Better Buy? (opinions please)

[Archive]

Posted By: Adam J. Moraine

A "cut sig" of Walter Johnson OR a pair of Sammy Sosa game used cleats?

Thanks for the input from all who reply.

Best Regards,

Adam J. Moraine

[Archive]

Posted By: Mark

Who is Sam Sosa?

[Archive]

Posted By: Adam J. Moraine

LOL, Real Cute Mark. I just want opinons, as to what would be the better purchase from a long term investment standpoint. That's all that I am asking for.

Best Regards,

Adam J. Moraine

[Archive]

Posted By: john/z28jd

I guess it matters what you can get the items for.If its the same price i would assume the Walter Johnson auto would always be a better investment since Johnson isnt signing anymore and Sosa is still playing and wearing cleats i assume

[Archive]

Posted By: vetekbob

Without a doubt Honus Wagner. Honus was one of the greatest players of all times and there is something he brought with him to the game that Sammy Sosa didnt and that is integrity. I am speaking from my own personal true collector point of view mind you. What McGuire and Sammy and many others did and have done to the game has brought shame to the greatest past time we have ever known and to me Sammy will never ever be in the game league much less the same playing field as Honus. If you have children or what have you and they ask you about the wonderful game of baseball and the players of today and more importantly the players of the past that helped to make the game what it should have been and still needs to be today, can you look those kids square in the face without any regret and tell them that Sammy was just as great for the game as was Honus? I can only speak for myself but if my heart is not in collecting whether it be baseball cards or what have you then what am I really doing with my time and my hard earned money.

[Archive]

Posted By: DJ

Hands down Walter Johnson.

[Archive]

Posted By: Brent Butcher

Can you guarantee me that the players of the 19th century and early 20th century were totally clean? It is a known fact that many did body/mind altering drugs at that time(cocaine). Can you also say that if players of that era were offered performance enhancing drugs they would turn them down? From what I've read and heard about Cobb I couldn't imagine him turning them down if he thought it would give him an advantage. Bob Gibson has just recently said he would have used them if they were available at the time. Does that make him less of a player? The game has evolved to what it is over many years and did not change overnight. I can go on with many examples of drugs/concoctions that have allowed players to play w/o pain, eliminate depression, reduce stress but I think you get my point. What Sosa, Bonds, etc.. have done is what the public wanted them(athletes) in general to do, become bigger, faster and stronger and because they have we have all of a sudden decided to blame it on a few individuals.

[Archive]

Posted By: Greg Ecklund

Can you also say that if players of that era were offered performance enhancing drugs they would turn them down?

Completely irrelevant, as are your references to Cobb and Gibson

I can go on with many examples of drugs/concoctions that have allowed players to play w/o pain, eliminate depression, reduce stress but I think you get my point.

The point is that many of those substances to alleviate the problems you listed are LEGAL, whereas steroids are ILLEGAL unless prescribed by a doctor.

What Sosa, Bonds, etc.. have done is what the public wanted them(athletes) in general to do, become bigger, faster and stronger

I must have missed the poll asking whether we wanted athletes to cheat or not. I think the owners deserve as much blame as the fans - I'm sure they knew something was up, but they chose to look the other way because McGwire, Sosa, and Bonds were filling their ballparks with fans.

[Archive]

Posted By: john/z28jd

It should be pointed out that steroids arent illegal in some places and IF Sammy Sosa juiced in the dominican republic in the offseason and there was no rules in baseball against using it prior to last year,then he didnt do anything wrong.

Also this thread also wasnt about steroids,its about an investment decision

[Archive]

Posted By: Adam J. Moraine

THANK -YOU, John . I DID NOT intend for this thread to become a topic on the possible use of performance enhancing drugs amongst current or former major league athletes. My main intentions were to ask the opinions of my FELLOW COLLECTORS as to what purchase would be the better investment.


Best Regards,

Adam J. Moraine

[Archive]

Posted By: Greg Ecklund

My apologies Adam...sometimes it is hard to resist answering when others start going off topic - I didn't mean to turn your thread into a steroid debate.

That said, the taint that Sosa currently has is relevant to the future resale value of the cleats, not to mention that cleats have a smaller number of people collecting them and would probably have more varied prices on the auction market. Right now, we don't know how future buyers will look on this generation of players - if you think the black mark by their names will fade with time, the Sosa cleats might be a decent investment, but not without risk. In the end, I don't think the potential upside of the cleats would be worth the risk.

To me, the Johnson autograph would be a better and more stable investment - his career is over and there is already perspective on it, with nearly universal agreement that he was among the best of all time. Any collection of elite baseball player autographs will be incomplete without an example of Johnson. Plus, as was stated earlier, Johnson isn't going to be signing anymore.

[Archive]

Posted By: davidcycleback

Coincidentally, just last night I posted a recent brief interview with game used uniform expert Dave Grob. He comments on modern game used material.

http://www.cycleback.com/baseballjerseys.html

[Archive]

Posted By: vetekbob

I answered the question from my own personal point of view from my own collecting viewpoint. I wasnt coming down on Adam or anyone else in that way. I wasnt trying to stir up trouble but I answered the question from my own heart as a collector and investor at the same time. He asked for opinions and its ok if we agree to disagree and I wish you the very best Adam Yes I spoke passionately in my reply and I am glad to see others did so as well. If I had not stated I am only speaking for myself rather than in the broader scope of things then yes I can see people saying I was way off topic. I dont deny that pre-war players did take things they shouldnt have when they played the game. From my own personal opinion, reputation and character can and do directly relate to the question of investment which was the question. If others disagree that is fine with me I have no problems with that. I was not trying to start some kind of debate but rather to encourage others to look beyond the mere dollar sign alone as from my perspective there are many things that go into such an evaluation long term in some cases. If I wasnt as clear as I intended to be earlier then I am sorry for that. I meant no harm Adam I truly didnt
Robert

[Archive]

Posted By: DJ

I find it amusing that the simple question of which would be a better purchase turned into a steroid debate about whether Sosa is clean or not and how that should impact ones man collection as he thinks about a signature of a fine Baseball Hall Of Famer or stinky cleats. Whether Sosa juiced or not, how can anyone compare anything vintage to anything of today where it seems like these players wear their clothing once and then (poof) off to the high bidder somewhere. What would you rather have, a PSA10 1990 Leaf Sammy Sosa or a PSA3 T206 Walter Johnson with a Polar Bear back? Hmmmm...Johnson again. Baseball simply isn't baseball anymore I'm afraid.

[Archive]

Posted By: Mark

"I can go on with many examples of drugs/concoctions that have allowed players to play w/o pain, eliminate depression, reduce stress but I think you get my point."

"The point is that many of those substances to alleviate the problems you listed are LEGAL, whereas steroids are ILLEGAL unless prescribed by a doctor. "

Well, if Cobb, Ruth or any other player took a drink in the 1920s, then it was ILLEGAL pursuant to 18th Amendment.

[Archive]

Posted By: Greg Ecklund

You have completely missed the point...while alcohol might have been illegal, it isn't used to enhance performance on the baseball diamond.

[Archive]

Posted By: Cy

Greg,

I truly beg to differ. I would wager that if Ruth was not allowed to drink at all, he would have been worse!

Cy

[Archive]

Posted By: Greg Ecklund

Cy,
Certainly alcohol was one of Ruth's ways to get rid of his abundance of energy, but the Babe certainly would have found other outlets (more women? more food? more dangling Miller Huggins off of trains?) if alcohol wasn't available to him. Steroids, on the other hand, are taken with specific intent to enhance athletic performance...alcohol doesn't enhance muscle growth or speed up recovery from workouts.

[Archive]

Posted By: davidcycleback

I think a sharp Walter Johnson signature is probably the safer investment. This does not mean I think there's anything wrong with purchasing a pair of Sosa game used shoes. If you have your heart set on the Sosa shoes and the price is right, I'd say buy the shoes.