Wander Franco Rookie Card Debate (2021 Bowman's Best vs. 2022 RC logo cards)

[SaveMeTheGum]

Is the 2015 Bowman Chrome Draft #106 Rafael Devers's true rookie card?

[Shankweather]

Originally Posted by SaveMeTheGum

Is the 2015 Bowman Chrome Draft #106 Rafael Devers's true rookie card?

No, Bowman Chrome Draft is not a major league set, it's prospects only.

[SaveMeTheGum]

Here's a summary so far. Let me know if anything is missing:

Arguments against:
- It's Bowman's Best
- It's a set with "RC" labels and this card does not have a "RC" label
- It's a set with other prospects that don't have "RC" label
- It's a set that shows no stats for players on the back
- No MLBPA logo
- Topps misnumbered the prospects


Arguments for:
- It's #50

[jhssketchcards]

Since Beckett determines so much nowadays..

According BaseballCardPedia:

“The "Beckett Definition" of the rookie card (or "RC") states that a "rookie card" must come from a fully-licensed (both MLB and MLBPA), nationally-distributed set that is primarily focused on current Major League players. It must be a base card and cannot be an insert, parallel, or redemption card. A player may only have one RC per set. If he has more than one base set card in the same set, then the "rookie card" tag is given to the "regular" card (assuming that the other card is from a special subset). If a player has more than one base set card in the same set, but the two cards are produced in different quantities (i.e. one is short-printed and the other is not), then the more common card is given the "rookie card" label.”

“Beginning with the 2006 season, a new set of rules on player selection from Major League Baseball Properties (MLB) and the MLB Players Association (MLBPA) went into effect. From that point on, only those players who have actually played in a Major League game, will be allowed to appear in an MLB/MLBPA licensed base set. Further more, all cards of first-year players will have a new standardized, cross-brand, "ROOKIE CARD" icon on their cards.
As part of it's long-standing agreement with the MLBPA, Topps is not bound to the Association's group licensing agreement, and must sign each player to an individual contract. On the surface, this appears to give Topps' competition an advantage; however, (up until 2006) it allowed Topps to include players who had yet to reach a Major League roster, onto fully-licensed MLB cards. Since relaunching the Bowman brand in 1989, Topps has positioned it as "The Home of the Rookie Card" by stocking the checklist with hundreds of minor leaguers. Since Bowman is a fully licensed brand, and does feature a token number of current Major League stars, the cards of these minor leaguers are considered their true Major League rookie card.”


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[oldgoldy97]

http://www.baseballcardpedia.com/index.php/Rookie_Card

[oldgoldy97]

Originally Posted by jhssketchcards

Since Beckett determines so much nowadays..

According BaseballCardPedia:

“The "Beckett Definition" of the rookie card (or "RC") states that a "rookie card" must come from a fully-licensed (both MLB and MLBPA), nationally-distributed set that is primarily focused on current Major League players. It must be a base card and cannot be an insert, parallel, or redemption card. A player may only have one RC per set. If he has more than one base set card in the same set, then the "rookie card" tag is given to the "regular" card (assuming that the other card is from a special subset). If a player has more than one base set card in the same set, but the two cards are produced in different quantities (i.e. one is short-printed and the other is not), then the more common card is given the "rookie card" label.”

“Beginning with the 2006 season, a new set of rules on player selection from Major League Baseball Properties (MLB) and the MLB Players Association (MLBPA) went into effect. From that point on, only those players who have actually played in a Major League game, will be allowed to appear in an MLB/MLBPA licensed base set. Further more, all cards of first-year players will have a new standardized, cross-brand, "ROOKIE CARD" icon on their cards.
As part of it's long-standing agreement with the MLBPA, Topps is not bound to the Association's group licensing agreement, and must sign each player to an individual contract. On the surface, this appears to give Topps' competition an advantage; however, (up until 2006) it allowed Topps to include players who had yet to reach a Major League roster, onto fully-licensed MLB cards. Since relaunching the Bowman brand in 1989, Topps has positioned it as "The Home of the Rookie Card" by stocking the checklist with hundreds of minor leaguers. Since Bowman is a fully licensed brand, and does feature a token number of current Major League stars, the cards of these minor leaguers are considered their true Major League rookie card.”


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

We were both looking at the same thing.

[theshowandme]

Originally Posted by SaveMeTheGum

Here's a summary so far. Let me know if anything is missing:

Arguments against:
- It's Bowman's Best
- It's a set with "RC" labels and this card does not have a "RC" label
- It's a set with other prospects that don't have "RC" label
- It's a set that shows no stats for players on the back
- No MLBPA logo
- Topps misnumbered the prospects


Arguments for:
- It's #50

Arguments Against:

1. No RC logo
2. Design is different
3. No MLBPA logo on back
4. Most players have not debuted yet
5. No stat line on back
6. It is Bowman's Best, not a flagship release
7. It was a numbering mistake
8. Topps does not list them as RC on the checklist
9. There are RC logos on some cards, but not others
10. It HAS to be a numbering mistake
11. Only pumpers want these to be Rookie Cards
12. It is not a major release
13. These guys are going to suck anyways
14. "No one will care about a midget playing in Tampa Bay in 10 years"

Arguments For

1. It is a nationally distributed MLB release with packs
2. It is Wander's first time in a the base set with rookies and veterans
3. It is not designated as an insert, it is numbered normally in the base set (#50)


Occam's razor: "The simplest explanation is usually the best one"

[Shankweather]

Originally Posted by jhssketchcards

Since Beckett determines so much nowadays..

According BaseballCardPedia:

“The "Beckett Definition" of the rookie card (or "RC") states that a "rookie card" must come from a fully-licensed (both MLB and MLBPA), nationally-distributed set that is primarily focused on current Major League players. It must be a base card and cannot be an insert, parallel, or redemption card. A player may only have one RC per set. If he has more than one base set card in the same set, then the "rookie card" tag is given to the "regular" card (assuming that the other card is from a special subset). If a player has more than one base set card in the same set, but the two cards are produced in different quantities (i.e. one is short-printed and the other is not), then the more common card is given the "rookie card" label.”

“Beginning with the 2006 season, a new set of rules on player selection from Major League Baseball Properties (MLB) and the MLB Players Association (MLBPA) went into effect. From that point on, only those players who have actually played in a Major League game, will be allowed to appear in an MLB/MLBPA licensed base set. Further more, all cards of first-year players will have a new standardized, cross-brand, "ROOKIE CARD" icon on their cards.
As part of it's long-standing agreement with the MLBPA, Topps is not bound to the Association's group licensing agreement, and must sign each player to an individual contract. On the surface, this appears to give Topps' competition an advantage; however, (up until 2006) it allowed Topps to include players who had yet to reach a Major League roster, onto fully-licensed MLB cards. Since relaunching the Bowman brand in 1989, Topps has positioned it as "The Home of the Rookie Card" by stocking the checklist with hundreds of minor leaguers. Since Bowman is a fully licensed brand, and does feature a token number of current Major League stars, the cards of these minor leaguers are considered their true Major League rookie card.”

First of all, that's from something called BaseballCardPedia and they don't cite any sources. But generally that seems to be right. I don't think the both MLB/MLBPA thing is exactly right because Panini counts as rookie cards.

The bold thing above is where Topps went wrong. Topps broke that rule and put players in a set that haven't played in a MLB game. But they are in fact in the set. So Topps is in trouble with MLB/MLBPA but the cards still exist.

[oldgoldy97]

Originally Posted by SaveMeTheGum

Here's a summary so far. Let me know if anything is missing:

Arguments against:
- It's Bowman's Best (not a rule)
- It's a set with "RC" labels and this card does not have a "RC" label (not a rule)
- It's a set with other prospects that don't have "RC" label (not a rule)
- It's a set that shows no stats for players on the back (not a rule)
- No MLBPA logo (see the rule)
- Topps misnumbered the prospects (not proven)


Arguments for:
- It's #50 (follows the rule)

Now you’re starting to understand.

[oldgoldy97]

Originally Posted by theshowandme

Arguments Against:

1. No RC logo
2. Design is different
3. No MLBPA logo on back
4. Most players have not debuted yet
5. No stat line on back
6. It is Bowman's Best, not a flagship release
7. It was a numbering mistake
8. Topps does not list them as RC on the checklist
9. There are RC logos on some cards, but not others
10. It HAS to be a numbering mistake
11. Only pumpers want these to be Rookie Cards
12. It is not a major release
13. These guys are going to suck anyways
14. "No one will care about a midget playing in Tampa Bay in 10 years"

Arguments For

1. It is a nationally distributed MLB release with packs
2. It is Wander's first time in a the base set with rookies and veterans
3. It is not designated as an insert, it is numbered normally in the base set (#50)


Occam's razor: "The simplest explanation is usually the best one"

Someone will care once their East coast team signs them.

[jhssketchcards]

So everyone is cool that Wander will:

Have only 2 RCs and zero RC autos?

Bowman’s Best and Bowman Heritage are it?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[MoreToppsPlease]

Originally Posted by Shankweather

What about No MLB logo? Can Panini baseball have rookie cards?

I see you’re still mindlessly replying to posts.

[MoreToppsPlease]

Originally Posted by SaveMeTheGum

Is the 2015 Bowman Chrome Draft #106 Rafael Devers's true rookie card?

