Topps out---Fanatics in

[jlklemp]

Originally Posted by spuds1961

Well you must’ve missed a generation. Let’s see what those nft’s are worth in the future or when the site that houses them all crashes. I will take my little pieces of cardboard in hand thank you very much.

I'm not a huge NFT fan, but NFTs are here to stay and offer a lot of fun and benefits that physical cards don't. You can hold your physical cards but you can't animate them in any real way. You can sell and trade your physical cards but you can't ship them to someone 3000 miles away instantaneously. You can transport your entire physical card collection in boxes and binders but you can't fit it in your pocket on a USB drive.

Also, one could say "Let's see what those physical cards are worth in the future when the house they are physically located in burns to the ground because of some random electrical fire." The NFT people will never have that problem.

[imbluestreak23]

Originally Posted by Timsterino

Bowman doesn’t exist without the licenses. The only reason current Panini no logo cards are possible is because they have a license from the MLBPA. Without that license they can’t even print cards with just the player’s images. I don’t think people understand this. I expect the same from the minor league organization.

See leaf/razor

[Pacmeyer]

Originally Posted by wood minis

My take away is simply that the rich want to get richer. MLB & the MLBPA are interested in making more from trading cards.

Not including Topps, a longtime partner, in the negotiations and releasing the news to torpedo their going public is about as ruthless as it gets.

Originally Posted by Wildcat55

Wow..interesting article. It’s really hard to believe that they were totally blindsided by this. I feel that they had almost become tone deaf to the competition and what other companies were doing, especially in the digital space. Topps NFT’s are a disaster and this press release from the MLB back in June is quite interesting as well. I posted this in the basketball forum but it’s probably more relevant here at the moment.

The pieces are all starting to connect around what Fanatics was pitching months ago and their ideas for the future. Check out this foreshadowing story below from MLB.com about their partnership with Candy Digital for NFT’s. Guess who…Yep, Manfred. And yep, Fanatics is a major investor in Candy Digital.

“ From trading cards to autographed balls, baseball fans have demonstrated their passion for the sport and its players through collectibles for decades," MLB Commissioner Rob Manfred said in a statement Tuesday. "In working with Candy Digital to offer NFTs to MLB fans, we’re delivering an exciting new addition to the robust baseball collectible market. The founders of Candy are a dynamic group of executives with an impressive track record. We’re excited to be the first partner in this new venture with a team uniquely positioned for success."

MLB already produces trading card NFTs in partnership with Topps, but now with Candy there will be a wider range of baseball digital collectibles -- for example, memorabilia-style NFTs, or baseball card-style NFTs, or artwork-style NFTs portraying big moments on the field, or NFTs of highlight plays. Following the Gehrig "Luckiest Man" NFT, more are expected to be rolled out.

Candy Digital is a joint venture being launched by Fanatics chairman Michael Rubin -- Fanatics already sells MLB jerseys, clothing, collectibles and more -- Galaxy Digital CEO Mike Novogratz and entrepreneur Gary Vaynerchuk.

https://www.mlb.com/news/mlb-strikes...-candy-digital

Michael Eisner is also one of those rich wanna get richer. Wasn't he expecting a $600 mil payday from the merger?

Topps being blindsided doesn't seem to be caused by just a combination of arrogance and shortsightedness. Now that Fanatics has an ace in the hole, it can try partnering or acquiring Topps (easier done as a private rather than public company) by forcing Eisner to the table, if that's their actual strategy.

[spuds1961]

Originally Posted by jlklemp

I'm not a huge NFT fan, but NFTs are here to stay and offer a lot of fun and benefits that physical cards don't. You can hold your physical cards but you can't animate them in any real way. You can sell and trade your physical cards but you can't ship them to someone 3000 miles away instantaneously. You can transport your entire physical card collection in boxes and binders but you can't fit it in your pocket on a USB drive.

Also, one could say "Let's see what those physical cards are worth in the future when the house they are physically located in burns to the ground because of some random electrical fire." The NFT people will never have that problem.

You make good points but different strokes for different folks,how would NFT’s work at something like the National would it be 100,000 people looking at their phones or a giant setup of computer screens. Not to mention digital cards take away the personal face to face meetings which I guess could be a good thing if you don’t like getting out.

[Kracer52]

Originally Posted by Pacmeyer

Michael Eisner is also one of those rich wanna get richer. Wasn't he expecting a $600 mil payday from the merger?

Topps being blindsided doesn't seem to be caused by just a combination of arrogance and shortsightedness. Now that Fanatics has an ace in the hole, it can try partnering or acquiring Topps (easier done as a private rather than public company) by forcing Eisner to the table, if that's their actual strategy.

I don't really see how its arrogance or shortsightedness. It doesn't sound like any of the parties involved ever had any intention of letting Topps in on the next deal regardless of what they did or would do. This is a joint venture with equity for the PA's. Topps could have been doing everything perfectly, it doesn't matter if you don't even know that your partner is looking elsewhere.

[Wildcat55]

Originally Posted by Kracer52

I don't really see how its arrogance or shortsightedness. It doesn't sound like any of the parties involved ever had any intention of letting Topps in on the next deal regardless of what they did or would do. This is a joint venture with equity for the PA's. Topps could have been doing everything perfectly, it doesn't matter if you don't even know that your partner is looking elsewhere.

The arrogance and shortsightedness comes from them relying on their legacy more than bringing innovative ideas (and money) to the table. Topps NFT’s are just card scans and they had zero drops after the initial one, they have a weak overall social media presence, and keep pumping out cards to celebrate THEIR past…I really love Topps but their competitors brought fresh ideas (and a boatload of money) to the table which included innovative NFT’s that excited the MLB. The press release about Candy says exactly that. Topps kept paying homage to itself and it’s past and in hindsight was just viewed as a vendor vs a partner after 70 years.
Providing equity to the various players associations is innovative and Fanatics simply attacked Topps where it was weak and at the right time prior to them going public knowing equity was off the table. Someone at Fanatics must have read Sun Tzu’s Art of War…

Maybe all parties did not have any intention of letting Topps in on the deal but I feel Fanatics did a good job of putting together an offer they could not refuse. Reading that MLB press release from June just shows that Fanatics spent time cultivating the relationship more than we all will probably ever know. And this approach by Fanatics is about to also take down Panini who is way more innovative than Topps.

[Timsterino]

Originally Posted by imbluestreak23

See leaf/razor

Those companies have individual contracts with each player. Nobody is clear that the current agreement with Fanatics would allow those going forward.

Regardless, with the amount of players in Bowman I seriously doubt that type of arrangement would work.

[Bcwcardz]

Originally Posted by spuds1961

You make good points but different strokes for different folks,how would NFT’s work at something like the National would it be 100,000 people looking at their phones or a giant setup of computer screens. Not to mention digital cards take away the personal face to face meetings which I guess could be a good thing if you don’t like getting out.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Bcwcardz]

Originally Posted by spuds1961

You make good points but different strokes for different folks,how would NFT’s work at something like the National would it be 100,000 people looking at their phones or a giant setup of computer screens. Not to mention digital cards take away the personal face to face meetings which I guess could be a good thing if you don’t like getting out.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[imbluestreak23]

Originally Posted by Timsterino

Those companies have individual contracts with each player. Nobody is clear that the current agreement with Fanatics would allow those going forward.

Regardless, with the amount of players in Bowman I seriously doubt that type of arrangement would work.

Minor league players are NOT a part of the Major League Players association. Minors players are fair game, unless of course they formed a union, which will likely happen in the next 50 years since in 2021 the trend is we are all victims and need a bigger piece of the pie. For now, they are fair game. Panini has an MLBPA license for major league players, hence the reason why Trout has a card in Poopini products.

https://www.advocatesforminorleaguer...ective%20voice.

I have no idea what Leaf/Razor does with their non MLBers. For guys like Acuna, sure, they likely have an individual deal, just as they do with Tiger King. For nearly a decade they have been making minor league cards of the best players drafted each year. To my knowledge, that is open to Topps, Upper Deck, Panini, and will welcome non licensed Bowman Chrome with open arms.

[Ty Hope]

Yup, I’m out.

[fabiani12333]

Originally Posted by imbluestreak23

Minor league players are NOT a part of the Major League Players association. Minors players are fair game, unless of course they formed a union, which will likely happen in the next 50 years since in 2021 the trend is we are all victims and need a bigger piece of the pie. For now, they are fair game. Panini has an MLBPA license for major league players, hence the reason why Trout has a card in Poopini products.

https://www.advocatesforminorleaguer...ective%20voice.

I have no idea what Leaf/Razor does with their non MLBers. For guys like Acuna, sure, they likely have an individual deal, just as they do with Tiger King. For nearly a decade they have been making minor league cards of the best players drafted each year. To my knowledge, that is open to Topps, Upper Deck, Panini, and will welcome non licensed Bowman Chrome with open arms.

Honestly, why is it a good thing to have MLB licensed prospect cards? Look at Tatis -- he's wearing a White Sox jersey for his first Bowman card. Who wants that? It would have been so much better if he was just shown wearing a minor league uniform with no White Sox logo. The back of the card could have mentioned who signed him and that would have sufficed.

The problem is the removal of the minor league logos -- it's an eyesore. That's why you want the MiLB license.

Topps could continue to produce popular Bowman Prospects sets even after losing the MLBPA and MLB licenses.

[fabiani12333]

Not to rag on Topps, but Star Wars is played out. Disney had a chance to successfully introduce the franchise to a new generation of potential fans and they whiffed. And this opinion comes from someone who owns multiple high end Star Wars cards.

The Force Awakens was an attempt to remake A New Hope and replace the cast from the original franchise with a new generation of characters. Many Gen-Xers got tricked by JJ Abrams' into thinking the film was original. The movie was safe and effective for general audiences, but was shallow and didn't leave a lasting impression. Audiences knew nothing about the main heroine. The villian was an emo wannabe Vader with a paintball helmet. Han got shanked by his own son -- a cruel way to treat a beloved character.

There was a lot of hype and speculation before The Last Jedi. The movie wanted to take risks and introduce twists, similar to the Empire Strikes Back. But it angered a lot of hardcore fans, especially with how Luke was portrayed -- a bitter pessimist; not the hopeful optimist fans grew to love. We still didnt know much about the main heroine.

By the time Rise of Skywalker came out, a lot of the enthusiasm and hype for the previous films had disappeared -- replaced with apathy or anger. Disney tried to raise interest level by reintroducing Palpatine, but it didnt work. Kids loved Marvel and didn't have much interest for Star Wars.

Lucas' prequels were awful. They looked and felt nothing like the originals. They were complete CGI fests, with cartoonish depictions. The CGI almost immediately became outdated. The acting was stiff and unnatural, a byproduct of green screening and a poor script. Jar Jar was a racist stereotype.

The original films were dark looking and gritty -- not bright and colorful like Toon Town in Roger Rabbit. They didnt look like live action video games. They had practical effects. Viewers could believe the exotic locations were real. Going heavy on CGI dated the prequels. Though the sequels had good visuals, at least.

[fabiani12333]

Originally Posted by Noles939913

I’m not talking about his rookie card.

What I’m saying is old Upper Deck autos didn’t magically lose a ton of value because they no longer have an MLB license. I wish this card did but it didn’t:

Sorry for the belated response. My bad -- I thought you meant his rookie.

Yeah, his 90s UD autos are desirable and carry good value because it was during his peak when he was with the Mariners. It's similar to Jordan and the Bulls. They will forever be associated with UD cards.

[Kracer52]

Originally Posted by Wildcat55

The arrogance and shortsightedness comes from them relying on their legacy more than bringing innovative ideas (and money) to the table. Topps NFT’s are just card scans and they had zero drops after the initial one, they have a weak overall social media presence, and keep pumping out cards to celebrate THEIR past…I really love Topps but their competitors brought fresh ideas (and a boatload of money) to the table which included innovative NFT’s that excited the MLB. The press release about Candy says exactly that. Topps kept paying homage to itself and it’s past and in hindsight was just viewed as a vendor vs a partner after 70 years.
Providing equity to the various players associations is innovative and Fanatics simply attacked Topps where it was weak and at the right time prior to them going public knowing equity was off the table. Someone at Fanatics must have read Sun Tzu’s Art of War…

Maybe all parties did not have any intention of letting Topps in on the deal but I feel Fanatics did a good job of putting together an offer they could not refuse. Reading that MLB press release from June just shows that Fanatics spent time cultivating the relationship more than we all will probably ever know. And this approach by Fanatics is about to also take down Panini who is way more innovative than Topps.

Eh, this implies that there was some real competition or competitive advantage that Fanatics brings to the table. Their competitive advantage is that their owner is part of the club already and they could offer an equity sharing situation for the major PA's. I don't think this is so much that Fanatics made a killer offer, its that all the major players came together and decided to do it on their own through a conduit that they already have business and personal relationships with. Michael Rubin owning a team in one of the leagues that has spurned Panini to give the contract to his other company lays this out fairly bare. Especially since the three major sports are all doing this at the exact same time. This was coordinated. Topps was never part of the plan.

[ewokpelts]

Originally Posted by jlklemp

I'm not a huge NFT fan, but NFTs are here to stay and offer a lot of fun and benefits that physical cards don't. You can hold your physical cards but you can't animate them in any real way. You can sell and trade your physical cards but you can't ship them to someone 3000 miles away instantaneously. You can transport your entire physical card collection in boxes and binders but you can't fit it in your pocket on a USB drive.

Also, one could say "Let's see what those physical cards are worth in the future when the house they are physically located in burns to the ground because of some random electrical fire." The NFT people will never have that problem.

And what will happen to the NFTs when there’s a cyber attack? Or society collapses and digital anything is like Dust in the wind!

[A Levine]

Originally Posted by ewokpelts

And what will happen to the NFTs when there’s a cyber attack? Or society collapses and digital anything is like Dust in the wind!

I mean... what will happen when your house catches fire, or a burglar robs you, or your basement floods? One thing i've found is that younger generations often don't value permanence quite as much: they see experiences and even physical goods as fleeting, and are happy to spend a lot of money for something that is only temporary.

The fact is, every format has its pros and cons. I know plenty of young kids today who'd laugh at a huge physical card collection. "You can't take it with you in your pocket." "It takes up so much space" "how do you remember where every card is?"

That said, I think we're already seeing the begins of a new cycle: kids who grew up in the digital world now find physical collectibles fun and kitchy, in the same way that vinyl made a huge comeback, and polaroid cameras got trendy again.

But with the aforementioned lack of interest in permanence, they are not as thoughtful of keeping their physical collectibles forever, and are happy to enjoy them for a time, and resell them or throw them away.

[Handsome Wes]

Originally Posted by MoreToppsPlease

Putting them into my binders and top loaders.

Re: physical cards vs. NFT's:
- The oldest card in my collection is from 1951. 70 years has gone by, it's been in countless hands or stuffed in countless drawers or been moved around countless times. And yet it has survived all that. It's not in 10 gem mint condition - but its age tells a story. It has been preserved since the time when my dad was my son's age.


All that to say... NFT's aren't a hobby for me. But if it is for you? I'm glad that you can find something that you enjoy!

[spuds1961]

Originally Posted by Handsome Wes

Re: physical cards vs. NFT's:
- The oldest card in my collection is from 1951. 70 years has gone by, it's been in countless hands or stuffed in countless drawers or been moved around countless times. And yet it has survived all that. It's not in 10 gem mint condition - but its age tells a story. It has been preserved since the time when my dad was my son's age.


All that to say... NFT's aren't a hobby for me. But if it is for you? I'm glad that you can find something that you enjoy!

Well said and I think physical cards have more of a connection, fathers passing their collection on to their sons hanging out together going to card shops. I get it digital is this generation’s fun thing nothing wrong with that but putting down us older folks physical collections and the way we accumulated them does nothing to sway me over to the digital world. Also to add one more thing the less people into physical cards means down the road they will be more scarce and worth more, kind of like this generation’s mom’s throwing away our generation’s cards in the past.

[monkeymcgee]

Originally Posted by spuds1961

Well said and I think physical cards have more of a connection, fathers passing their collection on to their sons hanging out together going to card shops. I get it digital is this generation’s fun thing nothing wrong with that but putting down us older folks physical collections and the way we accumulated them does nothing to sway me over to the digital world. Also to add one more thing the less people into physical cards means down the road they will be more scarce and worth more, kind of like this generation’s mom’s throwing away our generation’s cards in the past.

The only people I see being dismissive are the guys who can’t get the digital side and think therefore NFTs and other digital “cards” are worthless or stupid. Of course cardboard is not going anywhere and I’d be pretty surprised any of us with digital collections don’t also have a ton of physical cards.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[k13]

Every physical card is a digital card on your phone so digital cards are pointless.

[Chrominator]

Originally Posted by k13

Every physical card is a digital card on your phone so digital cards are pointless.

[Pacmeyer]

Originally Posted by k13

Every physical card is a digital card on your phone so digital cards are pointless.

NFTs may be pointless but somebody sure is cleaning up.

https://news.artnet.com/market/chris...illion-1951036

[Handsome Wes]

Originally Posted by Pacmeyer

NFTs may be pointless but somebody sure is cleaning up.

https://news.artnet.com/market/chris...illion-1951036

Yeah not going to lie, one of the worst parts about me being on the Luddite side of the Crypto / NFT craze is how people keep making bank while I’m on the sidelines saying to myself ‘well, it’s more fiscally responsible watching my mutual funds slowly grow until I hit retirement age a few decades from now’

[fabiani12333]

Kids seem to love Pokemon cards -- especially the rarer shiny ones. I took my kid brother to an MLB game the other day and afterwards he asked me if I could buy him some pokemon cards the next time I saw him. I stared at him with annoyance for a second.

I think this is why you're seeing the gamification of sports. Kids have grown up on video games and the reward systems of social media and video games. Pokemon offers both a collectible and investment option as well as a gaming experience. Kids also like shiny and colorful graphics -- rainbow Charzard feeds that desire.

These NFTs seem to just be digital investments. I dont see how they fit into the whole gamification phenomenon, beyond the flip.