Filthy rich MLB screws the fan again

[Scott Garner]

Originally Posted by Runscott

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.

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'!

[Leon]

Originally Posted by Scott Garner

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.

[Jay Wolt]

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

[billyb]

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.

[packs]

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.

[hcv123]

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.......

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by Jay Wolt

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

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.

[felada]

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.

[djson1]

Originally Posted by felada

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).

[johnmh71]

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

[pbspelly]

Originally Posted by felada

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.

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.

[hcv123]

Originally Posted by pbspelly

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.

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!

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by Scott Garner

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'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.