Need help on MLBPA deal.....

BigRedMachine

I remember the thread recently where there was a new MLBPA deal out which would not allow Topps to manufacture rookie cards of players until they had played. Is this true? If it is, it brings me to my question.

I don't purchase a lot of boxes for financial reasons (simply put, I'm too middle class to out-buy most of you.) but I usually purchase a box or two of Bowman Chrome baseball for the future rookies. Is 2005, therefore, the last year Bowman Chrome will be chaulked full of rookies for some time?

I mean, if a new deal is in effect, how long will it be before rookie cards are prevelent in this issue again? The guys who won't play their first major league game until a few years from now are already in Bowman Chrome 2003, 2004, 2005, etc. If I'm understanding the new agreement, it may be 2008 or 2009 before Bowman Chrome has rookies again.

Am I making any sense at all?

Will Bowman Chrome be a hot commodity again anytime soon? Because next years "big stud" rookie was probably already on a Bowman Chrome rookie card a year or two ago. So who will be the rookie for 2006 Bowman Chrome? Will there be any? Will this affect the brand?

It's official, I think I'm rambling now.

Shawn.

fsjeter

Kind of. It is my understanding they can still produce "prospect" or "Draft Pick" cards. They will NOT be classified as rookie cards. Only cards issued after the player has played a major league game will be classified as "Rookie Cards." I may be wrong though.

Scott

Stone193

Shawn
Here's an article by Rocky Landsverk in SCD this week: should give you some insight.



mike

Steelcity99

Thanks for the article Stone, that sorted a few things out on my end. I guess the question I would ask is related to the true market value of the '06 and continuing Bowman "insert" cards. I mean, I see the intent of the MLBPA move to make baseball rookies more like those in football and basketball where the collector isn't waiting several years to find out if they even make the majors, but I don't see the collecting public at-large as all of a sudden not considering the Bowman insert cards to be "true" rookies even if they don't have the RC designation. (That wasn't terribly clear on my part) To draw a parallel: Say the BC David Wright "insert" card were to come out in '07 and his card with the RC designation didn't come out until '09, would anyone not consider the '07 BC card to be his "true" rookie and therefore more valuable? Just curious what folks think....

helionaut

I think that far from clarifying things, it will only muddy the waters. Basically what they are saying is that Topps and UD can still make cards with players not on the 40-man roster but they won't get a little logo on the back of the card, as if that matters. For instance, if the rule was in place this year instead of next year, Billy Butler would still have his Topps Gallery, Heritage, Bowman, Bowman Chrome, Topps Chrome, etc., but they wouldn't be called "rookie cards" in Beckett or have the little logo, which they imagine would make people perceive them as being somthing other than his most desirable cards. His "true" rookie cards won't be out until 2008 or so, when he makes it to the bigs. This is, of course, laughable. That they are now calling Bowman rookies "minor league cards" is the degradation of history that we've come to expect from baseball and marketing companies of all sorts.

It says in the article that a Bowman card of a minor leaguer is a rookie card this year, but it won't be next year, and that that is actually easier to understand than the current situation. That's an example of Beckett talking out of its desire to keep in everyone's favor. Their own definition of rookie card never made sense, anyway. You see people all the time calling parallel and insert cards rookies, which, of course, they are unless your name is James Beckett.

The market has clearly defined what the most desirable cards of a player are, and since 1993 or so, they haven't been what Beckett defines as a "rookie card." What is more desirable, a 1994 SP Alex Rodriguez, or a 1994 SP Die-cut Holoview Alex Rodriguez? A 1996 Topps Chrome Kobe Bryant or a 1996 Topps Chrome Refractor Kobe Bryant? A 2002 SP Authentic Team USA Future Watch insert card, or any of his 2003 "rookie cards"? Actually the last one might be the latter, maybe the Bowman Chrome autograph, but my point is that the market typically elevates parallels, inserts, and other non-Beckett-RC cards above base rookie cards owing to scarcity and special features, regardless of what designation they have in Beckett. And in my examples, "desirability" = "market value." that's what this is all about, of course, helping to level the playing field between the two remaining companies.

So next year there will be cards of 2006 draft picks, and whoever isn't included in 2005 sets, and they'll still be rookie cards in my view.

CDsNuts

I was thinking the same thing. You can call a card whatever you want, but it's value will be determined by the prices it brings. And it's a joke that they think people will not consider a player's first card produced in a major league set his RC. Hmmm, let's see...

Which Johnny Johnlinson card do I think is his rookie card- His 2006 Bowman Chrome Top Prospects "insert card" that comes out at the same rate as any other card in the set, or his 2009 Topps Chrome card that has a little "Rookie card" stamp on it?

Topps has been putting "All Star Rookie" and "Rookie Pitchers" and other crap on cards for years, but do collectors consider them RCs if they aren't their first card? Does anybody consider 1978 Topps Dale Murphy's RC? Hell, McGwire's 85 Topps card was produced before he was even in any team's organization, and even though some people consider 1987 his RC, which is more desirable?

Bottom line, if it's in a MLB set and it's a guy's first card, it's his RC in the eyes of collectors. If they wanted to make a splash they should have just eliminated cards of Minor Leaguers all together. After all, it's not really fair to the guys who worked their way up to the majors to be held in the same esteem as the guys who have yet to do so and may never get there. How many 1997 Bowman Rookies never made it to the big time? I mean we've gotten to the point that these RC packed sets have made the Minor League card industry obsolete which is a shame. The whole point of getting somebody's minor league card is to have something before they got called up and did well, but now a player can have his first major league card and minor league card in the same set. What's the point of the minor league set?

Lee