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

[zworykin]

Originally Posted by Hardcore

Prospect cards like the Wander are missing the Players association logo on the back. But RC cards with logo like the Vaughn and India have the PA logo on back and the RC logo on the front.
Otherwise do we say that all the other prospects, like Witt Jr, Mayer, Davis, Veen, Lawlar, House etc.. are also RCs.... since they are also in this base set...

I know what the answer will be.... fastball down the middle of the plate.... batter up go ahead and hit it....

This has already been answered, yes, the same standards apply to them. As Beckett stated in their article originally dscribing the situation. Welcome to a couple weeks ago.

[rfgilles]

Originally Posted by imbluestreak23

I knew that a RC logo guy would latch on to this. August is the cutoff you say? Then sure, I'll give you that and we can ignore Devers and Bregman. The human race actually HAS gotten worse since 2008 at many things now that I've given it thought. So let's say MLBPA has an arbitrary cutoff sometime in June every year. Explain a couple things for me:
-Kyle Schwarber, why is he a 2016 guy and not a 2015 guy. You mean to tell me he missed the cutoff by 2 days over Lindor?
-Yordan Alvarez, why is his cutoff so much earlier than Lindors just a few years before? Was there something special going on that year? Or was it the RC logo class looked weak and they needed a hobby poster boy?
-Mookie Betts, I didn't go back to 2014, but care to guess what his call up date is? June 28th. He was a rookie in THH, Update, TC Update, and Stadium Club

And just please, explain Pablo Sandoval. Sure, he's called up 2 months later than Wander was throughout their respective cycles. Why oh why was he a RC in 2008 and what possible explanation can explain pushing back the timeline arbitrarily 2 months backwards? And why is it that the MLBPA hasn't set a standard cuttoff time for all to know?

Seems like there may be more factors involved than just Topps deciding based on "profits". Printing deadlines seem like one for starters. If you look at 2019 Chrome, the big 4 rookies were added at the last possible minute; they were numbered at the end and in some instances were shorter in length than the other cards. I also recall reading that Topps had to really flex to get Carlos Correa into the 2015 Chrome set (again numbered at the end).

Topps could be withholding rookies in some instances, but I don't think we can assume that they unilaterally decide for all cases.

[imbluestreak23]

Originally Posted by brewtown107

You are proving that comprehension is not really your thing, and that you don't understand anything about what I am arguing or anything about the information you posted, really. So it really doesn't make sense to engage with you further on this. Continue to shout at clouds, though!

And there goes the RC logo bois getting upset and getting personal.

Enjoy your 4th year Wanders and the cool logos they have

[imbluestreak23]

Originally Posted by rfgilles

Seems like there may be more factors involved than just Topps deciding based on "profits". Printing deadlines seem like one for starters. If you look at 2019 Chrome, the big 4 rookies were added at the last possible minute; they were numbered at the end and in some instances were shorter in length than the other cards. I also recall reading that Topps had to really flex to get Carlos Correa into the 2015 Chrome set (again numbered at the end).

Topps could be withholding rookies in some instances, but I don't think we can assume that they unilaterally decide for all cases.

Moving a deadline from mid August to June 9th coincidentally after a major prospect is called up to the minors repeatedly sure does seem like it's not a "printing" deadline thing, but a money thing.

One factor to consider. Topps stopped making basketball cards in 2009. Topps stopped making NFL cards in 2015. Their supply chains and timelines should have gotten exponentially easier.

[kordell1]

Can't this debate just be over? It's pretty simple. Most people do not see the 2021 Bowman's Best Prospect cards as RC's and some do(look at the poll numbers). No one is changing anyone's mind(if they change it will most likely be for monetary reasons). At the end of the day, collect how and what you like. Personally, I don't care what Beckett or anyone else says. I consider 2021 Bowman's Best prospects to be prospect cards, not for any financial reason, but because to me that is what they were designed and meant to be. If someone disagrees, that is okay too. I have no ill will towards anyone who does consider them rookie cards. I also still consider Topps Chrome Autographs to be rookie cards even if others don't. Everyone has their own opinions and it's just not worth fighting about it.

Can we all just agree that everyone has different opinions and that is okay?

[brewtown107]

Originally Posted by imbluestreak23

And there goes the RC logo bois getting upset and getting personal.

Enjoy your 4th year Wanders and the cool logos they have

Thanks! Collect what you like!

[oldgoldy97]

Originally Posted by Danderlion

Yeeeesh. Some of you are spending way too much time and energy in this thread. Why do all of you care so much that someone has a different opinion than you? In everything in life, people have differing opinions. Move on. This is pathetic and has really turned me off to some members on this board. Truthers and Non-believers.

