Minor league cards

[bk400]

I've learned that the conventional wisdom is that minor league cards aren't really rookie cards and, therefore, aren't worth as much.

But there are some really valuable minor league cards (at least some of which are more valuable than the players' true MLB rookie cards):

1914 Babe Ruth Baltimore News
1952 Hank Aaron Clowns postcard
1977 Rickey Henderson Chong's
1980 Cal Ripkin Charlotte O's

What gives? Are there lessons learned for collectors of more modern cards?

[bnorth]

Originally Posted by bk400

I've learned that the conventional wisdom is that minor league cards aren't really rookie cards and, therefore, aren't worth as much.

But there are some really valuable minor league cards (at least some of which are more valuable than the players' true MLB rookie cards):

1914 Babe Ruth Baltimore News
1952 Hank Aaron Clowns postcard
1977 Rickey Henderson Chong's
1980 Cal Ripkin Charlotte O's

What gives? Are there lessons learned for collectors of more modern cards?

I have never once heard that conventional wisdom, is it an ultra modern thing? Most if not all minor league cards are more valuable.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by bk400

I've learned that the conventional wisdom is that minor league cards aren't really rookie cards and, therefore, aren't worth as much.

But there are some really valuable minor league cards (at least some of which are more valuable than the players' true MLB rookie cards):

1914 Babe Ruth Baltimore News
1952 Hank Aaron Clowns postcard
1977 Rickey Henderson Chong's
1980 Cal Ripkin Charlotte O's

What gives? Are there lessons learned for collectors of more modern cards?

What gives is that the issues you named are extremely scarce. Where they are more common, generally speaking, they aren't preferred over the major league RCs. To the contrary.

[bk400]

So at the risk of exposing my multi-million dollar investment strategy, I've been eyeing the first minor league cards of first ballot guys like Albert Pujols, which seem to be much rarer than his MLB cards. I'm assuming, perhaps naively, that over time, all the different variations (chrome, etc.) will start to lose their significance and that people will gravitate toward his true first card.

[packs]

Sometimes they offer a nice alternative to what is otherwise a very common rookie card. I waited out an Elway show appearance for this one. The Rock has a card in the 1994 Bumble Bee Tuna Miami Hurricanes set as Dwayne Johnson, lineman. It's pretty pricey too. I really wish the Macho Man ended up in a minor league set while he was playing in the Cardinals and Reds systems. Scott Boras has a minor league card in the 1977 TCMA set.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by bk400

So at the risk of exposing my multi-million dollar investment strategy, I've been eyeing the first minor league cards of first ballot guys like Albert Pujols, which seem to be much rarer than his MLB cards. I'm assuming, perhaps naively, that over time, all the different variations (chrome, etc.) will start to lose their significance and that people will gravitate toward his true first card.

I mean who knows LOL, but I wouldn't go there if I were you. Minor league cards have been around a long time and while in much shorter supply the demand is just not there for the most part. To put it bluntly, nobody, or not that many, cares.

Now if you are talking about almost impossible cards to find, like the ones you mentioned, or an Omaha Gibson, then sure.

[Lucas00]

As more and more people open their minds to things other than topps/bowman (very common cards) they realize their own collections are very streamlined and in some ways not unique. Of course there is no problem with that. But for people who eventually get those thoughts, the general next step is going for memorabilia that is unique, scarce, rare.
Pre war you will see has adopted this thought process decades ago, getting pre rookie or early hof material of pre war greats is almost impossible and if possible you seriously have to be a millionaire to consider collecting.

As it is now, in particular 50s and 60s pre rookie issues are in my opinion extremely undervalued. And many multiple 100 times rarer than their rookie standard counterparts.

I'll give one quick example of one of the craziest. Stan Musials M114, an issue of one of the top 5 best hitters of all time that is 5 years before his "rookie card" goes for under $200 and often times under $100. That is comical. You can get original photos that are many times one of a kind for a fraction of a topps rookie card that quite literally is a dime a dozen.

[bk400]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

I mean who knows LOL, but I wouldn't go there if I were you. Minor league cards have been around a long time and while in much shorter supply the demand is just not there for the most part. To put it bluntly, nobody, or not that many, cares.

