Aaron Judge

[orly57]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

I don't care about those backs either, but I guess the difference is those were not made for the purpose of generating artificial scarcity, like all the multi color serially numbered refractors. They were just made as premiums for the product. They were not intended to have value. Now, you could take a card, make five with a blue dot, and people will pay ungodly sums for the rare blue dot variation. It seems stupid to me.

I can't agree more Peter. I've been screaming this from the rooftops. "Aritificial scarcity" is the perfect way to describe it. This one is a1/1, but an identical card with a red dot is a 1/5, and so on. I can see where children fall for it, but adults? Really? I suppose they also believe that the company throws away the rest of the jersey after using one swatch on a 1/1. I've tried warning people, but they passionately defend it. The effort by packs to compare to t206 backs is clever, but it doesn't work. The backs were for advertising, not to have kids chase the rare backs as inserts, or to add value to the card. And like you Peter, I don't get the whole t206 back-chasing thing either.

I remember the first time I saw Aaron Judge, when his name was Kevin Maas. Another big problem with manufactured scarcity it that these guys are paying 3k for an Aaron Judge, while at least I only lost 10 bucks on my Kevin Maas or David Justice speculating. Remember the Canseco craze? His Donruss went up to a whopping $100. If Canseco were a young player today performing as he did early in his career, these guys would be dropping 5-figures on his cards! Here's the thing: hall of famers are rare. Common players are, well, far more common. There have been prospects since The beginning of baseball, and most prospects become common players. So keep dropping big bucks looking for the next mike trout if you want, but it's a bad idea.

Finally, this auto-craze is absurd. You know why Thurman Munson autos are worth more than DiMaggio or Ted Williams? Because what makes autos valuable is rarity! By the time mike trout retires, he will have signed a million baseball cards. Then he will sign 5 million more post-retirement. His auto will be more common than Pete Rose's auto. But rather than listening to experience, when I tell young collectors all of this, they scoff at me. They will learn the hard way.

You can choose to chase potential hall of famers at obscene prices if you want, but I suggest you spend that 3k on a guy who is already in the hall of fame. Spend it on a guy who is already a legend. Spend it on a guy whose cards will not continue to be produced at alarming rates. Spend it on a timeless card with historic value. That's my advice to you guys who buy the shiny new stuff.

[Peter_Spaeth]

I don't understand the autograph thing either. As you point out, the signature itself has almost no intrinsic value, so it's just another way to artificially distinguish one group of a player's million plus rookie cards from another group. And what drives it home for me is that they now have different color signatures, some of which apparently are worth more. The RED autographs, on some issues anyhow, are far more valuable than the BLUE autographs. Uh, ok, sure, whatever. I am sure some marketing guru will come up with even further differentiation of autographs. How about an ultra super rare version where the player actually writes out his full name instead of a chicken scratch of his initials? Or maybe they could add the date and call it the ultra super rare "with date" version? It all seems artificial to me.

And yeah, baseball prospects are notoriously unpredictable. And a few good months, or even a few good years, doesn't mean anything either in this most difficult of sports.

[MattyC]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

a few good months, or even a few good years, doesn't mean anything either in this most difficult of sports.

Yes, it is enormously difficult.

But you really think a few good "years" doesn't mean anything?

To whom— certainly not the players. Real baseball players take it game to game, at bat to at bat, pitch to pitch. They don't live their lives thinking, "Gee, I have to make the HOF." So the players certainly wouldn't agree with that.

The fans? I think fans of a team or player don't live in a "HOF or bust" space either. Fans will love lots of non HOF worthy players.

So how does a few good months or years mean nothing? The game is enormously hard. If anything, in such an environment having a great season is something a player or fan would love and value.

The only realm where that statement could apply is the realm of selling a baseball card for money.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by MattyC

Yes, it is enormously difficult.

But you really think a few good "years" doesn't mean anything?

To whom— certainly not the players. Real baseball players take it game to game, at bat to at bat, pitch to pitch. They don't live their lives thinking, "Gee, I have to make the HOF." So the players certainly wouldn't agree with that.

The fans? I think fans of a team or player don't live in a "HOF or bust" space either. Fans will love lots of non HOF worthy players.

So how does a few good months or years mean nothing? The game is enormously hard. If anything, in such an environment having a great season is something a player or fan would love and value.

The only realm where that statement could apply is the realm of selling a baseball card for money.

