Filthy rich MLB screws the fan again
 

http://www.sportscollectorsdaily.com...gamer-shes-ok/

So the gist of the story is that the Nats were giving the fans the "shirts off our backs" as a lot of teams do on the final game of the season (or maybe another game). This woman won Jordan Zimmermanns jersey. She found out before the game. But after he threw the no hitter things were changed. Story says she didn't mind because she is a fan. But as a collector how would you feel? You spend the whole game watching him throw a no-no and you are thinking, "wow, I'm getting his jersey" but nooooo! Sorry but I'd be pissed.

Zimmerman was obligated to give her his jersey - he could have just put on a spare for an inning, then gone back to the old one and given her the 1-inning jersey. I realize that players aren't thinking about stuff like that, but if that's the case....she has to get the jersey.

If there is going to be a substitute it should be a hell of a lot better than an auto jersey. She should get Season tickets or a full team signed jersey. Something equitable. But having said that, they should've given her the damn jersey.

I guess I can understand if he wants to keep it for himself or if it is being sent to the Hall of Fame, but replacing it with a signed jersey is pretty weak. Hopefully the replacement jersey was a game worn one, but I doubt it. It always seems like teams are extremely stingy when it comes to stuff like this. You catch a guy's 500th home run and they offer you a signed baseball.

It's like hitting the lottery and then they call you up and say, "we didn't expect those numbers to come out, we have another prize for you instead" Anything can happen in a game so they should be prepared for it.

I wish the story was about the fan that wins the jersey and gives it back to Zimmerman. She seemed like it didn't bother her he kept it but, you still have to award her the item she won. I wonder if in the auction there was a very very very small print in the clause in case something like this happens?

I can't speak for the Washington charity raffle, but I can tell you that the Mets allow fans to pre-order baseballs and bases used in "today's" game.

https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3777/...074d9d6a_b.jpg
(Photo taken May 21, 2014. © Gary Dunaier. Link to upload on Flickr.com: here.)

You may not be able to see it in the photo, but the last bulleted item on the sign is a clause that allows the club "to cancel orders at any time." Which means, I guess, that if you pre-ordered a ball used in "today's" game for $40, but the game turns out to be a no-hitter, you're getting your money back, not a game-used ball.

She should get tickets to the first playoff game he pitches, and then get THAT jersey (unless it's another no-no and then she should get the next jersey he wears in the playoffs.)

There's the old joke about the 1800 treaty the white man drew up for an Indian tribe. It said "The Indians shall own this territory for as long as the sun rises, the seasons change and rivers have water. Or six months, whichever comes first."

I don't see what the issue is... She won a contest, gets on the field, receives an autographed jersey and picture with Zimmermann, and gets to witness a No-Hitter as her team enters the playoffs as a division winner? If it was me I wouldn't be a dick and try to argue with Zimmermann that the jersey belongs to me either. He should frame it and give it to his kids. She seems like the type of person who loves baseball for the game, not how much a cardboard picture of player or a jersey she won is worth. Kudos to her.

She's a better person than me. :)

Seriously, I'm glad she's happy and I would be, too. But I think when a game used jersey is promised, a game used jersey should be delivered. As I say, Zimmerman will be wearing more jerseys in the playoffs, so the promise to this lady could be kept, if the Nats and MLB chose to do so.

This isn't about whether the fan handles the situation well (which she does.) It's about how the Nats/MLB handled it, which was, in my opinion, not 100% right.

I may be the only person thinking this way, but baseball is so heavily steeped in tradition and superstition. Even more so with no-hitters and perfect games, FWIW.

Most pitchers who found themselves fortunate enough to be in a position of throwing a no-hitter would likely never change a jersey for one inning. Tradition and superstition typically dictates that teammates don't even talk to a pitcher in the midst of throwing a no-hitter in later innings, etc.

Just sayin'!

I agree with this but they really should have given her something as valuable as a game worn no hit shirt as a substitute. I don't care for MLB anyway though.....it' been about 20 yrs this year that I haven't liked it.

ahhh! The strike and the cancellation of the World Series!
Ironically Baseball hit the jackpot 4 years later w/ the McGwire/Sosa HR Derby season.
Now they are tainted as well.
Baseball is one resilient sport

The team used the promotion to better their sales. They gave their word the jersey was to go to the winner of that promotion. A verbal contract is what it is. They backed out of their contract without the woman's consent. Oh she agreed, I guess, but they probably made it clear, she was not going to get the uniform.
It should have been her decision to keep the jersey or let the team/player keep it with an equal value item for the exchange. It was hers, and she was wronged by a breach of contract.
A promise is a promise.

Should at least give her his hat from the game. Or the catcher's jersey. Maybe his mit. Something that commemorates the no-hitter. Luck is luck. The message the Nats are sending to me is that fans aren't important, even when they're supporting the team and charity. I agree that the accomplishment is Zimmerman's and he should get to keep his mementos, but at the same time a deal is a deal and she should have been awarded something of equal measure.

Any lawyers here???
 

I would say the most important piece of information is "what was the contract?" Was there an "out" or not. My feelings and opinion really hinge on that information. There is not enough in the posted story to understand that.

If there wasn't and this woman chose to give away her "winning lottery ticket", well, she wouldn't be the first.......

I'm surprised it took someone this long to respond this way :) (which I actually agree with - I never mention no-hitters when I'm attending a game and one is in progress) - but I'm truly humbled that my post was read by one person.

But, on the other hand, he might have felt that the 'no-hitter gods' would take away his no-hitter if he didn't honor the agreement with the fan, and thus get around the blighting by the gods by donning another jersey for one inning.

That's because the nastiness always has the potential of being cleaned up, and that's what we want. It took a long time for most of us to get over the strike, but all it took for some to get over the steroid thing (partially, anyway) was when the HOF voters began shunning those guys as they became eligible.

I had Steiner pull something very similar with me. About two weeks before a yankees game I pre ordered and paid for the line up card(it was to be my nephews first ever yankees game). The game turns out to be arods 600 hr. Steiner refused to make good on the deal.

Now, that just sucks! I don't know the fine print on those pre-orders, but it still seems like bad practice. I've already lost a lot of respect for Steiner's company...selling signed balls at ridiculous prices (small fortunes).:confused:

Once again, the fans come last. Without fans there would be no game to pitch a no hitter.

Unless that lineup card is going to the Hall of Fame, that's really really bad form on Steiner's part. It actually seems worse to me than the Zimmerman jersey thing since you ordered it in advance, whereas she entered some sort of lottery and didn't have any real expectation of getting the jersey, much less a historical one. You really shouldn't be able to sell memorabilia weeks in advance with an "unless it turns out to be valuable then I get to sell it to someone else for a much higher price" clause, in my opinion. Imagine if after the game, the Yankees sent you a bill for $500 because they said getting to see A-Rod's 600th and keep the ticket stub was now worth a lot more than what you had paid for it.

Don't give them any ideas.....
 

I guess it would reasonably followed up by the IRS trying to tax you on the value of the stub after it gained historical significance!

As long as fans keep supporting the game by spending their money - regardless of what the "talk" is, the money makers have no incentive to do anything differently! Want to really make a difference, get people to send letters stating how much they have spent on games, souvenirs, food etc in the previous 12 months and their decision to quietly protest by not spending any money for 1 year, 2 years etc. for each incident like this that occurs. It would be like a "fan strike" of sorts!

The issue is money, Steve. A jersey worn by a pitcher throwing a no-hitter has significant monetary value. What she got instead is worth only a fraction as much.

David, that is horrible. Had it happened to me I'd have filed a lawsuit the next day and emailed the pleading to every news outlet in the Yankees broadcast area. A little publicity might make them think twice about ever doing that again. Needless to say, I hope you are not a Steiner customer any longer...

The theme of these incidents is lack of respect for one's customers. Since when has it even been debatable that it is wrong for a business to break deals with its customers? I sue people regularly on behalf of clients who've been on the receiving end of a breach of contract; why does that all go out the window because baseball is involved?

Setting aside the legalities, I don't see why millionaire employees of billion-dollar entertainment conglomerates and vendors who make millions selling memorabilia are deserving of charity from their paying customers. Like that guy who caught Jeter's 3000 hit HR ball and who was offered a few trinkets in trade [plus a nice tax bill]. Worst deal in NY since the purchase of Manhattan Island. If it had been me the answer would have been very simple: get out your checkbook and write a check with five zeroes to the left of the decimal or buy it at auction.