Ridiculous

[djson1]

OK...can I just point out how ridiculous this BIN price is?
I don't care if there's only one in the world....nor how great Trout becomes....this just seems a bit crazy to me:

http://www.ebay.com/itm/2009-Bowman-...AAAOSwzJ5XaGqp

[bnorth]

Originally Posted by djson1

OK...can I just point out how ridiculous this BIN price is?
I don't care if there's only one in the world....nor how great Trout becomes....this just seems a bit crazy to me:

http://www.ebay.com/itm/2009-Bowman-...AAAOSwzJ5XaGqp

That thing has been listed for a looooooooooooong time. I have been harassing the kids over on BO about it.

[djson1]

That's just insane. I wasn't aware that it was listed for a while. The seller is holding tight at half a mill for a while then. I wonder if he lowered it any point. I just can't get over $500,000 for a modern card. Trade a home for a card.

[thetruthisoutthere]

Hilarious.

[icollectDCsports]

I don't know -- I think you shouldn't ignore the fact that its a "Superfractor." And Chrome -- can't forget about that. Both of those things make it special. Had it not been a chrome superfractor, then -- of course -- the price would be ridiculous.

[JollyElm]

Darn it. I was going to offer him $499,000 for it, but then I saw what a rip off his $500 shipping is, so I walked away.

[sbfinley]

His red refractors have sold in the $100k range. $500k isn't as absurd as it sounds. Honestly if it went to auction I couldn't see it hammering for less than $200k and I know offers of more than that have been tried with this item. If you want to mock it feel free, but it is the most important single card of the past 25 years of baseball cards and at the end of the day the modern hobby is no different than the one celebrated here.

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by sbfinley

His red refractors have sold in the $100k range. $500k isn't as absurd as it sounds. Honestly if it went to auction I couldn't see it hammering for less than $200k and I know offers of more than that have been tried with this item. If you want to mock it feel free, but it is the most important single card of the past 25 years of baseball cards and at the end of the day the modern hobby is no different than the one celebrated here.

But the next morning after the alcohol wears off, it's quite different.

[clydepepper]

Seller's located in Taiwan


NUFF SAID


Of course, he only needs to sell one at that price to prove us all wrong...stranger things HAVE happened (but, don't ask me for a specific instance)
.

[Gary Dunaier]

Makes that Stephen Strasburg 1/1 that sold for $16K sound like a real bargain.

[bnorth]

Originally Posted by Gary Dunaier

Makes that Stephen Strasburg 1/1 that sold for $16K sound like a real bargain.

Or the Yasiel Puig Superfractor that sold for $18,000. Wonder what they would sell for now.

I actually love going over to the BO forums and watching people say how these cards are worth so much $. A few years later after a game of hot potato 99.9% are bargain bin cards.

Trout is the IT player now but he isn't even as good as Pujols was. As soon as he has a bad year or injury his card prices will drop like a rock of a very tall cliff.

[thenavarro]

To each their own. I know plenty of people that think it's asinine that I spend a $ on the signature of another human being.

[gnaz01]

Originally Posted by thenavarro

To each their own. I know plenty of people that think it's asinine that I spend a $ on the signature of another human being.

Yup, my wife included. Whenever I pick something up, she exclaims "is that something from another dead person"

[bnorth]

Originally Posted by gnaz01

Yup, my wife included. Whenever I pick something up, she exclaims "is that something from another dead person"

Because I am a error/variation collector that even collects print errors for a couple cards. My wife always asks "is that another one of those same exact cards, how many do you need?". I have learned to just say yes instead of showing her the minor print defect.

I do understand modern collecting but after getting caught holding the hot potato a few times I gave it up years ago.

[RichardSimon]

Originally Posted by bnorth

Or the Yasiel Puig Superfractor that sold for $18,000. Wonder what they would sell for now.

I actually love going over to the BO forums and watching people say how these cards are worth so much $. A few years later after a game of hot potato 99.9% are bargain bin cards.

Trout is the IT player now but he isn't even as good as Pujols was. As soon as he has a bad year or injury his card prices will drop like a rock of a very tall cliff.

