Bob Loblaw
Active member
beefycheddar said:
It's nice to see a mod agree with me and disagree with Chris. That's all.
Welcome to our community
Be apart of something great, join today!
wade miley... RAZOR EXCLUSIVE
- Thread starter dchurg
- Start date
Disclaimer: Links on this page pointing to Amazon, eBay and other sites may include affiliate code. If you click them and make a purchase, we may earn a small commission.
It's nice to see a mod agree with me and disagree with Chris. That's all.
Bob Loblaw
Active member
cgilmo said:
And two shops that myself and ballerskrip frequent had absolutely nothing good to say about the product other than the fact that they're allegedly in bed with the company-that-shall-not-be-named...
Maybe it's just an Alabama thing, Chris.
I can say here at the few shops I go to to in nyc they didn't give a crap, I asked a pretty big one about razor boxes and he said he wont carry just products. I tried to explain to him its a different company all together and he was swearing up and down just changed their name to razor. I still bust his shoes about it.cgilmo said:
Bob Loblaw
Active member
dethomas07 said:
If they enjoyed the fact that they didn't know the players, why not go get a box of 1990 Fleer or Donruss for $5?
A lot cheaper.
My son, 8, enjoys breaking the major league prospect as he knows the players from watching games and going to ST games. The rookies in the product he doesn't know, except for the Phillies rookies, which he knows from going to Clearwater Threshers games.
I wouldn't typically open a rookie product with him, but I recently opened a box of Elite. He didn't know the guys except for Buster Posey as we watched some FSU baseball as well. It wasn't as much fun opening Elite with him as it was a box of Topps base.
And the Topps was less than half the cost.
Jeff N. said:
#1- they WERE aware of agreement (Donruss)
#2- We do have a clause in player's agreemnts that provides for penalties in juts this sort of case...[/quote:30aizww1]
I understand they were aware - - isn't that why the autos were pulled? What incentive is it to Donruss to have the extra 25 cards in there? Isn't it more likely that those were missed in pulling the auto'ed cards? There appeared to be no intent to interefere with your contract.
As for the liquidated damages, if the player doesn't do anything in the majors, do you expect to collect from him? Doesn't it set off other prospective players as having to be careful with RAzor as they'll sue you if another company makes a product of you? (Miley will spin it, rest assured, and his agent will do so as well).[/quote:30aizww1]
As someone who worked around some players for a while, I can agree that this will happen. Players, especially foreign players were very reluctant to sign contracts when approached in the clubhouse or dugout by Topps reps because they were afraid of signing their name to something that entered them into a contract. A lot of players werent even sure they would make the team the next season (some I watched sign contracts were later released from the team) and I am sure they would never want something like this hanging over their head when their back in the Dominican Republic or where ever they might be from. A rep. would come from Topps about 2 times each season and the players would all discuss what signing that contract meant as far as what their name was going to be used on. The rep. explained to them but some guys just ran by, on their way to the field, signed the contract and left. After the game or practice, some of the guys who didnt even realize what they were signing up for took the measily $5 check they got and tossed it. I dont think they knew enough to care. I wont name names but I know of guys who have cards out now, that didnt even understand anything about signing that contract other than they got $5 out of it. I bet the same guys were/could be approached by another company and sign just because.....I dont know how Razor/Brian handled signing players but IF it was done the same way Topps did it, I bet a guy like Wade Miley has no clue he even signed an exclusive contract, or probably what it even means. I say all this because I never once say a players agent get involved. Anyways, I do know that if there was word someone got sued, the next time a repm comes up to them they might just bypass signing anything no matter if its exclusive or not. I am sure the players would all discuss what happened because those guys in the minors are all rpetty close and usually at least 1 guy on a team knows someone from the other team in town and info constantly goes back and fourth between players. I would imgaine someone would spot a player signing a contract and make him aware of what might happen if he signed something. Especially the guys who arent making $1,000,000 who have to support families on that $80,000 their making (which might be the only contract they ever sign). They couldnt afford to be sued.
dethomas07
New member
Jeff N. said:
If you read my response to CGILMO right below this one, you'll see why we don't buy 1990 boxes.
David
kentuckyderby
New member
Jeff N. said:
This is scaring me but I am agreeing with Jeff AGAIN. If your kids don't know the players, why not bust open some 90 Fleer, 89 score, 88 Topps and save yourself a bundle of cash? That is, if they are only in it for the hobby reason.
To each their own I supoose but saying that Razor is for the young hobby collector is inaccurate. If they are love the multiple autos per box, did you open Tristar products from previous years?
It is great that you are sharing the hobby with your kids. I remember opening up packs (nobody I knew bought them by the box in the late 70s) each week with my dad and brothers, scratching names off the checklists, putting the cards on the bed and bouncing all over them to see which card is the last to stay on the mattress (Yikes!), cutting out the all-topps team trophies from the cards and pasting them on the White Sox cards (sorry 1978 Eddie Murray Card).
I now use cards in my classroom (math, average, geography, etc)
cgilmo said:
My shop owner said it hasn't been selling recently, he had to lower the box price down to 85. I will admit at first I didnt think I would like it, I busted 3 boxes and made money back on two of them. I have no problem with the product, of course like anything the newness will rub off of it. Thats just human nature...
Isnt it also possible that a guy like Miley signed a contract with Donruss BEFORE he signed with Razor? How exclusive is the contract with Razor? Can a guy who is signed to an "exclusive" contract not have a card in theminor league team set thats printed by the team? I would think MILB has some kind of higher authority where they get their regardless and other contracts are below them?
BowmanChromeAddict
New member
Jeff N. said:
It's nice to see a mod agree with me and disagree with Chris. That's all.[/quote:2tim0zqv]
You actually think a Topps rep is going to let on that they changed anything because of Razor? Of course they aren't. To acknowledge Razor would only validate them and they aren't going to do that. So, with all this in mind, I think we could all agree that Topps made changes to BDP for multiple reasons: 08 BC sucking, the existence of Razor, the economy, Donruss, etc. But clearly Razor is one of the reasons.
beefycheddar
Super Moderator
- Aug 7, 2008
- 8,055
- 0
BowmanChromeAddict said:
You actually think a Topps rep is going to let on that they changed anything because of Razor? Of course they aren't. To acknowledge Razor would only validate them and they aren't going to do that. So, with all this in mind, I think we could all agree that Topps made changes to BDP for multiple reasons: 08 BC sucking, the existence of Razor, the economy, Donruss, etc. But clearly Razor is one of the reasons.[/quote:13xl1bqq]
Do you know the conversations I have had? They aren't just the ones posted on the site. I may have had some indepth talks with Topps people, and I honestly believe they just care more about their own product and are not very worried about Razor.
BowmanChromeAddict
New member
beefycheddar said:
You actually think a Topps rep is going to let on that they changed anything because of Razor? Of course they aren't. To acknowledge Razor would only validate them and they aren't going to do that. So, with all this in mind, I think we could all agree that Topps made changes to BDP for multiple reasons: 08 BC sucking, the existence of Razor, the economy, Donruss, etc. But clearly Razor is one of the reasons.[/quote:1338n7d3]
Do you know the conversations I have had? They aren't just the ones posted on the site. I may have had some indepth talks with Topps people, and I honestly believe they just care more about their own product and are not very worried about Razor.[/quote:1338n7d3]
You think they're going to be completely and utterly honest with you about Razor's impact on their business, specifically in the prospect market? Can you, not Topps, but you honestly tell me that you believe that the changes that Topps made to BDP had NOTHING to do with Razor?
beefycheddar
Super Moderator
- Aug 7, 2008
- 8,055
- 0
BowmanChromeAddict said:
You actually think a Topps rep is going to let on that they changed anything because of Razor? Of course they aren't. To acknowledge Razor would only validate them and they aren't going to do that. So, with all this in mind, I think we could all agree that Topps made changes to BDP for multiple reasons: 08 BC sucking, the existence of Razor, the economy, Donruss, etc. But clearly Razor is one of the reasons.[/quote:3141ft38]
Do you know the conversations I have had? They aren't just the ones posted on the site. I may have had some indepth talks with Topps people, and I honestly believe they just care more about their own product and are not very worried about Razor.[/quote:3141ft38]
You think they're going to be completely and utterly honest with you about Razor's impact on their business, specifically in the prospect market? Can you, not Topps, but you honestly tell me that you believe that the changes that Topps made to BDP had NOTHING to do with Razor?[/quote:3141ft38]
Please read my posts again. I never once said Razor had no impact, but I do not believe that Razor rattled Topps very much, if at all. I am one of the biggest supporters of Razor, I have no malice in stating it against them. I love Razor products, but from conversations I have had I do not believe Topps takes them very seriously at this point because of how many draft products have come and gone over the years.
I will state it again clearly, this years Bowman Chrome was more of a landscape changer I think as Razor to Topps. Razor may have made Topps rush some things (Aflacs) but I think the print run cutting, and less autographs but more quality in checklist were two things that Chrome completely changed, not so much Razor.
I am a big supporter of every company, what reason do they have to lie to me when we are just discussing different topics off air?
theplasticman
Well-known member
- Nov 21, 2008
- 4,174
- 299
Today on Days of our Lives... :lol:
uniquebaseballcards
New member
- Nov 12, 2008
- 6,783
- 0
I'm trying to figure out why you even responded here, its obvious that you either like to argue and/or are completely brainwashed by Topps 
. There are almost no legitimate reasons for Razor not to include such a clause here...Razor would completely collapse if any single contract without the clause was made open to the public as it would completely go against their public marketing strategy...and it would make less sense to include a clause prohibiting the public exposure of their contracts if they weren't going to have a liquidation clause.
