Tuesday, July 31, 2012

Dime Box Heroes: Rookie confusion

1996 Bowman #334 Mike Sweeney RC

After a short hiatus, I'm glad to bring back the theme post portion of this blog.

A perfect storm of trade posts, tobacco cards, flea markets, and a slight lack of will prevented me from writing any afternoon theme posts over the last week or so. 

But they're back with a vengeance this afternoon, just about an hour before the MLB trading deadline.

Other than Opening Day and the playoffs, I have to say that July 31st is my favorite time of every baseball season. The excitement of which players will go where has never come close to wearing away.

Of course, many of the main "chips" in most blockbuster deals are prospects. I love hearing about what sort of young talent a team got back for their established star player.

Interestingly enough, it's quite the opposite when it comes to baseball cards. 

I could care less about the "prospect" cards in sets like Bowman Platinum. It just doesn't seem like a pack would be worth it if I've never heard of half the guys I pull.

Part of my distaste for the whole "prospecting" craze lately is the diminishment of the term "rookie card".

Listen, I don't like to complain a whole lot, especially when it comes to this hobby. But nowadays, I have no clue what a rookie card even is anymore.

It seems to have started with that whole "Rookie Card Logo" thing back in '06. Ever since then, I haven't been able to decipher what even makes a rookie card.

Whatever happened to the days of boring old rookies? Back when I first started collecting, I knew that "1st Bowman Card" marking in the corner meant I was holding a guy's first-ever major league card.

It was that simple.

Sure, I might enjoy "final cards" a little more, but I can't deny that there's still something special about a good ol' rookie card.

My Mike Sweeney collection has easily eclipsed the 100-card mark. His 1996 Bowman rookie, a former dime box outcast, is one of the main pieces. 

It's not some crazy prospect thingy that's not actually a rookie card, but is actually the guy's first card, something Topps thinks I should like. 

The term "rookie" is pretty simple, but you'd never know it these days. Things seemed a lot simpler in 1996. Mike Sweeney's rookie card doesn't confuse me at all.

I love it for just what it is. 

An actual rookie card. 

1 comment:

Josh D. said...

Hi there -- As a fellow Sweeney collector, I have about 35 unique Sweeney doubles for trade if you are interested in that.

I would love to get some Sweeneys back if you had any doubles, or I would take Royals of any type. My have/want/trade lists can be seen here: