2010 Bowman Chrome Minor League Set...would you?

[beefycheddar]

Manny was not a rookie, but his rookie card is a 91 card. Same with Chipper, Frank Thomas and more, the first card is a rookie regardless of year of MLB debut. MILB has Rookie ball, are they not rookies?

 

[brouthercard]

Actually the MLBPA is a player here and would be pissed again if minor leaguers were called rookies on cards... and they'd be right for feeling that way.

People should never think Francoeur was a rookie in 2002, and people might think he was if his 2002 issues were called 'rookie cards.' If someone wants a player's first card, that person should just get his first year card, I don't see why this is a big deal.

Frankly, Since Topps is the only MLB card company now, we should all just go back to what things were like prior to 2006- Let Topps continue making prospect cards in major league products, and allow us to label their first cards as rookies.

This whole mlb logo thing began cause upper deck and donruss were claiming that topps had an unfair advantage for being able to produce mlb card of minor league players.

So, now, since all other companies are out of the picture, there's no more to complain about what topps makes.

So I propose that the MLB and MLBPA should just can their "project", admit it was a joke, and just go back to what things were like pre-2006.

Let Topps go back to the old bowman, bowman chrome and bowman draft, and let them put whoever they want in them. Eliminate the rookie logo and make it simple again- a player's first card is their rookie card, no more confusion.

2005 Colby Rasmus is his rookie. 2002 Jeff Francoeur is his rookie. It was so simple back then.....and let's get back to simplicity since there's no more other companies around to complain about it.

Minor leaguers were never called rookies on cards, they were simply depicted on cards featured in a major league product.

There was never any confusion before 2006 and before the rookie logo. There is mayhem now.

I'm not proposing the card complanies label a minor league players first card as a rookie card. If Beckett labelled it as a RC, then it would be more beneficial for collectors to find out when a player's first year card is. When Chris Marrero finally has his first MLB logo card in 2011, it will be very difficult for people to find out when his actual first card appeared. True collectors will want to know this information, and Beckett has no way of distinguishing this. Is it his 2007 bowman's best? If I didn't see that card in the beckett, maybe I would have though his 2009 bowman chrome is his first card. OH wait, he has a card in 2006? You mean I just spent $100 on his 2009 bowman chrome card, which I thought was his first card, just to find out he had an earlier card in 2006? This hobby sucks, I quit.

You tell me how that is benefical for the collector.

The old rules were simple.

2002 bowman chrome is matt cain's rookie card period. No debate, no questions. Not his 2006 chrome rookie logo.

2005 was Jacoby ellsbury's rookie card. Not his 2007 bowman sterling or his 2007 topps 52 "rookie cards".

 

[uniquebaseballcards]

The source of confusion = minor leaguers with major league logos. As the OP says, imagine eliminating this stupid confusion and stop having minor leaguers with major league logos!! Wow, there's a thought. Can't always have a cake and eat it too, huh? But why would you want confusion if you prefer the MiLB anyway.

A true collector as you say, simply needs to understand what a first year is and what a rookie card is, and why each is desirable.

Rookie = 1st card as an MLBer
1st Year = first card player may have had before his rookie card.

Its not tough for this info to be put on cards so as to not confuse anyone, including Beckett :lol: If people don't know which card is their player's first card or rookie card, they should not be buying cards... or better yet, they deserve to overspend.

If you follow the minor leagues, actively embrace the minor leagues and don't pretend they're playing in some other league. Conversely if you don't follow the minor leagues, you should embrace the major leagues. If you like all leagues, collect all leagues... but all the leagues aren't the same and minor leaguers can't have rookie cards. Embrace the first year card, I don't know why some people are so terrified to do this.

Minor leaguers were never called rookies on cards, they were simply depicted on cards featured in a major league product.

There was never any confusion before 2006 and before the rookie logo. There is mayhem now.

I'm not proposing the card complanies label a minor league players first card as a rookie card. If Beckett labelled it as a RC, then it would be more beneficial for collectors to find out when a player's first year card is. When Chris Marrero finally has his first MLB logo card in 2011, it will be very difficult for people to find out when his actual first card appeared. True collectors will want to know this information, and Beckett has no way of distinguishing this. Is it his 2007 bowman's best? If I didn't see that card in the beckett, maybe I would have though his 2009 bowman chrome is his first card. OH wait, he has a card in 2006? You mean I just spent $100 on his 2009 bowman chrome card, which I thought was his first card, just to find out he had an earlier card in 2006? This hobby sucks, I quit.

You tell me how that is benefical for the collector.

