Trout v. Legendary cards

[glynparson]

Originally Posted by Tao_Moko

You're correct. Comparing him to Puckett was a huge mistake. Trout has 1351 hits and a .304 so it's unlikely he improves his BA over the next three seasons and gets a thousand hits to match Puckett. He may with longevity do it, but doesn't seem on track at present. I wish Trout the best, but he's got a long ways to go to be in the same breath of the greats. Relative to card value - they are only worth what someone will pay so apparently Trout is worth it to some. Can't argue when there's no right answer. I'm not much older than Trout and I fought in two theaters as a Marine so he could have too but sports and money were more important. He probably would have been great to have on my team. It's a good reminder that these are just athletes playing a game and none of their pictures should be worth millions. To think what I could do with $3.2 million. Wouldn't be buy baseball cards.

As someone who comes from
A gold star marine family I thank you for your service but this attack on mike trout is beyond ignorant. And yes ted was a great patriot but he was also an asshole to many of his fans. They didn’t call him the spitter because he was a nice guy. And he was very arrogant wouldn’t even recognize the crowds appreciation after his final hr. Yes was an amazing person in many ways but also an asshole in many. I have never heard anything but compliments on Mr. trout and his interactions with fans. Military service is honorable but that doesn’t mean you are a better person simply for having done it. And I hate to break it but very few people collect cards of military heroes compared to those of athletic heroes.

[MattyC]

This hobby is in a very bad place. Shady pump and dump groups no different than slimeball boiler room hucksters. A veritable cottage industry of chop shops supplying TPGs with trimmed submissions by the boatload. The selfish shaking pom poms at the ever rising fake sales of doctored cards because they like the value of their collections going up. Then the marks believing the hype who go and buy into a market fueled on so much shade, thereby contributing real sales after the fake. It has nothing anymore to do with the games or their legends or the cards— it’s just some guys out there trying to 2x or 10x their money in a fast way.

[puckpaul]

Well, when you print $7 trillion, stuff happens. Stock market is like this too. See TSLA!

But many cards were undervalued if demand increased a little. We’ll see what happens. World is fragile, perhaps, but as we continue to print money and dollars get more worthless, this stuff will continue.

[Yoda]

Having lived through a few vintage card booms and busts, I would only offer one piece of advise during uncertain times, which we are certainly experiencing at the moment, and that is to buy value players and hold them when shocks come. Given their records and life stories, Mantle Cobb, Ruth and Gehrig cards will always hold value in tough times, but so will Matty, Wojo and Hornsby, Foxx, Clemente, Koufax, Mays etc.
As far as the Trout card is concerned, I just don't know, but the 4m price tag certainly represents a paradigm shift in the new card market.

[Delray Vintage]

Trout card going for $4 mill is like a high flying tech stock rising on momentum. No one can really say why it has risen so fast. There are speculators willing to bet on continued rise. It does not really matter to those speculators why it rises as long as there is someone willing to pay more. They will say it is unstoppable and a sure thing.

Cobb, Ruth and Mantle are the AT&T, Berkshire Hathaway like cards. They will rise in time and have strong fundamentals. Buyers want to own these cards for a long time and don’t think of their collection as a way to make a quick buck.

Young card buyers love Trout. He is a great player who will make the Hall of a Fame. That does not mean his $4 mil card or any of these created rarities will survive the test of time. Maybe I am wrong but fundamentals matter. History matters. I would take Honus Wagner and sleep well knowing it will appreciate over time. Trout is a Vegas Dave card. Vegas and betting are the key words.

[packs]

Trout is the greatest player any of us will ever see, unless one of us was lucky enough to be around to see Ruth and is still alive today.

Do I think this card is worth the sale price? No. But I'm also very surprised at the cavalier attitudes people have toward Trout. You will never see another player like him as long as you live, and there has only really been two players in history before him (Ruth and Mantle) who you might have seen.

Why not sit back and enjoy it?

[Exhibitman]

I think the analysis is a little bit off here, guys. Comparing this player to that player misses the mark. We should be comparing this card to that card. Trout cards in general (not the superfractor 1/1 type cards) represent a combination of things that simply were not present 75 years ago:

--Massive exposure through multiple forms of media that were not available to earlier generations: look at the media coverage of this card...there was never any news on baseball cards when we were kids.