Yeah, but I guess I just can't figure out why that'd be the case. Here's a Mookie. Betts, not Wilson.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Lucas00

As more and more people open their minds to things other than topps/bowman (very common cards) they realize their own collections are very streamlined and in some ways not unique. Of course there is no problem with that. But for people who eventually get those thoughts, the general next step is going for memorabilia that is unique, scarce, rare.
Pre war you will see has adopted this thought process decades ago, getting pre rookie or early hof material of pre war greats is almost impossible and if possible you seriously have to be a millionaire to consider collecting.

As it is now, in particular 50s and 60s pre rookie issues are in my opinion extremely undervalued. And many multiple 100 times rarer than their rookie standard counterparts.

I'll give one quick example of one of the craziest. Stan Musials M114, an issue of one of the top 5 best hitters of all time that is 5 years before his "rookie card" goes for under $200 and often times under $100. That is comical.

Right but I thought he was asking about modern cards.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by bk400

Yeah, but I guess I just can't figure out why that'd be the case. Here's a Mookie. Betts, not Wilson.

There isn't a "why" other than because that's what collectors want. They want the official RC. Now prospect cards, especially the relatively scarce autographed ones, can be highly desired too.

[bk400]

I thought the lessons might apply more broadly to modern, where minor league cards haven't been subjected to the cynical strategy of manufactured scarcity employed by the major card companies.

This said, I do find the Stan Musial M114 very intriguing, though I'm struggling with the notion that that is a card. Along the same lines, the 1946 Musial Montiel is probably very underpriced relative to the mainline 1948 rookie cards given its scarcity. But people do say that the 46 Montiel is a major league card since he's in a Cardinals uniform.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by bk400

I thought the lessons might apply more broadly to modern, where minor league cards haven't been subjected to the cynical strategy of manufactured scarcity employed by the major card companies.

This said, I do find the Stan Musial M114 very intriguing, though I'm struggling with the notion that that is a card. Along the same lines, the 1946 Musial Montiel is probably very underpriced relative to the mainline 1948 rookie cards given its scarcity. But people do say that the 46 Montiel is a major league card since he's in a Cardinals uniform.

After all the decades, I'd personally be wary of claims that certain cards are "underpriced," players are "underrated/undervalued," etc. The hobby reflects the collective judgments of many many people over many many years and it's anyone's guess what is going to become hot when. I mean ten years from now we'll probably be talking about how Spahn and Musial and Eddie Collins are undervalued, just as we were ten years ago. As a dealer friend famously told me, Pete, sometimes the only thing scarcer than the supply is the demand.

[Casey2296]

-
A bit OT but I would love to see the Goblin Merrymint O.H. Melville (Mel Ott) come to auction.
It's a fascinating card that is arguably a pre 1929 rookie card.
-

[Lucas00]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Right but I thought he was asking about modern cards.

Tried to make that tangent relevant as to why the OP thinks modern pre rookie cards are undervalued but I probably failed lol.


In terms of modern pre rookies it's just the fact, in modern times (I would say mid 80s onward) people have taken collectibles seriously, and that means keeping them. The whole reason pre rookies from long past are so cool is because they are very rare, for every 500 Jim Palmer topps rookies there's 1 team issue rookie. For modern it just isn't that way anymore. The palmer team issue could sell for 10 grand tomorrow and sure some would come out of the woodwork to cash in. But not that many, because they are truly rare.

Take a pre issue of somebody like Albert Pujols, and say it sells for a crazy amount. The market is going to flood.. Instantly. Because people have waited for that moment and remembered "I have that card somewhere" and even though an Albert Pujols pre rookie is probably far rarer than a topps, its just not near rare enough. So I guess my final thought is rare=cool haha. No but seriously, a modern pre issue would have to be something extremely scarce, like given away at a minor league park one game kind of thing.

[bnorth]

Originally Posted by Lucas00

As more and more people open their minds to things other than topps/bowman (very common cards) they realize their own collections are very streamlined and in some ways not unique. Of course there is no problem with that. But for people who eventually get those thoughts, the general next step is going for memorabilia that is unique, scarce, rare.
Pre war you will see has adopted this thought process decades ago, getting pre rookie or early hof material of pre war greats is almost impossible and if possible you seriously have to be a millionaire to consider collecting.

As it is now, in particular 50s and 60s pre rookie issues are in my opinion extremely undervalued. And many multiple 100 times rarer than their rookie standard counterparts.

I'll give one quick example of one of the craziest. Stan Musials M114, an issue of one of the top 5 best hitters of all time that is 5 years before his "rookie card" goes for under $200 and often times under $100. That is comical. You can get original photos that are many times one of a kind for a fraction of a topps rookie card that quite literally is a dime a dozen.

Wow that is crazy. I know nothing about that era minor league stuff. I have collected a lot of 80s, early 90s and some Tobacco card minor league stuff and it is mostly more than their rookies.

[BioCRN]

For modern minor league cards, a lot depends on the pool of player collectors once you get into junk wax era and beyond.

Rarity doesn't always matter, but rarity starts to actually matter at a certain point of number of collectors and the price starts to show up.

It seems elementary and "no duh" and all that, but there's a huge amount of people that will buy a RC that don't care about a player's minor league "RC" in comparison.

Personally experienced example, Mark Grace's 1986 Peoria card in NM/M+ condition could easily be picked up for $5-ish after the junk wax era died. It stayed that way for a very long time. During the recent COVID era hobby resurgence the card not only went up in price, it went up in popularity enough that you're looking at $35-40 for a raw copy in that kind of shape and a premium for graded examples. Almost everything spiked in price during this era, but not everything got a 7-8x value jump. The number of people wanting one finally caught up to the availability.

[bk400]

Originally Posted by BioCRN

For modern minor league cards, a lot depends on the pool of player collectors once you get into junk wax era and beyond.

Rarity doesn't always matter, but rarity starts to actually matter at a certain point of number of collectors and the price starts to show up.

It seems elementary and "no duh" and all that, but there's a huge amount of people that will buy a RC that don't care about a player's minor league "RC" in comparison.

Personally experienced example, Mark Grace's 1986 Peoria card in NM/M+ condition could easily be picked up for $5-ish after the junk wax era died. It stayed that way for a long very long time. During the recent COVID era hobby resurgence the card not only went up in price, it went up in popularity enough that you're looking at $35-40 for a raw copy in that kind of shape and a premium for graded examples. Almost everything spiked in price during this era, but not everything got a 7-8x value jump. The number of people wanting one finally caught up to the availability.

And this is exactly the dynamic that I've seen a bit of as well.

When I returned to the hobby, I was quickly turned off by modern players having what seemed like hundreds of cards with the "RC" logo. So I found it fun to do a little bit of work (and it really isn't all that much work to use Google) to find those players' first minor league cards.

At the time of printing, these guys were not even prospects, and the manufacturers kind of have a junior varsity feel about them -- so definitionally, very low print runs.

A Mookie Betts 2014 Topps Heritage in PSA 10 (population of about 1,000) sells for $300. In contrast, I'd be surprised if there are more than 500 Mookie Betts Lowell Spinners cards printed in total. The price has already moved up on those cards, but it's more like the Mark Grace that you describe.

I get Peter's point that the market is what it is, and there is no why. But as a collector (if not an investor), I find the Lowell card irresistibly more interesting.

[EGreenwood]

There may be a Macho Man postcard. I got this one about 20 years ago in a group of Cardinals Postcards.

https://sites.google.com/view/obcwan...tes?authuser=0

[Brent G.]

Just be sure to get this incredible example of TCMA's quality control in this '82 masterpiece.

[Chris-Counts]

I'll take this 1946 Carmelo Deportivo over a 1952 Topps, Bowman or Berk Ross Minnie Minoso "rookie card." Technically, it's only a second-year "pre-rookie," since there is also a 1945 version with a different pose.

[steve B]

The accepted "definition" of what's a rookie card is a purely arbitrary thing Beckett came up with back when draft pick sets and little sun High school sets came out and there was a lot of confusion.

I've always read it as "a rookie card is one made sort of near the players first season but that exists in big enough quantities that even the most out of touch dealer can get in on the action"

[Balticfox]

Have any of the main card companies - e.g. Topps, Fleer, Donruss, Leaf, Philly/Swell, Score, Pacific, Upper Deck - ever issued a set featuring AAA players? I know Pacific did it for the AHL in 2003-04.

[bk400]

Originally Posted by Chris Counts

I'll take this 1946 Carmelo Deportivo over a 1952 Topps, Bowman or Berk Ross Minnie Minoso "rookie card." Technically, it's only a second-year "pre-rookie," since there is also a 1945 version with a different pose.