 

[matfanofold]

I honestly could give a crap less about bowman and/or what Topps does. But I will offer this....

Ever since I started to collect cards in the late 70's, a players first mlb licensed card was his RC card, period. Anything before(milb produced) was a minor league card. And this was accepted as gospil with every colelctor I have ever known. A players first card, produced by a mlb licensed company in a mlb licensed set is his RC card.

Reguardless of the situation, this will never change in my eyes.

 

[beefycheddar]

Unique- what year is Derek Jeters rookie card? What year did he win Rookie of The Year?

 

[uniquebaseballcards]

There was only one real set issued back then, it was issued by Topps. Almost nobody knew about minor league issues back then, I don't know if anyone collected minor league issues back then. Nobody knew what MLB licensed meant, there was only Topps.

So, I just don't see how what you say translates...but I could be dense

I honestly could give a crap less about bowman and/or what Topps does. But I will offer this....

Ever since I started to collect cards in the late 70's, a players first card was his RC card, period. Anything before(milb produced) was a minor league card. And this was accepted as gospil with every colelctor I have ever known. A players first card, produced by a mlb licensed company is his RC card.

Reguardless of the situation, this will never change in my eyes.

 

[matfanofold]

There was only one real set issued back then, it was issued by Topps. Almost nobody knew about minor league issues back then, I don't know if anyone collected minor league issues back then. Nobody knew what MLB licensed meant, there was only Topps.

So, I just don't see how what you say translates...but I could be dense

I honestly could give a crap less about bowman and/or what Topps does. But I will offer this....

Ever since I started to collect cards in the late 70's, a players first card was his RC card, period. Anything before(milb produced) was a minor league card. And this was accepted as gospil with every colelctor I have ever known. A players first card, produced by a mlb licensed company is his RC card.

Reguardless of the situation, this will never change in my eyes.

I'm not going to call you dense, but you are lacking understanding of collecting in the 70's and 80's then. Everyone knew about minor league cards, they were highly collectable then as they are now, perhaps even more so! Also, Fleer and Donruss were available in the early 80's, as well as traded/updated sets soon after. This situation is nothing new.. Oh, and there was far more unlicensed crap floating around then also, and EVERYONE knew what a licensed product meant.

Let me ask you this, do you not consider a 1985 Topps Big Mac USA card to be a RC?

 

[uniquebaseballcards]

If the existing framework were around in 1995 his rookie card would have been in 1995 with 51 plate appearances, it was the year he first appeared on a major league roster. He won ROY the following year when he played a full season. His 1993 issues are first year cards as he wouldn't be on a roster until 1995.

This simply points out that a player could be considered a rookie in subsequent years if he didn't play very many games the first year. Jeter played in 15 games his first season, about three weeks.

Unique- what year is Derek Jeters rookie card? What year did he win Rookie of The Year?

 

[matfanofold]

If the existing framework were around in 1995 his rookie card would have been in 1995 with 51 plate appearances, it was the year he first appeared on a major league roster. He won ROY the following year when he played a full season. His 1993 issues are first year cards as he wouldn't be on a roster until 1995.

This simply points out that a player could be considered a rookie in subsequent years if he didn't play very many games the first year. Jeter played in 15 games his first season, about three weeks.

Unique- what year is Derek Jeters rookie card? What year did he win Rookie of The Year?

By refrencing "existing frame work" you are directly implying that you are letting MLB tell you what a RC is.

 

[uniquebaseballcards]

I don't think anyone collected minor league cards unless you happened to attend minor league games and got them at a minor league game. How many people here have any minor league issues from the 1970s? Maybe a Ripken or Mattingly minor league issue here and there for hard-core collectors, but no, minor league cards weren't even thought of...

Fleer and Donruss in 1981 had the same exact license as Topps, not in the 1970s as you said before. Even then, Fleer and Donruss won their MLB licenses, they were not MiLB cards.

The only unlicensed stuff people knew about were in their Hostess or cereal boxes. Some people enjoyed them, I wouldn't call them crap. They only showed stars, of which everyone knew their professional status anyway.

I think you can answer this yourself, no? Just ask whether he was on a 40-man in 1985 and you have your answer.

I'm not going to call you dense, but you are lacking understanding of collecting in the 70's and 80's then. Everyone knew about minor league cards, they were highly collectable then as they are now, perhaps even more so! Also, Fleer and Donruss were available in the early 80's, as well as traded/updated sets soon after. This situation is nothing new.. Oh, and there was far more unlicensed crap floating around then also, and EVERYONE knew what a licensed product meant.

Let me ask you this, do you not consider a 1985 Topps Big Mac USA card to be a RC?

 

[Jaypers]

By refrencing "existing frame work" you are directly implying that you are letting MLB tell you what a RC is.

 

[uniquebaseballcards]

:lol:

Looks like this conversation is over. As always, collect what you want, but at least understand what you're collecting.

By refrencing "existing frame work" you are directly implying that you are letting MLB tell you what a RC is.

 

[braden]

The RC logo would make perfect sense if they would just go the NHL route and not allow a Major League card to be produced until a player plays a Major League game. I'd be all for it. And then you could still have well-produced minor league cards available so people could still prospect if need be.

 

[uniquebaseballcards]

I guess some people call themselves seniors when they're in the 9th grade :lol:

By refrencing "existing frame work" you are directly implying that you are letting MLB tell you what a RC is.

 

[bballcardkid]

Bowman Chrome the "Home of the Rookie Card" has been rewritten by MLBP...so something needs to be done to fix it and MLBP won't budge off of the silly "Rookie Card" denotation.

Easy, as halonut suggested, bring back the XRC designation. That would make me perfectly happy.

On a side note, wouldn't the definition of the term rookie be something along the lines of first? First (fill in the blank)? So, the first year in the majors would be a rookie year, right? The first year a player has an MLB licensed card would be there rookie card, no? Aside from the "rookie rules," why are some defending this concept that a players rookie card must coincide with the same year of their rookie year in the majors? Rookie means first whatever for me. I call a rookie logo card "rookie year card," which isn't the same to me as an actual "rookie card."

 

[matfanofold]

:lol:

Looks like this conversation is over. As always, collect what you want, but at least understand what you're collecting.

By refrencing "existing frame work" you are directly implying that you are letting MLB tell you what a RC is.

I would have quit there too.

 

[Jaypers]

Bowman Chrome the "Home of the Rookie Card" has been rewritten by MLBP...so something needs to be done to fix it and MLBP won't budge off of the silly "Rookie Card" denotation.

Easy, as halonut suggested, bring back the XRC designation. That would make me perfectly happy.

On a side note, wouldn't the definition of the term rookie be something along the lines of first? First (fill in the blank)? So, the first year in the majors would be a rookie year, right? The first year a player has an MLB licensed card would be there rookie card, no? Aside from the "rookie rules," why are some defending this concept that a players rookie card must coincide with the same year of their rookie year in the majors? Rookie means first whatever for me. I call a rookie logo card "rookie year card," which isn't the same to me as an actual "rookie card."

Didn't you know, Tyler? The MLBPA believes a player's career begins in the Majors. ::facepalm::

 

[braden]

Bowman Chrome the "Home of the Rookie Card" has been rewritten by MLBP...so something needs to be done to fix it and MLBP won't budge off of the silly "Rookie Card" denotation.

Easy, as halonut suggested, bring back the XRC designation. That would make me perfectly happy.

On a side note, wouldn't the definition of the term rookie be something along the lines of first? First (fill in the blank)? So, the first year in the majors would be a rookie year, right? The first year a player has an MLB licensed card would be there rookie card, no? Aside from the "rookie rules," why are some defending this concept that a players rookie card must coincide with the same year of their rookie year in the majors? Rookie means first whatever for me. I call a rookie logo card "rookie year card," which isn't the same to me as an actual "rookie card."

Didn't you know, Tyler? The MLBPA believes a player's career begins in the Majors. ::facepalm::

For the purpose of Major League Baseball trading cards, it absolutely should.

 

[bballcardkid]

If the existing framework were around in 1995 his rookie card would have been in 1995 with 51 plate appearances, it was the year he first appeared on a major league roster. He won ROY the following year when he played a full season. His 1993 issues are first year cards as he wouldn't be on a roster until 1995.

This simply points out that a player could be considered a rookie in subsequent years if he didn't play very many games the first year. Jeter played in 15 games his first season, about three weeks.

Unique- what year is Derek Jeters rookie card? What year did he win Rookie of The Year?

So why don't you call a 1995 Jeter card a Jeter RC card? Why are you now adapting a manufactured phony rule made up by old fossils that don't know a thing about baseball cards because they think that the system that has worked for nearly a century is "too confusing?" Why not make a decision for yourself instead of letting others make it for you?

 

[studioclint]

The thing I never understood is how people call David Wrights 2002 Chrome his rookie and Ryan Howards 2001 Bowman Cards his rookies. When they both had rookies in 2001. Too me that is the same as the new rookie card rules.