Yes, of course, but that's the context we are discussing, namely the values we are seeing on some of the modern cards. Or at least that was the context in which I made the statement.

[MattyC]

Gotcha, Peter, makes sense in that context. Wasn't sure since a prior post was referencing price-performances of guys who had relatively brief flashes of greatness.

[Peter_Spaeth]

I think it's all related. What I see, from a limited vantage point anyhow, is that hype tends to drive a player's values sky high based on relatively brief periods of success, as though the market is already pricing in that the guy is going to be an all time great. How else can we explain prices way in excess of 1K (and I have no idea how high it goes) for a guy such a Judge who has had two months of success?

Trout, I get, he has five outstanding years in, and it's a relatively strong assumption that he will continue (but see recent injury). Relatively strong, because you have guys who fall way off even after 10 years. Griffey is an example of that, his second half was nowhere near his first. But two months -- in this context -- is way too soon IMO to be paying thousands for his cards. Unless money is no object.

Take a look back at what some Strasburg cards were selling for during his rookie year, when people already had him in the HOF.

[MattyC]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

I think it's all related. What I see, from a limited vantage point anyhow, is that hype tends to drive a player's values sky high based on relatively brief periods of success, as though the market is already pricing in that the guy is going to be an all time great. How else can we explain prices way in excess of 1K (and I have no idea how high it goes) for a guy such a Judge who has had two months of success?

Trout, I get, he has five outstanding years in, and it's a relatively strong assumption that he will continue (but see recent injury). Relatively strong, because you have guys who fall way off even after 10 years. Griffey is an example of that, his second half was nowhere near his first. But two months -- in this context -- is way too soon IMO to be paying thousands for his cards. Unless money is no object.

Take a look back at what some Strasburg cards were selling for during his rookie year.

I completely agree with all of that. Future greatness is totally priced in by the modern collectors, and it kind of forces a fan who wants to collect a current player to choose when to hop on the train, so to speak, and buy.

As a huge pure fan of some modern guys, I'm forced to think, "OK, I want to collect this guy, so do I pony up now and hope he doesn't continue to soar? Or do I wait?"

For me, my love of a player or card will always trump any remote sense of fiscal responsibility, and so I'll splurge when the itch to collect hits. I've got my zone of comfort in terms of how high I can go for a Judge or Sanchez card and not care a lick if it tanks; for others that price tag can be a 10k superfractor or the like.

What I've found with collecting present guys is there's a thrill unique to it, an aspect that's nice to feel— in terms of the unknown; we're on the fan's journey with a player in the active present; we don't know how his career will turn out; so we root. And rooting is a blast. That's not to say it's better than what we get with our much older cards, it's just different and cool in its own way. I think too many times on here collecting is treated as some zero sum game, where it's this card or collecting ethos VERSUS that one. Doesn't have to be that way. Especially among people who all ostensibly love the same sport and the collecting of cards.

A modern collector of his favorite young player may be buying a fairly expensive ticket on a fun ride that will end— like any rollercoaster or hand of blackjack, LOL— or he may wind up with some cards he loves that also sustain or grow their value. Cool either way.

[orly57]

I didn't say TROUT collectors will rue the day, I said guys who chase prospects THINKING THEY WILL ALL BECOME TROUT will rue the day. Trout is a beast. But the more cards and autos they release of him, the more they will become devalued.

You don't like my comparison to Maas because of their differing approach at the plate. Way to miss the point. Buy whatever you want. I honestly don't care. If you can't take advice with a grain of salt, and feel you need to go into attack mode, then you aren't worth my time or advice. I will grab my cane and head back to the pre-war section where I belong.

[ls7plus]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

I think it's all related. What I see, from a limited vantage point anyhow, is that hype tends to drive a player's values sky high based on relatively brief periods of success, as though the market is already pricing in that the guy is going to be an all time great. How else can we explain prices way in excess of 1K (and I have no idea how high it goes) for a guy such a Judge who has had two months of success?

Trout, I get, he has five outstanding years in, and it's a relatively strong assumption that he will continue (but see recent injury). Relatively strong, because you have guys who fall way off even after 10 years. Griffey is an example of that, his second half was nowhere near his first. But two months -- in this context -- is way too soon IMO to be paying thousands for his cards. Unless money is no object.

Take a look back at what some Strasburg cards were selling for during his rookie year, when people already had him in the HOF.

