tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3748335246635491217.post999166652235524751..comments2023-08-26T08:57:16.428-05:00Comments on Wrigley Roster Jenga: When is a Cub Truly a Cub?Tony Burbshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17916383902665781661noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3748335246635491217.post-14554140781417499262015-10-10T09:17:07.658-05:002015-10-10T09:17:07.658-05:00I'm a loose canon cop who doesn't play by ...I'm a loose canon cop who doesn't play by the rules... not even my own. But, in all seriousness, that's about as good of a take on the subject as I've read. Well put!Tony Burbshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17916383902665781661noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3748335246635491217.post-79645954977434242822015-10-10T01:49:25.943-05:002015-10-10T01:49:25.943-05:00The answer is.......whatever you think it is. I t...The answer is.......whatever you think it is. I think we've all faced that question at one time or another. In the same 1962 set, we have Don Zimmer. And not only is Don clearly wearing a Mets uni, he's got the Mets cap on with the "NY" emblem clearly visible. But, by then, Don had been traded to the Reds and the card identifies him as being with Cincinnati. So is Don a Met? Heck, yeah. I don't even have to think about it. He's certainly as much a Met as such luminaries as Wynn Hawkins and Dick Kenworthy, both of whom have cards identifying them as Mets though neither ever played for them in the regular season. Which begs the question...are Wynn Hawkins and Dick Kenworthy Mets? Absolutely. Why? Because I say so. It's MY collection after all. Ironically, Don Zimmer also appears in the 1963 Topps set wearing a Mets uni, identified this time as a Dodger, and that card I do not consider a Mets card. Its completely arbitrary but, again....my collection, my rules. And we don't need no stinking rules.Stubbyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07010142558613227433noreply@blogger.com