Now if you were saying below that there are good reasons not to include a liquidated damages clause in any contract in general (and not just Razor contracts), that's another thing, you were a little hazy on that there...
This is a discussion board. People ask questions and they get answered. If you want to assume that there's a liquidated damages clause -- and there is plenty of reason not to include one, continue to be one of the sheeple in this country and eat the slop that's poured in front of you. Or, as another esteemed user-a-rino likes to say, slurp slurp.[/quote:1y12k01k]
. There are almost no legitimate reasons for Razor not to include such a clause here...Razor would completely collapse if any single contract without the clause was made open to the public as it would completely go against their public marketing strategy...and it would make less sense to include a clause prohibiting the public exposure of their contracts if they weren't going to have a liquidation clause.Now if you were saying below that there are good reasons not to include a liquidated damages clause in any contract in general (and not just Razor contracts), that's another thing, you were a little hazy on that there...
Jeff N. said:
This is a discussion board. People ask questions and they get answered. If you want to assume that there's a liquidated damages clause -- and there is plenty of reason not to include one, continue to be one of the sheeple in this country and eat the slop that's poured in front of you. Or, as another esteemed user-a-rino likes to say, slurp slurp.[/quote:1y12k01k]
Bob Loblaw
Active member
Oh boy, this is great!
rob167
Active member
FLOUNDER!!
Jeff N. said:Oh boy, this is great!
Bob Loblaw
Active member
uniquebaseballcards said:I'm trying to figure out why you even responded here, its obvious that you either like to argue and/or are completely brainwashed by Topps
I don't think I'm arguing at all throughout these 8 pages. There's discussion as to whether or not Razor is "good for the hobby", but no argument.
Huh? What do liquidated damages have to be with publicity of the contract? I don't see much of a problem if these contracts were public domain, other than negotiating prices with future draft picks. THe only specific thing in the contract would be the amount paid to the player.
Again, I don't see the connection between public exposure and liquidated damages. I am assuming you know, but liquidated damages are a set amount of damages that the parties agree upon that breach would cost Razor... so if Miley Cyrus here breached the contract, and the contract called for $100k in liquidated damages, Miley's responsible -- arguably. I fail to see the connection asserted above.
They're good in some contracts, not good in other contracts. As was stated above, baseball players may not want to sign contracts that make them liable for damages, especially foreign players. Further, if Miely doesn't do anything in baseball, it'll be like trying to get blood from a cactus.
Jeff N. said:
This is a discussion board. People ask questions and they get answered. If you want to assume that there's a liquidated damages clause -- and there is plenty of reason not to include one, continue to be one of the sheeple in this country and eat the slop that's poured in front of you. Or, as another esteemed user-a-rino likes to say, slurp slurp.[/quote:217c7bs2][/quote]
BowmanChromeAddict
New member
beefycheddar said:
You actually think a Topps rep is going to let on that they changed anything because of Razor? Of course they aren't. To acknowledge Razor would only validate them and they aren't going to do that. So, with all this in mind, I think we could all agree that Topps made changes to BDP for multiple reasons: 08 BC sucking, the existence of Razor, the economy, Donruss, etc. But clearly Razor is one of the reasons.[/quote:17b8k2r8]
Do you know the conversations I have had? They aren't just the ones posted on the site. I may have had some indepth talks with Topps people, and I honestly believe they just care more about their own product and are not very worried about Razor.[/quote:17b8k2r8]
You think they're going to be completely and utterly honest with you about Razor's impact on their business, specifically in the prospect market? Can you, not Topps, but you honestly tell me that you believe that the changes that Topps made to BDP had NOTHING to do with Razor?[/quote:17b8k2r8]
Please read my posts again. I never once said Razor had no impact, but I do not believe that Razor rattled Topps very much, if at all. I am one of the biggest supporters of Razor, I have no malice in stating it against them. I love Razor products, but from conversations I have had I do not believe Topps takes them very seriously at this point because of how many draft products have come and gone over the years.
I will state it again clearly, this years Bowman Chrome was more of a landscape changer I think as Razor to Topps. Razor may have made Topps rush some things (Aflacs) but I think the print run cutting, and less autographs but more quality in checklist were two things that Chrome completely changed, not so much Razor.
I am a big supporter of every company, what reason do they have to lie to me when we are just discussing different topics off air?[/quote:17b8k2r8]
My first post was actually responding to Jeff, not you. I was surprised when you snapped back defending your conversations and relationships with Topps. My only point in responding to Jeff was the conspicuous absence of Razor on the list of reasons that Topps made changes to BDP. Nobody ever said that Razor was the only reason Topps made changes, but you can't say that they had no impact on the positive changes to BDP either.
