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

[BigSeph]

Originally Posted by kordell1

I asked multiple times with no answer. Beckett defines 2002 Bowman Draft Joey Votto, Greinke, etc... in a prospect only set with BD numbering as Rookie Cards, yet all post 2005 Bowman Draft Prospect only sets are not considered Rookie Cards. What changed?

Nothing. They were in a base checklist shared with "veterans." That's why 02 Votto is a rookie card. The whole checklist was "BDPXXX" he wasn't separated as a prospect card. 2002 BDPP isn't Miguel Cabrera's rookie card. It isn't Justin Morneau's rookie card. They're in the same checklist as Votto.

http://www.baseballcardpedia.com/ind..._%26_Prospects

Could it be that new rules came out in 2006 stating that Rookie Cards could not be in a prospect only set, needed MLBPA licensing, required differing design than prospect cards, and players had to have big league experience and/or be on a 40 man roster?

This is a codified agreement on production practices between a licensee and a license-grantor. There were no "new rules" about rookie cards, the MLBPA and Topps (and I believe Upper Deck at the time too) agreed about checklists for the products they produced.

I understand that not everyone agrees with the 2006 change, but it did happen and seems to be the reason Beckett changed their view on Bowman brand prospect sets

Beckett didn't change anything. If the prospects were included in a base set shared with veterans then that was their rookie card.

Go back in history, through all of the checklists, and let me know when MANUFACTURERS started making 2 sets within the same product, one containing prospects who hadn't debuted yet, and another containing veterans or prospects who had debuted. Like magic the reason for this change will appear to you.

yet decided to change again specifically for 2021 BB which did not meet all those new criteria.

The MLBPA screwed Topps, who then was forced to sell their baseball segment of the company to Fanatics. After getting every single checklist right for 15 years they got one wrong and were about to get another one wrong before 21 Bowman Heritage got memory-holed. What are the odds.

And who wanted the checklists done that way? Was it Topps because after all Bowman was "home of the rookie card" but they were tired of that marketing ploy, so they wanted to make "home of the rookie card" S1 or Update?

How many 1st Bowman cards prior to 2006 are Rookie Cards and how many after? Seems very inconsistent and strange. Maybe Cracknell has a huge stack of 21BB too.

Do me one favor.

Just calm your mind and look carefully at the 2 exhibits below:

Look at this checklist for 2005 Bowman:
http://www.baseballcardpedia.com/index.php/2005_Bowman

Look at this checklist for 2006 Bowman:
http://baseballcardpedia.com/index.php/2006_Bowman

Do you notice anything different about the checklists?

Did BECKETT change anything or did the card manufacturer?

So why are you pretending that Beckett has been anything but consistent?

[kordell1]

Originally Posted by BigSeph

Nothing. They were in a base checklist shared with "veterans." That's why 02 Votto is a rookie card. The whole checklist was "BDPXXX" he wasn't separated as a prospect card. 2002 BDPP isn't Miguel Cabrera's rookie card. It isn't Justin Morneau's rookie card. They're in the same checklist as Votto.

Maybe I'm missing it, but I see 1st Bowman Draft Prospects and Futures Game Prospects, no MLB veterans. I opened a lot of boxes of this product when it came out and it was all Draft and Futures Game prospects when I opened them.

[LVDan]

Seph- you’re clearly passionate about your belief that these are truly, 100% genuine not for debate Rookie Cards. Which is great, and I see above that you’re backing that belief with purchases, also great. You’ve repeatedly laid out the reasons why.
Why bring what Beckett thinks into your reasoning? They seem about as relevant as a phone book or road atlas.
Just curious.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[MiamiMarlinsFan]

Originally Posted by BigSeph

That line of reasoning is stupid on its face.

If you think a stock is a good investment at its current price, should you buy it?

If you buy it and other investors start buying it, and the price goes up because they also believe in the potential, they shouldn't ever tell anyone why they bought it?

If investors in a competing company come on a forum and start bashing the stock that some folks view as a solid long-term play, they shouldn't argue with them about it?

Who stands to profit in such a situation?

I think you know. And I think we can safely assume where your allegiance is.

Dude. I think you’re taking this stuff waaaaaaay too seriously.

Also, if anyone thought I had an “allegiance” to either side, they were wrong. That’s on them.

[BigSeph]

Originally Posted by kordell1

Maybe I'm missing it, but I see 1st Bowman Draft Prospects and Futures Game Prospects, no MLB veterans. I opened a lot of boxes of this product when it came out and it was all Draft and Futures Game prospects when I opened them.

They share a checklist with players who already had rookie cards.

[OhioLawyerF5]

Originally Posted by BigSeph

Nothing. They were in a base checklist shared with "veterans." That's why 02 Votto is a rookie card. The whole checklist was "BDPXXX" he wasn't separated as a prospect card. 2002 BDPP isn't Miguel Cabrera's rookie card. It isn't Justin Morneau's rookie card. They're in the same checklist as Votto.

There are no veterans on the checklist, even by Beckett's definition. Even Beckett defines veterans as major league players. Having a previous card doesn't change that.

EDIT: this made me go back and re-read Beckett's article on BB21 from December. It's quite interesting the number of times they reference how there have always been debates and disagreements over what constitutes a rookie card. They claim (falsely) that they've been consistent, but this proves my point that there isn't this magical "traditional" definition. Even Beckett says there were lots of definitions traditionally, they just claim their's is the best.

Sent from my SM-A505U using Tapatalk

[BigSeph]

Originally Posted by LVDan

Seph- you’re clearly passionate about your belief that these are truly, 100% genuine not for debate Rookie Cards. Which is great, and I see above that you’re backing that belief with purchases, also great. You’ve repeatedly laid out the reasons why.
Why bring what Beckett thinks into your reasoning? They seem about as relevant as a phone book or road atlas.
Just curious.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Because every argument ends up with an ultimate "appeal" to something outside of yourself.

Just because you say "X is true" doesn't mean it's true. You have to attempt to prove that "X is true" if someone says no, it's actually not true. Or if you want to convince people that are skeptical.

So all of us end up resorting to some external authority on this topic.

The RC logo crowd is resorting to a manufacturing agreement between the MLBPA and Topps about checklists.

That's not a good authority, for multiple reasons

- the MLBPA only controls appearances for MLBPA players, and the hobby extends beyond baseball cards

- the MLBPA's agreement with Topps was less than 20 years ago

- the manufacturing agreement doesn't contain any definition as to what a rookie card actually is

- rookie cards have been produced without RC logos (JT Realmuto, Kike Hernandez, etc)

- RC logos appear on cards that aren't rookie cards (inserts)

So that entire framework is inconsistent. It has changed over time, there are exceptions, and can result in some players (like Realmuto) having a rookie card according to Beckett, but not according to "must have RC logo" rules like Victor the Rookie Card Guy says.

On the other hand, if you appeal to Beckett as the external authority on what is and is not a rookie card, you have

- an external authority not directly involved in the manufacturing process of baseball cards, with decades of experience and subject authority on ALL sports cards

- a consistent definition of the rookie card for decades with the exception of boxed "traded" sets

- a neutral party who likely has endured some pressure from Fanatics/MLBPA to alter their categorization of 21 BB as rookie cards, but has resisted

- a recognized name in the hobby

So it's not that I believe Beckett should be the whole arbiter of what is and is not a rookie card, it's just that using their definition creates far fewer conflicts, obvious logical holes, and the excludes weird situations where a player never had a rookie card.

We all have to appeal to something outside of ourselves as the "ultimate authority" in any argument. I think the market decides ultimately what is desired and what is undesirable but that's a floating target, and the reason that Mr. Lawyerguy is reduced to logical absurdity when he tries to use no standard as the standard for rookie cards.

And I think Beckett's standard is way more useful and provides a level of utility when discerning what is and is not a rookie card, because it requires a card to be part of a base checklist shared with veterans. I don't think people realize that the MLBPA and Topps' manufacturing agreement had to use some external authority to determine what was considered a rookie card, and ironically their solution was to keep prospects on a separate checklist.

[MoreToppsPlease]

Originally Posted by BigSeph

The MLBPA screwed Topps, who then was forced to sell their baseball segment of the company to Fanatics. After getting every single checklist right for 15 years they got one wrong and were about to get another one wrong before 21 Bowman Heritage got memory-holed. What are the odds.

This made me LoL. Technically Topps works FOR the MLBPA as a licensee, and they weren’t investing in their operation before being sold.

[OhioLawyerF5]

Originally Posted by BigSeph

Because every argument ends up with an ultimate "appeal" to something outside of yourself.



Just because you say "X is true" doesn't mean it's true. You have to attempt to prove that "X is true" if someone says no, it's actually not true. Or if you want to convince people that are skeptical.



So all of us end up resorting to some external authority on this topic.



The RC logo crowd is resorting to a manufacturing agreement between the MLBPA and Topps about checklists.



That's not a good authority, for multiple reasons



- the MLBPA only controls appearances for MLBPA players, and the hobby extends beyond baseball cards



- the MLBPA's agreement with Topps was less than 20 years ago



- the manufacturing agreement doesn't contain any definition as to what a rookie card actually is



- rookie cards have been produced without RC logos (JT Realmuto, Kike Hernandez, etc)



- RC logos appear on cards that aren't rookie cards (inserts)



So that entire framework is inconsistent. It has changed over time, there are exceptions, and can result in some players (like Realmuto) having a rookie card according to Beckett, but not according to "must have RC logo" rules like Victor the Rookie Card Guy says.



On the other hand, if you appeal to Beckett as the external authority on what is and is not a rookie card, you have



- an external authority not directly involved in the manufacturing process of baseball cards, with decades of experience and subject authority on ALL sports cards



- a consistent definition of the rookie card for decades with the exception of boxed "traded" sets



- a neutral party who likely has endured some pressure from Fanatics/MLBPA to alter their categorization of 21 BB as rookie cards, but has resisted



- a recognized name in the hobby



So it's not that I believe Beckett should be the whole arbiter of what is and is not a rookie card, it's just that using their definition creates far fewer conflicts, obvious logical holes, and the excludes weird situations where a player never had a rookie card.



We all have to appeal to something outside of ourselves as the "ultimate authority" in any argument. I think the market decides ultimately what is desired and what is undesirable but that's a floating target, and the reason that Mr. Lawyerguy is reduced to logical absurdity when he tries to use no standard as the standard for rookie cards.



And I think Beckett's standard is way more useful and provides a level of utility when discerning what is and is not a rookie card, because it requires a card to be part of a base checklist shared with veterans. I don't think people realize that the MLBPA and Topps' manufacturing agreement had to use some external authority to determine what was considered a rookie card, and ironically their solution was to keep prospects on a separate checklist.

Are you under the impression that Beckett doesn't have their own biases and financial interests in this? You can't discount Topps and MLBPA for those reasons and ignore Beckett's. I wholeheartedly reject Beckett as a "neutral" authority on the hobby. I suspect most collectors do too. That's why my solution is let collectors decide. It might be fluid and subject to change from year to year, but at least it's what collectos want, rather than what Beckett tells us to want.

Sent from my SM-A505U using Tapatalk

[pete2345]

THREAD/

[ThoseBackPages]

pete, the adults are chatting

[BigSeph]

Originally Posted by OhioLawyerF5

There are no veterans on the checklist, even by Beckett's definition. Even Beckett defines veterans as major league players. Having a previous card doesn't change that.

EDIT: this made me go back and re-read Beckett's article on BB21 from December. It's quite interesting the number of times they reference how there have always been debates and disagreements over what constitutes a rookie card. They claim (falsely) that they've been consistent, but this proves my point that there isn't this magical "traditional" definition. Even Beckett says there were lots of definitions traditionally, they just claim their's is the best.

Sent from my SM-A505U using Tapatalk

If I spell this out for you, will you stop pestering me like an annoying little gnat that I can't get rid of?

I will now spoonfeed you like a helpless little baby, and let's see if you can put things together. Use your brain, try it.

BDPP 2002 was released in December of 2002. Orlando Hudson was on the checklist.

https://www.baseball-reference.com/p...udsoor01.shtml

How many games did Orlando Hudson play in 2002?

Stop posting in my direction, I know being rolled up and smoked repeatedly has to be doing serious damage to your ego, but that's not my problem.

You are on the verge of being the first person ever added to my ignore list on this forum, because I don't have time to spoonfeed hobby knowledge to little babies who want this much attention.

[Pacmeyer]

Originally Posted by pete2345

THREAD/

Guys like you live for this thread or you wouldn't keep coming back for more.

[OhioLawyerF5]

Originally Posted by BigSeph

If I spell this out for you, will you stop pestering me like an annoying little gnat that I can't get rid of?



I will now spoonfeed you like a helpless little baby, and let's see if you can put things together. Use your brain, try it.



BDPP 2002 was released in December of 2002. Orlando Hudson was on the checklist.



https://www.baseball-reference.com/p...udsoor01.shtml



How many games did Orlando Hudson play in 2002?



Stop posting in my direction, I know being rolled up and smoked repeatedly has to be doing serious damage to your ego, but that's not my problem.



You are on the verge of being the first person ever added to my ignore list on this forum, because I don't have time to spoonfeed hobby knowledge to little babies who want this much attention.

If you had read what Beckett said on the matter you'd know Beckett categorizes 3 types of players, prospect, veteran, and rookies. They then go on to say a rookie card must be in a set with veterans and not just rookies and prospects. So let ME spoonfeed this to you slowly. Was Orlando Hudson a rookie in 2002 or a veteran? If he was a rookie, it is a set with only rookies and prospects, which Beckett explicitly says is a not a major league release. Try again smart guy. Maybe read Beckett's press release on the subject before worshipping it.

https://www.beckett.com/news/how-202...several-years/

"The set includes veterans. If a set is only prospects and rookies, it’s considered a prospect or minor league set. That’s why recent Bowman Draft Baseball sets don’t have RCs. For several years the base set has been exclusively draft picks and prospects."

Sent from my SM-A505U using Tapatalk

[BigSeph]

Originally Posted by OhioLawyerF5

If you had read what Beckett said on the matter you'd know Beckett categorizes 3 types of cards, prospect, veteran, and rookies. They then go on to say a rookie card must be in a set with veterans and not just rookies and prospects. So let ME spoonfeed this to you slowly. Was Orlando Hudson a rookie in 2002 or a veteran? If he was a rookie, it is a set with only rookies and prospects, which Beckett explicitly says is a not a major league release. Try again smart guy. Maybe read Beckett's press release on the subject before worshipping it.

Sent from my SM-A505U using Tapatalk

It brings me great pleasure to add you to my ban list, and leave your huge ego in ashes.

Orlando Hudson's rookie card was in 2001 Bowman Heritage. His 2002 BDPP card was a 2nd year or "veteran" card.

The great joy of this post is that I never have to read another one of your rambling posts with arguments that would embarrass small children, ever again. And you are left knowing that yet again, all of your efforts to argue against 21 BB are futile.

I hope this smirking image of Orlando Hudson is an eternal reminder to learn what you are talking about and research a topic first, and then open your mouth and start arguing about it with people who actually put in the time to formulate educated and rational opinions on a topic.

[OhioLawyerF5]

Originally Posted by BigSeph

It brings me great pleasure to add you to my ban list, and leave your huge ego in ashes.



Orlando Hudson's rookie card was in 2001 Bowman Heritage. His 2002 BDPP card was a 2nd year or "veteran" card.



The great joy of this post is that I never have to read another one of your rambling posts with arguments that would embarrass small children, ever again. And you are left knowing that yet again, all of your efforts to argue against 21 BB are futile.



I hope this smirking image of Orlando Hudson is an eternal reminder to learn what you are talking about and research a topic first, and then open your mouth and start arguing about it with people who actually put in the time to formulate educated and rational opinions on a topic.

Re-read it smart guy. Beckett said "If the set is made up of only rookies and prospects..." Notice it does not say rookie and prospect cards. It's talking about the player's status. It doesn't matter if Hudson had a previous card, he was still not a veteran in 2002. End of story. Is 2021 Bowman Draft a veteran set or a prospect set? There are players who have a previous card and even Beckett doesn't consider those rookies. Previous card status doesn't make a player a veteran.

It's cute when people block others just because they dare to challenge their precious beliefs. Maybe they're not as deeply held as you think.

Sent from my SM-A505U using Tapatalk

[Pacmeyer]

Originally Posted by OhioLawyerF5

It's cute when people block others just because they dare to challenge their precious beliefs. Maybe they're not as deeply held as you think.

If anyone has blocked you, it's probably due to your annoying and dismissive tone... echo chamber, smart guy, kool aid. Also the fact that your treatise-length posts are clogging the page.

[OhioLawyerF5]

Originally Posted by Pacmeyer

If anyone has blocked you, it's probably due to your annoying and dismissive tone... echo chamber, smart guy, kool aid. Also the fact that your treatise-length posts are clogging the page.

Are you blind to BigSeph's posts or just ignoring them? He's been nothing but condescending with a far more dismissive and arrogant tone than me. I was just returning his tone back to him. Go back and see who started acting like that first. It's amazing how you overlook things from people who you agree with.

That's not even to mention the 2 full pages of personal attacks about my profession and qualifications that I simply ignored because they were ignorant and childish and just evidence they don't really have valid arguments, just ad hominem attacks.

Further, my post have been typically shorter than his, and he was the one who asked/challenged people to argue with him. You can't complain about my lengthy posts without also condemning him.

Sent from my SM-A505U using Tapatalk

[jhssketchcards]

So as I’ve read much of this what I’m gathering (please correct me if I’m wrong) is that these are RCs in BB21 for one reason alone..
That they are sequentially numbered within a base set that includes veterans.

However, other criteria that was agreed to in the 2006 Trading Card Summit was that to be defined as a RC they also:

•had to be licensed by MLBPA (BB21 prospects) are not licensed
•had to be of the same card design as veterans cards of the same set (BB21 prospects are not)
•had to be on the MLB 40-man roster at some point in their debut season that coincides with the set year release Wander was the only one?)

It’s hard to keep up with all of this. All I know is I bought a few lol.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[ThoseBackPages]

BWJ with HR #11!

[ScooterD]

Originally Posted by ThoseBackPages

BWJ with HR #11!

In the Wander thread… c’mon Eric, do better

[pspa123]

He is expected back tomorrow.

[pete2345]

Good time of year to use these cards for kindling.

[clocsta2323]

Originally Posted by ThoseBackPages

BWJ with HR #11!

Dang.. this thread was justifiably dead and you bump it with a BWJ home run...for what? Do you really have nothing better to do?

You are a pitiable dude.

[pewe]

Originally Posted by pete2345

Good time of year to use these cards for kindling.

When it’s hot… we need it hotter???


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk