When do you consider a rookie a common?

mygotta

I was going through some of my 2008-2009 baseball cards and have lots of rookies scattered about. I was wondering when you feel like a rookie has played enough to either prove himself a keeper, or one to throw away (or put into a commons pile for potential sets)?

Likewise there have been plenty of hot rookies that proved to be worthless 5 years later or less .

Dboneesq

Usually about one month after I buy them! LOL

EchoCanyon

When his name is Gregg Jeffries

Sethro

<< <i>I was going through some of my 2008-2009 baseball cards and have lots of rookies scattered about. I was wondering when you feel like a rookie has played enough to either prove himself a keeper, or one to throw away (or put into a commons pile for potential sets)?

Likewise there have been plenty of hot rookies that proved to be worthless 5 years later or less . >>



I had similar thoughts when going through my 2008 chrome set recently. I figure if the player is still active, it's worth holding on to. Look what happened with R.A. Dickey this year, and the spike in his RC prices. If the player is out of professional ball already, then it's a common in my eyes.

fkw

..when the player is Common

fkw

funny thing is Gregg Jefferies was by far the best player Ive ever played against!!!...
and I played with or against many... ie Barry Bonds (aka Bobby Bonds son), Matt Williams, Greg Vaughn, Devon White, Randy Johnson, John Wetteland, etc. etc.

PS 2nd best and 3rd best players Ive seen, are guys you dont know because they never made it...

sportscardtheory

Over 30 and out of the league works good.

NickM

Gregg Jefferies had a decent career - 14 seasons, 10 of them as a regular starter, over 5500 at bats, almost 1600 hits, 300 doubles (leading the NL once), over 750 runs, over 650 RBI, almost 200 SB, career BA of .289, with .344 OBP and .421 SLG, 2-time All-Star, 3 times in the top 10 in NL BA, defensive versatility, and more walks than strikeouts (he was routinely one of the toughest guys in baseball to strike out).

His best match by age was Carney Lansford for most of his career (he retired younger than Lansford did).

His problem was that he was a superhyped rookie from the peak of the overproduction era. If you're not a HOFer, your card is worthless (and if you are a HOFer, it's still near worthless).

Nick

mygotta

I wasn't sure if some who might be amateur scouts out there, feel like there is a period where if they dont produce, then their career is done with or they just developed too late to amount to much. Gregg Jeffries I remember being highly touted. Same with Dave Madagan or John von Poppel among a few that I can recall. Some of these guys getting huge contracts before setting foot on the field. While others develop a few years later under the radar until they are superstars. Barry Larkin, while was an excellent player, not sure if people expected him to be in HOF at this point (I know I didnt). Cory Snyder I think was more touted than Larkin at the time.

mrpeanut39

<< <i>I wasn't sure if some who might be amateur scouts out there, feel like there is a period where if they dont produce, then their career is done with or they just developed too late to amount to much. Gregg Jeffries I remember being highly touted. Same with Dave Madagan or John von Poppel among a few that I can recall. Some of these guys getting huge contracts before setting foot on the field. While others develop a few years later under the radar until they are superstars. Barry Larkin, while was an excellent player, not sure if people expected him to be in HOF at this point (I know I didnt). Cory Snyder I think was more touted than Larkin at the time. >>



Colonel John von Poppel. Loved him in Hogan's Heroes.

mets

The card is defiantly a common when people can't remember (or argue) about their name.....It was Todd van Poppel right?

mygotta

<< <i>The card is defiantly a common when people can't remember (or argue) about their name.....It was Todd van Poppel right? >>



LOL Yeah, Todd. It didn't sound right when I wrote it and was lazy to research it too. But yeah I guess when you cant remember their name, its a sign they are a common.

But I can go through an 87 88 or 89 set and know that no one who hasn't become a star yet has no chance. But someone in a 2009 set, which was 5 years ago, are they still worth considering? That is more my question.

Sethro

<< <i>

<< <i>The card is defiantly a common when people can't remember (or argue) about their name.....It was Todd van Poppel right? >>



LOL Yeah, Todd. It didn't sound right when I wrote it and was lazy to research it too. But yeah I guess when you cant remember their name, its a sign they are a common.

But I can go through an 87 88 or 89 set and know that no one who hasn't become a star yet has no chance. But someone in a 2009 set, which was 5 years ago, are they still worth considering? That is more my question. >>



Considering for what?

bking

It was easy for me to tell when I dabbled in modern. If it was in a pack I opened, it was a common.