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

[HRBAKER]

Originally Posted by TedWill1939

Red Sox and Betts fan here. A few years ago a commentator, ARod?, was questioning why Mookie isn't a household name? I agree. I got the impression that Mookie is lowkey and possiably didn't seek hype and branding maybe it was the Sox fault? His new home with LA will be telling. If he becomes the "new face of baseball" LA is the place to do it, if he wants it.

I would add that the Sox are a real "hometown" team being on the Dodgers may have a more national appeal. Just some thoughts

I'm glad I have my Betts rookies and happy with the price I paid!

Maybe he should have someone take his picture kissing himself in the mirror, that ought to do it for the branding.

[sbfinley]

Statistical comparison aside, it boils down to:

1. While similar talents, Trout is widely regarded as the player of this this generation both by the hobby and the sport at large. You could debate the two as long as you like but in almost every facet Trout is “generational” and Betts is “exceptional” by majority. I tend to fall into this camp as well, and it’s direct correlation to hobby prices is obvious.

2. The 2011 Topps Update Trout has taken a life of it own and can now be easily regarded as the most important modern baseball card in the hobby (sans manufactured scarcity) and it could be argued it has cracked the top 10 most important post war baseball cards. The 2014 Betts, while valuable and important, is not in the same standing.

[chaddurbin]

trout is babe ruth mookie is jimmie foxx, that's the more apropos comparison in term of performance. and i love mookie being a dodgers fan, he's been everything and more with the already high expectations.