Major League Rule on RCs imposed on Card Manufacturers

Stone193

This has already had an impact on sets and some have slipped out.

How do you feel about this rule.

I think it spells out quite clear whether a card in the future is an RC or not. For one thing, it will have the rookie card logo on it - and it's the same logo no matter what card company you buy it from.

So, if a guy doesn't make the 25 man roster out of spring training, they can't give him the RC logo.

If a player makes the extended 40 man roster on or after Sep 1, they will be able to put the RC logo on the card the following spring with printings.

No more XRCs.

Now, they can still have "prospect cards" in sets like Bowman but they will fall into the category of inserts and again, no RC logo.

One piece of complication - if a guy has an RC - which would now be considered a "prospect" card - those individuals will wind up with two RCs - technically. So, now the arguments will abound?

mike

mikeschmidt

Stone:

I just see Topps as easily circumventing this rule. If they have a regular Topps issue [let's say Heritage] with a subset of "Tomorrow's Stars", which is an insert set of all the 'best' minor-league prospects, won't those, by defacto, be considered the player's rookie card, at least by the hobby? For example, Michael Constanzo was the Phillie's second-round draft pick in 2005. If he makes it to a Topps 2006 regular issue set [through the loophole], but doesn't play in the majors until 2008, everyone will want his 2006 card.

I think, anyway...

BigRedMachine

I think this will be easier to follow and less confusing for the novice collector after about five years have passed.

Companies like Bowman Chrome, for example, put out rookie cards as soon as they sign a contract.

So for example, 2005 bowman chrome may have a "rookie" card of a 19 year old kid who won't make a team until 2009. Then in 2009 he'll have a "true" rookie card, but I can't believe the first bowman chrome would be more valueable.

But like I said, if all the companies follow the rules, it will become more clear in a few years. Unless of course, companies "accidentally" let out cards, a la Gordon in Topps.

shawn

Stone193

<< <i>Stone:

I just see Topps as easily circumventing this rule. If they have a regular Topps issue [let's say Heritage] with a subset of "Tomorrow's Stars", which is an insert set of all the 'best' minor-league prospects, won't those, by defacto, be considered the player's rookie card, at least by the hobby? For example, Michael Constanzo was the Phillie's second-round draft pick in 2005. If he makes it to a Topps 2006 regular issue set [through the loophole], but doesn't play in the majors until 2008, everyone will want his 2006 card.

I think, anyway... >>


Marc
The "key" is that the RC has to be "base brand" and not an insert or prospect - thus, if it DOESN'T have the logo - one can try to call it what they want, but it won't be recognized as a Rookie Card.

The guy has to on the 25 man roster out of spring training or I would suppose if someone is brought up during the season to replace a player.

mike

CON40

What a mess! I'm not sure what to make of this new rule. If Topps is still putting out Bowman and Bowman Draft Pick sets with non-40-man-roster players, won't those cards be the "rookie" cards that will draw the most interest? If Delmon Young becomes a stud this year, the new rule means his official "rookie card" will come out in 2007, 4 years after his initial Bowman RC was issued. Which one would YOU want to purchase?

If I'm reading the rule correctly, this means that Mickey Mantle's 1951 Bowman card would be a "prospect card" and not a true rookie card because he didn't debut until the 1951 season, making his 1952 Topps and Bowman issues his true rookie cards. What horseshit!

BigRedMachine

<< <i>The "key" is that the RC has to be "base brand" and not an insert or prospect - thus, if it DOESN'T have the logo - one can try to call it what they want, but it won't be recognized as a Rookie Card.

The guy has to on the 25 man roster out of spring training or I would suppose if someone is brought up during the season to replace a player.

mike >>



Mike,

It may have to be a base brand to carry the logo, but I honestly think that's unimportant. If a card has the logo in 2010 but the player has another card, especially an insert or auto, in 2008, it will be the more valuable of the two, in my opinion.

The 1992 stadium club Brett Favre card sells much, much better than his 1991 stadium club rookie card (for a variety of reasons). My only point here is collectors have their own way of deciding what card of a player is more valueable. A rookie card designation on the card can leave you saying "I have his rookie", but the card my be much less desireable than another, RC designation or not.

Am I missing the point??

shawn

Brian48

I remember a time when I was a kid, the most valuable (and desirable) card for a player wasn't necessarily the rookie. I remember this with the '70 Bench, '72 Garvey, and vaguely, a few others. Sort of wish things were back the way they were along with .25 cents packs of gum and cheap cards, but I know those days are forever gone.

mikeschmidt

<< <i>
Marc
The "key" is that the RC has to be "base brand" and not an insert or prospect - thus, if it DOESN'T have the logo - one can try to call it what they want, but it won't be recognized as a Rookie Card.

The guy has to on the 25 man roster out of spring training or I would suppose if someone is brought up during the season to replace a player.

mike >>



Mike - I think it's almost completely irrelevant. Tuff Stuff and SCD can make up whatever 'rule' they want about what is, and what is not, a rookie card. But, at the end of the day, I think people will still look at the first card of a player issued in a major set by a major manufacturer. Remember - just because Tuff Stuff and SCD don't call something a rookie card, it doesn't mean that the hobby will suddenly change how it views rookie cards.

~ms

CON40

One very negative side effect of this new logo is that it will be very confusing to novice collectors entering the hobby. I think it's one more blunder that will drive collectors away or stop them from even beginning.

If it truly were like the "old days" they should not use any logos to define a card. Let the collectors sort out and seek the cards that are most important, or valuable, for themselves.

Logos? We don't need no steeenking logos.

WinPitcher

logo means nothing. rookie card is first appearence on a card that was nationally distributed.


Topps or whoever can put any logo on a card that they want.

does not mean that it will be the one that collectors will choose as the 'rookie'

Steve

digicat

I doubt it'll have much of an impact. I mean, they've been putting various "Rookie Card" labels on cards for quite a while. The current market looks towards first cards (usually the insert, numbered, signed ,etc versions) as the key "desirable" cards, and for all intents and purposes, collectors will call THOSE cards the "Rookie Card" or "Best card."

Having "Rookie Card" written on a card will probably have the same effect as having "Rated Rookie" on a Donruss card, the rookie cup on a Topps card, or "Star Rookie" on an Upper Deck card.

Which ones were more popular during their time?
1985 Topps Mark McGwire
1988 Topps Mark McGwire (Rookie logo)

1988 Donruss Gregg Jefferies
1989 Donruss Gregg Jefferies (Rated Rookie)

1988 Topps Traded Jim Abbott
1990 Topps Jim Abbot (Rookie logo)

1988 Topps Traded Robin Ventura
1991 Topps Robin Ventura (Rookie logo)

ndleo

I like the new rules and I hope MLB enforces it strictly. I do not want to see rookie inserts in any product. It would be better for the overall baseball card market if the 2006 hot rookies had actual rookie cards in 2006 product and not in some 2003 or 2004 product. It would drive interest in 2006 products and bring in more novice/casual collectors. 2006 products will have better distrbution in 2006 than compared to a 2004 product.

Today's novice is tomorrow's PSA board junkie.

Tabe

<< <i>I like the new rules and I hope MLB enforces it strictly. I do not want to see rookie inserts in any product. It would be better for the overall baseball card market if the 2006 hot rookies had actual rookie cards in 2006 product and not in some 2003 or 2004 product. It would drive interest in 2006 products and bring in more novice/casual collectors. 2006 products will have better distrbution in 2006 than compared to a 2004 product.

Today's novice is tomorrow's PSA board junkie. >>


I completely agree with you. Unfortunately, this rule won't do that. In fact, I don't see it having much of an impact at all

Tabe

Stone193

<< <i>

<< <i>
Marc
The "key" is that the RC has to be "base brand" and not an insert or prospect - thus, if it DOESN'T have the logo - one can try to call it what they want, but it won't be recognized as a Rookie Card.

The guy has to on the 25 man roster out of spring training or I would suppose if someone is brought up during the season to replace a player.

mike >>



Mike - I think it's almost completely irrelevant. Tuff Stuff and SCD can make up whatever 'rule' they want about what is, and what is not, a rookie card. But, at the end of the day, I think people will still look at the first card of a player issued in a major set by a major manufacturer. Remember - just because Tuff Stuff and SCD don't call something a rookie card, it doesn't mean that the hobby will suddenly change how it views rookie cards.

~ms >>


Marc
I didn't totally answer your question. I'm at work and "work" is getting in the way! LOL

OK - if a RC of a player comes out in 2007, e.g. and they had a hot draft pick auto card in 2004, e.g., the 2004 is still considered his first RC.

This will take some time to "purge" if you know what I mean.

And, BTW, this ruling is not from Tuff Stuff or Beckett e.g. - it's a major league directive for the future.

And, as I said, the RC logo is a major league rather than brand specific.

Does this help?
mike

mikeschmidt

Mike-

No, doesn't really help.

Back to my Michael Constanzo example. Let's say, for instance, that 2006 Bowman releases a Michael Constanzo insert card in a special "Next Generation Stars" series.

And then Michael Constanzo doesn't play in the Major Leagues until 2009, at which point there is a slew of 2009 Michael Constanzo cards, each with the rookie card logo on it.

My prediction/thought would be that the collecting world would focus on the 2006 Bowman Michael Constanzo insert card and, as a hobby, would consider that his rookie card, independent of the fact that the official Rookie Card logo Michael Constanzo cards are not issued until 2009.

I guess what I am saying is this: There seem to be enough loopholes in the language of those MLB rules to basically allow card manufacturers to still issue these players on cards via insert sets in their regular MLB issue. And I truly believe that Topps will fully take advantage of this loophole to get cards out of future prospects as soon as possible.

Stone193

From our discussion some interpretive points and rules:

1. This have NO effect on old RCs.

2. This rule only applies to 2006 and later issues.

3. Any player with an RC or Prospect card prior to 2006 will remain the first card/RC of the individual and as was said - the market will decide which card is worth chasing as assign value by supply and demand.

4. The Logo - is not a brand item but rather MLB property.

5. If the person goes in the expanded 40 man roster in Sep - one probably won't see a rookie card of that individual till the following season's release.

6. The player can not be on the 40 man roster and be in the minor league, they have to COME UP to the majors to be eligible for a RC at the next year's printing.

7. The "first card" of an individual - e.g. a Bowman prospect card, may still be considered by collectors to be the "MORE" important issue and desire it more than a card with the logo later down the road - especially if the card has an auto.

just some ideas
mike

WinPitcher

So basically MLB will not allow topps or whoever to issue a card of a player until they say so?

if that is indeed what is going to happen i have no problem with it.


Steve

ndleo

Based on what this board thinks will happen, why bother buying any other brand except Bowman? This basically gives Topps a monopoly on rookie cards. I have a feeling Upper Deck is not going to accept this.

Will the minor league insert be allowed to wear a MLB jersey? That could tip the scales, for the most part (except for Team USA cards), collectors favor photos in MLB jersey as opposed to minor league jerseys.

Stone193

<< <i>Based on what this board thinks will happen, why bother buying any other brand except Bowman? This basically gives Topps a monopoly on rookie cards. I have a feeling Upper Deck is not going to accept this.

Will the minor league insert be allowed to wear a MLB jersey? That could tip the scales, for the most part (except for Team USA cards), collectors favor photos in MLB jersey as opposed to minor league jerseys. >>


nd

I'm not sure how you came up with that conclusion?

The RC designation was established by the MLBPA and MLB for the upcoming 2006 sets - and the rules apply to BOTH Topps and UD inclusively.

This decision does NOT affect older issue and still allows the card companies to print prospects all day long.
The "future prospect" cards just WON'T have the RC designation.

I still think prospect cards with autos will have a strong position in the marketplace.

One of the MAIN purposes for the RC designation was to make it EASIER for the future kids of the hobby to easily ID a rookie card.

Bringing children back to the hobby with the same gusto of 1990 is the primary aim of the card companies.

