I Don't Understand

ElvisP · April 30, 2015 1:03PM

Why would anyone pay over $52,000 for a Mike Trout rookie(auto)? Why would anyone pay that much for any new card? Just think what you could get with that much money in vintage cards. Vintage cards at least hold their value. Does anyone believe the Trout card will hold that kind of value? I guess if you have a lot of money you just don't worry about that.

MULLINS5 · April 30, 2015 1:08PM

Probably Mike Trout.

Stooge · April 30, 2015 1:08PM

A fool and His money are soon parted.

JoeBanzai · April 30, 2015 1:24PM

<< Why would anyone pay over $52,000 for a Mike Trout rookie(auto)? Why would anyone pay that much for any new card? Just think what you could get with that much money in vintage cards. Vintage cards at least hold their value. Does anyone believe the Trout card will hold that kind of value? I guess if you have a lot of money you just don't worry about that. >>

I don't think the buyer is thinking of this as an investment. Trout could get injured and his career be over at any time, he could simply not end up being good enough to be a HOFer or have other problems.

It would seem to me that people with LOTS of cash can afford anything they want weather it's going to be "worth" something someday or not.

Always a better investment in buying vintage HOF players rookie cards or even unopened. This person obviously REALLY likes Mr. Trout.

1976ToppsCollector · April 30, 2015 10:44PM

what seems to get lost sometimes is some people are actual collectors. not everybody is looking for stuff to sell at a higher price.

Dpeck100 · April 30, 2015 11:54PM

Mike Trout

LarkinCollector · May 1, 2015 12:05AM

I'm not sure why they didn't save a couple grand and pick up this one: $50K

SDSportsFan · May 1, 2015 12:06AM

<< what seems to get lost sometimes is some people are actual collectors. not everybody is looking for stuff to sell at a higher price. >>

+1

Also, $52K to one person, is $52 (or even 52 cents) to another.

Steve

Dboneesq · May 1, 2015 12:11AM

<< Also, $52K to one person, is $52 (or even 52 cents) to another. Steve >>

THIS!

seebelow · May 1, 2015 12:50AM

that and it seems one other person would pay $51k

hey, to each his own. your not taking the card or the money with you...whatever makes you happy here and now.

some people have the same negative passion that i would spend $1000 bucks on a card or even 100 for cardboard
..tho i agree..thats crazy money for something new.

gemint · May 1, 2015 3:37AM

The thing that strikes me about the card is the signature. I miss the days when cursive writing was taught and you could read people's signatures. I remember my disappointment when I paid $100 for Barry Bonds' autograph and then looked down at the ball to see "B B S" with a few squiggles thrown in between the letters.

olb31 · May 1, 2015 3:48AM

The big question is "did anyone really pay for it"?

Probstein123 · May 1, 2015 3:51AM

no way

mlbfan2 · May 1, 2015 4:06AM

<< The big question is "did anyone really pay for it"? >>

It's often hard to know for sure, but someone really did pay $21K for a Jeremy Lin card.

WinPitcher · May 1, 2015 10:01AM

<< Also, $52K to one person, is $52 (or even 52 cents) to another. >>

Sounds like my boss...

Beautifully done auto there by Mike...

Stone193 · May 1, 2015 10:12AM

I sure don't understand that kind of dough no matter what.

But, if ya want to put this in perspective?

The average guy might make 50K a year. Let's say someone - like a ballplayer - making 10 million a year.

That personal spending 50K is like the 50K guy spending 250 bucks.

This will sound trite but it's all relative (to what one makes).

Still, that's a lot of dough.

sayheykid54 · May 1, 2015 9:45PM

I personally think Mike Trout is overrated. He strikes out WAY to much and his batting average is skewed because of his many cheap infield hits.

To pay $52,000 for one of his signed cards is ridiculous. His signature is horrible.

addicted2ebay · May 1, 2015 11:13PM

To me those cards are all the same. Just because a number or color was added to it does nothing to get me to think it's more valuable. Fools gold.

itzagoner · May 1, 2015 11:25PM

to criticize the perceived overvaluation of a modern baseball card is rather ironic when you consider that this kind of hype is what drives our market in the first place.

without the chaos that's gripped the T-206 Honus Wagner stories, '52 Topps Mantles, myriad rare "finds", and the like, we are just another hobby.

you guys may not appreciate the importance of Mike Trout today, and perhaps most of us will be dead before the hindsight bandwagon fills up.

far fewer people considered valuation of today's ridiculously priced items way-back-when. someday, Trout will be a way-back-when guy, too. so what if his cards are all shiny, glossy and require sunglasses to view.

MrNearMint · May 1, 2015 11:41PM

<< To me those cards are all the same. Just because a number or color was added to it does nothing to get me to think it's more valuable. Fools gold. >>

+1
Couldn't have said it better!

dtkk49a · May 2, 2015 12:11AM

Its a big gamble. Will he hit more homers than anyone? Its a unknown, so I cant understand paying more than the price of a Jeter RC card.

DanBessette · May 2, 2015 12:13AM

<< I personally think Mike Trout is overrated. He strikes out WAY to much and his batting average is skewed because of his many cheap infield hits. >>

I'll reserve my opinion on his cards and auto, but the above is an absurd statement. How are his infield hits "cheap"? He's one of the only guys in the sport with the wheels to beat those out. That's a skill.

itzagoner · May 2, 2015 12:20AM

i personally think Mickey Mantle is overrated. he struck out WAY too much and his batting average should have been better, but his bad knees prevented him from accumulating more cheap infield hits.

grote15 · May 2, 2015 12:32AM

<< to criticize the perceived overvaluation of a modern baseball card is rather ironic when you consider that this kind of hype is what drives our market in the first place.

without the chaos that's gripped the T-206 Honus Wagner stories, '52 Topps Mantles, myriad rare "finds", and the like, we are just another hobby.

you guys may not appreciate the importance of Mike Trout today, and perhaps most of us will be dead before the hindsight bandwagon fills up.

far fewer people considered valuation of today's ridiculously priced items way-back-when. someday, Trout will be a way-back-when guy, too. so what if his cards are all shiny, glossy and require sunglasses to view. >>

I don't collect modern or auto cards but this is well put, imo.

Trout is a great player. You know what's really overrated? The significance of striking out as it pertains to overall performance.

And if he gets all these "cheap infield hits," how did he finish in the top 4 in slugging % in his first 3 seasons??

mlbfan2 · May 2, 2015 1:02AM

<< I personally think Mike Trout is overrated. He strikes out WAY to much and his batting average is skewed because of his many cheap infield hits. >>

Probably not as many as you think. Since 2012, he ranks 14th in total infield hits.

sayheykid54 · May 2, 2015 6:25AM

In 2014 Mike Trout had 173 hits of which 23 of those were infield hits! He struck out an absurd 184 times and only batted .287!!

Compare him to Victor Martinez who's batting average was .335 (48 points higher) with 10 infield hits and had ONLY 42 strikeouts.

grote15 · May 2, 2015 6:45AM

<< In 2014 Mike Trout had 173 hits of which 23 of those were infield hits! He struck out an absurd 184 times and only batted .287!!

Compare him to Victor Martinez who's batting average was .335 (48 points higher) with 10 infield hits and had ONLY 42 strikeouts. >>

Martinez certainly had a career year at the dish in 2014, yet his OPS+ was only 3 points higher than Trout's (170 vs 167), he had 3 stolen bases to Trout's 16, and his WAR was atually lower (5.4 vs 7.9). Plus, Martinez is a defensive liability and is relegated to the DH. Not to mention, Trout is still only 23 years of age! That said, I think you could make a case for Martinez having the better season at the plate in 2014, but career-wise, Trout is clearly the better overall player. Is V-Mart hitting his weight yet in 2015?

sayheykid54 · May 2, 2015 7:11AM

I TOTALLY disagree with you about Trout being the better hitter. He could learn a lot from Martinez who is a TRUE pure hitter at the plate. With my limited high school baseball experience I could go up there and bat and strike out LESS than Mike Trout

I can't stand players who have NO discipline at the plate.

If you look at Mike Trout's numbers from last year they were without question LESS than MVP worthy! .287 average really???????????

mlbfan2 · May 2, 2015 7:20AM

<< In 2014 Mike Trout had 173 hits of which 23 of those were infield hits! He struck out an absurd 184 times and only batted .287!! >>

You must have really hated Craig Biggio. He had 93 infield hits in one season. That's more than Trout has in his career so far. What wrong with infield hits, anyway?

Only .287? .287 was 36 points higher than the MLB average.

grote15 · May 2, 2015 7:22AM

Simple batting average is the second most misleading stat when evaluating the worth of a player, after a pitcher's won-lost record.

Stone193 · May 2, 2015 8:07AM

I think the merits of the ball player - while a fun debate - is irrelevant to the discussion of someone (perceivably) overpaying for the card.

I like Pedro Guerrero - he has a solid record - with a lifetime BA over 300 yet others don't even know he existed.

Good debate but not here IMO. Now I know I'm gonna get killed on this one.

grote15 · May 2, 2015 8:24AM

<< I think the merits of the ball player - while a fun debate - is irrelevant to the discussion of someone (perceivably) overpaying for the card.

I like Pedro Guerrero - he has a solid record - with a lifetime BA over 300 yet others don't even know he existed.

Good debate but not here IMO. Now I know I'm gonna get killed on this one. >>

Well, if we're talking value of the player's card or auto, it does seem a natural segue to value of said player's ability, Mike.

itzagoner · May 2, 2015 9:00AM

Pedro Guerrero was a stud. forget his numbers at the plate, or whatever. he was a fascinating player to watch in his prime.

grote15 · May 2, 2015 9:05AM

<< Pedro Guerrero was a stud. forget his numbers at the plate, or whatever. he was a fascinating player to watch in his prime. >>

Very underrated player. Forget Ozzie~I want a 79 rack with the Dodgers Future Stars on top!!

WillBBC · May 3, 2015 5:25AM

<< 

<< 

Trout is a great player. You know what's really overrated? The significance of striking out as it pertains to overall performance.

And if he gets all these "cheap infield hits," how did he finish in the top 4 in slugging % in his first 3 seasons?? >>

I disagree with this, especially with runners on. Moving a runner over via groundball out or a sac-fly is much more valuable than striking out.

olb31 · May 3, 2015 9:05AM

Trout is a B++ ballplayer so far. Nothing mesmerizing, just very good.

ClockworkAngel · May 3, 2015 9:08AM

Mike Trout is awesome. Calling him overrated because he gets so many infield hits is not going to win you many arguments. I think that's part of what makes him so popular. He hustles as much as anyone. I happened to see him in a a bar/restaurant last offseason with what I would guess was his girlfriend. He was trying to be as anonymous as possible by sitting at the end of the bar, wearing a hat, and just enjoying a beer and a night out. A few people saw him and went up to him and he was as cool and authentic as you want to see from a guy at that level. It made me like him even more.

That being said, paying 50K plus for that card is financial suicide, but as others have said, that's not the purpose everyone has in buying a card.

grote15 · May 3, 2015 9:17AM

The guy has a career OPS+ of 168 thus far and has over 1,000 total bases in just over 500 games played, with an OBP% at nearly .400. He's not only very good, he's on his way to a first ballot slam dunk HOF vote at this rate.

Stone193 · May 3, 2015 9:22AM

<< 

<< I think the merits of the ball player - while a fun debate - is irrelevant to the discussion of someone (perceivably) overpaying for the card.

I like Pedro Guerrero - he has a solid record - with a lifetime BA over 300 yet others don't even know he existed.

Good debate but not here IMO. Now I know I'm gonna get killed on this one. >>

Well, if we're talking value of the player's card or auto, it does seem a natural segue to value of said player's ability, Mike.

>>

Hiya Tim

I know. My point is that if we talk about the player - as such - it get's into a "sports talk" about him and arguments potentially fly.

Let's say "everyone" agrees the player is tops. The "core" of the discussion is "why" would anyone pay that kind of money for modern.

Perhaps I'm the only one who sees it that way? If so. We can disregard my post.

Thanx.

grote15 · May 3, 2015 9:27AM

Let's say "everyone" agrees the player if tops. The "core" of the discussion is "why" would anyone pay that kind of money for modern.

I would agree with you there, Mike~I guess the part that took me a bit by surprise is that not everyone considers Trout to be a top player.

WinPitcher · May 3, 2015 9:31AM

Non lo so.

Stone193 · May 3, 2015 9:42AM

<< Let's say "everyone" agrees the player if tops. The "core" of the discussion is "why" would anyone pay that kind of money for modern.

I would agree with you there, Mike~I guess the part that took me a bit by surprise is that not everyone considers Trout to be a top player. >>

Exactly my point Tim - the original OP - I believe is about the money and not the merits of the player?

I Don't Understand

Comments