Minor League/Draft/Prospect "Rookie" cards- What are your thoughts?

scmavl

What are your thoughts on cards like many Bowman "Rookie" issues? Players that are still in high school, college, or the minor leagues having cards and in many instances autos, that are being recognized as their rookie cards.

Personally, I wish it was as it used to be where players Rookie cards were released after they had started playing or made the Major League roster. I know a card cannot have the RC logo on it until a player has been in a big league game but I wish those were the first cards released of players. It would make the chase for older Minor League or even High School cards much more challenging. That being said, I'll still buy them but usually more as an investment/chance for a big hit of a hot player.

Thoughts?

epatmythes

Hate it! In fact, the only ones I buy (collect) are the regular and chome Bowman Prospects... and that's only because they come packed out with the regular Bowman product now. I won't spend a dime and product like Topps Heritage Minor League or Topps Pro Debut.

MLB made the rule starting with the 2006 releases on what designates a true Rookie Card... it's been 6 years now... and while I get it, it still irks the hell out of me when I have to be subjected to listening to people whine, moan, complain, etc. about the "fact" that those new(er) cards are garbage and worthless because player X's only true rookie is that 1 or 2 cards that came out in a prospect laden product 5 years ago before 95% of the population even knew the guy existed. Congratulations on saving those 100, 200, or more cards from that issue and owning the cards of the 1 or 2 guys that actually made it to the big time... but please, save me the blah, blah, blah nonsense!

My other thought on this matter is how will this impact the PSA Set Registry in the future (or even now)? Just think about Bryce Harper. Now think about the Bryce Harper Basic and/or Basic & Collector Issues sets! 2012 Topps Allen & Ginter streets next week, and that will be his first non-SSP true rookie card! Based on Beckett, and what PSA will ultimately follow, his two current SSP RC are designated at true rookie cards... so those would be part of a Bryce Harper Rookie set. But I was looking through this the other night... He has something along the lines of 20 basic/collector issue cards that have come out since 2008 (6 alone in just the past 3 years of Bowman)! Theoretically, that could be a good Registry set in and of itself... but not a single one of those cards technically qualify for even the more expansive Basic & Collector Issues set (if created)! As far as I know, PSA won't change their set rules and I don't believe they've ever ventured into the land of a players minor league/prospect card set(s). That's still 20 or so cards out there, that won't be a part of registry sets (as the rules stand today)... that some percentage of the collecting public will say are more "true" rookie cards then the handful-or-more New Rule True Rookie Cards that will hit the street in products the rest of this season!

jbox

^^^^^^
AGREE!!!

alifaxwa2

Re: the Harper situation described above, I am having that exact problem now. I want to put together a set of Nationals RCs, with an eye toward a future World Series winners registry team set (for whatever year they do win it). It's been a pain deciding on which card to choose, should it be a prospect card or a post debut $.25 base topps or topps chrome rc card? I asked customer service and like was mentioned above they seem to indicate it would end up being the base set post playing RC cards not Prospects Cards which in my opinion affects collectibility of doing the set.

digicat

Personally, I love the Bowman Chrome Prospects issues. I like to scoop up all the Giants cards that get released. I'm not sure how they determine who to make cards of, because a lot of the time, the term "prospect" is not applicable.

I'm still on the fence about the Donruss Elite cards though. At least with Topps stuff, you have MLB licensing. With the 07-11 Elite stuff, they had no professional licensing at all, just individual player licensing. However, they now have MLBPA licensing, but not MLB licensing, but they're still kinda weird.


But, unlike some, I don't use PSA set registry guidelines to limit what I collect.

EAsports

It can be argued that the "biggest" year of baseball cards in the last 15 years. Great products, great selection, great competition.

Of course the driving force behind this (in addition to Barry Bonds' home run chase) was Ichiro and Pujols.

And what did Ichiro and Pujols have in common? Both had mainstream RCs in current season products. There was no 1999 and 2000 Bowman Pujols that were his "real" rookies. Other than team issue minor league stuff, if you wanted a Pujols or Ichiro RC, you bought the product on the shelf.

How MLB and baseball card executives can be so stupid as to not IMMEDIATELY try to replicate that is beyond me, and how, 10 years later, they STILL have it wrong is baffling.

Now, we have Trout, Harper and Darvish...... and all have 2-3 years worth of "rookie cards" to sift through. It's shameful.

epatmythes

<< <i>Re: the Harper situation described above, I am having that exact problem now. I want to put together a set of Nationals RCs, with an eye toward a future World Series winners registry team set (for whatever year they do win it). It's been a pain deciding on which card to choose, should it be a prospect card or a post debut $.25 base topps or topps chrome rc card? I asked customer service and like was mentioned above they seem to indicate it would end up being the base set post playing RC cards not Prospects Cards which in my opinion affects collectibility of doing the set. >>



Harper will have true RC's still this year in Bowman Chrome, Topps Chrome & Finest. Personally, I'd lean towards the Bowman Chrome RC... but any of three (or all three ) would be nice in PSA 10 holders!

With my lastest submission results, I now have 5 of these non-MLB base-type cards in PSA 10... and was wondering, how many base-type cards he's had... I say now it was 20 or so, only because I can't recall the exact number, as my list is at home, but it was either 19, 20, or 21!

On a brighter note, and with much less collector-muck than Harper... just got the email a few minutes ago from Cosetta that the Mike Trout Rookie Set I requested is now online with the PSA Set Regsitry... who's going to take a crack at that one with me??? A rarity for a modern player, it's only 8 cards!!!

epatmythes

<< <i>It can be argued that the "biggest" year of baseball cards in the last 15 years. Great products, great selection, great competition.

Of course the driving force behind this (in addition to Barry Bonds' home run chase) was Ichiro and Pujols.

And what did Ichiro and Pujols have in common? Both had mainstream RCs in current season products. There was no 1999 and 2000 Bowman Pujols that were his "real" rookies. Other than team issue minor league stuff, if you wanted a Pujols or Ichiro RC, you bought the product on the shelf.

How MLB and baseball card executives can be so stupid as to not IMMEDIATELY try to replicate that is beyond me, and how, 10 years later, they STILL have it wrong is baffling.

Now, we have Trout, Harper and Darvish...... and all have 2-3 years worth of "rookie cards" to sift through. It's shameful. >>



Ichiro & Pujols in 2001 was a fluke... a wonderfully awesome fluke, but a fluke none-the-less!!!

MLB and baseball card executives do what they do now, because (and I don't like this) they licensed to a single source (Topps) and they need to make as much money as possible, right or wrong, people buy the products they keep churning out! As to why they IMMEDIATELY didn't try to replicate it... because insanity is doing the same thing over and over again (or repeating the past) and expecting a different result... the card industry did replicate what you're calling for... it's called the 80's... how have those holdings panned out???

Reljac

Popcorn girl is always the right answer.

cpamike

<< <i>Popcorn girl is always the right answer. >>