Is there an MLBPA logo on back?

[Shankweather]

Originally Posted by jhssketchcards

So everyone is cool that Wander will:

Have only 2 RCs and zero RC autos?

Bowman’s Best and Bowman Heritage are it?

Most people are not cool with it. I'm not cool with it. They either should have put him in 2021 Update or actually held him till 2022. They shouldn't have done what they did. And I sincerely hope they scrap Bowman Heritage.

[theshowandme]

Originally Posted by jhssketchcards

So everyone is cool that Wander will:

Have only 2 RCs and zero RC autos?

Bowman’s Best and Bowman Heritage are it?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It sucks, but oh well. I will buy a 2022 Topps complete set and be happy.

His first Sapphire will sell big. All the parallels from S1 and Topps Chrome will sell well.

They just will not be rookie cards. Mays, Mantle, Trout, Soto, etc. all have second year cards that are monsters. It will be okay.

[jhssketchcards]

Originally Posted by Shankweather

Most people are not cool with it. I'm not cool with it. They either should have put him in 2021 Update or actually held him till 2022. They shouldn't have done what they did. And I sincerely hope they scrap Bowman Heritage.

(I’m not cool with it either)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Shankweather]

Originally Posted by MoreToppsPlease

I see you’re still mindlessly replying to posts.

No I'm mindful, very mindful. Much mind, very think.

Do you have an answer to the question?

[BabaORiley]

Originally Posted by jhssketchcards

So everyone is cool that Wander will:

Have only 2 RCs and zero RC autos?

Bowman’s Best and Bowman Heritage are it?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Nobody is thrilled that Wander will have only 1-2 true RCs but it is what it is and one of the criteria for being a RC isn't "makes collectors happy with RC status". Won't stop most of us from chasing 2022 parallels but certainly added a chase factor to 2021 Bowman's Best (and potentially to Bowman Heritage).

[rfgilles]

Originally Posted by Shankweather

Most people are not cool with it. I'm not cool with it. They either should have put him in 2021 Update or actually held him till 2022. They shouldn't have done what they did. And I sincerely hope they scrap Bowman Heritage.

Very likely that Wander was called up too late (June 23) to be included in Update from an MLBPA agreement perspective and potentially from a logistics perspective.

[Shankweather]

Originally Posted by jhssketchcards

So everyone is cool that Wander will:

Have only 2 RCs and zero RC autos?

Bowman’s Best and Bowman Heritage are it?

But his 2022 logo stuff is still going to be huge. If 21 Bowman's Best reduces the value of his 2022 stuff, it is not by much. His S1 short print and super short print are going to be worth way more than his 21 BB.

[jhssketchcards]

Originally Posted by rfgilles

Very likely that Wander was called up too late (June 23) to be included in Update from an MLBPA agreement perspective and potentially from a logistics perspective.

It’s funny you mention the agreement with MLPA…
Because Wanders BB doesn’t have the MLPA logo on the back bottom like other RCs


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Shankweather]

Originally Posted by rfgilles

Very likely that Wander was called up too late (June 23) to be included in Update from an MLBPA agreement perspective and potentially from a logistics perspective.

I think that's probably right, since none of the trade deadline players were in Update with their new team. Topps should be able to get players into Update that entered the league/changed teams before July 31, but I understand that 2020-2021 has been a nightmare for supply chain and logistics. But in the future in a relatively normal world (haha?) if Topps can't get those players into Update, they need to fix that process. That's the whole point of Update.

[theshowandme]

Originally Posted by jhssketchcards

It’s funny you mention the agreement with MLPA…
Because Wanders BB doesn’t have the MLPA logo on the back bottom like other RCs


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

No one cares about the MLBPA logo. The only reason that’s quoted is because of a YouTube video.

Only cults follow logos with such fanaticism

[Shankweather]

Originally Posted by jhssketchcards

It’s funny you mention the agreement with MLPA…
Because Wanders BB doesn’t have the MLPA logo on the back bottom like other RCs

When they designed the set, Wander hadn't been called up yet and wasn't part of the MLBPA. That's why the logo isn't there. No prospect cards (which these were supposed to be) have the MLBPA logo. That's the Topps mess up, they put those kinds of cards in a MLB set.

[theshowandme]

Originally Posted by Shankweather

When they designed the set, Wander hadn't been called up yet and wasn't part of the MLBPA. That's why the logo isn't there. No prospect cards (which these were supposed to be) have the MLBPA logo. That's the Topps mess up, they put those kinds of cards in a MLB set.

His photo is from a game mid June! The draft wasn’t until July! He was in the big leagues probably 2 months before the checklist was built and autos were sent out to prospects