MLB HOT LIST - Opening Night to Monday, April 11th - WEEK 1

hive17 · Apr 14, 2016

sportscardtheory said:
They're unwritten. I'm talking hobby-accepted designations for cards. Every card has some kind of descriptive interpretation other than TRADING CARD. It's what separates the RC from a non-RC. It's why people have been paying premiums for RCs since cards became a thing. Topps put Draft Picks and USA cards in their base sets and they were considered RCs. It's mainly about what is in the base set. Base set=RC. Not in the base set, not a RC. That's how it's always been. People that don't believe that or disagree are not the majority in the hobby.

Would you consider McGwire USA or Chipper "Draft Pick" as their rookie cards?

sportscardtheory · Apr 14, 2016

hive17 said:
Would you consider McGwire USA or Chipper "Draft Pick" as their rookie cards?

Clearly. It's what I just wrote.

hive17 · Apr 14, 2016

sportscardtheory said:
Clearly. It's what I just wrote.

But wasn't one of your gripes that people were getting rookie cards before they ever took an MLB at bat?

sportscardtheory · Apr 14, 2016

hive17 said:
But wasn't one of your gripes that people were getting rookie cards before they ever took an MLB at bat?

I never said I was a fan of Topps putting players in their base sets who hadn't made the Majors yet. It's just something they did and I acknowledge it.

hive17 · Apr 14, 2016

sportscardtheory said:
I never said I was a fan of Topps putting players in their base sets who hadn't made the Majors yet. It's just something they did and I acknowledge it.

OK. I personally think that if the rules are unwritten, then the prospect card will keep gaining popularity until it supplants the old "card after the year you came up" theory.

sportscardtheory · Apr 14, 2016

People will spend their money where they want to spend their money.

IUjapander · Apr 15, 2016

sportscardtheory said:
5. Dexter Fowler (Best RC - 2004 Donruss Elite Extra Edition AU/623) TOP STAT - 0.7 WAR

sportscardtheory said:
It's just funny to me that many of the very same people who act like Beckett designating something RC is meaningless, use the fact that MLB/Topps designates something a RC as validation that it's a RC. lol There's no RC logo on prospect cards, so which is it. You want it any and all ways. The bottom line is, prospects aren't even rookies until they surpass MLB's rookie requirements, so the use of the word "rookie" in anything related to their prospect cards is a fallacy in and of itself. How can you have a "rookie card" when you have not been a rookie yet. I call anything made before or during a player's rookie season a rookie card and also call any card with the word rookie on it a rookie card, so it's not really an issue with me. What's an issue is people telling me I'm wrong when they are literally doing the same thing I am. Wake up.

You call 2011 Trevor Story cards RCs, that came out 5 years before he was a rookie, AND call his 2016 Topps Now card a RC. I mean, really, what do you care about my opinion when you are just making things up as you go along anyway. Beckett and most other hobby sources don't designate either of those cards RCs, but because Topps says the Topps Now card is a RC, you believe it? lol You believe some card that predates a guy's rookie season by 5 years is a RC because it's the general consensus that everything is a RC? lol It's just a jumbled mess. Meanwhile, I'm a jerk for calling RCs, RCs. OKAY.

In summation; you can call something anything you like, what it IS is a different story.

Why do you call Dexter Fowler's best rookie a 2004 card since he wasn't a rookie until 2008? This seems to be the exact thing you don't want called a rookie. Or maybe it is. I can't even tell which way you are arguing.

sportscardtheory · Apr 15, 2016

IUjapander said:
Why do you call Dexter Fowler's best rookie a 2004 card since he wasn't a rookie until 2008? This seems to be the exact thing you don't want called a rookie. Or maybe it is. I can't even tell which way you are arguing.

It's in a base set so it's a RC. That doesn't mean that I want prospects included in MLB base sets. It just is what it is. If MLB simply did things like the NHL, this RC stuff would be much more clear and defined. You can't have a licensed NHL card until you have made the NHL. Easy as that. So freaking simple. There would still be prospect cards/sets. There would still be prospecting. They would just be licensed by the prospects themselves and/or whichever league they are in. Leave the prospect sets to unlicensed companies like Panini, Leaf, In The Game, TriStar, etc., as it should be. Topps is just greedy and wanted their Bowman (prospect) money on top of the MLB exclusive. The whole "I want prospects on MLB licensed cards" thing is a joke and always has been. Yeah yeah yeah, it's big business. So what. That doesn't make it less idiotic to have MLB licensed cards of players who have never played in MLB.

sportscardtheory · Apr 15, 2016

The reason the RC Logo exists is because Topps would never give up the money they make off of prospectors who clamor for non-MLB players on MLB licensed cards. The whole thing is a joke, IMO. Just a bunch of gamblers setting hobby standards. But it is what it is. The RC Logo was created to appease RC collectors by pretending MLB licensed prospect cards are just a niche. The whole thing is a farce. Most of the people who give others a hard time about prospect cards being RCs (ie, people giving me a hard time for using standard RC requirements) are degenerates who just want to protect their investments. Check it out. The loudest mouths usually have the most to lose. The hobby has been overrun with degenerate gamblers who play the prospecting game and they are the ones who speak the loudest.

hive17 · Apr 15, 2016

sportscardtheory said:
The reason the RC Logo exists is because Topps would never give up the money they make off of prospectors who clamor for non-MLB players on MLB licensed cards. The whole thing is a joke, IMO. Just a bunch of gamblers setting hobby standards. But it is what it is. The RC Logo was created to appease RC collectors by pretending MLB licensed prospect cards are just a niche. The whole thing is a farce. Most of the people who give others a hard time about prospect cards being RCs (ie, people giving me a hard time for using standard RC requirements) are degenerates who just want to protect their investments. Check it out. The loudest mouths usually have the most to lose. The hobby has been overrun with degenerate gamblers who play the prospecting game and they are the ones who speak the loudest.

