Comments on: Buy: George Foster’s 1986 World Series Ring

By: nyj0126

nyj0126 — Mon, 03 Nov 2008 20:19:38 +0000

He must need money. He really didn’t deserve a ring anyway. He didn’t even finish the year with them lol At least Nomar produced for the Red Sox.

By: drtmuir

drtmuir — Mon, 03 Nov 2008 20:13:59 +0000

Gotta love Bobby O.

By: davidbrenner

davidbrenner — Mon, 03 Nov 2008 18:18:39 +0000

Can you imagine the value of this ring if it didn’t have Foster’s name and number on it? If they were just generic rings?

By: kingman 26

kingman 26 — Mon, 03 Nov 2008 18:18:10 +0000

I have read it, and it is an absolutely AMAZING read.

Just got his new book about the 1990s Cowboys—-not a Cowboys fan, but if the book is half as good as The Bad Guys Won, it should be awesome.

By: QnsNative1718

QnsNative1718 — Mon, 03 Nov 2008 18:01:42 +0000

Gotta point out, “The Bad Guys Won” is a GREAT read and any true Met fan should read it.

By: kingman 26

kingman 26 — Mon, 03 Nov 2008 18:00:05 +0000

Funny…I used to live in Seattle and work at Pike Place Market, and one of the Jets from that SB III team came through (also cannot remember who), and it was the same thing—he had his ring on, was very gracious about letting us check it out, and seemed thrilled that people in Seattle cared.

By: QnsNative1718

QnsNative1718 — Mon, 03 Nov 2008 17:58:12 +0000

*Bad move

By: kingman 26

kingman 26 — Mon, 03 Nov 2008 17:57:41 +0000

Good points, which show how ridiculous the above post is, which says they traded Mitchell because he was black, and that Foster was a “scary black man.” The only thing scary about Foster as a Met was how much money we gave him.

By: QnsNative1718

QnsNative1718 — Mon, 03 Nov 2008 17:56:32 +0000

FYI – Per the book, George Foster didnt come out for the brawl because he felt it would set a wrong example for the young guys. Back move in my opinion. I dont know about you guys, but getting into a fight with your boys by your side definately bonds the relationship. Foster unconsciously showed he really didnt want to be there.

By: kingman 26

kingman 26 — Mon, 03 Nov 2008 17:55:00 +0000

Tina, you have some serious alternative history going.

Mitchell was a violent guy on and off the field by all accounts, and Foster was completely apolitical when he was with the Mets. Foster was let go because he couldn’t hit anymore, and was in the last few months of what was maybe the worst free agent contract (pre-Slappy) the Mets ever gave anyone.

They certainly didn’t trade Mitchell because he was black, anymore than they released Foster due to politics.