TOPPS GETS EXCLUSIVE MLB LICENSE STARTING IN 2010

[jumbojohnny]

It's not UD that I miss, it's Donruss... 2004 SP Prospects is the best product they ever produced, and 2005 Whatever-it-was-called fell off drastically.

I feel you. I would trade UD for Donruss any day. Topps is the grandfather company out there, but I always felt that Donruss had terrific products, good quality control, and an excellent customer servie team.

I needed a replacement for an auto Chad Johnson #/25 ...that was taking too long, I told them I collect Shawn Green & Ernie Banks. Two weeks later I had four Shawn Green Patches (and a laundry tag), and an on card Ernie Banks Auto. THANK YOU Donruss.

Topps didnt even ask me if I wanted a replacement for my 2007 Finest Dual Auto David Wright/Chase Utley....They sent me three trash prospect chrome autos that I couldnt sell for a buck a piece. Total BV was the same...

 

[nborton]

It's fairly easy to lobby for both sides of the "cheaper" debate on on-card autographs versus sticker autographs, but there is no debate on which is easier on the deadline side and it's stickers.

Personally, as long as the design accounts for a sticker and the sticker appears to fit in with the layout I am fine with them.

I agree with this statement. I don't want it to come across as if I am completely anti stickers. My point could be analagous to: why do we as collectors settle for ground beef when we could ask for ribeyes or filets? There are quite a few attractive stickers, even though I still hate the idea. For example, the stickers in the 04 SP Game Used set beautifully complimented the card design.

One beef I have had with UD however is it seems as though they can get their NBA sets to be primarily on card (Exquisite, Ultimate, Black, Premier ?) however their highest end baseball products such as UD Premier don't have any on card autos.

Much shorter seasons for BKB and FB players?

Sounds like another excuse. ::facepalm::

It's probably true though. On top of a shorter season, there's also far less players in the NBA to have to get autos from. In every draft class there are maybe 30 at tops that they have sign. Plus it seems like a decent chunk of the non-draft class autos in Exquisite are retired guys.

Still, it does seem like UD could at least get one high end set in baseball together on card.

 

[ChasHawk]

It's fairly easy to lobby for both sides of the "cheaper" debate on on-card autographs versus sticker autographs, but there is no debate on which is easier on the deadline side and it's stickers.

Personally, as long as the design accounts for a sticker and the sticker appears to fit in with the layout I am fine with them.

I agree with this statement. I don't want it to come across as if I am completely anti stickers. My point could be analagous to: why do we as collectors settle for ground beef when we could ask for ribeyes or filets? There are quite a few attractive stickers, even though I still hate the idea. For example, the stickers in the 04 SP Game Used set beautifully complimented the card design.

One beef I have had with UD however is it seems as though they can get their NBA sets to be primarily on card (Exquisite, Ultimate, Black, Premier ?) however their highest end baseball products such as UD Premier don't have any on card autos.

Much shorter seasons for BKB and FB players?

Sounds like another excuse. ::facepalm::

It's probably true though. On top of a shorter season, there's also far less players in the NBA to have to get autos from. In every draft class there are maybe 30 at tops that they have sign. Plus it seems like a decent chunk of the non-draft class autos in Exquisite are retired guys.

Still, it does seem like UD could at least get one high end set in baseball together on card.

2005 Ultimate Signature Edition - Which I am sure was an absolute nightmare to produce.

 

[matfanofold]

I can not seem to figure out why some are having trouble understanding this.


FACT: ANYONE can produce MLB cards(given they have the means) and attempt to profit accordingly.

FACT: MLB owns the rights to there trademark logo's.

FACT: Topps may be the only one given permission to use MLB's trademark logo's but this does not stop ANYONE from making and distributing player cards of MLB players(given the means).

THERE IS NO MONOPLY HERE = FACT.

It's not even a fine line, its just fruitless to argue this.

Just because you can not put a MC D's logo on your burger, does it make MC D's a monopoly? Can you not still make and sell a burger? Topps owns the rights to MLB logo's, period. They can grant permission to anyone they want to use them, or no one at all. ITS THERE PROPERTY.

IF the MLB had stopped anyone from making player cards all together(logo or not) except for topps, then it would be considered a monopoly, but this is not the case. And if you think a MLB logo defines a MLB baseball card, then your sadly mistaken. Topps has bought/won exclusive rights to use MLB logo's(which are private property) for there MLB baseball cards. Just because you do not have a fancy logo does not equate to you not having player cards of MLB players.

It seems that when ever the water is even a bit merky, the same sharks come out to argue for the simple sake of argument, throwing logic to the wind. For the love of god, someone please show me how a trademark logo, which is private property, can turn in to a monopoly? Anyone? Please?? Does this logo stop you from making or selling cards of MLB players? Does the lack of a trademark MLB logo(s) stop anyone from making any kind of ML cards?

 

[notjomommasclint]

baseball has had an oligopoly since the case against topps in the 80s. topps cant be considered a monopoly since there are still other makers of cards. as i have said before that i like the exclusive idea for baseball and i am glad that topps was the choice. topps has a fantastic tenure of producing cards and was my favorite brand as a child.

imo the statement that topps now has no inspiration to maintain a quality product is bogus. topps is openly traded and producing crap products will demolish their stocks value. no company gains this much then says hey lets go **** it up with **** release after **** release. regardless of how many of us are selling our collections or declaring jihad on topps the fact remains their business will grow as they eat up the market share. so a few dudes online ranting about a bad decision and stomping off into the sunset will bother them none.

ud had the deck stacked against them with not being able to produce a set that competes with bowman and their prospects. they did everything in their power to backdoor and sneak around to offset the inequities in the agreement which they signed. regardless of what everyone is saying razor in no way pushed the envelope of creativity with topps. the only thing they brought to the forefront was exclusivity which no matter how many times its said is not licensed... and in the end that pushed them further away from an actual big time licensed product.

i believe topps continues sterling, triple threads, ginter, heritage, bowman chrome, and topps finest in the future. i for one am excited about streamlining of the hobby and having an idea of what to expect from name that i trust. no matter which company you miss the fact is that they all had their major shortcomings. donruss flooded the 1/1 market, upper deck had horrid customer service, and fleer had zero quality control. so why not be as happy as possible and enjoy a hobby that is based on the fun of the game and not a profit.

 

[sportscardtheory]

I can not seem to figure out why some are having trouble understanding this.


FACT: ANYONE can produce MLB cards(given they have the means) and attempt to profit accordingly.

FACT: MLB owns the rights to there trademark logo's.

FACT: Topps may be the only one given permission to use MLB's trademark logo's but this does not stop ANYONE from making and distributing player cards of MLB players(given the means).

THERE IS NO MONOPLY HERE = FACT.

It's not even a fine line, its just fruitless to argue this.

Just because you can not put a MC D's logo on your burger, does it make MC D's a monopoly? Can you not still make and sell a burger? Topps owns the rights to MLB logo's, period. They can grant permission to anyone they want to use them, or no one at all. ITS THERE PROPERTY.

IF the MLB had stopped anyone from making player cards all together(logo or not) except for topps, then it would be considered a monopoly, but this is not the case. And if you think a MLB logo defines a MLB baseball card, then your sadly mistaken. Topps has bought/won exclusive rights to use MLB logo's(which are private property) for there MLB baseball cards. Just because you do not have a fancy logo does not equate to you not having player cards of MLB players.

It seems that when ever the water is even a bit merky, the same sharks come out to argue for the simple sake of argument, throwing logic to the wind. For the love of god, someone please show me how a trademark logo, which is private property, can turn in to a monopoly? Anyone? Please?? Does this logo stop you from making or selling cards of MLB players? Does the lack of a trademark MLB logo(s) stop anyone from making any kind of ML cards?

Where are these unlicensed current MLB player cards you are referencing? In Donruss products? In Razor products? What are you talking about? Where is the 2009 Donruss David Wright card? Where is the 2009 Razor Albert Pujols card? These players play in the Major League and can not have cards produced by unlicensed companies, period. Topps exclusivity in 2010 is a monopoly on ML baseball cards. Do I really need to show you the definition of monopoly AGAIN? If you don't have MLB licensing, you can't make cards picturing current ML baseball players, FACT. You are the one that can't grasp the importance of MLB licensing.