I call the game the greater fool. It is amazing how people can burn money on these things. If I could spend half a mill on my hobby my first pick would not be that card. My last pick would not be that card.

[RichardSimon]

Originally Posted by thenavarro

To each their own. I know plenty of people that think it's asinine that I spend a $ on the signature of another human being.

[RichardSimon]

Originally Posted by gnaz01

Yup, my wife included. Whenever I pick something up, she exclaims "is that something from another dead person"

[btcarfagno]

Originally Posted by gnaz01

Yup, my wife included. Whenever I pick something up, she exclaims "is that something from another dead person"

With the myriad forgers scumming up the hobby, "dead" may be in the eye of the beholder.

Tom C

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by bnorth

Trout is the IT player now but he isn't even as good as Pujols was. As soon as he has a bad year or injury his card prices will drop like a rock of a very tall cliff.

Agreed, and that's what makes collecting modern cards completely different from collecting vintage. You might consider Trout a "lock" to have a great career, but the same could be said for Mattingly, etc, early in their careers.

I would say that collecting cards such as this Trout - (which will never end up as a Carp, but possibly a Salmon) <=== see what I did there? - is more akin to collecting modern game-used than to collecting pre-war cards.

[bn2cardz]

To be fair, though, Trout has a WAR7 of 48.5 that places him 8th all time for center fielders. A WAR7 is the best 7 WAR years for a player and he has only played 6 years so far. If he only has a 2.5 as hist best WAR from here on out he would tie DiMaggio for WAR7.

If you compare him to all the people ahead of him in Center Field Career numbers (Mays, Cobb, Mantle, Speaker, Griffey, DiMaggio, Snider) he beats all of their WAR numbers in their first 6 years of play.

He is being compared to the likes of Mattingly, Puig, Stratsburg in this thread. Trouts average yearly WAR is 8. Mattingly never even got above 7.2, Puig never had above a 5.3, Stratsburg never above a 3.5. Even Pujols has a 6 year total of 46 (average of 7.7).

Trout may still get injured and never come back but to put him in the same class of other supposed greats that didn't live up is a mistake. He would be closer to Mantle or Mays slumping after their first 6 years.

[Stampsfan]

Originally Posted by bnorth

Because I am a error/variation collector that even collects print errors for a couple cards. My wife always asks "is that another one of those same exact cards, how many do you need?".

I saw this on a post here a couple of years ago, and thought it was brilliant. So I lay no claim to the clever response, I'm simply stealing it...

Ask her how many pairs of brown shoes does she need.

[bnorth]

Originally Posted by Stampsfan

I saw this on a post here a couple of years ago, and thought it was brilliant. So I lay no claim to the clever response, I'm simply stealing it...

Ask her how many pairs of brown shoes does she need.

I would Bob but I am not that brave or stupid, you can take your choice.

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by bn2cardz

To be fair, though, Trout has a WAR7 of 48.5 that places him 8th all time for center fielders. A WAR7 is the best 7 WAR years for a player and he has only played 6 years so far. If he only has a 2.5 as hist best WAR from here on out he would tie DiMaggio for WAR7.

If you compare him to all the people ahead of him in Center Field Career numbers (Mays, Cobb, Mantle, Speaker, Griffey, DiMaggio, Snider) he beats all of their WAR numbers in their first 6 years of play.

He is being compared to the likes of Mattingly, Puig, Stratsburg in this thread. Trouts average yearly WAR is 8. Mattingly never even got above 7.2, Puig never had above a 5.3, Stratsburg never above a 3.5. Even Pujols has a 6 year total of 46 (average of 7.7).

Trout may still get injured and never come back but to put him in the same class of other supposed greats that didn't live up is a mistake. He would be closer to Mantle or Mays slumping after their first 6 years.

Okay, okay - I'm off to the bank to try for a $500,000 loan so I can buy what is obviously the best deal ever on the greatest baseball card in modern history.