Sorry for making you click and read this thread

[k13]

Originally Posted by Hardcore

But the 2022 RC logo high-end/super premium and autographed RCs that come out later in 2022 will all be higher than 2021 BB.

You were talking about 2022 S1.

[k13]

Originally Posted by kordell1

Can't this debate just be over? It's pretty simple. Most people do not see the 2021 Bowman's Best Prospect cards as RC's and some do(look at the poll numbers). No one is changing anyone's mind(if they change it will most likely be for monetary reasons). At the end of the day, collect how and what you like. Personally, I don't care what Beckett or anyone else says. I consider 2021 Bowman's Best prospects to be prospect cards, not for any financial reason, but because to me that is what they were designed and meant to be. If someone disagrees, that is okay too. I have no ill will towards anyone who does consider them rookie cards. I also still consider Topps Chrome Autographs to be rookie cards even if others don't. Everyone has their own opinions and it's just not worth fighting about it.

Can we all just agree that everyone has different opinions and that is okay?

They just don't want this card to be a rookie.
If it came out in 2021 update they'd be all over it and calling it a rookie.

[Shankweather]

Here is my issue with the argument that says the logo (new way) trumps the inclusion-in-base-set (old way).

The agreement that Topps and MLBPA created in 2006 carefully crafted the RC designation rules to comply with the traditional hobby rules. "Prospects may be included solely in Bowman brand products, and then only as inserts as opposed to base cards or in such other manner that ensures that such Prospects will not be viewed as rookies and which shall be approved by MLBPA." They made sure the new way matched the old way, and the specific way they do that is by withholding prospects from base sets. If being included in a base set doesn't matter, and all that matters is the logo, why have this language at all? Why have they been following it so carefully for 15 years if failing to follow it has no consequences? If the agreement isn't enforced in this case, then what will prevent Topps from including prospects in whatever set they want as soon as they get drafted?

I have no problem with the RC logo. I like it. It makes sense to release rookie cards in the year the player actually debuts. And I like the whole 1st Bowman thing. The double debut cycle is good for collectors and it makes sense from a matching-reality perspective. But the RC logo only works if Topps follows the rules they agreed to, and they didn't this time. And it created 30 premature rookie cards, just as the text in the 2006 agreement suggested it would.

Page 10:
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/d...xhibit10-1.pdf

[SaveMeTheGum]

Originally Posted by k13

They just don't want this card to be a rookie.
If it came out in 2021 update they'd be all over it and calling it a rookie.

The incentive to fraudulently call it a rookie card falls on those who bought and are now pumping it. There no monetary incentive for anyone to call it not a RC other than the obvious fact that it isn’t…

[oldgoldy97]

Originally Posted by SaveMeTheGum

The incentive to fraudulently call it a rookie card falls on those who bought and are now pumping it. There no monetary incentive for anyone to call it not a RC other than the obvious fact that it isn’t…

The fact is that it is. Per occam's razor.

[rfgilles]

Originally Posted by imbluestreak23

Moving a deadline from mid August to June 9th coincidentally after a major prospect is called up to the minors repeatedly sure does seem like it's not a "printing" deadline thing, but a money thing.

One factor to consider. Topps stopped making basketball cards in 2009. Topps stopped making NFL cards in 2015. Their supply chains and timelines should have gotten exponentially easier.

Topps has a lot of different sets and I could envision scenarios where the deadlines vary from year to year, eg the printer has other jobs ahead in the queue.

The MLBPA has a say in the matter as well but I'm guessing they are more concerned with prematurely including prospects (aka 21 BB) than with whether or not Topps holds rookie(s) out of a set(s).

You could be right though.

[imbluestreak23]

Originally Posted by rfgilles

Topps has a lot of different sets and I could envision scenarios where the deadlines vary from year to year, eg the printer has other jobs ahead in the queue.

The MLBPA has a say in the matter as well but I'm guessing they are more concerned with prematurely including prospects (aka 21 BB) than with whether or not Topps holds rookie(s) out of a set(s).

You could be right though.

Updated list with more data. 2014's cutoff was somewhere between 7/26/14 and 8/4/14. This is actually kinda fun to put together.

2008:
Pablo Sandoval - 8/13/2008 - RC logo in 2008 products including Topps Heritage High Number, 2008 Topps Red Hot Rookie program, but ALSO included in 2008 Bowman Draft (after the previous two releases) as a prospect card. Let this example be proof that it is well within Topps and MLBPAs authority and timeline to release RC logo cards as far up as the middle of August during the same year. Humanity is moving forward (mostly), not behind, and thus we would expect these timelines to shrink thus allowing faster turnaround times for RC logo inclusions.

2013:
Xander Bogaerts - 8/13/13 - RC Logo in 2014 products as hobby poster boy

2014: No manipulation IMO
Jacob Degrom - 5/13/14 - RC Logo in 2014 products including Finest Mystery Redemption
Gregory Polanco - 6/9/14 - RC Logo in 2014 products
Mookie Betts - 6/28/14 - RC Logo in 2014 products including Stadium Club released October 1st, Update released October 15th, TC Update, TH High Number released November 19th, and Bowman Sterling, Panini Classics, and Panini Donruss
Andrew Susac - 7/26/14 - RC Logo in 2014 products including Bowman Sterling, Panini Classics, Panini Donruss
Javier Baez - 8/4/14 - RC Logo in 2015 products as hobby poster boy
Jorge Soler - 8/25/14 - RC Logo in 2015 products as hobby poster boy

2015: Kyle Schwarber held to 2016 to sell wax
Carlos Correa - 6/7/15 - RC Logo in 2015 products including Topps Chrome released on 8/3/2015 as a bass and auto subject (redemption), THH on 9/25
Francisco Lindor - 6/14/15 - RC Logo in 2015 products including Topps Chrome released on 8/3/2015 as a bass and auto subject (redemption), THH on 9/25
Byron Buxton - 6/14/15 - RC Logo in 2015 products including Topps Chrome released on 8/3/2015 as a bass and auto subject (redemption), THH on 9/25
Kyle Schwarber - 6/15/15 - RC Logo in 2016 products as hobby poster boy
Miguel Sano - 7/2/2015 - RC Logo in 2016 products as hobby poster boy

2016: Bregman held to 2017 to sell wax as 2017 class looked light (Judge wasn't called up yet and he wasn't viewed as #ALLRISE at this time)
Albert Almora - 6/7/16 RC Logo in 2016 products including TH High Number released on 9/21 and Topps Update released 10/19
Lucas Giolito - 6/27/16 - RC Logo in 2016 products including Topps Chrome released on 8/3 as an autograph subject, and Topps Update released on 10/19
Seth Lugo - 7/1/16 - RC Logo in 2017 products, but he kinda sucks
Tyler Glasnow - 7/6/16 - RC Logo in 2017 products as hobby poster boy
Ryon Healy - 7/15/16 - RC Logo in 2017 products, but he kinda sucks
Alex Bregman - 7/24/16 - RC Logo in 2017 products as hobby poster boy

2017: Devers held back to sell 2018 wax. We didn't know when Acuna/Soto would be called up, nor did we know Ohtani would hit the bigs so soon
Cody Bellinger - 4/25/17 - RC Logo in 2017 products including Topps Chrome released 8/2
Ian Happ - 5/13/17 - RC Logo in 2017 products including Topps Chrome released 8/2
Josh Hader - 6/10/17 RC Logo in 2017 products
Derek Fisher - 6/14/17 RC Logo in 2017 products including TU released 10/18, TCU released November
Tzu We-Lin - 6/24/17 RC Logo in 2017 products including TU released 10/18
Luke Volt - 6/25/17 - RC Logo in 2017 products including TCU released November
Dustin Fowler - 6/29/17 RC Logo in 2018 products, but he sucks
Rafael Devers - 7/23/17 - RC Logo in 2018 products as hobby poster boy

2018: No manipulation, but RC logo cut short once MLBPA knew they had Ohtani/Acuna/Soto/Devers as cash cows
Ronald Acuna Jr. - 4/20/18 - RC logo in 2018 products including Topps Finest as a mystery redemption released on 6/6/2018 and Topps Series 2 on 6/13/18
Juan soto - 5/20/2018 - RC Logo in 2018 products including Topps Archives released 8/13/18
Shane Beiber - 5/31/18 - RC Logo in 2018 products including TU
Robert Stock - 6/24/18 - RC Logo in 2019 products but he sucks
Kyle Tucker - 7/7/18 - RC Logo in 2019 products as hobby poster boy

2019: Yordan manipulated to sell 2020 wax in a very bad 2020 class
Fernando Tatis Jr. - 3/28/19 - RC logo in 2019 products
Vladimir Guerrero Jr. 4/24/19 - RC logo in 2019 products including Topps Series 2 released 6/12/19
Yordan Alvarez - 6/9/19 - RC logo in 2020 products as hobby poster boy
Bubba Starling - 7/9/19 - RC Logo in 2020 products as hobby poster boy. Although he was a top prospect when drafted, he sucks, and is now retired.
Bo Bichette - 7/28/19 - RC logo in 2020 products as hobby poster boy

2021: Wander, the most egregious manipulation given his star status, accumulates over 300 ABs without a single RC logo card in 2021, all to sell wax in what looks to be a completely gawd awful 2022 year unless Bobby joins him
Alek Manoah - 5/25/21 - RC Logo in just about everything beyond Topps Chrome
Gilberto Celestino - 6/2/21 - RC Logo in 2021 products including Stadium Club on 11/17/21, Topps Update released on 10/29, Topps Chrome Update
Wander Franco - 6/22/21 - RC Logo in 2022 products as hobby poster boy, but true RC released in 2021 BB

[Hardcore]

Originally Posted by ThoseBackPages

that would be an insert, as those are not part of the 2022 Topps Chrome Set

What if Topps (now Fanatics) decides to number the chrome autos in the base set in TC2022?

They would never do that...when have they done that..

[oldgoldy97]

[SaveMeTheGum]

Originally Posted by oldgoldy97

The fact is that it is. Per occam's razor.

Wouldn’t Occam’s razor say that the BB cards with a RC logo are rookie cards and those without are not?

[Hardcore]

Originally Posted by zworykin

This has already been answered, yes, the same standards apply to them. As Beckett stated in their article originally dscribing the situation. Welcome to a couple weeks ago.

Thanks bud...
I was in Cayman for the last 2 weeks..

[oldgoldy97]

Originally Posted by SaveMeTheGum

Wouldn’t Occam’s razor say that the BB cards with a RC logo are rookie cards and those without are not?

Only if the RC logo was the way to tell what a rookie is.

[ThoseBackPages]

[zworykin]

Originally Posted by Hardcore

Thanks bud...
I was in Cayman for the last 2 weeks..

Cool. The whole thread has been available since you got back.

[imbluestreak23]

Lucas Giolito was called up on 6/27/16. He was put in 2016 Topps Chrome released on 8/3/16...as an autograph subject with a RC logo

[brewtown107]

Originally Posted by SaveMeTheGum

Wouldn’t Occam’s razor say that the BB cards with a RC logo are rookie cards and those without are not?

Originally Posted by oldgoldy97

Only if the RC logo was the way to tell what a rookie is.

Correct, if we ignore the definition of Occam's razor.

[brewtown107]

Originally Posted by Shankweather

Here is my issue with the argument that says the logo (new way) trumps the inclusion-in-base-set (old way).

The agreement that Topps and MLBPA created in 2006 carefully crafted the RC designation rules to comply with the traditional hobby rules. "Prospects may be included solely in Bowman brand products, and then only as inserts as opposed to base cards or in such other manner that ensures that such Prospects will not be viewed as rookies and which shall be approved by MLBPA." They made sure the new way matched the old way, and the specific way they do that is by withholding prospects from base sets. If being included in a base set doesn't matter, and all that matters is the logo, why have this language at all? Why have they been following it so carefully for 15 years if failing to follow it has no consequences? If the agreement isn't enforced in this case, then what will prevent Topps from including prospects in whatever set they want as soon as they get drafted?

I have no problem with the RC logo. I like it. It makes sense to release rookie cards in the year the player actually debuts. And I like the whole 1st Bowman thing. The double debut cycle is good for collectors and it makes sense from a matching-reality perspective. But the RC logo only works if Topps follows the rules they agreed to, and they didn't this time. And it created 30 premature rookie cards, just as the text in the 2006 agreement suggested it would.

Page 10:
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/d...xhibit10-1.pdf

It's my guess that the parties to this contract tried to make sure that the "new" rules with the RC logo were sure to meet the "old" rule, to avoid controversies just like this.

When it comes to enforcing a contract, that's something the parties do. Absent specific remedies for breach in the contract, if Topps breaches its obligations, then the MLBPA can sue for strict enforcement (which might be a recall of the offending product, but good luck with that!), or sue for damages (probably would be hard for them to prove damages, so we probably won't see that happen either if just a one-off situation). If Topps continues to breach the contract, however, then the MLBPA would likely sue Topps and would probably have the contract terminated, meaning Topps loses the ability to produce MLBPA licensed cards going forward under the contract.

Seems to me that this underscores there was a screw up in this product, but it doesn't tell the collecting community how to deal with it. We don't enforce the contract. The parties do.

[SaveMeTheGum]

Originally Posted by oldgoldy97

Only if the RC logo was the way to tell what a rookie is.

Wouldn’t Occam’s razor say the simplest way to determine what a rookie card is is the right way?