 

[hofautos]

UD will still make cards...

UD has exclusive to ICHIRO, but topps makes ICHIRO cards, just not autos, right?

UD EVEN STATED THEY WILL CONTINUE TO MANUFACTURE BASEBALL CARDS.

 

[G $MONEY$]

Upper Deck deserves nothing here.

They made their own bed and we are completely brushing over years and years of hideous customer service regarding products that forced contact with customer service. The horrific redemption program has only been manageable for the past 6 months...years after Richard McWilliams claimed he would resolve it while claiming he also never knew it was a problem.

Upper Deck has had one person with a soul for perhaps the entire life of the company and that is Chris Carlin. And yet, the only time you have to deal with him is when there is a problem.

I just wish the NHL would give the license back to Bryan Price and In the Game, or Sport Kings or whatever else they call themselves.

Gregg Kohn is good people too.

Add Barry Sicherman to this list. Dependable, reliable and honest. <nod>

Too bad Barry don't work at UD anymore, they let him go a few weeks ago.

 

[plainwhitejerseys]

[email protected][/email]

The best way to let these guys know what you think is to write them direct. If enough people voice their displeasure, change can happen.

I'm pissed and I'm letting Tim know what I think of this monopoly!

*sigh*

It's NOT A MONOPOLY.

then what is it?

It's a contract that excludes other companies from producing cards with MLB logos.

Exactly, its a contract that allows only ONE company to produce cards using the team names and logos, no one else can do this, that to me is a monopoly.

If you think it's a monopoly, then you have no idea what the term "monopoly" means.[/quote:1pqf3l00]

Monopoly
1. exclusive control of a commodity or service in a particular market, or a control that makes possible the manipulation of prices. Compare duopoly, oligopoly.
2. an exclusive privilege to carry on a business, traffic, or service, granted by a government.
3. the exclusive possession or control of something.

How is Topps having "exclusive control" over the creation of MLB cards (a particular market) NOT a monopoly???[/quote:1pqf3l00]

MLB-licensed baseball cards are not a "particular market".

 

[plainwhitejerseys]

Monopoly
1. exclusive control of a commodity or service in a particular market, or a control that makes possible the manipulation of prices. Compare duopoly, oligopoly.
2. an exclusive privilege to carry on a business, traffic, or service, granted by a government.
3. the exclusive possession or control of something.

How is Topps having "exclusive control" over the creation of MLB cards NOT a monopoly???

Tiger Woods only endorses Nike (and they pay him handsomely to do so). You cannot buy a golf shirt from another company with his likness, signature, whatever.

Does Nike have a monopoly on Tiger Woods golf shirts? By your definition, yes, but that is a VERY wide definition of a monopoly.

Anyone can continue to produce trading cards, they just don't have MLB's permission to use MLB logos. That is not a monopoly,it is an exclusive endorsement.

lol, so by your definition, there is no such thing as a monopoly.

It's not his definition, it's a legal definition.

 

[plainwhitejerseys]

[quote="Mighty Bombjack":1tn4eqwd]

[quote="Mighty Bombjack":1tn4eqwd]

Monopoly
1. exclusive control of a commodity or service in a particular market, or a control that makes possible the manipulation of prices. Compare duopoly, oligopoly.
2. an exclusive privilege to carry on a business, traffic, or service, granted by a government.
3. the exclusive possession or control of something.

How is Topps having "exclusive control" over the creation of MLB cards NOT a monopoly???

Tiger Woods only endorses Nike (and they pay him handsomely to do so). You cannot buy a golf shirt from another company with his likness, signature, whatever.

Does Nike have a monopoly on Tiger Woods golf shirts? By your definition, yes, but that is a VERY wide definition of a monopoly.

Anyone can continue to produce trading cards, they just don't have MLB's permission to use MLB logos. That is not a monopoly,it is an exclusive endorsement.

lol, so by your definition, there is no such thing as a monopoly.

Sure there is. MLB itself is the best example. Microsoft was found guilty of taking steps to establish one.

According to you, MLB most certainly does NOT have a monopoly. Anyone can play the game of baseball. UNder the defintion of monopoly, Topps in fact has a monopoly on ML baseball cards starting in 2010... that's a fact.

