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

[OhioLawyerF5]

Originally Posted by pewe

What are the "both ways"? There looks like only one RC definition, yet again.

All you've said is: everyone agreed on what the hobby believes is a RC. And MLB/MLBA didn't always like when Topps issued a RC before they were ready for the player to have one.

So they made an agreement, that
a) memorialized what the hobby considers a RC
b) said "Topps you can't issue something that the hobby will consider a RC without our approval."

I've posted the agreement before so I know you have access to it. So why do you keep saying this? The agreement specifically says a player is a "prospect" and can't be in a major league set if they aren't on the 40 man roster. How exactly is that memorializing the "traditional" RC definition?

[OhioLawyerF5]

Originally Posted by cp312

My one observation is that the '22 Wander cards having the All-Rookie Cup is an acknowledgment that he was a rookie the previous season, and therefore, his rookie card must be from 2021. If he had no cards in 2021, then '22 makes sense as true RCs, but...BB50

There are literally dozens and dozens of rookie cards by the Beckett definition that have the topps rookie cup logo. A player's rookie card being released the year after they debut is not new.

[MiamiMarlinsFan]

Originally Posted by cp312

My one observation is that the '22 Wander cards having the All-Rookie Cup is an acknowledgment that he was a rookie the previous season, and therefore, his rookie card must be from 2021. If he had no cards in 2021, then '22 makes sense as true RCs, but...BB50

So, out of curiosity, which cards do you consider RCs for Alec Bohm and Yordan Alvarez?

[pewe]

Originally Posted by OhioLawyerF5

I've posted the agreement before so I know you have access to it. So why do you keep saying this? The agreement specifically says a player is a "prospect" and can't be in a major league set if they aren't on the 40 man roster. How exactly is that memorializing the "traditional" RC definition?

Great! You are providing even more evidence in support that nothing has changed around the RC definition.

As you know, the contract did two things:
-- confirmed / memorialized the definition of a RC (they used the hobby's traditional definition)
-- established roughly when they would like a player to be issued as a RC (and an approval process)

As you say, MLB/MLBPA generally wanted to restrict RCs to players on the 40 man roster. And even more specifically, players they approve releasing as a RC, as there are players on 40 man rosters that they still don't want released as a RC (e.g., Wander last year).

[cp312]

Originally Posted by MiamiMarlinsFan

So, out of curiosity, which cards do you consider RCs for Alec Bohm and Yordan Alvarez?

Don't follow Bohm, so I don't know anything about his cards or releases.

Did Yordan have a 2019 card in an MLB release that wasn't specifically designated as a prospect card? He has a 2019 bowman chrome prospect card, which is clearly labelled as a prospect card, in a prospect subset, and I think that's it.

As I said, if Wander had no MLB set cards, then sure, 2022, but BB50 is a straight up card in a 2021 MLB base set checklist, not a prospect subset

[cp312]

Originally Posted by OhioLawyerF5

There are literally dozens and dozens of rookie cards by the Beckett definition that have the topps rookie cup logo. A player's rookie card being released the year after they debut is not new.

Not in any way what I was arguing, but sure.

[MiamiMarlinsFan]

Originally Posted by cp312

Don't follow Bohm, so I don't know anything about his cards or releases.

Did Yordan have a 2019 card in an MLB release that wasn't specifically designated as a prospect card? He has a 2019 bowman chrome prospect card, which is clearly labelled as a prospect card, in a prospect subset, and I think that's it.

As I said, if Wander had no MLB set cards, then sure, 2022, but BB50 is a straight up card in a 2021 MLB base set checklist, not a prospect subset

Well, you weren’t this specific in your first post! Haha

All good though, I don’t care either way, I was just wondering.

[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.

[OhioLawyerF5]

Originally Posted by pewe

Great! You are providing even more evidence in support that nothing has changed around the RC definition.

As you know, the contract did two things:
-- confirmed / memorialized the definition of a RC (they used the hobby's traditional definition)
-- established roughly when they would like a player to be issued as a RC (and an approval process)

As you say, MLB/MLBPA generally wanted to restrict RCs to players on the 40 man roster. And even more specifically, players they approve releasing as a RC, as there are players on 40 man rosters that they still don't want released as a RC (e.g., Wander last year).

Um, they explicitly rejected what you claim is the "traditional" definition. The fact that they recognized that the card companies had begun putting prospect cards in their MLB sets and that some people confused them for rookie cards is not evidence that definition was valid. But the fact that they rejected it is evidence that they believe those people who held to that definition are wrong.

[cp312]

Originally Posted by MiamiMarlinsFan

Well, you weren’t this specific in your first post! Haha

All good though, I don’t care either way, I was just wondering.

I've always had problems with starting thoughts halfway through or forgetting some extra context haha

[BigSeph]

Originally Posted by OhioLawyerF5

Um, they explicitly rejected what you claim is the "traditional" definition. The fact that they recognized that the card companies had begun putting prospect cards in their MLB sets and that some people confused them for rookie cards is not evidence that definition was valid. But the fact that they rejected it is evidence that they believe those people who held to that definition are wrong.

It merely codified a procedural standard between a license holder and a licensee to produce baseball cards a certain way.

It was not this magical all-encompassing redefinition of "rookie card" that some people make it out to be.

[OhioLawyerF5]

Originally Posted by BigSeph

It merely codified a procedural standard between a license holder and a licensee to produce baseball cards a certain way.

It was not this magical all-encompassing redefinition of "rookie card" that some people make it out to be.

Correct. Nor was it some type of confirmation that there was a "traditional" definition of rookie card that was magically accepted by everyone as Pewe seems to think.

[pewe]

Originally Posted by OhioLawyerF5

Um, they explicitly rejected what you claim is the "traditional" definition.

If they reject it, then why did they use it verbatim as the definition of what makes a RC?

Originally Posted by OhioLawyerF5

The fact that they recognized that the card companies had begun putting prospect cards in their MLB sets

By "had begun" you mean the common practice that predated any of the contemporary card companies, and had been continued given hobby interest?

Originally Posted by OhioLawyerF5

and that some people confused them for rookie cards is not evidence that definition was valid.

Where is the confusion? They are considered RC by the mainstream hobby.

Originally Posted by OhioLawyerF5

But the fact that they rejected it is evidence that they believe those people who held to that definition are wrong.

So, the mainstream hobby is wrong...

...or is MLB/MLBPA a business. That has no financial interest in minor league, college, international, Team USA, etc. Who wants to ensure they were paid the maximum license fees, AND ensure maximum effort was placed on driving interest in MLB and minimum effort was placed on all other baseball entities. Thus they used their choke chain to bring the card companies into line with their interests.

[pewe]

Originally Posted by BigSeph

It merely codified a procedural standard between a license holder and a licensee to produce baseball cards a certain way.

It was not this magical all-encompassing redefinition of "rookie card" that some people make it out to be.

...are you saying they memorialized no guidelines as to what defines a RC?

...and if they did provide a definition, how does it differ from a traditional definition of a RC?

[OhioLawyerF5]

Originally Posted by pewe

If they reject it, then why did they use it verbatim as the definition of what makes a RC?

They didn't. Not sure why you think they did.

Where is the confusion? They are considered RC by the mainstream hobby.



So, the mainstream hobby is wrong...

Here is the issue. You think the mainstream hobby is right because you believe the "traditional" definition was widely accepted. But you reject the "mainstream hobby" today that thinks your definition is wrong and BB21 is not a rookie. Which is it?

[OhioLawyerF5]

Originally Posted by pewe

...are you saying they memorialized no guidelines as to what defines a RC?

...and if they did provide a definition, how does it differ from a traditional definition of a RC?

I already told you one way. Traditional definition of RC didn't matter if the player was on 40 man roster (as you define it). The agreement was that they must be. Why is this so hard?

[hotcalsun]

I'll state my view succinctly as I can.

2021 BB prospects are not a rookie because they meet the definition of a prospect in the MLB agreement that has been posted in this thread multiple times.

By offering a different design for the prospect cards from the regular combined with traditional rookies being clearly marked with the rookie logos, the prospects fit the definition of "or in such other manner that such Prospects will not be viewed as Rookies". The "or" matters.

Did MLBPA agree to this? No idea. I can understand the argument that with 2021 Bowman Heritage's released either severely delayed or scrapped entirely could be evidence that the MLBPA did not agree.

I recognize weakness in my view and see considerable if not more weakness on the other side of it.

Ultimately the market will decide what is the most desirable Wander Franco RC card and not Beckett, which who knows if Beckett will even be in business 5 years from now. If the market happens to decide it is BB50, so be it.

[pewe]

Originally Posted by OhioLawyerF5

I already told you one way. Traditional definition of RC didn't matter if the player was on 40 man roster (as you define it). The agreement was that they must be. Why is this so hard?

I think you are confusing the a) definition of a RC with, b) what players MLB/BLBPA wants to have a RC.

Its like saying I make cups that hold liquid. For a while I put whatever liquid I want in my cups and sell them to people. MLB/MLBPA dislike my choices, and want to control what liquid is put in my cups. I agree to that arrangement....

...if I mistakenly put the wrong liquid in the cup... is it still a cup?

[BigSeph]

Originally Posted by pewe

...are you saying they memorialized no guidelines as to what defines a RC?

...and if they did provide a definition, how does it differ from a traditional definition of a RC?

The scope of the agreement pertains to the MLBPA (grantor of license) and Topps (the licensee).

It should be absolutely irrelevant to anyone else in the world.

It didn't change anything about the hobby, it just changed the product that enters the hobby. And by their own definition (if you aren't on a 40-man you have to be in a subset or clearly differentiated from the veteran base set) and agreement, they violated any standard they attempted to create when 2021 BB hit the market.

Don't assume the flawed framework of anti-BB bashers to argue against them. Reject their framework because it carries no significance outside of Topps and the MLBPA.

[OhioLawyerF5]

Originally Posted by pewe

I think you are confusing the a) definition of a RC with, b) what players MLB/BLBPA wants to have a RC.

Its like saying I make cups that hold liquid. For a while I put whatever liquid I want in my cups and sell them to people. MLB/MLBPA dislike my choices, and want to control what liquid is put in my cups. I agree to that arrangement....

...if I mistakenly put the wrong liquid in the cup... is it still a cup?

I think you are confusing the definition of a rookie with what you think the definition of a rookie should be.

[OhioLawyerF5]

Originally Posted by BigSeph

The scope of the agreement pertains to the MLBPA (grantor of license) and Topps (the licensee).

It should be absolutely irrelevant to anyone else in the world.

It didn't change anything about the hobby, it just changed the product that enters the hobby. And by their own definition (if you aren't on a 40-man you have to be in a subset or clearly differentiated from the veteran base set) and agreement, they violated any standard they attempted to create when 2021 BB hit the market.

Don't assume the flawed framework of anti-BB bashers to argue against them. Reject their framework because it carries no significance outside of Topps and the MLBPA.

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

[pewe]

Originally Posted by OhioLawyerF5

I think you are confusing the definition of a rookie with what you think the definition of a rookie should be.

Are you suggesting that consumers define what is a RC by who is on the card, and not how the card is designed?

For instance: if Topps included in '22 Series 2 a Marcelo Mayer card with standard design in the base set including a "RC Shield"... would the hobby consider that a RC? Even if it violated the desire of MLB/MLBPA to only ship players "on the active roster"?

[jhssketchcards]

Originally Posted by ThoseBackPages

Correct, parallels (while "worth more") are not Rookie Cards

But they sure are freaking sweet!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[OhioLawyerF5]

Originally Posted by pewe

Are you suggesting that consumers define what is a RC by who is on the card, and not how the card is designed?

For instance: if Topps included in '22 Series 2 a Marcelo Mayer card with standard design in the base set including a "RC Shield"... would the hobby consider that a RC? Even if it violated the desire of MLB/MLBPA to only ship players "on the active roster"?

I think consumers should decide for themselves what cards they believe are a player's rookie cards. I also think definitions within the hobby are ever evolving and subject to change. Our hobby has changed a lot over the years and I'm perfectly ok with having different definitions with different hobby circumstances.

With regard to your example, I personally would not consider a 22 Marcello Mayer card a rookie card, even with the logo. Because I define a rookie card for my purposes, in today's hobby, in such a way that would exclude prospects, regardless of set configuration or rookie logo.

[ObanMontecristo]

Originally Posted by OhioLawyerF5

I think consumers should decide for themselves what cards they believe are a player's rookie cards. I also think definitions within the hobby are ever evolving and subject to change. Our hobby has changed a lot over the years and I'm perfectly ok with having different definitions with different hobby circumstances.

With regard to your example, I personally would not consider a 22 Marcello Mayer card a rookie card, even with the logo. Because I define a rookie card for my purposes, in today's hobby, in such a way that would exclude prospects, regardless of set configuration or rookie logo.

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?