Is collecting modern cards a sickness?
 

I just can't stop looking for Jeter and Trout .... to name a few. I am even considering selling Mickey Mantle and Hank Aaron cards to get more lol!

Has anyone else suffered from this? Is it fleeting, or can this become a serious addiction?

Some of the Trout auto'd cards are a siren ....

If you have some extra cash have some fun, but don't sell Mantles and Aarons to buy Jeters and Trouts is my advice.

I agree on not selling Mantles and Aarons to buy Jeters and especially Trouts. Some Trout cards my get more valuable in the short term but there is a 100% chance they will be worth way less in the long run.

Not so sure about that .... sure, some of the 2009 Trout cards that are 2-6K may have a ceiling, may collapse, but ya never know. For the record, these are not the cards I am talking about.

Some of these cards have a finite supply, and I believe have a good upside .... think numbered refractors and xfractors.

Trout is on his way to Cooperstown, and future collectors may not identify with the Mike Trout of the 50s (Mantle)

There are millions of Trout cards. Ben is right, even if he lives up to his potential which is far from certain, the massive supply is going to keep prices down. Any individual issue that doesn't have a lot of copies is just manufactured scarcity which is never a recipe for value. Keep your eye on the big picture.

I am trying, but I believe the big picture is Trout. Sure, there are a ton of his cards out there, but select cards from 2009-2011 have a limited production run - and yes, I know they were designed that way. Some of these have some serious upside in my opinion, which could be sooner than later. Think about his career - 5 seasons, one ROY, two MVPs, and the other three seasons he finished 2nd. Five straight seasons finishing top two in MVP voting.

Bottom line, I agree that selling Mantles to buy Trout cards is not smart. But man o man, it is fun to think about.

Maybe selling Berra's and DiMaggios is the way to go ;)

Pujols is closing in on 600 HR and 3000 hits. How are his cards doing?

Well some people consider gambling a sickness and modern cards are a gamble.
I started as a modern collector . Obviously by buying packs and trading with friends. Later I started to purchase the cards I wanted. I made the change when I got so disgusted with buying packs and boxes. Then the steroids put a damper on my single card purchases .

So I moved to vintage and I still look back a lot .what do I mean by that lol well I still buy some packs from time to time . Mostly for my five year old son but I might grab a few for myself here and there. I still have my childhood and teen and early 20s collection which is all modern.

Like they say collect what you like . Also a change from the norm is always a good idea. BUT KNOW That if trout ever gets caught using ( Ryan Braun) Peds. It's gonna hurt ! If jeter name comes out in the Mitchell report. The burn will be deep. This is a gamble .

Not like they were obviously, but I don't believe that Pujols has what Trout does

Compare their numbers for the first 6 seasons. Pujols destroys him.

more than numbers ..... Pujols was not Trout. Not even close.

Better go out and buy some minor league refractors then. :)

Maybe I will lol!

Here is a good reference chart .....

Show how Pujols compares please.

he didn't make the list lol

http://www.baseball-reference.com/fr...troutmi01:Mike Trout&st=age&compage=24&age=24

Anyone still playing could get injured or traded. Injuries will hurt his prices, and being traded or signed will probably hurt his prices unless he goes to the Yankees or Cubs. Pujols was amazing on the Cardinals, but his cards started dropping when the Cardinals collectors felt abandoned by him signing with the Angels. Modern collecting is risky, especially when Topps keeps pumping out Trout and Bryant autos in each new release.

I guarantee you the numbers for his first five or six seasons will be ahead of Trout in nearly every important category. E.g. he had 250 HR after 6 seasons and was batting .330 or so.

Pujols was a monster. Just doesn't have the appeal Trout does .... in my opinion of course :)

You sound like a guy who has already made up your mind. Let me know what you need for your 53BC Mantle. :D

lol

I completely agree with this at this time. The problem is as soon as Trout has a bad year or the next big thing comes up Trout will be forgotten just as fast as Pujols was. Probably even faster since Pujols had a much better start to his career.

Where do you get this thing about Pujols having a better start to his career? Once you adjust for the context in which they were playing (i.e., Pujols got started during silly ball), and the parks in which they play, they have basically identical OPSs. (Trout leads by one point.) Trout's OPS is also weighted more heavily towards on-base percentage than is Pujols', and on-base percentage is more valuable than is slugging percentage. So as batters, Trout has a narrow lead over Pujols. But once you account for the fact that Trout is a good base runner and a center fielder, whereas Pujols was a leftfielder/first baseman (although admittedly a good one), Trout pulls into a comfortable lead.