MLB is the only entity to which congress has issued an anti-trust exemption. Do you understand that?

If you and I had the money and desire, we could start a professional football league and attempt to compete with the NFL, lure their players away, etc. It has been attempted many times.

We cannot, by law attempt to start a professional baseball league. That's a monopoly.

If you and want to make baseball trading cards, we are free to do so. Ask Brian Gray. We have to negotiate to use player likenesses, as individuals own the rights to their images. We could probably do this.

We would also have to negotiate for the right to use MLB's logos, as businesses own the rights to their trademarks. This would obviously prove tougher right now.[/quote:1tn4eqwd]

You are still completely ignoring the definition of monopoly. - "exclusive control (Topps) of a commodity or service (baseball cards) in a particular market (MLB), or a control that makes possible the manipulation of prices (yes they can)."

And if the fact no one can create a league to rival ML baseball makes them a monopoly is correct, you just proved that Topps has a monopoly on the ML baseball card market in 2010... BECAUSE NO ONE ELSE CAN CREATE ML BASEBALL CARDS IN 2010.[/quote:1tn4eqwd]

Yes.
They.
Can.

They just can't use MLB logos or team names.

*sigh*

 

[plainwhitejerseys]

You are still completely ignoring the definition of monopoly. - "exclusive control (Topps) of a commodity or service (baseball cards) in a particular market (MLB), or a control that makes possible the manipulation of prices (yes they can)."

And if the fact no one can create a league to rival ML baseball makes them a monopoly is correct, you just proved that Topps has a monopoly on the ML baseball card market in 2010... BECAUSE NO ONE ELSE CAN CREATE ML BASEBALL CARDS IN 2010.

Why don't you make shirts, shoes, etc. with the Nike logo on them? Because Nike owns that logo, and only they can make money off of it. Had you enough money, they might negotiate with you.

Why don't you make baseball cards with the MLB logos on them? Because MLB owns those logos, and only they can make money off of them.

Do you think that MLB logos are public domain or something?

What on earth are you talking about? I know I can't create unlicensed versions of licensed items. That's kind of the point of licensing.

His point flew WAAAAAY over your head.

 

[plainwhitejerseys]

I guess if you are going to completely ignore the definition of monopoly and make your own, you are forcing yourself to be right.

You're the ONLY one doing that. You're ignoring the definition and making your own.

 

[theplasticman]

::facepalm::

 

[sportscardtheory]

You are still completely ignoring the definition of monopoly. - "exclusive control (Topps) of a commodity or service (baseball cards) in a particular market (MLB), or a control that makes possible the manipulation of prices (yes they can)."

And if the fact no one can create a league to rival ML baseball makes them a monopoly is correct, you just proved that Topps has a monopoly on the ML baseball card market in 2010... BECAUSE NO ONE ELSE CAN CREATE ML BASEBALL CARDS IN 2010.

Yes.
They.
Can.

They just can't use MLB logos or team names.

*sigh*

They are not ML cards if there is no ML licensing. Sigh away, you are wrong.

 

[hofautos]

You are still completely ignoring the definition of monopoly. - "exclusive control (Topps) of a commodity or service (baseball cards) in a particular market (MLB), or a control that makes possible the manipulation of prices (yes they can)."

And if the fact no one can create a league to rival ML baseball makes them a monopoly is correct, you just proved that Topps has a monopoly on the ML baseball card market in 2010... BECAUSE NO ONE ELSE CAN CREATE ML BASEBALL CARDS IN 2010.

Yes.
They.
Can.

They just can't use MLB logos or team names.

*sigh*

They are not ML cards if there is no ML licensing. Sigh away, you are wrong.

I guess it is just a matter of what one's definition of a MLB card is...to me, a MLB card would be a card with a MLB player on it. It may not be a MLB licensed card, but it is still a Major League Baseball Card imo..

I mean I would rather have a Donruss on-card Auto Rookie that is not licensed over a Topps sticker rookie...

BUT I DO UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU MEAN...

EDIT - I take back what i just said...i just found out the cards can't show the players in MLB uniforms...

 

[rico08]

Where are these unlicensed current MLB player cards you are referencing? In Donruss products? In Razor products? What are you talking about? Where is the 2009 Donruss David Wright card? Where is the 2009 Razor Albert Pujols card? These players play in the Major League and can not have cards produced by unlicensed companies, period. Topps exclusivity in 2010 is a monopoly on ML baseball cards. Do I really need to show you the definition of monopoly AGAIN? If you don't have MLB licensing, you can't make cards picturing current ML baseball players, FACT. You are the one that can't grasp the importance of MLB licensing.

This is a 2010 deal that has nothing to do with 2009 cards.

MLB decided that Topps will be the only company able to use any and all logos associated with Major League Baseball. All UD, Razor, Donruss, and myself needs to do is airbrush logos...you know what, just read matfanofold's post.

You must be part of an interesting, delusional club...

 

[ChasHawk]

Where are these unlicensed current MLB player cards you are referencing? In Donruss products? In Razor products? What are you talking about? Where is the 2009 Donruss David Wright card? Where is the 2009 Razor Albert Pujols card? These players play in the Major League and can not have cards produced by unlicensed companies, period. Topps exclusivity in 2010 is a monopoly on ML baseball cards. Do I really need to show you the definition of monopoly AGAIN? If you don't have MLB licensing, you can't make cards picturing current ML baseball players, FACT. You are the one that can't grasp the importance of MLB licensing.

This is a 2010 deal that has nothing to do with 2009 cards.

MLB decided that Topps will be the only company able to use any and all logos associated with Major League Baseball. All UD, Razor, Donruss, and myself needs to do is airbrush logos...you know what, just read matfanofold's post.

You must be part of an interesting, delusional club...

If he is part of any club, it is one that contains 1000's of collectors who
do not want cards with cap off head shots, or air brushed logos.

Are people really clammoring for a set like this?

 

[plainwhitejerseys]

Where are these unlicensed current MLB player cards you are referencing? In Donruss products? In Razor products? What are you talking about?

Cracker Jack does a unlicensed set with MLB players most years. Post Cereal does as well.

Where is the 2009 Donruss David Wright card? Where is the 2009 Razor Albert Pujols card?

There aren't any. But if Donruss signed Write to a deal or Razor signed Pujols to a deal, or if either company got an MLBPA license, they could and would produce cards of those players.

These players play in the Major League and can not have cards produced by unlicensed companies, period.

Yes.
They.
Can.

Topps exclusivity in 2010 is a monopoly on ML baseball cards.

Wrong.

It's not a monopoly.

Do I really need to show you the definition of monopoly AGAIN?

I think you would be better off LEARNING WHAT THE TERM MEANS before you try and taunt others. My word, I don't know that I've ever seen anyone here so ignorant.

If you don't have MLB licensing, you can't make cards picturing current ML baseball players, FACT.

Wrong.

You are the one that can't grasp the importance of MLB licensing.

Nope. It's you. You're the ignorant one.

 

[sportscardtheory]

Where are these unlicensed current MLB player cards you are referencing? In Donruss products? In Razor products? What are you talking about?

Cracker Jack does a unlicensed set with MLB players most years. Post Cereal does as well.

Where is the 2009 Donruss David Wright card? Where is the 2009 Razor Albert Pujols card?

There aren't any. But if Donruss signed Write to a deal or Razor signed Pujols to a deal, or if either company got an MLBPA license, they could and would produce cards of those players.

These players play in the Major League and can not have cards produced by unlicensed companies, period.

Yes.
They.
Can.

Topps exclusivity in 2010 is a monopoly on ML baseball cards.

Wrong.

It's not a monopoly.

Do I really need to show you the definition of monopoly AGAIN?

I think you would be better off LEARNING WHAT THE TERM MEANS before you try and taunt others. My word, I don't know that I've ever seen anyone here so ignorant.

If you don't have MLB licensing, you can't make cards picturing current ML baseball players, FACT.

Wrong.

You are the one that can't grasp the importance of MLB licensing.

Nope. It's you. You're the ignorant one.

lol, it's not worth the time with you. Up is down, black is white... believe what you want. I'll stick with reality.