--Very intelligent marketing by companies that have far more data about consumer preference than ever before: the cards are carefully calibrated to deliver precisely what consumer feedback, which is nearly instantaneous with the various forms of social media, indicates. An example is the shift from sticker to on-card autographs in higher end limited cards, because the companies learned that collectors view the stickers with less regard than an on card signature, and they view a cut signature with some disdain, especially if it is miscut.

--The purposeful creation of product that is meant for a wealthy adult population, not for kids popping packs at the corner candy store: if anyone has purchased higher end product in bulk from 'whole-tailers' like DA Card World, you can see that this is not something for kids. A case of 2020 Topps Heritage cost nearly $100 a box on pre-order. For my birthday in 1975 my parents bought me a complete box of cards, at a cost of $10. Modern premium cards are not kid's toys.

--24/7/365 collecting opportunities: eBay, 10,000 auction houses, etc. In other words, constant trading and feedback on modern cards from pre-orders of new products to instantaneous markets on significant pulls, prized rookies and prospects, etc.

--The recognition and acceptance of cards as an alternative form of investment: since the 1989 Upper Deck gold rush new cards have been the penny stocks for people who don't participate in the Wall Street casino. I do not know good stock from livestock, but I know and can understand where the value is in sports cards. Buying and breaking down a case of higher end product is a calculated investment/gamble given how good the manufacturers have gotten at sorting/collating the hits into the products. Bust a box and you will find that you nearly always get the number of hits you are supposed to; the quality of the hits varies. Pull a very low print run card of a superstar or prized prospect and you can pay for the entire box with a hefty profit, instantly. I've actually busted a box at the National, had a hit, and sold the card right to the dealer who sold me the box, at a profit.

What I am saying, in short, is that viewing modern card purchasing and investing through a vintage collecting lens is a mistake. How a modern product purchaser/investor looks at things will never make sense to a vintage collector. These guys are about flipping and profiting, not loving a rare card.

[Shoeless Moe]

Originally Posted by packs

Trout is the greatest player any of us will ever see, unless one of us was lucky enough to be around to see Ruth and is still alive today.

Do I think this card is worth the sale price? No. But I'm also very surprised at the cavalier attitudes people have toward Trout. You will never see another player like him as long as you live, and there has only really been two players in history before him (Ruth and Mantle) who you might have seen.

Why not sit back and enjoy it?

Greatest player (after Bonds) who will NEVER win a World Series, yah I'd agree with that.

And a guy who's career BA when it's all said and done may very well be under .300

That's not the greatest player I've seen.

[maniac_73]

Originally Posted by packs

Trout is the greatest player any of us will ever see, unless one of us was lucky enough to be around to see Ruth and is still alive today.

Do I think this card is worth the sale price? No. But I'm also very surprised at the cavalier attitudes people have toward Trout. You will never see another player like him as long as you live, and there has only really been two players in history before him (Ruth and Mantle) who you might have seen.

Why not sit back and enjoy it?

Trout is a great player no doubt but he's no Barry Bonds or Ken Griffey Jr.

[Tao_Moko]

What "attack" are you talking about? Ignorant? Way to go man, really nice and professional response. Re-read what I wrote. Trout is just not there yet as a player compared to those on the cards mentioned in this thread. He is not even tracking to match a mid-tier HOFer. Otherwise, I just responded to you and stated a fact. Wasn't looking for gratitude. He too was of fighting age during war time. So, that was not a fair comparison to Williams because Williams fought. I could likely bet my farm that Trout never hits .400 and unlikely to end up with comparable career stats. Doesn't mean I think he sucks. This conversation cannot really be had for another ten years or so. Lastly, I agreed that the card was worth what it brought. Simply because it sold for that amount. May not be worth that later, but for now it is. Signing off.

Originally Posted by glynparson

As someone who comes from
A gold star marine family I thank you for your service but this attack on mike trout is beyond ignorant. And yes ted was a great patriot but he was also an asshole to many of his fans. They didn’t call him the spitter because he was a nice guy. And he was very arrogant wouldn’t even recognize the crowds appreciation after his final hr. Yes was an amazing person in many ways but also an asshole in many. I have never heard anything but compliments on Mr. trout and his interactions with fans. Military service is honorable but that doesn’t mean you are a better person simply for having done it. And I hate to break it but very few people collect cards of military heroes compared to those of athletic heroes.

[Throttlesteer]

A lot of money for a guy in the same league as Frank Thomas. That card only has downward to go.

[maniac_73]

Originally Posted by Throttlesteer

A lot of money for a guy in the same league as Frank Thomas. That card only has downward to go.

Frank Thomas was not a 5 tool player

[Shoeless Moe]

Originally Posted by maniac_73

Frank Thomas was not a 5 tool player

Obviously you've never seen his Nugenix commercials.

[icollectDCsports]

If Frank Thomas's stats hadn't tailed off toward the last 1/3 of his career . . .

[Orioles1954]

Originally Posted by Throttlesteer

A lot of money for a guy in the same league as Frank Thomas. That card only has downward to go.

Most comparable by age is Mickey Mantle. I know, according to some here Mantle is way better because he single-handedly took crappy Yankees teams and led them to the promised land. On the other hand, Trout has lost with some loaded teams. Oh, wait...

[Bored5000]

Originally Posted by Throttlesteer

A lot of money for a guy in the same league as Frank Thomas. That card only has downward to go.

That assertion gets made every single time on here when a modern card sells for a staggering figure. Did you foresee the card rising 10 fold when it was a $400,000 card?

Maybe the value will go up and maybe it will go down, but these assertions that modern cards will automatically go down in value have been proven wrong a whole lot in recent years.

[Tabe]

Originally Posted by Tao_Moko

He is not even tracking to match a mid-tier HOFer.

Say what? He's on track to be a top-tier HOFer. No one - no one - has 7 top 2 MVPs finishes in their first 8 seasons. And his 8th year he was the frontrunner for MVP when he got hurt. Played 3/4 of a season, still finished 4th.

It's weird the way baseball fans simply refuse to believe current players can possibly be as great as their heroes of the past. But let's be clear - Trout is as great as anybody we'll ever see.

You mentioned Trout won't hit .400. You're right, he won't. But Ted wouldn't hit .400 today either. Ted played in a completely different environment - not integrated, no one throwing 100 mph (let alone dozens of guys), no short relievers, no cross-country travel, barely any night games and so on.

As for manufactured scarcity, yep, it's an issue. Not a new one, given the Goudey Lajoie, etc. Would *I* pay $4m for a Trout rookie? No. But I totally get why somebody would.

[Orioles1954]

Originally Posted by Tabe

Say what? He's on track to be a top-tier HOFer. No one - no one - has 7 top 2 MVPs finishes in their first 8 seasons. And his 8th year he was the frontrunner for MVP when he got hurt. Played 3/4 of a season, still finished 4th.

It's weird the way baseball fans simply refuse to believe current players can possibly be as great as their heroes of the past. But let's be clear - Trout is as great as anybody we'll ever see.

You mentioned Trout won't hit .400. You're right, he won't. But Ted wouldn't hit .400 today either. Ted played in a completely different environment - not integrated, no one throwing 100 mph (let alone dozens of guys), no short relievers, no cross-country travel, barely any night games and so on.

As for manufactured scarcity, yep, it's an issue. Not a new one, given the Goudey Lajoie, etc. Would *I* pay $4m for a Trout rookie? No. But I totally get why somebody would.

Yeah, but Ted was a marine and so was the poster who mentioned that. Mike had a chance to to be a marine but he decided to take the easy way out and is therefore less than. That’s at least what i got.

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

Originally Posted by Orioles1954

Yeah, but Ted was a marine and so was the poster who mentioned that. Mike had a chance to to be a marine but he decided to take the easy way out and is therefore less than. That’s at least what i got.

Nice to know that people who aren't Marines are lesser human beings. Didn't know that.

[Orioles1954]

Originally Posted by Aquarian Sports Cards

Nice to know that people who aren't Marines are lesser human beings. Didn't know that.

Not in my view at least.

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

I know, shouldn't have quote you, sorry.

[Tao_Moko]

I don't think this. It was an extra accomplishment/challenge that some had and took on which separates them from the pack. Trout is an amazing player and seemingly good guy. He may turn out to be the best. But even statistics won't categorize him with with the likes of Ted and Yogi in my eyes. My only reason for bringing it up was because it was used as an unfair comparison. There are the rare birds like Tillman, but I don't expect entertainers to follow suit.

Originally Posted by Aquarian Sports Cards

Nice to know that people who aren't Marines are lesser human beings. Didn't know that.

[honus94566]

Originally Posted by Orioles1954

Yeah, but Ted was a marine and so was the poster who mentioned that. Mike had a chance to to be a marine but he decided to take the easy way out and is therefore less than. That’s at least what i got.

Literally the stupidest thing I have ever read on this forum. And that's saying something.

Trout is one of the best to every play the game.

That being said, what is the likelihood this card is still in the same league as a T206 Wagner 5 years from now? 10? 20? 40? Very, very low. Maybe the buyer doesn't care, though. So there's that...

[Orioles1954]

Originally Posted by honus94566

Literally the stupidest thing I have ever read on this forum. And that's saying something.

Trout is one of the best to every play the game.

That being said, what is the likelihood this card is still in the same league as a T206 Wagner 5 years from now? 10? 20? 40? Very, very low. Maybe the buyer doesn't care, though. So there's that...

I guess you didn't read earlier in this thread or catch the sarcasm or both. If I truly felt that way, yes it would be ridiculous.

[cardsagain74]

Originally Posted by Orioles1954

I guess you didn't read earlier in this thread or catch the sarcasm or both. If I truly felt that way, yes it would be ridiculous.

I think he was referring to the guy who did say those things (and criticized "Little Mikey Trout's" character and life decisions because he didn't join the military instead of using his baseball skills to make a living).

[honus94566]

Originally Posted by Orioles1954

I guess you didn't read earlier in this thread or catch the sarcasm or both. If I truly felt that way, yes it would be ridiculous.

Haha yeah sorry. I had read some of this thread a few days ago, but today just clicked on the most recent page. So I thought you were being serious and was like...woooooowww...

[rats60]

Originally Posted by Tabe

Say what? He's on track to be a top-tier HOFer. No one - no one - has 7 top 2 MVPs finishes in their first 8 seasons. And his 8th year he was the frontrunner for MVP when he got hurt. Played 3/4 of a season, still finished 4th.

It's weird the way baseball fans simply refuse to believe current players can possibly be as great as their heroes of the past. But let's be clear - Trout is as great as anybody we'll ever see.

You mentioned Trout won't hit .400. You're right, he won't. But Ted wouldn't hit .400 today either. Ted played in a completely different environment - not integrated, no one throwing 100 mph (let alone dozens of guys), no short relievers, no cross-country travel, barely any night games and so on.

As for manufactured scarcity, yep, it's an issue. Not a new one, given the Goudey Lajoie, etc. Would *I* pay $4m for a Trout rookie? No. But I totally get why somebody would.

Yes, but he hit .388 at age 38 a decade after integration. There were pitchers who threw 100 mph, Ryne Duran for one who also was a short reliever. Ted didn't get to play in a league watered down by expansion either. Ted absolutely could hit .400 today. Gwynn, Brett and Carew all came close. Trout also won't come close to Ted's .344 BA or .634 SLG.

[maniac_73]

Originally Posted by rats60

Yes, but he hit .388 at age 38 a decade after integration. There were pitchers who threw 100 mph, Ryne Duran for one who also was a short reliever. Ted didn't get to play in a league watered down by expansion either. Ted absolutely could hit .400 today. Gwynn, Brett and Carew all came close. Trout also won't come close to Ted's .344 BA or .634 SLG.

And we don't even know what we missed in Ted's prime years when he was in the war

[drcy]

Mike Trout is a poor man's Ron Kittle, and that is just stating undisputible fact.

. . . . That should keep this discussion continuing for a while.

[Tabe]

Originally Posted by rats60

Yes, but he hit .388 at age 38 a decade after integration. There were pitchers who threw 100 mph, Ryne Duran for one who also was a short reliever. Ted didn't get to play in a league watered down by expansion either. Ted absolutely could hit .400 today. Gwynn, Brett and Carew all came close. Trout also won't come close to Ted's .344 BA or .634 SLG.

Gwynn & Brett both played 2/3 of a season. They don't count.

Ryne Duren? Sure, one guy. There are numerous guys hitting 100 now and DOZENS hitting 98. It's unquestionable that guys throw A LOT harder now.

Ted was great but lemme ask you this - if the two guys switch places, whose stats would improve and whose wouldn't?

[rats60]

Originally Posted by Tabe

Gwynn & Brett both played 2/3 of a season. They don't count.

Ryne Duren? Sure, one guy. There are numerous guys hitting 100 now and DOZENS hitting 98. It's unquestionable that guys throw A LOT harder now.

Ted was great but lemme ask you this - if the two guys switch places, whose stats would improve and whose wouldn't?

Trout has never led the league in hits, doubles, triples, home runs or BA. Led in RBI, SB, TB once and SLG 3 times. Williams led doubles 2 times, HR 4 times RBI 4 times, BA 6 times SLG 9 times and TB 6 times. He won 2 triple crowns. Williams would be dominant in any era. Trout is just a good player on a bad team that gets pitched around a lot. He is not a 5 tool player. He is an average OF with a weak arm. He is a power hitter with speed. That is not the best player I gave ever seen, not even close. Being the best player of the current generation does not make him one of the best all time.

It is not unquestionable that guys are throwing a lot harder, maybe 1 or 2 MPH on average. Man hasn't made some huge genetic leap in 60 years. Ted Williams hit Bob Feller slightly better than his career averages. He would have done very well against today's hard throwers.

[packs]

Originally Posted by rats60

Trout has never led the league in hits, doubles, triples, home runs or BA. Led in RBI, SB, TB once and SLG 3 times. Williams led doubles 2 times, HR 4 times RBI 4 times, BA 6 times SLG 9 times and TB 6 times. He won 2 triple crowns. Williams would be dominant in any era. Trout is just a good player on a bad team that gets pitched around a lot. He is not a 5 tool player. He is an average OF with a weak arm. He is a power hitter with speed. That is not the best player I gave ever seen, not even close. Being the best player of the current generation does not make him one of the best all time.

It is not unquestionable that guys are throwing a lot harder, maybe 1 or 2 MPH on average. Man hasn't made some huge genetic leap in 60 years. Ted Williams hit Bob Feller slightly better than his career averages. He would have done very well against today's hard throwers.

Why does your argument that Ted would be a star in any era discount the same fact about Trout? I'm not sure why anyone would think that the best player in the game by far (Trout) who is playing the game at the highest level at a time when the game is at its most complex, would not be a star if he were playing a simpler version of the same game.

[Tabe]

Originally Posted by rats60

Trout has never led the league in hits, doubles, triples, home runs or BA. Led in RBI, SB, TB once and SLG 3 times. Williams led doubles 2 times, HR 4 times RBI 4 times, BA 6 times SLG 9 times and TB 6 times. He won 2 triple crowns. Williams would be dominant in any era. Trout is just a good player on a bad team that gets pitched around a lot. He is not a 5 tool player. He is an average OF with a weak arm. He is a power hitter with speed. That is not the best player I gave ever seen, not even close. Being the best player of the current generation does not make him one of the best all time.

What's fun about this reply is you didn't answer the question. Do you think Ted's stats would go up playing today? Or would Trout's go up playing in the 1940s? You think Ted hits .400 against the extreme shifts that they play today, with a 2B in shallow RF? No way. But put Trout in the 1940s against no shift?

Originally Posted by rats60

It is not unquestionable that guys are throwing a lot harder, maybe 1 or 2 MPH on average. Man hasn't made some huge genetic leap in 60 years. Ted Williams hit Bob Feller slightly better than his career averages. He would have done very well against today's hard throwers.

Actually, yeah, it is absolutely unquestionable. They've been tracking fastball data for years and guys are throwing multiple mph harder now than they were even 12 years ago (2008: 90.9, 2019: 93.4). Do you think pitchers slowed down immediately after Ted retired to about 12 years ago just so the trend could reverse? Nah. Yeah, Ted hit Bob Feller well but how would he do against Aroldis Chapman, throwing 105 from the left side? And so on.

Bottom line: Ted was great but it defies logic to think that baseball is not much harder now than it was 80 years ago.