Matt Wieters finally on a Topps card, sort of

[rsmath]

Topps opts not to get a mlbpa contract.

that's not the case, tho. I checked my 2013 topps cards that came today and they have the MLBPA logo and text that says the card is licensed by the MLBPA. Same thing on a 2012 topps card that I came across a moment ago, so Topps has had MLBPA licensing in at least the last two years.

 

[hofmichael]

that's not the case, tho. I checked my 2013 topps cards that came today and they have the MLBPA logo and text that says the card is licensed by the MLBPA. Same thing on a 2012 topps card that I came across a moment ago, so Topps has had MLBPA licensing in at least the last two years.

Interesting. I wonder when that started? For the longest time they only had an mlb license. This the reason they signed each player individually.

Sent from my portable **** viewing device!

 

[Leaf]

that's not the case, tho. I checked my 2013 topps cards that came today and they have the MLBPA logo and text that says the card is licensed by the MLBPA. Same thing on a 2012 topps card that I came across a moment ago, so Topps has had MLBPA licensing in at least the last two years.

Topps pays a token fee to be able to say that, but to be able to utilize the Bowman advantage, they have to sign every player individually.
BG

 

[hofmichael]

Topps pays a token fee to be able to say that, but to be able to utilize the Bowman advantage, they have to sign every player individually.
BG

Thank you for the clarification.

Sent from my portable **** viewing device!

 

[James52411]

BG

Ps- the razor model was profitable..
The reason it wasn't continued had nothing to do with the deals and everything to do with consumer dislike of exclusives and some "behind the scenes" compensation/benefits (and no, I can not elaborate due to signing a confidentiality agreement...)

Consumers will also dislike it if major stars stop appearing in base Topps and start appearing only in Leaf.

 

[Leaf]

Consumers will also dislike it if major stars stop appearing in base Topps and start appearing only in Leaf.

I hear ya... Hopefully Topps will open the walllet and give Ichiro (and others) who SELL the products a fair share... BG

 

[rsmath]

Topps pays a token fee to be able to say that, but to be able to utilize the Bowman advantage, they have to sign every player individually.
BG

I wonder what Wieters story is, then. I take it there is no Bowman advantage for him (since he's on a 25-man roster), Razor's exclusivity probably has run out by now, and it's not clear to me if he's a member of the MLBPA or not (other card forum board postings in google search seem to proclaim he isn't, while there is a video with a MLBPA bug graphic about getting to know Wieters.

*Assuming* Wieters is in the MLBPA and the razor exclusive on him is no more, Topps could just print up cards of him under their MLBPA license, right?

 

[markakis8]

This isn't true, or at least it wasn't when I worked at topps ten years ago. At that time, every single player who would release their rights got 5 dollars for doing so, but once they were actually used on a card they got substantially more (I wanna say 2K, but that may be wrong-I do know it was enough for those minor leaguers to really want that check once they hit Bowman).

BG has always blasted Topps for under-paying players, starting in the Razor days, and Weiters seems to have been spoiled by his Razor money.

BTW, how did that business model work out, BG? You sure espoused the benefits of exclusivity when exercised by individual players, but when exercised by the league, lawsuits are warranted? I personally think Topps knows what they're doing in this regard, despite their numerous shortcomings.

Kelso's best burn - YouTube

 

[hive17]

I thought Topps was allowed to put whoever they wanted on a card thanks to "freedom of the press", and the fact that Topps thinks they're journalists.

They did it to Buzz Aldrin...