Question on McCutchen Rookies...

[brouthercard]

Didn't we all expect this to happen since the Beckett boards in 2006?

Its going to be really tough for those who were not familiar with baseball cards four years ago or earlier to find out a player's first card, especially once the post 2005 rookies start to hit the majors in droves. Unlabelled first year cards of players are really tough to find in a Beckett.

 

[ThoseBackPages]

Didn't we all expect this to happen since the Beckett boards in 2006?

Its going to be really tough for those who were not familiar with baseball cards four years ago or earlier to find out a player's first card, especially once the post 2005 rookies start to hit the majors in droves. Unlabelled first year cards of players are really tough to find in a Beckett.

Yes, we've been waiting for this for a long time.

i am hoping that we as a FCB community can (for the most part) help out our fellow FCB brothers when they
have such questions, without being snooty about it.

 

[JoshHamilton]

Completely disregard this, JoshHamilton here is still smarting from completely missing out on his player's best RC :

2005 are his hobby and industry recognized rookies. Anyone who says otherwise is an idiot

in a somewhat related note, do not listen to uniquebaseballcards. He is one of those aforementioned idiots

This is getting out of hand. I understand you being a worthless ****** troll when it comes to 2006-present cards, because the hobby rules changed and whether or not BC cards are truly RC's or not is a bit unclear (although anyone with a lick of common sense considers them rookies). Not to mention your completely idiotic stance that recent BC issues are "minor league" cards (THEY AREN'T, RETARD)

But calling a 2007 Josh Hamilton card a "rookie"? Are you out of your mind? Did you ever have a mind to begin with? EVERY single definition or Hamilton's rookie, be it in baseball card mags, Ebay, message boards, and everywhere else agrees that his rookie cards were produced in 1999. The fact that the card says "rookie" doesn't make it a rookie any more than McGwire's '87 Donruss "Rated Rookie" makes it a rookie.

I wish Gilmore would wisen up and ban you, much like virtualyankee was kicked off BMB. We get that you hate prospecting. We get that you're too dumb to understand simple widely understood hobby concepts like the definition of a rookie card. But you've gone beyond the point of simply being a troll. You're giving people advice and stating facts that are flat out incorrect. McCutchen's rookie cards are 2005, plain and simple. Beckett agrees, hobbyists agree. The fact that the OP even asked means he's probably young and wasn't in the hobby in '05. Your idiotic and incorrect advice because you want to spread your warped agenda does not help, it hurts.

 

[Jaypers]

The rookie card argument has gotten so old and repetitive over the past four years that I would simply label Cutch's 2005 cards as "inaugural issues".

Sound better, Unique?

 

[cgilmo]

Completely disregard this, JoshHamilton here is still smarting from completely missing out on his player's best RC :

2005 are his hobby and industry recognized rookies. Anyone who says otherwise is an idiot

in a somewhat related note, do not listen to uniquebaseballcards. He is one of those aforementioned idiots

This is getting out of hand. I understand you being a worthless ****** troll when it comes to 2006-present cards, because the hobby rules changed and whether or not BC cards are truly RC's or not is a bit unclear (although anyone with a lick of common sense considers them rookies). Not to mention your completely idiotic stance that recent BC issues are "minor league" cards (THEY AREN'T, RETARD)

But calling a 2007 Josh Hamilton card a "rookie"? Are you out of your mind? Did you ever have a mind to begin with? EVERY single definition or Hamilton's rookie, be it in baseball card mags, Ebay, message boards, and everywhere else agrees that his rookie cards were produced in 1999. The fact that the card says "rookie" doesn't make it a rookie any more than McGwire's '87 Donruss "Rated Rookie" makes it a rookie.

I wish Gilmore would wisen up and ban you, much like virtualyankee was kicked off BMB. We get that you hate prospecting. We get that you're too dumb to understand simple widely understood hobby concepts like the definition of a rookie card. But you've gone beyond the point of simply being a troll. You're giving people advice and stating facts that are flat out incorrect. McCutchen's rookie cards are 2005, plain and simple. Beckett agrees, hobbyists agree. The fact that the OP even asked means he's probably young and wasn't in the hobby in '05. Your idiotic and incorrect advice because you want to spread your warped agenda does not help, it hurts.

Your biting insults and consistent name calling hurts much worse.

 

[uniquebaseballcards]

How could anyone hate prospects?! How can anyone hate cards of prospects? By definition they're simply cards of guys who haven't played in the major leagues...and therefore could not be classified as rookies. Someday some of these guys might actually play in the MLB if they're good enough. Who cares? What possibly is there to hate here?

Learn to love the fact that minor leaguers and cards of minor league players are great cards...I actually have a few cards of minor leaguers...even a Super! But they're simply not major leaguers or cards of major leaguers. Embrace the first year card as I have...and call it that when appropriate. But they're not rookie cards.

I don't know why you're so touchy here. Must be because of my Hamilton RC. But maybe you're employed by someone who makes prospect cards or someone who just likes to sell them. Who knows. Who cares?

Completely disregard this, JoshHamilton here is still smarting from completely missing out on his player's best RC :

2005 are his hobby and industry recognized rookies. Anyone who says otherwise is an idiot

in a somewhat related note, do not listen to uniquebaseballcards. He is one of those aforementioned idiots

This is getting out of hand. I understand you being a worthless ****** troll when it comes to 2006-present cards, because the hobby rules changed and whether or not BC cards are truly RC's or not is a bit unclear (although anyone with a lick of common sense considers them rookies). Not to mention your completely idiotic stance that recent BC issues are "minor league" cards (THEY AREN'T, RETARD)

But calling a 2007 Josh Hamilton card a "rookie"? Are you out of your mind? Did you ever have a mind to begin with? EVERY single definition or Hamilton's rookie, be it in baseball card mags, Ebay, message boards, and everywhere else agrees that his rookie cards were produced in 1999. The fact that the card says "rookie" doesn't make it a rookie any more than McGwire's '87 Donruss "Rated Rookie" makes it a rookie.

I wish Gilmore would wisen up and ban you, much like virtualyankee was kicked off BMB. We get that you hate prospecting. We get that you're too dumb to understand simple widely understood hobby concepts like the definition of a rookie card. But you've gone beyond the point of simply being a troll. You're giving people advice and stating facts that are flat out incorrect. McCutchen's rookie cards are 2005, plain and simple. Beckett agrees, hobbyists agree. The fact that the OP even asked means he's probably young and wasn't in the hobby in '05. Your idiotic and incorrect advice because you want to spread your warped agenda does not help, it hurts.

 

[uniquebaseballcards]

What's so bad about "first year?" Cutch's 2005 Topps cards are even labeled as such.

The rookie card argument has gotten so old and repetitive over the past four years that I would simply label Cutch's 2005 cards as "inaugural issues".

Sound better, Unique?

 

[ThoseBackPages]

What's so bad about "first year?" Cutch's 2005 Topps cards are even labeled as such.

The rookie card argument has gotten so old and repetitive over the past four years that I would simply label Cutch's 2005 cards as "inaugural issues".

Sound better, Unique?

Nothing "wrong" with "first year"

could also call them "most collectible/valuable"

 

[uniquebaseballcards]

If you think that way, that's good for you...but not everybody does think this way.

What's so bad about "first year?" Cutch's 2005 Topps cards are even labeled as such.

The rookie card argument has gotten so old and repetitive over the past four years that I would simply label Cutch's 2005 cards as "inaugural issues".

Sound better, Unique?

Nothing "wrong" with "first year"

could also call them "most collectible/valuable"

 

[crosby87]

I don't really get this and can see it is a big issue. I didn't start collecting closely until about 2 years ago. Why would that Hamilton not be a rookie? It says rookie at the top. What makes a first year card better then a rookie?

 

[Jaypers]

What makes a first year card better then a rookie?

The amount it fetches on the open market, usually.

 

[bballcardkid]

I don't really get this and can see it is a big issue. I didn't start collecting closely until about 2 years ago. Why would that Hamilton not be a rookie? It says rookie at the top. What makes a first year card better then a rookie?

Just remember that actual RC cards post 2006 are not the first cards you will be purchasing of said player with few exceptions. Looking over the history of baseball cards, there are not many occurances where a player's most valuable, collectable, prestigious card is not a card produced in their first year appearing on cardboard. If your happy buying second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth, or even seventh year cards that have a RC Logo on them because some association or publication believes that they know more about the hobby than the actual collectors and instituted a manufactured rookie rule, then by all means buy McCutchens 2009 cards.

 

[carlitoson]

I don't really get this and can see it is a big issue. I didn't start collecting closely until about 2 years ago. Why would that Hamilton not be a rookie? It says rookie at the top. What makes a first year card better then a rookie?

In general, the 2005 cards have the attributes that most collectors deem important: the cards have a major-league license, they show him in a Pirates uniform, and are part of a set. For these reasons most consider them to be his best cards. Even though he wasn't in the major leagues yet, those cards were the first ones on the scene that met those collectability "requirements".

His 2009 cards that are coming out now have the rookie card logo (which started in 2006) because he has now made the major leagues. Most collectors prefer the "first-year" cards from 2005. There are other collectors however who prefer the logo cards because they like to wait until a player is actually a ROOKIE in the big leagues.

The confusion sometimes starts when collectors continue to call first-year cards rookie cards. They've used that term for so long that it's hard for them to use a different term to describe the cards that were released prior to the player's appearance in the big leagues. Like most things in the hobby, it's a personal preference as to which you prefer. The logo cards seem to be gaining steam as far as popularity as more and more people understand what's going on.

 

[Mighty Bombjack]

I got a headache in a hobby shop trying to explain to my dad the difference between 2005 and 2007 Tulowitzki cards.

 

[uniquebaseballcards]

Some people think a player's first card, no matter where the guy was playing, is that player's best card, whether that card is fully licensed or not. Others think a player's best card comes after he's been placed on a MLB roster, this would be a fully licensed card.

But its a little more complicated than that, as first year cards include a gambling element on player potential, which leads to (often temporary) price increases that disappear after a period of time or shortly after a player makes an MLB roster. But bear in mind that most people who buy first year cards try to unload them when or before a player makes the big leagues.

Also know that first year cards are pretty new, so nobody can really say with any certainty that they will always be more or less popular than traditional rookie cards.

I don't really get this and can see it is a big issue. I didn't start collecting closely until about 2 years ago. Why would that Hamilton not be a rookie? It says rookie at the top. What makes a first year card better then a rookie?

 

[blitzerlover]

But its a little more complicated than that, as first year cards include a gambling element on player potential, which leads to (often temporary) price increases that disappear after a period of time or shortly after a player makes an MLB roster. But bear in mind that most people who buy first year cards try to unload them when or before a player makes the big leagues.

::facepalm::

So everyone that buys first year cards is a prospector? There are no player/team collectors that buy first year cards?

 

[Jaypers]

But its a little more complicated than that, as first year cards include a gambling element on player potential, which leads to (often temporary) price increases that disappear after a period of time or shortly after a player makes an MLB roster. But bear in mind that most people who buy first year cards try to unload them when or before a player makes the big leagues.

::facepalm::

So everyone that buys first year cards is a prospector? There are no player/team collectors that buy first year cards?

For the record, he did say "most" people.

 

[blitzerlover]

But its a little more complicated than that, as first year cards include a gambling element on player potential, which leads to (often temporary) price increases that disappear after a period of time or shortly after a player makes an MLB roster. But bear in mind that most people who buy first year cards try to unload them when or before a player makes the big leagues.

::facepalm::

So everyone that buys first year cards is a prospector? There are no player/team collectors that buy first year cards?

For the record, he did say "most" people.

Still, it is a huge generalization.

 

[JoshHamilton]

Completely disregard this, JoshHamilton here is still smarting from completely missing out on his player's best RC :

2005 are his hobby and industry recognized rookies. Anyone who says otherwise is an idiot

in a somewhat related note, do not listen to uniquebaseballcards. He is one of those aforementioned idiots

This is getting out of hand. I understand you being a worthless ****** troll when it comes to 2006-present cards, because the hobby rules changed and whether or not BC cards are truly RC's or not is a bit unclear (although anyone with a lick of common sense considers them rookies). Not to mention your completely idiotic stance that recent BC issues are "minor league" cards (THEY AREN'T, RETARD)

But calling a 2007 Josh Hamilton card a "rookie"? Are you out of your mind? Did you ever have a mind to begin with? EVERY single definition or Hamilton's rookie, be it in baseball card mags, Ebay, message boards, and everywhere else agrees that his rookie cards were produced in 1999. The fact that the card says "rookie" doesn't make it a rookie any more than McGwire's '87 Donruss "Rated Rookie" makes it a rookie.

I wish Gilmore would wisen up and ban you, much like virtualyankee was kicked off BMB. We get that you hate prospecting. We get that you're too dumb to understand simple widely understood hobby concepts like the definition of a rookie card. But you've gone beyond the point of simply being a troll. You're giving people advice and stating facts that are flat out incorrect. McCutchen's rookie cards are 2005, plain and simple. Beckett agrees, hobbyists agree. The fact that the OP even asked means he's probably young and wasn't in the hobby in '05. Your idiotic and incorrect advice because you want to spread your warped agenda does not help, it hurts.

Your biting insults and consistent name calling hurts much worse.

I only call people idiots when they act like idiots. If people would stop acting stupid, I would stop treating them as such

Simple as that.

 

[bballcardkid]

Some people think a player's first card, no matter where the guy was playing, is that player's best card, whether that card is fully licensed or not. Others think a player's best card comes after he's been placed on a MLB roster, this would be a fully licensed card.

But its a little more complicated than that, as first year cards include a gambling element on player potential, which leads to (often temporary) price increases that disappear after a period of time or shortly after a player makes an MLB roster. But bear in mind that most people who buy first year cards try to unload them when or before a player makes the big leagues.

Can you give me one example of when a players first year cards ebay sell values decreased while that players rookie logo cards, autographed cards, game used remained constant? I think that the topic you are actually referring to is when a hot rookie such as Kershaw, Longoria, or Upton type of player that starts off hot in the majors, but cools down once they start to struggle. But you left out an important fact that not only to first year cards decrease, all of their cards decrease. That is a completely different scenario then how you described it.

Also know that first year cards are pretty new, so nobody can really say with any certainty that they will always be more or less popular than traditional rookie cards.

The best example so far is Hanley Ramirez. His 2006 Bowman Chrome cards sell for toothpicks. You can't give them away (figure of speech). On the flipside, his 2006 cards have remained in demand for a prolonged period of time.

I'm not knocking RC Logo cards, as I think they are great for case breakers, but I would knock the MLBPA and everyone else who believes that this "rookie rule" should be universally accepted.