We really should feel lucky that we get to watch Trout play. Through age 24 he is the greatest player of all time. Ruth's huge seasons came after age 24, so no guarantee that he's going to keep that title (he probably won't), but he is something special.

That said, keep the Mantles and the Aarons. Or sell them to me cheaply.


P.S. Bonus comparison: Trout vs. Mantle. Trout has a slight lead as a hitter through age 24 (a little bit larger than his lead over Pujols, but still not very big). Both were center fielders. As a fielder early in his career, Mantle was pretty much dead average for a center fielder. Trout averages out about the same (although with considerable year-to-year variation). Trout is the better base runner.

For the record, I am not selling Mantle and Aaron's to buy Mike Trout cards :)

I don't think it would be that crazy however. Mike Trout, as nat pointed out, is off to a legendary start, and I'd love to own a nice mid-level Trout card. Or cards.

Searching for them, as well as learning some tidbits regarding modern collecting, has been a pleasant diversion to the same ole cards on eBay.

Good thread

IMO, selling your Mantles, Aaron's etc is a bad decision. Ok, so maybe trout will be a hofer someday....sure Jeter is a lock with the potential of a unanimous vote, but you're older items should be valuable in a more "historical" sense. A lot of my vintage is solely based on who it is and what I know of that player and his major contributions to the game


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Not to take anything away from Trout who I like a lot, but he hasn't won a HR or batting title, has led the league only once in RBI and OPS, strikes out a lot, is hitting .306 lifetime so far, I am just not seeing him as the second coming yet?

OK to be as fair as possible I will compare the first 5 years for Albert Pujols to 6 for Trout so the Plate Appearances and ABs are close with Trout having 130 more PA and 43 more AB.

Pujols PA 3428 in first 5 years
Trout PA 3558 in first 6 years

Pujols AB 2954
Trout AB 2997

Pujols BA 332
Trout BA 306

Pujols Runs 629
Trout Runs 600

Pujols Hits 982
Trout Hits 917

Pujols 2B 227
Trout 2B 175

Pujols 3B 11
Trout 3B 37

Pujols HR 201
Trout HR 168

Pujols RBI 621
Trout RBI 497

Pujols SB 29
Trout SB 143

Pujols BB 401
Trout BB 477

Pujols TB 1834
Trout TB 1670

So even with 130 more plate appearances and 43 more at bats he is behind in every offensive category except SB, BB and triples.. Yes i know these are old school stats but I have no faith is the new theoretical/hypothetical stats when they compare players of different positions and different years.

I don't really follow modern cards much...but I follow the hobby. The only way a trout card is a good investment is as a short term investment. If trout has a great start...or a great season...yes...I believe his "rarer" cards could potentially be a good "short term" investment assuming you sell!

Long term investment potential is very poor...as has been said. Manufactured scarcity is crap...along with the overproduction of mint condition cards being produced these days. In the future there will be way more high grade cards than low/collector grade.

And while I like jeter...this also would be a bad investment.

If u want to invest...cobb, ruth are the way to go!!!

That seems like you have a point looking at it like that, but your stats don't account to league nor does it account for years of play.

If you throw out Trout's 2011 (age 19) stats since he only played 40 games and just look at 2012-2016 compared to Pujols 2001-2005 stats you still have to remember that Trout is one year younger than Pujols.

On top of that Trout has a Black Ink (a stat that measures League Leading stats) of 25. Pujols' first 5 year Black Ink is only 18. On the other hand if you look at their Gray Inks (a stat that measures top 10 in league stats) Trout trails Pujols 92 to 110. So it would be hard for me to say Trout is better, but he did dominate more than Pujols whereas Pujols was consistently in the top 10 of the game during his 5 years.

For instance Pujols never led the league in RBI or SLG, but was always in the top 10. Trout has led the league in RBI and SLG once, but was only in the top 10 for RBI twice and SLG all 5 years.

You have to remember that it was easier to put up those numbers when Pujols was playing. Just like you can't directly compare a guy who played in 1933 with one who played in 1908, you can't directly compare a guy playing in 2002 with one playing in 2016. The context of the game has changed.

Those stats also ignore fielding, and CF is a lot more demanding than 1B is, even though Pujols was a very good first baseman.

Ryan Braun first 6 years

AB-3477

BA-313

Runs-614

Hits-1089

2B-223

3B-29

HR- 202

RBI-643

SB-126

BB-305
He looks like the winner ! Might as well buy all his chrome autos .