This is an awesome card. Almost as cool as the Eric Davis with his eyes closed!

[bk400]

Originally Posted by Balticfox

Have any of the main card companies - e.g. Topps, Fleer, Donruss, Leaf, Philly/Swell, Score, Pacific, Upper Deck - ever issued a set featuring AAA players? I know Pacific did it for the AHL in 2003-04.

I know that both Topps / Bowman issued cards with players in their minor league uniforms. For instance, there are Aaron Judge minor league cards from 2013 from the Topps and the Bowman brands.

If you go back just a few more years, Topps and Bowman disappear, and they are mostly regional prints. See, for instance, Pujols (2000) and Betts (2012). There are also cool U16 and U18 USA team cards for players like Francisco Lindor from the mid 2000s.

[packs]

Topps typically releases Topps Pro Debut every season and the set is exclusive to minor league cards.

There is also the Topps heritage Minors set that is also typically part of the yearly release schedule, also dedicated solely to minor league players.

[AustinMike]

Originally Posted by Balticfox

Have any of the main card companies - e.g. Topps, Fleer, Donruss, Leaf, Philly/Swell, Score, Pacific, Upper Deck - ever issued a set featuring AAA players? I know Pacific did it for the AHL in 2003-04.

Upper Deck issued minor league cards in 1992, 1994, and 1995. I'm sure there were AAA players as well as A and AA. The 1992 set had 330 cards, the 1994 had 270, and the 1995 had 225.

In around 1992, Fleer bought ProCards and issued team sets in 1992, 1993, 1994, and 1995. The team sets covered all three levels of the minors. Fleer Excel also issued a set of 300 minor league cards around 1994.

I stopped collecting minor league cards in 2000, so I don't know what was issued after that.

[bcbgcbrcb]

Pre-Rookies go all the way back to the largest 19th Century baseball card set ever produced, N172 Old Judges with several HOF’ers appearing in their minor league uni’s. The biggest of all for pre-rookies, however, were Zeenuts with many HOF’ers appearing in multiple years, all prior to their MLB rookie cards. In most cases pre-rookies from both of these issues sell for much more than their MLB rookie card goes for due to scarcity, as already mentioned before. For one off’s, good luck finding a Ruth, Lefty Grove, Bob Gibson, Juan Marichal, Rube Marquard, etc.

[oldjudge]

The 1886 Hancock Clothing cards of three Syracuse Star players (International Association) were the first minor league cards, the first cards identifying the players on the back, and along with the N167s arguably the first baseball cards. At this point only three cards are known in total (the three pictured) also making them among the rarest cards.

[bk400]

Originally Posted by oldjudge

The 1886 Hancock Clothing cards of three Syracuse Star players (International Association) were the first minor league cards, the first cards identifying the players on the back, and along with the N167s arguably the first baseball cards. At this point only three cards are known in total (the three pictured) also making them among the rarest cards.

These are super cool. How on earth did you find these, and how long did it take?

I'll see your Hancocks and raise you....a 2009 Francisco Lindor U16 USA team card. I think it is Lindor's first ever issued card.

[sealmark41]

Somewhat change in direction.

I have been a minor league card collector since the 1940's and have never cared about value, stars, rookies etc. Nor did I ever worry about whether they ever made it to a gum card.

Having said that I never collected the famous cigarette or zee nut cards of players long dead before my birth.

So...in my opinion some great minor issues include Globe Printing, Sunbeam Bread, Sommer and Kaufmann, Union Oil, Signal Oil, Demaree, Mothers Cookies, Kahns Atlanta, Montreal Royals Exhibits, Hughes Confections, National Bank of Washington, Schiebel Press, Smiths Clothes, Pureta Meats, Centennial Flour and Parade Sportive. and a number of other issues.

Hope this did not bore you and also think and hope there are others like me.

Mark K. Bowers
Sealmark

[bk400]

Originally Posted by sealmark41

Somewhat change in direction.

I have been a minor league card collector since the 1940's and have never cared about value, stars, rookies etc. Nor did I ever worry about whether they ever made it to a gum card.

Having said that I never collected the famous cigarette or zee nut cards of players long dead before my birth.

