Posted on May 3rd, 2007 in baseball, IPO by Kman Tags:

Baseball IPO’s: Etopps 04/31/07

This week has a couple of goodies, Cy Young winner Johan Santana & Yankees prospect Phillip Hughes 

 

Johan Santana

 

 Johan Santana 2007 Etopps

PR: 899

Price: $7.00

Performance Bonus (1pt): 2.22

     

253 K

Right out of the gate, the performance bonus is insane. A 0.96 WHIP for a 1pt Performance bonus? Crazy, and most likely Santana isn’t going to be able to post this type of number. So that eliminates owning the card for the Reward Point. On the other hand, his other Etopps offering (2005) has remained around a steady $6 range, even with a PR of 2600. The thing is, a 2007 Etopps card, while having a low PR, is just too far away from Santana’s rookie season. With that said, I don’t think you’d lose any money on this card, but the capital would be better served with other offerings.

Reccomendation: Avoid

 

Phillip Hughes

 

Phillip Hughes 2007 Etopps 

PR: 1200

Price: $9.50

Performance Bonus (2pts): 3.20 ERA, 1.14 WHIP, 44 K

A true rookie offering! Hughes will be hard pressed to match the low ERA & WHIP reward point outlines set by Etopps, so if you’re looking to accumulate easy reward points I’d look elsewhere. On the financial front, this card is very inviting. Firstly, it’s a real rookie of a top level prospect. Secondly, he plays in New York. As a collector, whether you love or hate the Yankees, I’m sure you realize that they = green. The PR is a little high, but not too high to scare myself away. All in all, this looks like a strong card to own for a quick flip or a long term hold.

 

Reccomendation: Purchase in large quantities.

 

 

2 Responses to 'Baseball IPO’s: Etopps 04/31/07'

Subscribe to comments with RSS or TrackBack to 'Baseball IPO’s: Etopps 04/31/07'.

  1. idznhwbr said,

    on October 30th, 2007 at 6:15 am

    idznhwbr…

    idznhwbr…

  2. Milf. said,

    on August 1st, 2008 at 12:57 pm

    Milf rider….

    Milf hunters. Milf. Uk milf….

Register for your FREE MR. Etopps Account

Are we right? Is something wrong? Has information been omitted? Take an active role in the conversation!

Post a comment