The collectors were polled and one of the main reasons they stopped buying modern was that there were, in their own words, TOO many Card companies and TOO many brands or sets to track, collect etc.

mike

softparade

ndleo

I was under the impression that Bowman would be the only brand to issue draft pick and non-40 man roster cards as inserts. Everything I've read doesn't mention anything about UD doing the same.

Stone193

<< <i>This basically gives Topps a monopoly on rookie cards >>


nd

I'm responding to this claim about the RCs.

How does Topps get the monopoly on RCs?

mike

ndleo

My thoughts assumed that a Bowman-type draft pick insert or XRC would be recoginized as the "real" RC by the hobby regardless of the official RC designation. So if Bowman is the only brand that will have the draft picks, Topps basically has the lock on the "market" recognized RC.

MorrellMan

Mike - nice thoughtful post; thanks.

I may be missing the point here, but I say rookie shmookie.

The market has always dictated what it's favorite cards are; doesn't matter what rule has been put forth.

In other words, a rookie by any other name is still a shmookie.

DeutscherGeist

I really don't see the difference between this new rule and what donruss has been doing with their "rated rookie" designation, Topps with the rookie trophy, and Upper Deck with the "star rookie" designation. While they are correctly labeled rookie cards, people always want to find a card made previously by the major manufacturers.

Boopotts

<< <i>logo means nothing. rookie card is first appearence on a card that was nationally distributed.


Topps or whoever can put any logo on a card that they want.

does not mean that it will be the one that collectors will choose as the 'rookie'

Steve >>



The generally accepted definition of a RC is the first appearance on a card in a base set that was nationally distributed. Thus, insert cards technically wouldn't qualify.

Boopotts

I think the new RC idea is fantastic, although like Marc said Topps is going to be able to easily circumvent it with inserts, etc. But the driving force behind this change, I think, was to try and regain the magic of 2001 when Ichiro and Pujols came out of absolutely nowhere to dominate the hobby. Neither had a Bowman Chrome card that was printed during the Cliinton years, so collectors were able to---gasp!--actually go to the store and buy a pack of current cards that could contain one of the hottest RC's of the year.

Joe Stalin is against this, I believe, but if they just got rid of the inserts and decided to only put a guy on a card--any card-- once he'd cracked the roster there would be more interest in current issues and overall more hobby buzz. The idea is great, but they just didn't follow through with it.

ndleo

I absolutely love the new rule, but the insert loophole that Bowman has takes away the impact of the change. The hobby is going to chase the insert rookies, especially if Topps slaps an auto and jersey on it. Upper Deck will eventually do the same thing and then we will be back to where we started.

fsjeter

especially if Topps slaps an auto and jersey on it.

I can't recall ever seeing a prospect or minor leaguer who, without ever being called up for even one game, was pictured on a card in a major league uniform. Maybe I haven't been paying that much attention. I was thinking Rickie Weeks would be an example but he was called up for 7 games in 2003 which predates his cards, hence the Brewers Uniform. Just out of curiosity, can anyone think of an example? Keep in mind, i'm not saying it hasn't happened, I just can't think of any examples off the top of my head.

Scott

Edited to add: The 2001 Upper Dck Prospects & Premiers set pictured the minor leaguers in major league uniforms but the product was not licensed by the MLBPA, only MLB Properties. This example not withstanding, an example of a MLBPA licensed product, which issued the Rookie Card Rule.

Stone193

<< <i>Mike - nice thoughtful post; thanks.

I may be missing the point here, but I say rookie shmookie.

The market has always dictated what it's favorite cards are; doesn't matter what rule has been put forth.

In other words, a rookie by any other name is still a shmookie.

>>


I agree Mark.

I think this approach is "future" oriented to the newcomers and eliminate some of the RC controversy.

Us old timers are beyond help I'm affraid.

Yes, it it thought provoking - that's why I brought it up.

The responses have been great and right on.
mike

ndleo

I can't recall ever seeing a prospect or minor leaguer who, without ever being called up for even one game, was pictured on a card in a major league uniform.

-----------------
I think Justin Verlander showed up in the 2005 products in a Tigers uniform and didn't pitch his first game until the end of June.