OT: Trout vs. Mantle

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by ls7plus

Hi, Scott. The "logic" behind it is that if you get a hot card, preferably with a very low print run, of a player who seems at a very early stage to have top flight HOF potential, pick a number to sell it for immediately, then put 4 zeros behind that number before the player sustains a serious injury, simply loses it overnight as the pitchers adjust to him and he fails to return the favor, or he is exposed as a PED user! Prices are based upon speculation (with an overly large % of buyers intending not to keep the card for a collection, but to flip it for profit asap), or transient demand which is quick to depart for the next latest and greatest thing! IMHO, if you're going to buy current players, buy them when they are in their downslide in their late 30's (assuming they are good enough to still be around by then), when most of the above transient demand has departed the scene.

Best of luck,

Larry

Thanks Larry - I didn't realize it was so simple!

Originally Posted by tedzan

A huge DITTO to what Bob says here.


Fortunately, I'm old enough to have seen Mickey play when I was growing up (1951-1968).

Does anyone here believe Ted stopped growing up in 1968?

Mantle was already LEGENDARY when I was a kid in the early '60s, as was Willie Mays. Even at the tail-end of his career, the word 'Mantle' or 'Mays' meant something other-worldly to kids my age. Of course, 'Maris' had almost-similar status until he got traded to the Cardinals, as it took quite a long time for the '61' thing to wear off. 'BABE RUTH' was the other legendary baseball name, but you could still get a Mickey Mantle or Willie Mays baseball card when I was a kid, which made them even more special. As far as comparing Trout to Mantle, versus Mays, I think Mays would also be a valid comparison. I really don't understand how a lot of people put Mays and Mantle in different categories as far as 'legendariness' (coined term - one nickel to me if you decide to use it). Kids my age were awed by both equally, but maybe that was only in Texas since we had no particular affinity for things from either coast. And race really played no part in it - the pitchers who inspired us were Marichal, Gibson, Drysdale and Koufax, and Denny McLain for the one big year.

I've said this before, and I don't think anyone really gets it - if the kids weren't all that excited about pulling a player's card from a wax pack, then he shouldn't even be considered for the HOF. I know, it's not based on statistics, but believe me - kids took their statistics very seriously, so that also played into it. I can't remember a kid ever saying, "But Niekro for Drysdale is a great deal - look at how steady Niekro is performing over a long period with a team that no one cares about", or "Oh boy! I pulled a Blyleven!!!" Didn't happen.

I digress, but my point is that Mantle was the man (as was Mays). If Trout is 'the man' 10 years from now, and his name is mentioned in the same sentence as either Mantle or Mays, then you've got your answer. Hopefully we won't be hearing it mentioned with Bobby Murcer.