Why on earth is Mookie’s RC so cheap compared to Trout’s?

[D. Bergin]

Originally Posted by rhettyeakley

Probably has to do with the 77.4 WAR vs 45.2 WAR difference. Keep in mind Mike Trout is only 1 year older than Mookie Betts, so although he has played in more games they are nearly the same age.

That's pretty much it. Mookie is a fantastic player, but just the difference in their WAR (bear in mind, I don't think that's the end all be all statistic some do), is a pretty good full career, for a lot of decent ballplayers. Trout is already the 5th ranked All-Time Centerfielder on Baseball Reference. Mookie is the 27th ranked Rightfielder.

If Trout retires or gets a career ending injury tomorrow, he's going into the HOF, first ballot. If Mookie dramatically falls off for some reason, he falls into the Don Mattingly, Doc Gooden, Orel Hershiser, Bret Saberhagen, Dick Allen, Albert Belle, Juan Gonzalez, Johan Santana, etc., etc., etc...., territory.

Dominant for a time, but not quite the consistent era defining HOF star you had predicted when you shelled out a lot of dough for their rookie cards. Not to say that Betts can't change that with a couple more MVP's and a long injury free career..............but it's far from a given.

[insidethewrapper]

Why is Trout higher priced ? Not sure ! But he did have 1 Stolen Base in 2020 and only 11 in 2019. Not the 5 star player anymore, and probably not many post season appearances in the future.

[conor912]

Originally Posted by insidethewrapper

Why is Trout higher priced ? Not sure ! But he did have 1 Stolen Base in 2020 and only 11 in 2019. Not the 5 star player anymore, and probably not many post season appearances in the future.

Yeah, but did that stolen base get the whole country a free taco?

I think the Mantle/Mays comparison is appropriate. I just don't get the price difference. Whatever. I’ll take 5 Mookie RCs over one Trout any day of the week.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Mantle and Mays were roughly comparable players. Trout and Betts are not. At this point in their careers, it's really not even close. Betts is a very good although somewhat inconsistent player, Trout is generational.

[AGuinness]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Mantle and Mays were roughly comparable players. Trout and Betts are not. At this point in their careers, it's really not even close. Betts is a very good although somewhat inconsistent player, Trout is generational.

I'd quibble with this as Mookie is not just a very good player, he is a generational talent. But you're right in that he's still not comparable to Trout, because Trout is beyond generational. I don't know what's the next level, or the level beyond that, but Trout is there - perhaps epochal?
Mookie won an MVP and has finished no lower than 8th in the four years prior to 2020 (he should garner good MVP consideration this year, too), pretty consistent.
Trout finished lower than 2nd once in the eight years prior to 2020 (and he should garner MVP consideration this year, too), while winning three and being the runner-up four times.
I've been a Red Sox fan for most of my life, but the trade of Mookie last winter really challenged my fandom. If a team owner wants to save a few bucks so much that he wants to trade a homegrown player like Mookie, I don't think that owner appreciates baseball, the team's fans or how special a player and person Mookie is. Seems like the Dodgers and their fans appreciate him, though, so that's a good thing.

[Peter_Spaeth]

I guess you would have to say he's one of the top handful of players the last 10 or even 15 years, but then again it feels like it hasn't been a great 10-15 years for hitters. Consider, for example, career home runs. One active player has over 500, Pujols of course. Cabrera is close, but then you drop down to Encarnacion and Cruz in the low 400s (and both are approaching 40), and from there it's another big drop to Braun at around 350. It feels like, especially with home runs being relatively plentiful, there should be more guys with higher totals?