Rocky Colavito, Cesar Cedeno, Ted Kluzewski, and on and on. Initial demand is speculative and transient. The real time to buy, when such demand has moved on to the latest and greatest phenoms, is when these guys have established a real HOF resume and are in their 30's downslide. Barring injury, though, I do like Judge and believe he will last--love the way he drives the ball from left center to right center, like Mantle did, and stays inside the pitch, with that lead shoulder following, not leading, his hands, so he doesn't open up too soon (unlike Harper, who violently yanks the lead shoulder open to start the swing, which is why he can serve it to but has no real power to left--once that shoulder is open and long gone, the only way to get the bat to the outside pitch is let it linger behind and drag it through the zone). Time alone will tell.


Hi, Pete,

Larry

[irv]

Originally Posted by MattyC

Hey Orly, why don't you let modern collectors or people like myself who will buy a modern player's cards decide how to spend our hard-earned money.

I could buy pieces like your Cobb postcard, but it doesn't interest me or appeal to me in the least. Do I enter your sandbox and verbally piss on your choices? No.

On the money topic, not everyone is in this for future investment, some people want to collect modern players they root for. And for those who are after a monetary return, people have done fine on the great current players, too.

You say modern Trout collectors will "learn the hard way." Ooh. What harsh lesson will this be? You think the kid or guy who paid a few hundred for a Trout will, in decades from now, walk around rueing the choice because the card dropped in value?

In 2027, will you walk the National with schadenfreude, hoping to hear the words: "Oh my God, my Trout was once worth $800. Now it's worth $200! My life is over! What a hard life lesson! If only I listened to that guy and bought a Cobb instead of the player I rooted for in my present life!"

Or what about the guy who can afford to drop a few grand or even ten grand on a Trout or Judge or Seager or Bellinger now? Will he learn the hard way if it drops to half its value in fifteen years? I don't think so.

- If he dropped 10k on a card and it loses nearly all its value, it's a loss the guy can shrug at. That's not a life-changing sum for someone with that cash to spend on a card.
- If he dropped 10k because he loves the player, he still loves the card, it's likely his favorite card or among them.

And if you think Judge is Kevin Maas, you've betrayed yourself as someone who doesn't know the game of baseball. Their approaches at the plate are different. Their ability to make adjustments is different. Their ability to hit for average and contact is different. As a cautionary anecdote about purchasing the cards of hot rookies that may not develop into bona fide stars, then yes, there's a comparison to be drawn— for now.

MC

I think this thread is getting way out of hand and it's original theme has been lost along the way?

My replies, to Packs, and I think others like Orly's were written to show/tell that "investing" in players such as Judge is not necessarily a wise investment, especially with the prices it currently costs to jump in.

No one is saying you're stupid to purchase these cards if you want them, but are saying, if you are purchasing for investment purposes, then it is not a wise investment at this point in their careers.

Like I mentioned earlier, I could care less what people collect nor how many cards are out there, but when someone can't understand when modern, newer cards of players who's amount of cards go on forever, aren't as valuable as some older, much harder to find, a legend if you will, player who is already in the HOF, then I don't know what else to say.

[irv]

Originally Posted by orly57

I can't agree more Peter. I've been screaming this from the rooftops. "Aritificial scarcity" is the perfect way to describe it. This one is a1/1, but an identical card with a red dot is a 1/5, and so on. I can see where children fall for it, but adults? Really? I suppose they also believe that the company throws away the rest of the jersey after using one swatch on a 1/1. I've tried warning people, but they passionately defend it. The effort by packs to compare to t206 backs is clever, but it doesn't work. The backs were for advertising, not to have kids chase the rare backs as inserts, or to add value to the card. And like you Peter, I don't get the whole t206 back-chasing thing either.

I remember the first time I saw Aaron Judge, when his name was Kevin Maas. Another big problem with manufactured scarcity it that these guys are paying 3k for an Aaron Judge, while at least I only lost 10 bucks on my Kevin Maas or David Justice speculating. Remember the Canseco craze? His Donruss went up to a whopping $100. If Canseco were a young player today performing as he did early in his career, these guys would be dropping 5-figures on his cards! Here's the thing: hall of famers are rare. Common players are, well, far more common. There have been prospects since The beginning of baseball, and most prospects become common players. So keep dropping big bucks looking for the next mike trout if you want, but it's a bad idea.

