understandably, some people here have lamented all of the threads about off-field player antics. it got me wondering about how off-field behavior influences, if at all, the value of a player's game-used items.
what's the litmus test for determining if and how a player's off-field behavior will negatively impact the value of their items?
you've got josh hamilton whose former drug habit actually seems to have increased the value of his items because now there's a story of redemption behind it all. rather than simply being a good player, now he's the comeback kid. the history of professional sports is filled with a littany of racists, drunkards, adulterers, homophobes, and otherwise surly jerks whose off-field behavior doesn't seem to have affected the price of their items. magic johnson's HIV status doesn't seem to have impacted anything. willie mays' items haven't suffered in the least from methamphetamine use during his playing days. items from denny mclain, mickey mantle, paul molitor, billy martin, wade boggs still fetch a good premium. noone even remembers molitor's raging coke habit in the 80s. if a shoeless joe jackson jersey surfaced, i don't think it would suffer in the least for his involvement in throwing a Series. i don't think pete rose's gambling affected the price of his items.
yet then you've got oj simpson whose items have obviously fallen (despite technically having received a "not guilty" verdict in the murder trial). you've got michael vick whose off-field activities have obviously hit the value of items tremendously. darryl strawberry and dwight gooden aren't on the steroid radar yet their long history of troublemaking seems to have affected the value of their items. ditto for albert belle.
non-performance-related drug habits, adultery, gambling, and drunkeness seem to be ok whereas murder, dog fighting, and simply being albert belle seem to be unacceptable. i'm curious where and how collectors draw the line.
rudy.
what's the litmus test for determining if and how a player's off-field behavior will negatively impact the value of their items?
you've got josh hamilton whose former drug habit actually seems to have increased the value of his items because now there's a story of redemption behind it all. rather than simply being a good player, now he's the comeback kid. the history of professional sports is filled with a littany of racists, drunkards, adulterers, homophobes, and otherwise surly jerks whose off-field behavior doesn't seem to have affected the price of their items. magic johnson's HIV status doesn't seem to have impacted anything. willie mays' items haven't suffered in the least from methamphetamine use during his playing days. items from denny mclain, mickey mantle, paul molitor, billy martin, wade boggs still fetch a good premium. noone even remembers molitor's raging coke habit in the 80s. if a shoeless joe jackson jersey surfaced, i don't think it would suffer in the least for his involvement in throwing a Series. i don't think pete rose's gambling affected the price of his items.
yet then you've got oj simpson whose items have obviously fallen (despite technically having received a "not guilty" verdict in the murder trial). you've got michael vick whose off-field activities have obviously hit the value of items tremendously. darryl strawberry and dwight gooden aren't on the steroid radar yet their long history of troublemaking seems to have affected the value of their items. ditto for albert belle.
non-performance-related drug habits, adultery, gambling, and drunkeness seem to be ok whereas murder, dog fighting, and simply being albert belle seem to be unacceptable. i'm curious where and how collectors draw the line.
rudy.
Comment