cobb, Musial, Williams, Mays, F. Robinson, Mantle, and of course a few others. The fact remains that a hall of famer is based on a long career of success, something Mattingly did not have no matter how much we wish and dream. >>

Well said, Bri. This is precisely how I feel about Dale Murphy. As much as I worship "Murph," deep down I know he doesn't belong in Cooperstown.

CDsNuts · June 29, 2006 12:20AM

Dan,
You're not that big- I saw a pic of you at your wedding.

Lee

cmoking · June 29, 2006 12:47AM

I am a Yankee fan, and grew up with Mattingly as my favorite player. But I don't think he should be in the HOF either. He needed a few more good seasons, and his body just didn't hold up.

However, I do think there are some players in the HOF who should not be, those players I think are similar or worse than Mattingly. One that comes to mind right away is Kirby Puckett. Puckett had three things going for him:

- Puckett had a career ending injury that suddenly ended his career, whereas Mattingly's decline was slow but steady. Puckett got the sorrow vote

- Although there is a New York bias as far as putting Yankee games on TV, there is an anti-Yankee bias around the country when it comes to voting for MVP or HOF. That's just my opinion, and I'm sure many will disagree on this.

- Puckett had some incredible WS performances. Those stand out.

Look at the comparison in their stats, how is it obvious one is a HOFer and the other isn't. To me, they are both borderline not-HOFers.

Puckett: 2304 Hits, 414 Doubles, 207 HR, 318 BA, .360 OBP, .477 SLG
Mattingly: 2153 Hits, 442 Doubles, 222 HR, .307 BA, .358 OBP, .471 SLG

digicat · June 29, 2006 12:53AM

<< Ahh good ole Kevin Mitchell...the very epitome of steroids in the late 80s early 90s. Almost had forgotten about that guy. >>

???

You'd take Mitchell over Canseco for that honor?

Boopotts · June 29, 2006 1:09AM

<< 

<< Ahh good ole Kevin Mitchell...the very epitome of steroids in the late 80s early 90s. Almost had forgotten about that guy. >>

???

You'd take Mitchell over Canseco for that honor? >>

Mitchell had a few priceless 'roid rage incidents that IMO give him a bump over Canseco.

CDsNuts · June 29, 2006 1:14AM

cmoking- No offense, but your logic is a little faulty:

If Mattingly led the Yankees to two World Series as the unquestioned leader of the team, he would be in without a doubt. Same thing with Ozzie Smith- you think he's in without winning a ring, and repeat visits to the Series?

Also, it's not that there was an anti-Yankee sentiment back then that held Mattingly back from getting the MVP. It's more of an "anti-teams that suck" sentiment, and the Yankees sucked. Even now, ARod over Big Papi last year? Seriously, you think there's anti-Yankee bias?

48 HR 130 RBI, and .321 for a guy who is the antithesis of "clutch" and is not a team leader vs. 47 HR 148 RBI and .300 for a guy who regularly hits walk-off homers and is the team leader. Ummm, I'll go for the guy that doesn't hit into game-ending double plays.

Lee

tkd7 · June 29, 2006 1:36AM

<< 

- Although there is a New York bias as far as putting Yankee games on TV, there is an anti-Yankee bias around the country when it comes to voting for MVP or HOF. That's just my opinion, and I'm sure many will disagree on this.
>>

I'm a Yankee fan, and I disagree. I think the last time a Yankee should have won a major award and didn't was '78 when Rice won over Guidry for MVP.

Ortiz should have been AL MVP last year.

cmoking · June 29, 2006 1:37AM

On ARod vs Big Papi
how about playing Gold Glove at 3B vs sitting on the pine rooting for his team when they are on the field? DH - that's the reason.

Boopotts · June 29, 2006 2:10AM

<< cmoking- No offense, but your logic is a little faulty:

If Mattingly led the Yankees to two World Series as the unquestioned leader of the team, he would be in without a doubt. Same thing with Ozzie Smith- you think he's in without winning a ring, and repeat visits to the Series?

Also, it's not that there was an anti-Yankee sentiment back then that held Mattingly back from getting the MVP. It's more of an "anti-teams that suck" sentiment, and the Yankees sucked. Even now, ARod over Big Papi last year? Seriously, you think there's anti-Yankee bias?

48 HR 130 RBI, and .321 for a guy who is the antithesis of "clutch" and is not a team leader vs. 47 HR 148 RBI and .300 for a guy who regularly hits walk-off homers and is the team leader. Ummm, I'll go for the guy that doesn't hit into game-ending double plays.