Finally, this auto-craze is absurd. You know why Thurman Munson autos are worth more than DiMaggio or Ted Williams? Because what makes autos valuable is rarity! By the time mike trout retires, he will have signed a million baseball cards. Then he will sign 5 million more post-retirement. His auto will be more common than Pete Rose's auto. But rather than listening to experience, when I tell young collectors all of this, they scoff at me. They will learn the hard way.

You can choose to chase potential hall of famers at obscene prices if you want, but I suggest you spend that 3k on a guy who is already in the hall of fame. Spend it on a guy who is already a legend. Spend it on a guy whose cards will not continue to be produced at alarming rates. Spend it on a timeless card with historic value. That's my advice to you guys who buy the shiny new stuff.

Very well said!

[MattyC]

Originally Posted by orly57

I can't agree more Peter. I've been screaming this from the rooftops. "Aritificial scarcity" is the perfect way to describe it. This one is a1/1, but an identical card with a red dot is a 1/5, and so on. I can see where children fall for it, but adults? Really? I suppose they also believe that the company throws away the rest of the jersey after using one swatch on a 1/1. I've tried warning people, but they passionately defend it. The effort by packs to compare to t206 backs is clever, but it doesn't work. The backs were for advertising, not to have kids chase the rare backs as inserts, or to add value to the card. And like you Peter, I don't get the whole t206 back-chasing thing either.

I remember the first time I saw Aaron Judge, when his name was Kevin Maas. Another big problem with manufactured scarcity it that these guys are paying 3k for an Aaron Judge, while at least I only lost 10 bucks on my Kevin Maas or David Justice speculating. Remember the Canseco craze? His Donruss went up to a whopping $100. If Canseco were a young player today performing as he did early in his career, these guys would be dropping 5-figures on his cards! Here's the thing: hall of famers are rare. Common players are, well, far more common. There have been prospects since The beginning of baseball, and most prospects become common players. So keep dropping big bucks looking for the next mike trout if you want, but it's a bad idea.

Finally, this auto-craze is absurd. You know why Thurman Munson autos are worth more than DiMaggio or Ted Williams? Because what makes autos valuable is rarity! By the time mike trout retires, he will have signed a million baseball cards. Then he will sign 5 million more post-retirement. His auto will be more common than Pete Rose's auto. But rather than listening to experience, when I tell young collectors all of this, they scoff at me. They will learn the hard way.

You can choose to chase potential hall of famers at obscene prices if you want, but I suggest you spend that 3k on a guy who is already in the hall of fame. Spend it on a guy who is already a legend. Spend it on a guy whose cards will not continue to be produced at alarming rates. Spend it on a timeless card with historic value. That's my advice to you guys who buy the shiny new stuff.

Hey Orly, why don't you let modern collectors or people like myself who will buy a modern player's cards decide how to spend our hard-earned money.

I could buy pieces like your Cobb postcard, but it doesn't interest me or appeal to me in the least. Do I enter your sandbox and verbally piss on your choices? No.

On the money topic, not everyone is in this for future investment, some people want to collect modern players they root for. And for those who are after a monetary return, people have done fine on the great current players, too.

You say modern Trout collectors will "learn the hard way." Ooh. What harsh lesson will this be? You think the kid or guy who paid a few hundred for a Trout will, in decades from now, walk around rueing the choice because the card dropped in value?

In 2027, will you walk the National with schadenfreude, hoping to hear the words: "Oh my God, my Trout was once worth $800. Now it's worth $200! My life is over! What a hard life lesson! If only I listened to that guy and bought a Cobb instead of the player I rooted for in my present life!"

Or what about the guy who can afford to drop a few grand or even ten grand on a Trout or Judge or Seager or Bellinger now? Will he learn the hard way if it drops to half its value in fifteen years? I don't think so.

- If he dropped 10k on a card and it loses nearly all its value, it's a loss the guy can shrug at. That's not a life-changing sum for someone with that cash to spend on a card.
- If he dropped 10k because he loves the player, he still loves the card, it's likely his favorite card or among them.

And if you think Judge is Kevin Maas, you've betrayed yourself as someone who doesn't know the game of baseball. Their approaches at the plate are different. Their ability to make adjustments is different. Their ability to hit for average and contact is different. As a cautionary anecdote about purchasing the cards of hot rookies that may not develop into bona fide stars, then yes, there's a comparison to be drawn— for now.

MC

[Peter_Spaeth]

Of course we don't know what the future holds in store for Judge, but the analogy to Maas as a "cautionary tale" is fairly apt.

https://www.baseballessential.com/ne...ee-kevin-maas/