Wander Franco Rookie Card Debate (2021 Bowman's Best vs. 2022 RC logo cards)

[OhioLawyerF5]

Originally Posted by ObanMontecristo

If “consumers should decide for themselves,” then why are you taking such a firm stance against the people here who have decided that BB21 cards for these 30 guys are RCs?



I’m also curious to know how you distinguish between prospects vs. rookie cards, and how you came up with your standard. If a guy has made his major league debut but has not yet exhausted his “rookie” status, are his cards RCs or prospects, in your view?

I've never taken a stance against people who think BB21 cards are rookies. My point has always been that people can decide and that generally speaking most people have decided BB21 are not rookies. I've offered some reasoning for that because the BB21 crowd constantly claims there is no valid argument for disagreeing with them. But I've never said they can't or shouldn't have their opinion.

Sent from my SM-A505U using Tapatalk

[green4407]

Originally Posted by LVDan

Turn ons- BBQ, live music, girls w/ a smart mouth
turn offs- self appointed arbiters of authority on baseball card categorizing that must trump others

Reminds me a bit of the different musical genre police, ya know those who dictate to others what "real country" or "real rock n roll" is or isnt

I may have my opinions but am not self righteous enough to believe that they are facts.

As always LVDan for the win.

Not RCs to me, but they are to others.

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

[BigSeph]

Originally Posted by OhioLawyerF5

Just like your position carries no significance outside of this thread.

It's not just MY opinion though.

[BigSeph]

Also I'd like to point out that it's been multiple pages after I challenged people to provide a simple argument as to why Wander/JRod/Witt don't have rookie cards in 21 BB.

I received 2 attempts.

[pete2345]

I'm sorry this product flopped pumpers

[jhssketchcards]

Originally Posted by BigSeph

Also I'd like to point out that it's been multiple pages after I challenged people to provide a simple argument as to why Wander/JRod/Witt don't have rookie cards in 21 BB.

I received 2 attempts.

I get that Wander is considered a RC but not JRod and Witt (as well as many others). Wander debuted in 2021 but the others didn’t not were they even in a 40-man at any time.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[BigSeph]

Originally Posted by jhssketchcards

I get that Wander is considered a RC but not JRod and Witt (as well as many others). Wander debuted in 2021 but the others didn’t not were they even in a 40-man at any time.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Being on the 40-man is not a requirement for a card to be a rookie card.



Put out before he was on the Yankees 40 man.

[pewe]

Originally Posted by pete2345

I'm sorry this product flopped pumpers

The “product flopped pumpers”?!? Did it hurt?

I am surprised about how well BB’18 has held up while the rest of the the market is down. Guess it always pays to stay with things collectors enjoy, and have durable historic relevance.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[jhssketchcards]

Originally Posted by BigSeph

Being on the 40-man is not a requirement for a card to be a rookie card.



Put out before he was on the Yankees 40 man.

I’m going by the 2006 to now designation for RCs. Using Jeter is fine and all and I’m ok with that, but how can a player even be a MLB rookie if he’s not even in the league?? 2021 BB features Wander (totally ok) yet JRod and Witt aren’t even pros yet but they have rookie cards? Makes zero sense but I get that Topps screwed this up. Personally I think they realized it and saw what BH would have caused and held it back. Maybe it was the Fanatics deal, but why hold BH back if it was intentional in BB? Makes zero sense. Also, the vet and RC logo cards in BB have the MLBPa logo whereas the prospects/RCs do not. Someone explain that one if they can. How can it truly be a legit RC if they don’t have the MLBPA logo? Again, simply learning here, and using 2006 forward criteria.

PS: I own a few BB21!

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Pacmeyer]

Originally Posted by jhssketchcards

I’m going by the 2006 to now designation for RCs. Using Jeter is fine and all and I’m ok with that, but how can a player even be a MLB rookie if he’s not even in the league?? 2021 BB features Wander (totally ok) yet JRod and Witt aren’t even pros yet but they have rookie cards? Makes zero sense but I get that Topps screwed this up. Personally I think they realized it and saw what BH would have caused and held it back. Maybe it was the Fanatics deal, but why hold BH back if it was intentional in BB? Makes zero sense. Also, the vet and RC logo cards in BB have the MLBPa logo whereas the prospects/RCs do not. Someone explain that one if they can. How can it truly be a legit RC if they don’t have the MLBPA logo? Again, simply learning here, and using 2006 forward criteria.

PS: I own a few BB21!

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Makes no sense maybe if this was a typical year in the hobby. You don't have to buy the theories regarding either employees gone wild or corporate payback, both of which have already been discussed here ad nauseam, but it absolutely makes sense for Topps to hold back Bowman Heritage post-Fanatics. The Topps banner is irrelevant as the changeover in leadership was immediate.

[ObanMontecristo]

Originally Posted by jhssketchcards

I’m going by the 2006 to now designation for RCs. Using Jeter is fine and all and I’m ok with that, but how can a player even be a MLB rookie if he’s not even in the league?? 2021 BB features Wander (totally ok) yet JRod and Witt aren’t even pros yet but they have rookie cards? Makes zero sense but I get that Topps screwed this up. Personally I think they realized it and saw what BH would have caused and held it back. Maybe it was the Fanatics deal, but why hold BH back if it was intentional in BB? Makes zero sense. Also, the vet and RC logo cards in BB have the MLBPa logo whereas the prospects/RCs do not. Someone explain that one if they can. How can it truly be a legit RC if they don’t have the MLBPA logo? Again, simply learning here, and using 2006 forward criteria.

PS: I own a few BB21!

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It absolutely was a timing issue- BB was released on 12/31, before the Topps-Fanatics deal (and probably months after Topps had already planned and printed the product).

Bowman Heritage was announced for a January 11 release and Topps published a checklist, but then the product was apparently scrapped after the Fanatics deal, before the cards ever made it out.

Can’t really think of any reason why BH would have been totally scrapped, other than the issues with the RC checklist

[OhioLawyerF5]

Originally Posted by BigSeph

Also I'd like to point out that it's been multiple pages after I challenged people to provide a simple argument as to why Wander/JRod/Witt don't have rookie cards in 21 BB.

I received 2 attempts.

It's because no matter what anyone says, you won't change your mind. That's fine. You're entitled to your opinion. The problem is that you believe your opinion is a fact and that no one else can disagree. Which is ignorant. There is no such thing as a "true" RC. By whose authority would that even come? So your opinion is not fact. What would you say if I said your 93 Jeter is a prospect card? I don't consider it a rookie and you can't change my mind. Hmm.

Sent from my SM-A505U using Tapatalk

[towerymt]

Originally Posted by jhssketchcards

I’m going by the 2006 to now designation for RCs. Using Jeter is fine and all and I’m ok with that, but how can a player even be a MLB rookie if he’s not even in the league??

He wasn't a MLB rookie in 1993.

Can a rookie card only be from the player's rookie season?

Wander Franco RC logo cards are from 2022, but he was a rookie player in 2021.

Never will this be settled.

[MoreToppsPlease]

Originally Posted by towerymt

He wasn't a MLB rookie in 1993.

Can a rookie card only be from the player's rookie season?

Wander Franco RC logo cards are from 2022, but he was a rookie player in 2021.

Never will this be settled.

It can only be settled when people stop looking for artificial ways to sell cards.

[pewe]

Originally Posted by MoreToppsPlease

It can only be settled when people stop looking for artificial ways to sell cards.

What are natural ways to sell cards?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[ThoseBackPages]

Originally Posted by pewe

What are natural ways to sell cards?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

consignment. allows people to hide

[BigSeph]

Originally Posted by jhssketchcards

I’m going by the 2006 to now designation for RCs. Using Jeter is fine and all and I’m ok with that, but how can a player even be a MLB rookie if he’s not even in the league?? 2021 BB features Wander (totally ok) yet JRod and Witt aren’t even pros yet but they have rookie cards? Makes zero sense but I get that Topps screwed this up. Personally I think they realized it and saw what BH would have caused and held it back. Maybe it was the Fanatics deal, but why hold BH back if it was intentional in BB? Makes zero sense. Also, the vet and RC logo cards in BB have the MLBPa logo whereas the prospects/RCs do not. Someone explain that one if they can. How can it truly be a legit RC if they don’t have the MLBPA logo? Again, simply learning here, and using 2006 forward criteria.

PS: I own a few BB21!

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The "2006 designation" was a codified production agreement between Topps and MLBPA. It has no bearing on what is and is not a rookie card.

They didn't climb Mt Sinai and carve the new standard on stone tablets or anything.

[towerymt]

Originally Posted by MoreToppsPlease

It can only be settled when people stop looking for artificial ways to sell cards.

Logos sell cards.

FACT.

[BigSeph]

Originally Posted by OhioLawyerF5

It's because no matter what anyone says, you won't change your mind. That's fine. You're entitled to your opinion. The problem is that you believe your opinion is a fact and that no one else can disagree. Which is ignorant. There is no such thing as a "true" RC. By whose authority would that even come? So your opinion is not fact. What would you say if I said your 93 Jeter is a prospect card? I don't consider it a rookie and you can't change my mind. Hmm.

Sent from my SM-A505U using Tapatalk

1) Don't tell me about me. I'm me. If anybody could produce a logical credible argument against 21 BB Witt/Franco/JRod/etc I am all ears. Perfectly willing to change my mind. You don't know me. Let me point out AGAIN that what you are doing is not offering a rational argument against 21 BB being rookie cards. You continue to Gish Gallop all over this thread with random musings and incoherent babbling.

2) People are free to disagree, I have no problem with it, because the more people resist acknowledging 21 BB as rookie cards, the more I can accumulate. My contrarian stash of Lukas Optic holos acquired for $180 each and Tatum Optic holos acquired for $30 each are feeling pretty good these days. I'm actually trying to help shine a light on this situation for the benefit of other collectors. Sure I will profit but it won't be the first time I'm among the first ones in on an obvious buying opportunity.

3) "There is no such thing as a "true" RC. By whose authority would that even come?" - I would appeal to tradition (the historical definition in the hobby) and authority (Beckett). I would not read extra hard into a licensing agreement between the MLBPA and Topps and use that as an ultimate authority on the subject.

4) "What would you say if I said your 93 Jeter is a prospect card?" - I would say happy trails, and best of luck on your stash of 1995 Select Certified Jeters. After all it clearly says "rookie" on the front, so it must be a rookie. The manufacturer told you it was.

[pewe]

Originally Posted by towerymt

Logos sell cards.

FACT.

“Topps”???


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[jhssketchcards]

Originally Posted by BigSeph

The "2006 designation" was a codified production agreement between Topps and MLBPA. It has no bearing on what is and is not a rookie card.

They didn't climb Mt Sinai and carve the new standard on stone tablets or anything.

Yeah I agree with you. I’ve always wondered why the necessity for the codification. Why would MLBPA care? Why would it be necessary to include the MLPA logo?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[BigSeph]

Originally Posted by towerymt

He wasn't a MLB rookie in 1993.

Can a rookie card only be from the player's rookie season?

Wander Franco RC logo cards are from 2022, but he was a rookie player in 2021.

Never will this be settled.

The irony of all of this is that the RC logo crowd is siding with Topps manipulating the RC definition in order to maximize their profits.

Intentionally holding back guys like Yordan Alvarez (2020, won ROY in 2019) and Wander Franco (lost rookie status in 2021) speaks volumes about who stands to gain from their "definition" of rookie cards.

It's not collectors.

[BigSeph]

Originally Posted by jhssketchcards

Yeah I agree with you. I’ve always wondered why the necessity for the codification. Why would MLBPA care? Why would it be necessary to include the MLPA logo?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

What's even more amusing is that Topps has individual contracts with minor league players not on the 40-man and the MLBPA can't govern their appearance on Topps cards. All they can do is strongarm Topps with their licensing agreement to ensure that anyone not under MLBPA control doesn't have "rookie cards" at least as far as the RC logos or base checklists are concerned.

Once they are part of the MLBPA, only then does the MLBPA allow Topps to include their "rookie cards" in the base set and slap the RC logo on it.

It's about control for the MLBPA.

And once they decided to go with Fanatics and screw over Topps, the folks at Topps knew that their little codified agreement was about as worthless as toilet paper and if the MLBPA was going to screw over Topps, well...... why not print rookie cards of every decent prospect and kill demand for Fanatics produced "rookie cards" for a decade.

That's why they killed off Bowman Heritage. That's why the Fanatics buyout of Topps was crucial. Fanatics saved several years worth of rookie cards for themselves that otherwise would have been in 21 BB and 21 Bowman Heritage.

Anyone who thinks it was a simple checklist error after Topps got every checklist right for hundreds of consecutive releases and then was going to make the same mistake for 2 products in a row after Fanatics took the MLBPA license needs their head examined. The cards didn't get printed 2 days before they revealed the checklist.

[OhioLawyerF5]

Originally Posted by BigSeph

1) - I would appeal to tradition (the historical definition in the hobby) and authority (Beckett).

This is what you refuse to understand. And why I am confident you have no interest in changing your mind. Beckett has no more authority than Topps, MLBPA, you, or me. And the "tradition " isn't what you claim. I've personally seen arguments about what makes a rookie card for decades and decades. You are just willfully blind and appealing to false authority just to support your position. So don't blow smoke claiming I don't know you and you are honestly willing to listen. You have no interest in listening.

Sent from my SM-A505U using Tapatalk

[OhioLawyerF5]

Originally Posted by BigSeph

What's even more amusing is that Topps has individual contracts with minor league players not on the 40-man and the MLBPA can't govern their appearance on Topps cards. All they can do is strongarm Topps with their licensing agreement to ensure that anyone not under MLBPA control doesn't have "rookie cards" at least as far as the RC logos or base checklists are concerned.



Once they are part of the MLBPA, only then does the MLBPA allow Topps to include their "rookie cards" in the base set and slap the RC logo on it.



It's about control for the MLBPA.



And once they decided to go with Fanatics and screw over Topps, the folks at Topps knew that their little codified agreement was about as worthless as toilet paper and if the MLBPA was going to screw over Topps, well...... why not print rookie cards of every decent prospect and kill demand for Fanatics produced "rookie cards" for a decade.



That's why they killed off Bowman Heritage. That's why the Fanatics buyout of Topps was crucial. Fanatics saved several years worth of rookie cards for themselves that otherwise would have been in 21 BB and 21 Bowman Heritage.



Anyone who thinks it was a simple checklist error after Topps got every checklist right for hundreds of consecutive releases and then was going to make the same mistake for 2 products in a row after Fanatics took the MLBPA license needs their head examined. The cards didn't get printed 2 days before they revealed the checklist.

Rookie cards aren't created. They are what collectors say they are. Why is it so hard for you to accept that there isn't some magical authority out there? You're just butt hurt that most collectors don't agree with you. It's sad really.

Sent from my SM-A505U using Tapatalk