Topps is just giving people what they want. Lots of people want those prospect cards, including fans of the game. If it was so cut and dry, Trevor Story cards wouldn't be selling on eBay, and collectors would be collectively digging on their heals until a RC Logo'd card came out.

sportscardtheory · Apr 15, 2016

hive17 said:
Topps is just giving people what they want. Lots of people want those prospect cards, including fans of the game. If it was so cut and dry, Trevor Story cards wouldn't be selling on eBay, and collectors would be collectively digging on their heals until a RC Logo'd card came out.

Who's arguing that no one wants prospect cards. I'm certainly not. Now if say, Trevor Story, had no MLB licensed cards until AFTER he made his debut, people would be stammering all over themselves to get at his first MLB licensed card to be released in a 2016 set. It would be madness and make for huge demand for the first Topps release with the first Story RC card. Instead, we get investors/prospectors selling their stashes from 2011. It's a backwards system that is steeped in gambling. IMO, it would be better for the hobby if a guy like Story had no previous MLB licensed cards. People would be more apt to get involved and go out to local card shops, card shows, etc to get at the 2016 Story stuff instead of just plopping down bids on a bunch of stuff from 5-6 years ago.

hive17 · Apr 15, 2016

sportscardtheory said:
Who's arguing that no one wants prospect cards. I'm certainly not. Now if say, Trevor Story, had no MLB licensed cards until AFTER he made his debut, people would be stammering all over themselves to get at his first MLB licensed card to be released in a 2016 set. It would be madness and make for huge demand for the first Topps release with the first Story RC card. Instead, we get investors/prospectors selling their stashes from 2011. It's a backwards system that is steeped in gambling. IMO, it would be better for the hobby if a guy like Story had no previous MLB licensed cards. People would be more apt to get involved and go out to local card shops, card shows, etc to get at the 2016 Story stuff instead of just plopping down bids on a bunch of stuff from 5-6 years ago.

Well, in the case of Story, no one is going to care in a few months anyway (my opinion). Whatever RC Logo'd card Topps puts out won't much matter. If anything, Story is an example of why we need MLB licensed prospect cards. If they didn't exist, people would be walking into the card shops and shows, asking "what do you have for cards of that Trevor Story kid?"; and they'd get turned away empty-handed. I don't know how not giving a customer what he wants helps the hobby. At least this way MLB fans get an immediate fix when a event like Trevor Story happens.

It's not just the "gamblers" that are part of this; people watching BBTN and Sportscenter want to be a part of this hype too. And without prospect cards, they would be let down. You might say "a fool and his money", but it is what it is.

sportscardtheory · Apr 15, 2016

hive17 said:
If anything, Story is an example of why we need MLB licensed prospect cards. If they didn't exist, people would be walking into the card shops and shows, asking "what do you have for cards of that Trevor Story kid?"; and they'd get turned away empty-handed. I don't know how not giving a customer what he wants helps the hobby.

The NFL hobby does fine. The NBA hobby does fine. The NHL hobby does fine. They all do just fine and they don't have licensed prospect cards.

sportscardtheory · Apr 15, 2016

Imagine what the demand would be for the next Topps release that would have the first ever MLB licensed trading cards of Trevor Story, Tyler White, Jeremy Hazelbaker, Ross Stripling, Trevor Brown, etc. It would be amazing for the hobby to have that much interest generated for a CURRENT release.

hive17 · Apr 15, 2016

sportscardtheory said:
The NFL hobby does fine. The NBA hobby does fine. The NHL hobby does fine. They all do just fine and they don't have licensed prospect cards.

Most of those people are drafted right to the pro team. Baseball, with it's huge draft and deep minor league system is not the same.

hive17 · Apr 15, 2016

sportscardtheory said:
Imagine what the demand would be for the next Topps release that would have the first ever MLB licensed trading cards of Trevor Story, Tyler White, Jeremy Hazelbaker, Ross Stripling, Trevor Brown, etc. It would be amazing for the hobby to have that much interest generated for a CURRENT release.

I guess I don't see what the big deal is about it being "current".

Welcome to our community

Be apart of something great, join today!

MLB HOT LIST - Opening Night to Monday, April 11th - WEEK 1

hive17

Active member

sportscardtheory

Active member

hive17

Active member

sportscardtheory

Active member

hive17

Active member

sportscardtheory

Active member

IUjapander

New member

sportscardtheory

Active member

sportscardtheory

Active member

hive17

Active member

sportscardtheory

Active member

hive17

Active member

sportscardtheory

Active member

sportscardtheory

Active member

hive17

Active member

hive17

Active member

Similar threads

Members online

Latest posts