You essentially have an extra season added in his totals. That is why there are 523 more at AB in Braun's stats.

So Trout is better because

A) He plays centerfield
B) The league overall is worse (If he dominates with the same numbers this must be true right? )

He's a great player, but comparing any stats leaves so much out. Base stuff on base percentage, and fancy stats, and you get the As. A good team that competes without a huge budget. But also a team that won't generally win a big series like playoffs. And since it's a fairly random collection of slightly above average guys the team won't draw fans.

Base it just on power and you get a team that's exciting, fills the stands, and costs a bundle and also usually won't win it all. (78 Red Sox)


One thing that everyone forgets about baserunning stats is that they're very dependent on the general outlook of most teams at the time. For a decent part of Mantles career the AL was led with <30 stolen bases. Things changed towards the end, but when he was younger AL players didn't really do much base stealing. Very early in his career the NL wasn't stealing many bases either. The attitude of the team towards stealing counts too. in his best year Mantle stole 21. Nobody else on the team even got double digits. The team total was 45. Trouts best year he had 49. But there were three other players on the team in double digits, and the team stole 134. 59 Yankees 45sb 22cs 2012 Angels 134sb 33cs. The Angels stole twice as many bases as the 59 Yankees even attempted. There aren't a lot of good ways to compare the two eras or teams.

Steve B

I know but I'm half joking. But it's also trouts first 6 seasons it's not anyone's fault how many more plate appearances they got .

I have heard the argument that Trout being better because the league is worse. This disregards the pitching and defense. It is making the assumption the pitching talent and defense is always the same.

You will never be able to compare straight stats for players playing against different players, but you can compare their dominance in the league for the time they played. That is what I attempt to show.

Trout only played 40 games that first season so he wasn't eligible for any batting titles (not to mention he was 19). How about we compare Braun's 19-24 year old seasons? After all "it's not anyone's fault how many more plate appearances they got"(in this case Braun only got 1155 in that span).

I seem to have hijacked this with the Pujols v Trout thing, my original intent was just to point out to Neal that buying mass produced modern cards may not be the best way to go for long term value and was using Pujols, who was as hot a card as anyone, as an example of that.

What's age have to do with it ? Let's go back to little league lol. nonthing of what you said matters . I said first 6 seasons there is no stipulations to it.

There was no stipulations? Really how about the stipulation that they played 6 seasons? Trout hasn't played 6 seasons. That was what my point was. You used an arbitrary stipulation that Trout didn't qualify for.

Ok years as in the original post then your taking it way to literal. There have been plenty of people with horrible last years but they still count as playing in that year. This first year is the same and any in the middle. I didn't start that stipulation that was what the topic was so I really don't see where your going with that.

What I was saying was mostly about the collection of arguments for Trout being better than other great players.
I'm not a big fan of some stats like WAR as indicators of a player being great. Getting a bonus because you play a different position seems pretty silly to me as far as that goes. How great would any centerfielder be if there was say no right fielder? Or a really poor one.
I do however agree with it as far as a tool to assemble a competitive team. A really good centerfielder will make two other fielders better as well as covering more area.

Saying a player dominated more also seems a bit suspect. Is he that good because he really is better? Or does he look better because the league is a bit weak? That's a really tough question. Some very good pitchers don't do well in some stats because as a #1 starter they're pitching against better starters more often. Pujols stats may appear less dominant, but then yes as someone said it was the silly era, and lots of stats were inflated for various reasons.

Oddly, I hear the same argument about the Patriots. They're only great because the division is weak. Of course the division is weak, they all have to play the Pats twice a season.:D (Plus at least a couple of them are more than a little dysfunctional)

That's what makes comparisons so hard.

I'd really like to see the results of some of the hardcore stats guys accounting for management style etc. Following the 78 Sox was one of the biggest early lessons, Zimmer would leave pitchers out way too long, especially Torrez who always seemed to fall apart very quickly.

Steve B

I can't believe you guys have to argue this. Talk about arguing just to argue.

I would like buy any of your early Mantles you wish to sell..thanks

Trying to get this back on track to the OP's question. I pick up a few Trout's (and a couple other modern players) each year. I'll normally get the the Topps Series 1 Gold Parallel and a Heritage #'d or SP, not for investment purposes but just for fun. I already got this 2017 Series 1 Gold and I believe the new Heritage will be released March 1st:

Answer to the original question; yup! :D

Seriously; we should all collect what we love. That's reason enough.
This is a great hobby.
RayB

I have whatever Trout cards I've gotten in packs, None of the big deal ones for sure. I also saved a few of the Pretzel boxes, which were no longer available on my most recent grocery trip.

Steve B

A HUGE +1 there. As to Trout, although he's on a Cooperstown path, a lot of things can still happen. It looked like Rocky Colavito was on a 500+ HR path, but his last even arguably good year was at age 33, and he fell far short. See also Dale Murphy--'nuff said. Even Eddie Mathews, who hit 512, seemed headed for 600+ homers (he had 370) at age 30 until a severe shoulder injury interrupted that march, leaving his last really good year at age 30 in 1961--although he played through 1968, his hitting was never the same after the injury. Jeter, IMHO, is vastly overrated, with an OPS+ of around 111 or so, indicating he was roughly only 11% better than average on offense, and a number of people have opined that his defensive metrics were not all that good.

Plus, Trout cards are still at or right around their highest point in the demand part of the equation. If he has the stellar career his potential indicates, wait until he is on his downslide in his mid to late 30's--all the speculative and transient components of the demand for his cards will have moved on to the newest and latest, greatest phenom by then. Not the time to buy.

Best,

Larry

In a word, one simple word, NO. Trout will never, ever have the years Mantle had in 1956 (.353, 52 HR, 130 RBI), '57 (.365, 34 HR, and 146 walks), and '61 (.317, 54 HR, 128 RBI, and 126 walks). Or be one of the seven or 8 players in the history of the game to create over 200% of the league average runs created (as Mantle did, along with Williams, Ruth, Gehrig, Hornsby, Cobb and Jackson, an extremely exclusive club, and a stat which takes into account the differences in playing conditions in different eras). Trout is in fact the likeliest to fade in memory, when compared to the true icons such as Cobb, Ruth, Williams, Mantle, Mays and AAron. It also didn't hurt that Ruth and Mantle hit them as far as McGwire but without the artificial additives.

Regards,

Larry

Why is it that players from the 50s on down are considered the "true icons" of the sport? The game was much different then, and many greats have played since they hung up their cleats. How would a hitter like George Brett do back in the days before Jackie? How would Ruth do today? Would the Mick have been on TMZ?

Thus goes the great sports debate .....

I am not taking anything away from Ruth, Aaron or Mantle btw. These guys were dominant, dynamic ball players. A long time ago ....

Modern cards are only a gamble if you let them become a gamble. Nobody's forcing anybody to buy $500 boxes. You can still go to Target and buy a pack of cards for a couple of bucks and put together a set with a couple of 40-50 dollar boxes. I understand not wanting to part with one's money but you can still collect on the cheap. You can hop on ebay or BBCE and buy packs/boxes/singles/complete sets on the cheap. People choose not to collect those products then complain about the lack of value in the boxes they do open. It boggles my mind.

I personally stick to singles and pick up a few boxes of Topps Heritage and the base Upper Deck hockey sets. Two-three boxes of each and I have complete base sets + most of the SPs.

As for Jeter and the Mitchell Report--that was published in 2007 and he wasn't mentioned. What am I missing?

As for the question at hand--I actually did the opposite and sold a Trout Bowman Chrome to fund a '53 Topps Mantle, which I used to build some funding for a Hank Aaron rookie. Collect what you like! If you're looking for a modern investment--the Bowman Chrome Trout card is going to be worth quite a bit for a long, long time. Good luck!

Modern cards are only a gamble if you let them become a gamble. Nobody's forcing anybody to buy $500 boxes. You can still go to Target and buy a pack of cards for a couple of bucks and put together a set with a couple of 40-50 dollar boxes. I understand not wanting to part with one's money but you can still collect on the cheap. You can hop on ebay or BBCE and buy packs/boxes/singles/complete sets on the cheap. People choose not to collect those products then complain about the lack of value in the boxes they do open. It boggles my mind.

I personally stick to singles and pick up a few boxes of Topps Heritage and the base Upper Deck hockey sets. Two-three boxes of each and I have complete base sets + most of the SPs.

As for Jeter and the Mitchell Report--that was published in 2007 and he wasn't mentioned. What am I missing?

As for the question at hand--I actually did the opposite and sold a Trout Bowman Chrome to fund a '53 Topps Mantle, which I used to build some funding for a Hank Aaron rookie. Collect what you like! If you're looking for a modern investment--the Bowman Chrome Trout card is going to be worth quite a bit for a long, long time. The 2011 Topps Update base card of Trout is another solid option. Pretty easy to find and it's only now starting to creep over the $100 mark consistently.

What set would that be? Certainly none of the ones I've collected.


Other than what are essentially prepackaged sets like the recent Babe Ruth set, I haven't been able to build a set of anything for that outlay, not even a set less the SPs.


Steve B

Topps Opening Day is one, and Topps Series 1 isn't that much more expensive. 55-60 bucks per box isn't exactly cheap but you get a nice box of cards (350+) for a not a whole lot of money plus a bunch of interesting inserts/parallels/you name it.

Neal, some would say that since MLB now draws its athletes from a significantly larger total population, the standard deviation reflecting talent has grown much smaller--i.e., the median player has so much talent that it is very hard for anyone to dominate the way that those discussed above did. I personally do not subscribe to this theory for the reason that other major sports have grown in popularity exponentially--football, basketball, hockey, and yes, even soccer--and have consequently drawn a lot of talent away from baseball. I wouldn't blame you, however, for taking the opposite approach. Under it, Mike Trout might well actually be as good as Mantle was (having seen him play in his later prime in the early '60's, however, my own opinion is to the contrary), but won't be able to demonstrate it if that theory is true--he'd have to be SUBSTANTIALLY BETTER to even dominate to the same degree. And domination is where iconic status comes from.

Best regards,

Larry

Nice post, Larry. I agree with some of it. A few things .... first, yes, MLB draws from a larger pop. Included in that larger pool are nations and races that MLB never considered. Mantle had some nice seasons, but never dominated. Ruth DOMINATED. He was the only baseball player who has, imo. Mantle had a few powerhouse years, and a fantastic HOF career. Ruth was the only one. Not taking anything away from Mantle btw


Bottom line is that as much as Mantle and Ruth, among others, are considered "iconic" (and I would agree with that), there are a few others like Griffey, Pujols, and quite possible, Mike Trout, who should be considered "worthy" of being considered when the same ole list of icons is repeated over and over.

Good stuff

I was down in South Jersey a few months ago and decided to look up and see if there was a card store in the area. Yep, found one. Nothing vintage but they had at least three showcases, multi level, full of nothing but shiny Trout cards. And then boxes of Trout cards. Of course he comes from down there. But it was absurd how many variations of shiny cards there actually was. I'll go out on a limb and say (guess) that they may already be more Mike Trout cards than any player who has ever lived.

LOL, but I would guess Jeter and Griffey have him beat .... for now :)

I would never want to collect every Mike Trout card. There are, however, 5 or 6 cards from 2009-2011 that I would like to own and I believe have room to grow. The 2009 Bowman Sterling is one of them. Limited run, expensive pack, and autographed. The 2011 Finest X-Fractor is another. The 2011 Bowman Chrome Refractor w/auto has hit the ceiling, imo. Plus, I really could never spend 2-4K on a Mike Trout card.

I have limited experience with modern, but from what I've noticed, sticker autographs like the 2009 Sterling are not in as high of demand and may not be the best long term investment.

No way in Hell will Trout cards EVER hold the long term investment value that Aaron/Mantle/Ruth/Cobb/etc., have.

I have a crap-ton of modern cards, probably peanuts compared to many, but still thousands of modern cards. I enjoy collecting them because it's what I grew up doing. I'll go back through every once in a while and reminisce. It's fun and nostalgic for me. My favorite player of all time is Jim Thome. I have hundreds of his cards. I would love to collect as many Thome cards as possible, but get discouraged when I remember that there are around 9000 different Jim Thome cards. 9000! The guy is #7 on the HR list, and top 5 if you take out Bonds and ARoid for juicing. He's a 1st ballot HoFer next year, and his cards will continue to go up in value for the time being. How is anyone supposed to put together a master Thome set with over 9000 possible cards that include 1/1s and crap like that?

Part of why vintage cards hold their value is the ability to collect the sets. 1952 Topps, while aesthetically pleasing, holds its value because you can put together the set (might have to sell a kidney for the Mantle, though), but know that it's still a rarer feat to put together the set or own the cards due to their lower print run. Today's sets are a joke. The value of the sets is manufactured with a false bottom.

I am a big proponent of collecting what you love. But at some point you also have to remember there is monetary value here. That monetary value is a bonus as to why I collect more vintage/pre-war now. Aside from the historical significance, I know that if an emergency situation were to occur and I were to need money, I could flip my collection very quickly for cold hard cash. It's very liquid, and will always be in demand. I'm not saying collect strictly based on value, but if you already have some of the cornerstone pieces of the hobby, don't flip them for potential fools gold. Find a different way to fund your Trout collection.