Lee >>

Well, A-Rod is also a fantastic fielder (which Ortiz is not), and there's significant debate over whether 'clutch' is simply a statistical aberration, as opposed to a genuine measurement of someone's ability to perform under pressure. But the most important thing about the Ortiz-Arod debate, I think, is that both had fantastic seasons, and you can construct good arguments for either winning the MVP award, so advocates of either athlete shouldn't complain much-- if at all- if the player they prefer didn't win it. To say that ARod won the MVP because of a Yankee bias of some sort would be ignoring the fact that his season was certainly on par with Ortiz', and maybe even better than Ortiz' (depending on how you measure such things), and that anyone who voted for Arod certainly had a legitimate reason for doing so.

bri2327 · June 29, 2006 2:28AM

I think the voting can go either way depending on mood of the writers. Here are 3 examples involving Yankee players.

First was Mattingly losing the MVP to Clemens in 86. I know the Red Sox made the series, but the Yankees didnt " suck " that year either as some have claimed. If there was 3 divisions and a wild card winner in the 80's the Yankees would have been in the playoffs every year. They won the most games of any team in the 80's, hardly a measure of a team that sucked. Now if you want to talk 88 through 93 then I'll be the first on the suck line. Anyhow....

Second example was Matsui not getting the ROY. All the writers claimed that he couldnt be a " true " rookie due to his playing in Japan all those years. Yet, it was those very same writers who gave the award to established Japanese stars Sasaki in 2000 and Ichiro in 2001. Obvious case of bias there no matter what way you look at it.

Third example is Arod vs. Ortiz for MVP last year. Where the first two examples show how a Yankee can lose out on a vote, I personally feel that a Yankee received favorable voting last year. If I had a vote, which of course I dont, it would have gone to Ortiz without question. the award is not for the best all around player, it is for the most valuable player to his team. take Arod off the Yanks they still get to the playoffs last year. Take Ortiz off the Sox and they dont have a prayer last year.

Whats it all mean ? Writers dont know what they hell they are thinking from year to year. One year the feel one way and show it in voting, the next year the flip flop and go a different direction. Personally I dont care two cents about any personal award. In the grand scheme of the game it means very little. The only award that matters is the world series and not a single one of us or the writers have a say in who wins that.

BugOnTheRug · June 29, 2006 2:34AM

<< Mitchell had a few priceless 'roid rage incidents that IMO give him a bump over Canseco. >>

Kevin grew up around a gang environment, and that influence has factored in his confrontations over the years. Canseco is just plain psycho.

Canseco over Mitchell by a mile...................

CDsNuts · June 29, 2006 2:38AM

I guess my point is pretty much what bri said- I don't think that there's any "Yankee bias" when it comes to MVP voting, but there is certainly no anti-Yankee bias either. If there was then ARod wouldn't have gotten MVP last year. Every team in the league could point out how their player got hosed in the voting in a particular year.

My original point was that there is certainly a Yankee bias when it comes to collecting due to the number and passion of Yankee collectors, and to say that Mattingly's cards are undervalued compared to other players with equal or greater careers is ludicrous.

Lee

DaBigHurt · June 29, 2006 2:39AM

Do you realize how many games the Red Sox would LOSE if David Ortiz had to put on a glove and take the field? We're not even talking about Ortiz being a halfway decent fielder. The guy is such a liability on defense, the Red Sox have no choice but to hide him in the dugout. Don't take my word for it. Ask Red Sox fans.

As for Don Mattingly's popularity with Yankee fans, I'll put it this way.

Mattingly is to many 30-somethings what Mickey Mantle is/was to baby boomers.

It doesn't have to make sense and if you didn't grow up following the Yankees in the 1980s, you wouldn't understand it.

CDsNuts · June 29, 2006 3:03AM

I understand it, and I feel the same way about the Orioles in the 80s, or the same way any diehard fan of any team/player does. But to ignore staitical and economic facts when making arguments whether a particular player or team deserved/s something defies logical thinking.

If I said Eddie Murray's cards were undervalued, a lot of those same Mattingly fans would rip me apart.

Lee

jad22 · June 29, 2006 3:11AM

BigHurt, I don't think they would lose any games due to Ortiz and his defense. They won a world series with Kevin Millar at first base. Clearly Ortiz is no Don Mattingly at first but who is. The best infield in baseball could make up for him in the field. However, it isn't even an issue. Ortiz is clutch and make shis team better. Mattingly has no rings and neither does Arod, I am sure those gold gloves will take away the pain of never winning.

Why are Mattingly rookies going up in price?

Comments