So...in my opinion some great minor issues include Globe Printing, Sunbeam Bread, Sommer and Kaufmann, Union Oil, Signal Oil, Demaree, Mothers Cookies, Kahns Atlanta, Montreal Royals Exhibits, Hughes Confections, National Bank of Washington, Schiebel Press, Smiths Clothes, Pureta Meats, Centennial Flour and Parade Sportive. and a number of other issues.

Hope this did not bore you and also think and hope there are others like me.

Mark K. Bowers
Sealmark

Not a bore at all! Thanks for the recommendations. I just did some quick searches on some of these issues, most of which I'd never heard of. Very cool. Going to have to do some more work before opening the wallet. There's a lot to unpack.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Lindor's debut was in 2015 at age 21, so he's what, only 15 on that card? LOL.

[Chris-Counts]

"So...in my opinion some great minor issues include Globe Printing, Sunbeam Bread, Sommer and Kaufmann, Union Oil, Signal Oil, Demaree, Mothers Cookies, Kahns Atlanta, Montreal Royals Exhibits, Hughes Confections, National Bank of Washington, Schiebel Press, Smiths Clothes, Pureta Meats, Centennial Flour and Parade Sportive, and a number of other issues."

Those are some nice sets Mark. I would add 1949-51 Hage's Dairy and 1952 Parkhurst, along with the 1952 Victoria set, which is really more of a Cuban set than a minor league one, although I suppose that could be debated.

[ValKehl]

I would add 1955 Old Homestead Franks:

[sealmark41]

Thanks BK, Chris and Val. All three of you are right I just overlooked some of the variables or didn't want to get too verbose.
Mark

[Peter_Spaeth]

58 Omaha Gibson for sure.

[todeen]

Originally Posted by Lucas00

, for every 500 Jim Palmer topps rookies there's 1 team issue rookie. For modern it just isn't that way anymore.

Barry Larkin's most expensive 1986 RC is the team issued Kahn's. They sell for $50 - $100 in raw condition. Very very hard to find in Gem condition since it was a low budget team issue.



Sent from my SM-S926U using Tapatalk

[Cubanball]

The way I organize my PC of Cuban born players is as follows. For pre-1949 players I simply seek out the players first card or as close as I can come to their first card. I define a first card as the first card, postcard, premium or team issue that pictures the player only or in multiple player cards like the Topps Rookies cards (leaders and team cards are not included). For post-1949 players I seek out their first card, next their first minor league card and their first rookie card(s). I define Rookie card as their first card picturing the player in a Major League uniform. For players with multiple cards produced in their first year I go with the more traditional definition and include only their cards from the major sets. An example pictured below is Minnie Miñoso. His first card is his 1945-46 Caramelo Deportivo, his first Minor league card is his 1950 Hage's Dairy, and his rookie card(s) are his 1952 Bowman and 1952 Topps.

As for Minor League cards I wanted to point out that there are two Cuban produced sets that picture players in Minor league teams. The sets are the 1946 Propagandas Montiel La Ambrosia set and the 1946 Propagandas Montiel Reyes del Deporte set which picture players from the Florida International League minor league teams. There is also the 1949 Havana Cubans album, but the set only picture the Havana FIL team. A number of other sets pictured a smattering of Havana Cuban players among the other players from the Cuban Leagues.

As an example of a more non-traditional approach that I take, look at Julio Moreno cards pictured below. His first card in my PC is his 1942 Avance y La Tropical premium, his first minor league cards are the 1946 La ambrosia and Reyes del Deporte cards, and his rookie is his 1953-54 Briggs Meats.

Chris I agree with you the the 1952-53 Colecciones Victoria set is one great set. But just about all the Cuban sets include first cards of lots of HOF members and other MLB players.

[bk400]

Originally Posted by Cubanball

The way I organize my PC of Cuban born players is as follows. For pre-1949 players I simply seek out the players first card or as close as I can come to their first card. I define a first card as the first card, postcard, premium or team issue that pictures the player only or in multiple player cards like the Topps Rookies cards (leaders and team cards are not included). For post-1949 players I seek out their first card, next their first minor league card and their first rookie card(s). I define Rookie card as their first card picturing the player in a Major League uniform. For players with multiple cards produced in their first year I go with the more traditional definition and include only their cards from the major sets. An example pictured below is Minnie Miñoso. His first card is his 1945-46 Caramelo Deportivo, his first Minor league card is his 1950 Hage's Dairy, and his rookie card(s) are his 1952 Bowman and 1952 Topps.

As for Minor League cards I wanted to point out that there are two Cuban produced sets that picture players in Minor league teams. The sets are the 1946 Propagandas Montiel La Ambrosia set and the 1946 Propagandas Montiel Reyes del Deporte set which picture players from the Florida International League minor league teams. There is also the 1949 Havana Cubans album, but the set only picture the Havana FIL team. A number of other sets pictured a smattering of Havana Cuban players among the other players from the Cuban Leagues.

As an example of a more non-traditional approach that I take, look at Julio Moreno cards pictured below. His first card in my PC is his 1942 Avance y La Tropical premium, his first minor league cards are the 1946 La ambrosia and Reyes del Deporte cards, and his rookie is his 1953-54 Briggs Meats.

Chris I agree with you the the 1952-53 Colecciones Victoria set is one great set. But just about all the Cuban sets include first cards of lots of HOF members and other MLB players.

This is helpful background on some of the key Cuban issues. I love the 1946 Montiels Stan Musial and Martin Dihigo cards. That Stan Musial card seems to check every box as his true MLB rookie card.

In many ways, the Cuban issues for 1940s and 50s HOFers might be like the Japanese issues for guys like Ichiro and Ohtani. If you're collecting players' first cards (which I find interesting), you're intellectually committed to looking at overseas and minor league issues.

[Luke]

I agree with you about the more scarce, earlier card being cooler. But I think the takeaway is more that they are a good thing for you to buy because they seem like a better deal than the mainstream RC than they are a great place to park your money.

Sometimes the cards that seem like a bargain to me end up appreciating in value, but usually not. For the most part I think you'd be better off investment wise by putting that Pujols minor league card money into the S&P 500 if it was purely about investing.

[trdcrdkid]

Originally Posted by Balticfox

Have any of the main card companies - e.g. Topps, Fleer, Donruss, Leaf, Philly/Swell, Score, Pacific, Upper Deck - ever issued a set featuring AAA players? I know Pacific did it for the AHL in 2003-04.

Bowman did a Pacific Coast League set in 1949. It's much scarcer than their MLB set from that year, but it contains no major stars, so it doesn't get much attention.

[bcbgcbrcb]

Along those same lines, how many remember that the last single player Exhibits card set issued during the 1920’s was the PCL Exhibits series, including a pre-rookie card of Earl Averill. Yes, he was also included in Zeenuts sets before that as well. Since my buddy Cesar would also like to know…..Averill’s MLB rookie card is his 1929-30 R315.

[Cubanball]

Phil, I agree with you the PCL sets are great cards with many first cards of great ballplayers. I personally love the Zeenuts cards. On the question of what is a rookie card it is all about semantics. You did a superb job in your book in highlighting the true rookie cards for hall of famers. Anyone more interested in this subject I highly recommend Phil's book picturing the true rookie cards for hall of famers from the four major sports. It's available on eBay or contact Phil.

[bcbgcbrcb]

Thanks, Cesar, much appreciated.

[t213]

Casey has a great minor league card.

Andy

[Exhibitman]

Don't forget about our friends to the north:




Gotta love the Z's:

[h2oya311]

I find that many collectors have gravitated towards the “earliest” cards rather than “rookie” cards. As noted by Phil, many Old Judges picture players from minor league clubs, so would be good examples of minor league cards that are more highly sought vs. a true “rookie” card for these players.

Not much more to add other than a few of my favorite “pre-war pre-rookies”.

[bk400]

Originally Posted by h2oya311

I find that many collectors have gravitated towards the “earliest” cards rather than “rookie” cards. As noted by Phil, many Old Judges picture players from minor league clubs, so would be good examples of minor league cards that are more highly sought vs. a true “rookie” card for these players.

Not much more to add other than a few of my favorite “pre-war pre-rookies”.

A lot of really cool cards!

[bcbgcbrcb]

Derek:

Who’s the guy with the “D” on the jersey?

[h2oya311]

Originally Posted by bcbgcbrcb

Derek:

Who’s the guy with the “D” on the jersey?

Hartnett - Dean Academy