[bnorth]

Originally Posted by Runscott

Okay, okay - I'm off to the bank to try for a $500,000 loan so I can buy what is obviously the best deal ever on the greatest baseball card in modern history.

Good luck on the loan Scott.

Now if someone could explain WAR to me with out using words like "theoretical replacement" and "approximation" I would really appreciate it. Even when doing a google search all I come up with is what sounds like a bunch of ifs and buts with no real hard stats. Even baseball reference says "There is no one way to determine WAR". Sounds like a made up stat people use to say my favorite player was better than yours if we theoretically replace this approximation.

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by bnorth

Good luck on the loan Scott.

Now if someone could explain WAR to me with out using words like "theoretical replacement" and "approximation" I would really appreciate it. Even when doing a google search all I come up with is what sounds like a bunch of ifs and buts with no real hard stats. Even baseball reference says "There is no one way to determine WAR". Sounds like a made up stat people use to say my favorite player was better than yours if we theoretically replace this approximation.

Ben, I started to do the same search, especially when he brought up the Mattingly example, but decided that it didn't really matter. Buying that Trout card isn't just a gamble that he will have a full career. It's much less than that.

[Mr. Zipper]

The debate isn't really how Trout will compare to the all time greats, the question is will there be long-term interest in the supercalifragilistic card in the future. And, will someone with the means to pay for it also have the motive?

Even if Trout ends with numbers that would make the Babe hang his head in shame, will anyone care enough about this card to dump 6 figures on it? Is it that special and universally known? In a hobby flooded with so many 1 of 1 manufactured cards you need a scorecard to keep track, it seems pretty unlikely to me. But what do I know? If I found that card in a garage sale I'd guess it was worth about $40.

[ruth-gehrig]

Originally Posted by Mr. Zipper

The debate isn't really how Trout will compare to the all time greats, the question is will there be long-term interest in the supercalifragilistic card in the future. And, will someone with the means to pay for it also have the motive?

Even if Trout ends with numbers that would make the Babe hang his head in shame, will anyone care enough about this card to dump 6 figures on it? Is it that special and universally known? In a hobby flooded with so many 1 of 1 manufactured cards you need a scorecard to keep track, it seems pretty unlikely to me. But what do I know? If I found that card in a garage sale I'd guess it was worth about $40.

My $11 offer was immediately rejected. $40 seems a bit steep to me

[RichardSimon]

Originally Posted by ruth-gehrig

My $11 offer was immediately rejected. $40 seems a bit steep to me

Ok, I say $25.50.

[rjackson44]

no one is buying this card ,,,

[bn2cardz]

Originally Posted by Runscott

Okay, okay - I'm off to the bank to try for a $500,000 loan so I can buy what is obviously the best deal ever on the greatest baseball card in modern history.

I wasn't commenting on the price of the card, purely a reply to the idea that he may crash and burn. He may, but he still has had a very impressive 6 year stretch to start his career. I think a case could be made that it was even enough to put him in the HOF if he just has an average career from here on.

As far as the price, it may be based on the Lebron James RC that sold for $312k through Goldin Auctions. I think there are more things going for the Lebron card than this card has, but it could influence the seller's thinking.

[HOF Auto Rookies]

This card is essentially the 52 Topps Mick of modern cards. This is THE modern Holy Grail.

[HOF Auto Rookies]

Originally Posted by clydepepper

Seller's located in Taiwan





NUFF SAID

What the hell is that supposed to mean? The seller is very, very reputable and well known in high end modern cards.

[rats60]

Originally Posted by HOF Auto Rookies

This card is essentially the 52 Topps Mick of modern cards. This is THE modern Holy Grail.

For now, until the next big thing comes along.

[bnorth]

Originally Posted by rats60

For now, until the next big thing comes along.

^^exactly what this gentleman said^^

In the last 25 years there are several cards that people said, this is the 52 Topps Mantle of modern cards. None of them turned out to be and I highly doubt this one will either. It is way too early in his career for that talk. Yes I do understand the hype to make $ but that is all it is, hype.

I truly don't understand WAR especially when Trout has a higher WAR than Pujols. In every offensive stat besides stolen bases Pujols had way better #'s in his early years.

[btcarfagno]

Originally Posted by bnorth

^^exactly what this gentleman said^^

In the last 25 years there are several cards that people said, this is the 52 Topps Mantle of modern cards. None of them turned out to be and I highly doubt this one will either. It is way too early in his career for that talk. Yes I do understand the hype to make $ but that is all it is, hype.

I truly don't understand WAR especially when Trout has a higher WAR than Pujols. In every offensive stat besides stolen bases Pujols had way better #'s in his early years.

WAR includes defensive metrics as well. An above average defensive center fielder will be given quite a boost over even a good defensive first baseman.

Tom C

[rats60]

Originally Posted by btcarfagno

WAR includes defensive metrics as well. An above average defensive center fielder will be given quite a boost over even a good defensive first baseman.

Tom C

It over rates certain positions like CF and SS. That is my biggest problem with WAR. You can use it to compare to Centerfielders, but not 1B and CF.

[HOF Auto Rookies]

Originally Posted by rats60

For now, until the next big thing comes along.

No, it won't. Not until someone comes along and performs even better than Trout to start a career. Which is far from a given.

[rats60]

Originally Posted by HOF Auto Rookies

No, it won't. Not until someone comes along and performs even better than Trout to start a career. Which is far from a given.

I have been hearing that for 30+ years and the next thing always comes along.

Better start? Based on a made up stat that is flawed and random. It is even calculated differently by two different sites and the method of calculation has been changed by one of them. As I said before, it can't even be used to compare players at different positions.

[bn2cardz]

Originally Posted by bnorth

^^exactly what this gentleman said^^

In the last 25 years there are several cards that people said, this is the 52 Topps Mantle of modern cards. None of them turned out to be and I highly doubt this one will either. It is way too early in his career for that talk. Yes I do understand the hype to make $ but that is all it is, hype.

I truly don't understand WAR especially when Trout has a higher WAR than Pujols. In every offensive stat besides stolen bases Pujols had way better #'s in his early years.

WAR is comparative tool of other players in the game at the same time. If you compare Pujols Black Ink for his first 5 years compared to Trout's (Trout couldn't lead a league in his first year since he only played 40 games) you see that Trout has a 25 compared to Pujols' 18.
Even comparing SLG rank over the 5 years Trout ranked at an average of 3rd for the league, Pujols average rank was 4.6. So even though Pujols numbers are higher he wasn't the better player when compared to his counterparts (if you base it off these type of stats).

[HOF Auto Rookies]

Originally Posted by rats60

I have been hearing that for 30+ years and the next thing always comes along.



Better start? Based on a made up stat that is flawed and random. It is even calculated differently by two different sites and the method of calculation has been changed by one of them. As I said before, it can't even be used to compare players at different positions.

Well, good for you and those 30 years. It finally happened. I don't expect to see another start like Trout's to start an MLB career in my lifetime.

Where did I ever mention war or anything along those lines? Or even talk about stats? And, aren't all stats made up.

Edited: and I personally don't care for war

[bnorth]

Originally Posted by bn2cardz

WAR is comparative tool of other players in the game at the same time. If you compare Pujols Black Ink for his first 5 years compared to Trout's (Trout couldn't lead a league in his first year since he only played 40 games) you see that Trout has a 25 compared to Pujols' 18.
Even comparing SLG rank over the 5 years Trout ranked at an average of 3rd for the league, Pujols average rank was 4.6. So even though Pujols numbers are higher he wasn't the better player when compared to his counterparts (if you base it off these type of stats).

I am kinda starting to understand this, but not really. So because Pujols was playing at a time when there was much better players compared now he is somehow considered a worse player than a guy that put up worse #'s.

Andy(or anybody else) if you would like to PM me sometime to try to explain this stuff a little better I would greatly appreciate it. It just makes no sense to me at all. If there is a good website that explains all this stuff in a for dummies way that would be great also.

I could see how WAR and the Black Ink would work great for players playing at the same time and position but using it to compare players of different positions and years makes no sense to me.

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by bn2cardz

WAR is comparative tool of other players in the game at the same time. If you compare Pujols Black Ink for his first 5 years compared to Trout's (Trout couldn't lead a league in his first year since he only played 40 games) you see that Trout has a 25 compared to Pujols' 18.
Even comparing SLG rank over the 5 years Trout ranked at an average of 3rd for the league, Pujols average rank was 4.6. So even though Pujols numbers are higher he wasn't the better player when compared to his counterparts (if you base it off these type of stats).

Andy, do you believe WAR one of the direct determinants of this card's value, as opposed to simply that Trout is currently considered the god of active baseball players?

I think it's very cool that you and Brent have your fingers on the pulse of the modern card market - I have no feel for it. With vintage cards, I know my Babe Ruth card may go up or down in value, but it won't be because he started playing poorly, got busted in a drug test or got traded to the Mariners.

[steve B]

Originally Posted by Runscott

Andy, do you believe WAR one of the direct determinants of this card's value, as opposed to simply that Trout is currently considered the god of active baseball players?

I think it's very cool that you and Brent have your fingers on the pulse of the modern card market - I have no feel for it. With vintage cards, I know my Babe Ruth card may go up or down in value, but it won't be because he started playing poorly, got busted in a drug test or got traded to the Mariners.

And that's just it for cards of guys who haven't finished a career, even with tremendous early numbers.

Reminds me of a few years back selling at a flea market. One of the handful of cards I wouldn't budge on price was a signature rookies Derek Jeter signed card. It booked $30 at the time, and that's what I wanted. (It was near NY, so not that crazy)
One guy lowballed at $10 and said it wasn't worth 30..... So I asked him where he thought it would be after they won a few more series. He replied with "and where will it be if he blows out a knee" I told him that if that happened he could come back the next year and I'd be happy to sell it for 10 but for now it was still 30 (After a few years I eventually sold it on Ebay for I think 80. )
If the Trout card was mine, I don't think I'd be holding too firm at 500K, I'd be very happy to "settle" for the 100-200K someone mentioned. I'd pay off the house, Invest some and all my collections would get a whole lot better.

Steve B

[bn2cardz]

Originally Posted by Runscott

Andy, do you believe WAR one of the direct determinants of this card's value, as opposed to simply that Trout is currently considered the god of active baseball players?

I think it's very cool that you and Brent have your fingers on the pulse of the modern card market - I have no feel for it. With vintage cards, I know my Babe Ruth card may go up or down in value, but it won't be because he started playing poorly, got busted in a drug test or got traded to the Mariners.

Again I don't think this card is priced at its value. I have only theories as to the pricing. One theory is that the seller just wanted to field offers. The other is that they are a fan and like a few other people (me included at times) uses ebay to show it off without any intent on selling, but if it was going to sell it would take someone willing to put up the crazy money.

As far as WAR or any sabrmatrics having an affect on the modern market, it is possible. Topps has started putting these stats on the cards so these are the stats people are now looking at.

All that aside though, my only point of bringing up his stats is that I saw that he was being called the "it guy". As a cynical person, myself, I had to finally admit that he truly is more than just a fad. It has been only 6 years, but really only 5 years if you think his first year was only 40 games and he is doing stuff we haven't seen since Pujols and I merely was pointing out that there is some merit to believe he could even be better. Again this does not mean I am defending a $500k price tag, but I also don't believe this will ever be a $40 (or sub $1000) card anymore than I think a 2001 Bowman Chrome Pujols Auto will be.

[chaddurbin]

Originally Posted by bnorth

I am kinda starting to understand this, but not really. So because Pujols was playing at a time when there was much better players compared now he is somehow considered a worse player than a guy that put up worse #'s.

wasn't so much pujols was playing with better players, but everyone was juiced out of their mind. war takes into account the era you play in, the park you play at, and the position you play. if you just compare flatly ped luis gonzalez stats they would dwarf mike trout's...and that wouldn't be fair. or if you take peak-ped bret boone you'd say he's an equal player to dead era nap lajoie, which would be ludicrous.

pujols first 5 year production is measured against the average production of other 1b in the ped era...hence Win Above Replacement level....that bar is set pretty high. mike trout being a cf is measured against other weaker hitting cf'ers of today. so pujols fantastic 2001-2006 stats only translates to 8-9war. if pujols was putting up those stats today and he plays cf his war would be ruthian-like.

having said all that if the seller is getting 200k+ on the card he should take it...trout doesn't have the most dynamic personality and playing for the angels he will never have the national spotlight to drive a modern card like lebron. there's always the chance the card could fetch 500k one day, but the odds is better that it won't. but if it's my card i would keep it so i'd have a rooting interest for the greatest baseball career thus far.

[Topnotchsy]

There are definitely different things that drive people toward this hobby that we are part of. For some it is the memories of the players they watched as kids, or the players they heard about from their their parents.

For many others, it is about collecting the cards of a player while they are playing. In some ways it is a another way of being a fan. Some get season tickets, some buy jerseys and gear of their players. Some play fantasy baseball. Some like to collect cards of those players.

Regarding this specific card, Bowman Chrome has long been the premier option for Rookie cards and rookie autographs of modern players. "Long" is of course relative, but it has been so since the late 90's, so close to 20 years. When it comes to the rookie autographs, you have a simple, elegant design, a limited print run, an autograph from the player's "rookie card" season, and you have reason to be very confident the autograph is authentic.
The set has parallel versions and this is the only style that is limited to a single copy (and there is in general a big following for "superfractors".)

Would the card be a good investment at $150,000-$200,000 or more? It is speculation at best (in my opinion). Is Trout the best player (at this stage in his career) of the last 20 seasons along with a player who is very marketable? It's hard to argue against that. I believe only Barry Bonds in his steroid days has ever had a 5 season stretch with finishing in the top 2 in MVP voting. Trout did that in his 1st five seasons.

And for some, that's exactly what they want to collect.

[Gary Dunaier]

Originally Posted by bn2cardz

I have only theories as to the pricing. One theory is that the seller just wanted to field offers. The other is that they are a fan and like a few other people (me included at times) uses ebay to show it off without any intent on selling, but if it was going to sell it would take someone willing to put up the crazy money.

If they just want to brag about owning it, why not post an image to an appropriate form and say "I have this card" instead of spending money to list it on Ebay?

[deeg23]

Originally Posted by Gary Dunaier

If they just want to brag about owning it, why not post an image to an appropriate form and say "I have this card" instead of spending money to list it on Ebay?

eBay pretty much lets you list for free now. They give you a TON of free listings. I can't remember the last time I paid! Though, I don't sell thousands of items, but at least a couple of hundred throughout the year.

[mattjc1983]

Originally Posted by chaddurbin

wasn't so much pujols was playing with better players, but everyone was juiced out of their mind. war takes into account the era you play in, the park you play at, and the position you play. if you just compare flatly ped luis gonzalez stats they would dwarf mike trout's...and that wouldn't be fair. or if you take peak-ped bret boone you'd say he's an equal player to dead era nap lajoie, which would be ludicrous.



pujols first 5 year production is measured against the average production of other 1b in the ped era...hence Win Above Replacement level....that bar is set pretty high. mike trout being a cf is measured against other weaker hitting cf'ers of today. so pujols fantastic 2001-2006 stats only translates to 8-9war. if pujols was putting up those stats today and he plays cf his war would be ruthian-like.



having said all that if the seller is getting 200k+ on the card he should take it...trout doesn't have the most dynamic personality and playing for the angels he will never have the national spotlight to drive a modern card like lebron. there's always the chance the card could fetch 500k one day, but the odds is better that it won't. but if it's my card i would keep it so i'd have a rooting interest for the greatest baseball career thus far.

Actually I don't believe WAR is comparing to other everyday major league players at your position, but to callups isn't it (i.e. AAA)? I think WAA (Wins Above Average) is the major league comparison.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk