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

[Shankweather]

Originally Posted by FreshOutThePack

I'm pretty sure the logo guys and the WAR guys are the same people.

HOW DARE YOU. I'm a proud pro-WAR pro-Beckett old-fashioned stat geek. Baseball Reference and Beckett are two of my favorite things in the world.

[mgariepy14]

SaveMeTheGUm Someone just resurrected an old thread from 2016 "What is a true MLB RC?" that is on the front page. You should go back an read your response on first page from 2016, do you still abide by those rules?

[FreshOutThePack]

Originally Posted by Shankweather

HOW DARE YOU. I'm a proud pro-WAR pro-Beckett old-fashioned stat geek. Baseball Reference and Beckett are two of my favorite things in the world.

Okay, maybe not all the same people. And yeah Beckett is cool, I enjoy the articles, I just wouldn't recommend it for day-to-day pricing on cards that are volatile.

You've brought some great insight to this RC card conversation. I appreciate it.

[brewtown107]

Originally Posted by imbluestreak23

I mean, you say that you don't care if Topps knowingly or unknowingly did this. For arguments sake, let's assume Topps knowingly and purposefully did this, implying they knew the RC implications to screw over Fanatics. Your point is we should omit this because it was malicious and deceptive? Like a Rodgers "I'm immunized" kinda deceptive?

If Topps did this, they knew they were creating a card that the hobby would call rookies. Just as they knew they were placing George Bush and Derek Jeter together, just as they knew inserting a #2 draft pick into a Topps set who never made his MLB debut in 2006 was a violation of their rules. They know! An we deal with the consequences. Part of what makes it fun!

I really don't care if Topps did this intentionally or unintentionally. That is true.

I really don't follow your point about Aaron Rodgers, but my point, if this is intentional, is that we don't have to let it ruin our fun in the hobby.

Some of you guys are saying you love this little development, so I'm obviously not speaking to you with this argument. You are not my audience.

But there are a lot of folks who are saying this sucks and they hate it and I understand why. It's actually nice for there to be a variety of different RCs available in different products at different price points. If I were looking forward to collecting RCs of my favorite players in future years---not just Wander, but Witt, JRod, Jason, etc.---in sets I actually like, like Flagship, Chrome, Heritage, etc., without having to endure incessant blather about those cards "not being RCs" then I'd be pretty bummed about this development too.

To be honest, I'm not actually in that camp personally. I don't care for my own purposes. The stuff I collect often doesn't qualify as an RC under the common rules, and I don't care about that. But I'm speaking for that side of the argument, because the loud, dominant minority here (per the poll) keeps shouting down and browbeating resistance to the rules are rules party line, saying there's no reasonable argument to the contrary.

I'm saying there *is* a reasonable argument to not apply the rule. My point is that we do actually have a choice. Rules are rules, except when an exception is warranted. If Topps mucking this up makes the hobby worse for people, they can simply proceed as if these prospect cards are the non RCs they were designed to be, and that they're supposed to be.

[rfgilles]

Originally Posted by FreshOutThePack

I'm pretty sure the logo guys and the WAR guys are the same people.

I am a BB50 and WAR guy.

[brewtown107]

Originally Posted by ThoseBackPages

what is a "True" RC?

Mantle has one RC, or have you guys now made his '52 releases RCs as well?

Originally Posted by ThoseBackPages

since they dont have MLBPA logos, is every card issued before 1966 now not a RC?

This is nonsense. You've Wandered into the realm of gibberish. Someone get this old guy his meds!

[Shankweather]

Originally Posted by brewtown107

I really don't care if Topps did this intentionally or unintentionally. That is true.

I really don't follow your point about Aaron Rodgers, but my point, if this is intentional, is that we don't have to let it ruin our fun in the hobby.

Some of you guys are saying you love this little development, so I'm obviously not speaking to you with this argument. You are not my audience.

But there are a lot of folks who are saying this sucks and they hate it and I understand why. It's actually nice for there to be a variety of different RCs available in different products at different price points. If I were looking forward to collecting RCs of my favorite players in future years---not just Wander, but Witt, JRod, Jason, etc.---in sets I actually like, like Flagship, Chrome, Heritage, etc., without having to endure incessant blather about those cards "not being RCs" then I'd be pretty bummed about this development too.

To be honest, I'm not actually in that camp personally. I don't care for my own purposes. The stuff I collect often doesn't qualify as an RC under the common rules, and I don't care about that. But I'm speaking for that side of the argument, because the loud, dominant minority here (per the poll) keeps shouting down and browbeating resistance to the rules are rules party line, saying there's no reasonable argument to the contrary.

I'm saying there *is* a reasonable argument to not apply the rule. My point is that we do actually have a choice. Rules are rules, except when an exception is warranted. If Topps mucking this up makes the hobby worse for people, they can simply proceed as if these prospect cards are the non RCs they were designed to be, and that they're supposed to be.

I think most of us arguing for using the rule also agree that this isn't ideal. It would have been better had Topps not done this. But you can't really undo it.

I think one of the reasonable arguments for applying the rule is that Topps didn't really "make the hobby worse," because people are still going to chase Wander's 2022 "RC"s. People chase cards every year that aren't true RCs. Refractors, variations, auto inserts and so on. That's not going to change. 2021 Bowman's Best will have a very small negative impact on the value and desirability of 2022-2025. The only real impact of significance is elevating 2021 BB way higher than it normally would have been.

[brewtown107]

Originally Posted by redauto5

Ok, so can an "error" or a "screw up" be intentional?

Hmm, in the vast majority of cases I'd say no. A screw up or an error is usually portrayed as accidental.

What a "screw up" or and "error" DOES have to include is an explanation by the perp. If they don't explain it as an accident, at the LEAST they must address the issue and show remorse in some way. Usually followed by their reasoning for said screw up or error if it was, in fact, intentional.

Yes, I'm thinking of all the times I've had to fall on my sword in my marriage lol.

Topps has done none of these things and I don't expect them to.

In other words, "deal with it".

We are dealing with it.



Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

Does it? I've never heard that reasoning before in my life. Something is not considered a screw up if the perp doesn't admit it? That's a new on one me. Not even being facetious here.

And again, most people here agree, including a lot of the loudest voices on your side of the issue, that this was a screw up. Do I need to bump posts again?

[brewtown107]

Originally Posted by redauto5

I appreciate your earlier post on agency, and our ability to think for ourselves. We aren't beholden to Topps or the MLBPA or "old heads" in deciding if we as individuals will take the massive leap with massive consequences that these 30 cards are, in fact, rookies. I respect your use of your own agency in deciding they are not.

I'm using my agency to decide they are. Because I'm an "old head" and to me, regardless of the massive 5 year earthquake it is causing, these are in fact Rookie Cards. Call it black and white thinking, call it being manipulated by Topps, call it what you will. I'm not close to being alone in my use of agency. Your attempt in putting the genie back in the bottle is a noble one, but in my opinion it's just not going to work.

You're going to have to hear about this set over and over and over for the next 5, 10, 20 years. I'm sorry man.

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

Fair enough. I'm not trying to deny anyone their agency in deciding an exception does not apply, in their opinion, in this case.

I also agree there is no putting the genie back in the bottle. When JRod (for example) RCs/(RCs) come out in 2023, we're going to hear about this.

But folks need to understand that there's a reason---aside from greed or stupidity---why The Rule can be disregarded here. Exceptions are allowed, and a lot of folks will be making an exception here. The "RCS are RCs" folks need to respect that too. That's the point I'm making.

[brewtown107]

Originally Posted by rfgilles

Have you read this thread?

You are clearly very confused. Nobody is accepting your "error" definition. Let it go.

Are you sure?

[brewtown107]

Originally Posted by ThoseBackPages

K.I.S.S. indeed

When the RC truthers start telling folks in the hobby that the RC they're holding with the RC logo on it is not actually a RC, who is going to have to do the explaining? Especially for prospects in this set who don't debut until 1, 2, 3 seasons from now? Your side is going to be the one trying to explain.

[SaltyCracker]

[ThoseBackPages]

Originally Posted by brewtown107

When the RC truthers start telling folks in the hobby that the RC they're holding with the RC logo on it is not actually a RC, who is going to have to do the explaining? Especially for prospects in this set who don't debut until 1, 2, 3 seasons from now? Your side is going to be the one trying to explain.

yes, and our explanation will be the same for sure

[rangerfan19]

Originally Posted by brewtown107

Fair enough. I'm not trying to deny anyone their agency in deciding an exception does not apply, in their opinion, in this case.

I also agree there is no putting the genie back in the bottle. When JRod (for example) RCs/(RCs) come out in 2023, we're going to hear about this.

But folks need to understand that there's a reason---aside from greed or stupidity---why The Rule can be disregarded here. Exceptions are allowed, and a lot of folks will be making an exception here. The "RCS are RCs" folks need to respect that too. That's the point I'm making.

The reason, I believe, that I am so adamant that an exception should not be made is that it toally clouds what constitutes a rookie card. Right now, we have the simple, easy rule of "first base card in a mainstream set." If we make an exception now, we open Pandora's box and can start manipulating the rule even further in the future.

[Bcr]

Originally Posted by brewtown107

Fair enough. I'm not trying to deny anyone their agency in deciding an exception does not apply, in their opinion, in this case.

I also agree there is no putting the genie back in the bottle. When JRod (for example) RCs/(RCs) come out in 2023, we're going to hear about this.

But folks need to understand that there's a reason---aside from greed or stupidity---why The Rule can be disregarded here. Exceptions are allowed, and a lot of folks will be making an exception here. The "RCS are RCs" folks need to respect that too. That's the point I'm making.

Completely agree with this!

[Shankweather]

Originally Posted by brewtown107

When the RC truthers start telling folks in the hobby that the RC they're holding with the RC logo on it is not actually a RC, who is going to have to do the explaining? Especially for prospects in this set who don't debut until 1, 2, 3 seasons from now? Your side is going to be the one trying to explain.

How did anyone know what a rookie card was before the logo?

[SaveMeTheGum]

Originally Posted by mgariepy14

SaveMeTheGUm Someone just resurrected an old thread from 2016 "What is a true MLB RC?" that is on the front page. You should go back an read your response on first page from 2016, do you still abide by those rules?

Yes, I do. My argument here is more that BB50 is not a rookie. I still consider, to me, 2019 1st Bowman is still the “rookie” For me as far as how I collect. But as far as the textbook RC goes, I will recognize 2022 for Wander. And some year in the future Dominguez and the other prospects in 2021 Best, regardless of how they’re numbered.

[Bcr]

Originally Posted by brewtown107

When the RC truthers start telling folks in the hobby that the RC they're holding with the RC logo on it is not actually a RC, who is going to have to do the explaining? Especially for prospects in this set who don't debut until 1, 2, 3 seasons from now? Your side is going to be the one trying to explain.

Imagine being a kid trying to rationalize this. The checklist and card both say it's a rookie, but an old hobby vet comes out explaining the number on the back of the card 3 years ago says it's not. "OK Boomer"...

[redauto5]

Originally Posted by rangerfan19

Thank y'all! Solidarity!



It's funny, I get so fired up about this topic, mostly just because I love this hobby, that the way I have been calming myself down is by buying more and more 2021 BBest singles. I read comments, let them stew, and then go buy 2 Bobby Witt, Jr. refractors, lol.

Ha! We are cut from the same cloth.

Bought 3 Witt refractors myself over the last few days, along with a LOT of the other Thoughtful Thirty.

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

[ThoseBackPages]

The Rookie Card Definition doesn't care about your feelings

[ClevelandIC]

Originally Posted by redauto5

Ha! We are cut from the same cloth.

Bought 3 Witt refractors myself over the last few days, along with a LOT of the other Thoughtful Thirty.

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

Favorite thing I've read about this entire discussion! I hope we call the cards from this set the Thoughtful Thirty from now on!

[brewtown107]

Originally Posted by Shankweather

I think most of us arguing for using the rule also agree that this isn't ideal. It would have been better had Topps not done this. But you can't really undo it.

I think one of the reasonable arguments for applying the rule is that Topps didn't really "make the hobby worse," because people are still going to chase Wander's 2022 "RC"s. People chase cards every year that aren't true RCs. Refractors, variations, auto inserts and so on. That's not going to change. 2021 Bowman's Best will have a very small negative impact on the value and desirability of 2022-2025. The only real impact of significance is elevating 2021 BB way higher than it normally would have been.

Shankweather, you have been civil in this thread at all times and have argued the points, not the people, and for that, you have earned my respect, if not my agreement.

I don't think you can undo it. But you can ignore it. It's not hard to do. We in the hobby have been ignoring Bowman's Best for years! We've gotten pretty good at it!

On a more serious note, I contend that Topps really did make the hobby worse, because they've taken away, in many minds, rookie cards in the majority of products for all 30 of these players. If the rule is applied that is.

It's not even about value. It's something less tangible than that---that 2022 Flagship's, or 2023 Chrome's, or 2024 Heritage's top "RCs" are in question and may not be desirable. "That's not a RC, are you one of those slaves for the logo?" Who wants to collect what is questionable and not desirable? There will be a lot of folks peeing in people's cornflakes over this, on both sides. In that sense, this makes the hobby worse.

That said, I do agree with redauto5 above that the genie is out of the bottle now. Those conversations are inevitable now. But folks need to understand there are 2 reasonable sides to this issue. My motivation for posting was watching this thread devolve into so many of the "RC truther" crowd (but not you) act so arrogant and dismissive of other viewpoints.

[BabaORiley]

I'm not sure why I just thought of this but I did and I can't get it out of my head:

I wish the guy that had the meltdown over 2018 Silver Packs would weigh in on the RC Logo vs. BB50 argument. I'd wager dollars to donuts he'd be one of the loudest RC logo proponents in this thread.

[ThoseBackPages]

[pewe]

Originally Posted by rangerfan19

The reason, I believe, that I am so adamant that an exception should not be made is that it toally clouds what constitutes a rookie card. Right now, we have the simple, easy rule of "first base card in a mainstream set." If we make an exception now, we open Pandora's box and can start manipulating the rule even further in the future.

I thought the definition is:

“a ‘rookie card’ must come from a fully-licensed (both MLB and MLBPA), nationally-distributed set that is primarily focused on current Major League players… It must be a base card and cannot be an insert, parallel, or redemption card”

…I don’t believe the BBest Wander card meets that definition fully. Particularly it is not MLBPA licensed.

So how is it not Pandora’s box if we do accept it as a ‘rookie card’?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk