Baseball card collection - what would you do?

I’m soliciting non-binding opinions regarding how to handle the following situation that I’ve just encountered for my baseball card collection.

I’m a fan of the Kansas City Royals. I have a collection consisting of one baseball card (or, in six cases, photographs) of everyone who played for the Royals, arranged in alphabetical order…that makes more sense than chronological, since players’ tenures overlap one another, there being a whole roster of them at a given time.

I also have card of each person to manage the Royals. Those I’ve arranged chronologically, as there’s only one manager at any given time (the 1961 Cubs notwithstanding). In this section of my album, I have Bob Schaefer (interim manager for one game in 1991) positioned between John Wathan and Hal McRae.

Now, Tony Pena has resigned and Schaefer is once again interim manager. What do you guys think: should I stick with chronological and put another Schaefer card in the position after Pena, or should I switch the managers to alphabetical like the players, and just have the one Schaefer card?

Well, first of all, stop rooting for the Royals and root for a decent team instead. (I kid). But I’d say you should get another Schaefer card and put it after Tony Pena. That way, in the future, you can keep the whole chronological order of the managers intact.

Captain Amazing:

Yeah, that’s what they told me when I was an Indians fan in the early 80’s, and look where it got me.

Just kidding - I never did root for Cleveland. Nonetheless, it is scary to think that I have more loyalty to the team than the guy who was paid to manage it.

…or maybe not. I’m glad Pena stepped down. The Royals were not going to fire the manager of their only winning season in a decade, but it’s been pretty clear between this season and last that 2003 had nothing to do with Tony Pena’s managing abilities, but rather, one career month from Runelvys Hernandez, one career month from Jose Lima, and two career months from Mike Macdougal. The clincher for me was when Tony had Angel Berroa try to steal third base with two outs and a one-run lead with a 4-for-4 hitter at bat. He realized that clinging to the manager position would do the team no good. Class act, all the way.

Did the card companies actually put out a “Manager” card for a guy who was an interim manager for one game? Seriously? Or did you just use an old player card, or that seasons bench coach card or what?

If they put out a card then, and they put out another card for him this year, then I think you gotta have a second one in there.

What did you do with guys that played there for a long time? Which George Brett card do you have in that collection, or do you have one for each year?

Omniscient:

No, the card of him in my collection is a minor-league card showing him as manager of the AA Memphis Chicks from 1987.

I keep only what I think of as the best one. Every year, I get the Topps and Upper Deck (and usually Fleer) Royals sets and go through the album to see if I like any of the new ones better than the ones that are in there. This can be based on a variety of criteria:

[list][li]Picture of subject as a Royal always preferable, even if images with other teams look better. Other-team images only used when no Royals card exists.[/li][li]Natural background always preferable to “arty” cards where the player alone is a real picture, and the background is either a blank solid color (Fleer Tradition has been doing this idiocy for years, and I have no idea who it appeals to) or gray-toned, or something like that.[/li][li]Nicest picture in general.[/li][li]Representative pose - a shot of Willie Wilson running or Frank White fielding. Dan Quisenberry captured in his submarine delivery.[/li][li]Uniqueness - Mike Sweeney will be remembered in Royals history as a first baseman, but he was originally a catcher, and there’s a great picture of him blocking the plate, preparing to accept a throw from (presumably) the outfield on his 1999 Topps card. I’m keeping that one in there unless I see another Royals catcher in an identical pose. Another one that’s never being replaced is a Joe Randa card with him climbing a wall to catch a pop fly.[/li]
Obviously, it’s all subjective. But I think it’s a nice representation of 35 (and counting) years of Royals history.

Blast, I meant to preview, now that looks messed-up. Please forgive the double-post, or Mods, you can delete the bad one.

Omniscient:

No, the card of him in my collection is a minor-league card showing him as manager of the AA Memphis Chicks from 1987.

I keep only what I think of as the best one. Every year, I get the Topps and Upper Deck (and usually Fleer) Royals sets and go through the album to see if I like any of the new ones better than the ones that are in there. This can be based on a variety of criteria:

[ul][li]Picture of subject as a Royal always preferable, even if images with other teams look better. Other-team images only used when no Royals card exists.[/li][li]Natural background always preferable to “arty” cards where the player alone is a real picture, and the background is either a blank solid color (Fleer Tradition has been doing this idiocy for years, and I have no idea who it appeals to) or gray-toned, or something like that.[/li][li]Nicest picture in general.[/li][li]Representative pose - a shot of Willie Wilson running or Frank White fielding. Dan Quisenberry captured in his submarine delivery.[/li][li]Uniqueness - Mike Sweeney will be remembered in Royals history as a first baseman, but he was originally a catcher, and there’s a great picture of him blocking the plate, preparing to accept a throw from (presumably) the outfield on his 1999 Topps card. I’m keeping that one in there unless I see another Royals catcher in an identical pose. Another one that’s never being replaced is a Joe Randa card with him climbing a wall to catch a pop fly.[/ul][/li]
Obviously, it’s all subjective. But I think it’s a nice representation of 35 (and counting) years of Royals history.

I agree with Captain Amazing, and you should get another one of Schaeffer. Who knows how long he will last, hopefully a new guy is brought in soon.

Who do you think will be the next manager? Personally I don’t see any hope for the Royals until they get an owner other than Glass. He made his money at Wal-Mart, and he’s trying to run the Royals like Wal-Mart. He wants a low cost team, just good enough to make sure he can make a little bit of money off the fans, TV, and the luxury tax. Team owners are wealthy individuals, and it’s crazy the way they run these teams. They want to run the teams as a business, rather than something that they can enjoy (by having a winning team). Maybe the Royals’ season can be salvaged if they draft Gordon. Looks like they’ll get another top pick next year too.

This makes me wonder how many portraits of Grover Cleveland hang in the White House.

Dignan:

Who do I think? Probably Frank White, though I hope not. I’m hoping that they get Jim Leyland. His work with the early 90’s Pirates and the early Marlins was good.

I don’t think he’s any worse than other small-market owners. Ewing Kauffman was unusual in that he was emotionally attached to the team above and beyond its profit potential. Glass is typical of today’s small-market owners: not willing to spend much for no good reason. Remember that he dramatically increased payroll from 2003-2004 when it seemed there was a reasonable chance of winning. (and look where it got them!)