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

[pewe]

Originally Posted by Goldie

You keep showing how little you know.

In 2017, Kris Bryant was one of the most popular players in the game.
In 2018, Gleyber was one of the most valuable rookies in the game.

And in 2015, the base set had 100 cards. Kris Bryant's rookie was #50. Mike Trout was #1. #100 was Kershaw, the 2014 MVP/Cy who just had a 300k season. You're just making garbage up.

Or does it show how little you know? The entire short list of included players is “among the most popular and valuable”. But neither Bryant or Gleyber were top of the top, they were just below that, along with a long list of other players that made Best that year…


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[brewtown107]

Originally Posted by theshowandme

I have no agenda. Nothing is in it for me if #BB50 is a rookie card or not. I will make $0 from this situation.

Sure, both sides have silliness going on, but only one side is making conspiratorial claims about Topps finances, leadership, workforce skillsets, and printer maintenance. That covers like 10% of the stuff said so far.

Wait... which side is making conspiratorial claims about Topps?

Seems like the side you are mocking with this list is trying to defeat claims of conspiracy by saying Topps (like any organization) is actually capable of being incompetent enough to make a mistake!

[theshowandme]

Originally Posted by brewtown107

Wait... which side is making conspiratorial claims about Topps?

Seems like the side you are mocking with this list is trying to defeat claims of conspiracy by saying Topps (like any organization) is actually capable of being incompetent enough to make a mistake!

I am mocking everyone. The list is for comedic relief.

If you have to keep finding and adding fall guys (guy on couch in underwear, the $12 an hour employee working the printer, the QA/QC guy who doesn't have the skillset necessary, etc.) you are bordering conspiracy. The web keeps growing larger and larger for you folks. The story is getting more broad as the days play out. That is literally a conspiracy.

One side has stuck to 7 decades of tradition. The other side wants to blame new people every day and tie them to a story.

Again, remember, the list is for pure fun.

#BB50 forever

[Pacmeyer]

Originally Posted by oldgoldy97

So his lists are lies? Is he making it up? I haven’t read every post to know for sure.

Nope, it's all stuff that's been posted.

[SaveMeTheGum]

Originally Posted by Goldie

You keep showing how little you know.

In 2017, Kris Bryant was one of the most popular players in the game.
In 2018, Gleyber was one of the most valuable rookies in the game.

And in 2015, the base set had 100 cards. Kris Bryant's rookie was #50. Mike Trout was #1. #100 was Kershaw, the 2014 MVP/Cy who just had a 300k season. You're just making garbage up.

So what happened last year?

[koneil]

Originally Posted by SaveMeTheGum

So what happened last year?

I guess Topps messed up. Seems to be the trend with this set

[brewtown107]

Originally Posted by theshowandme

I am mocking everyone. The list is for comedic relief.

If you have to keep finding and adding fall guys (guy on couch in underwear, the $12 an hour employee working the printer, the QA/QC guy who doesn't have the skillset necessary, etc.) you are bordering conspiracy. The web keeps growing larger and larger for you folks. The story is getting more broad as the days play out. That is literally a conspiracy.

One side has stuck to 7 decades of tradition. The other side wants to blame new people every day and tie them to a story.

Again, remember, the list is for pure fun.

#BB50 forever

Are you though? You're only mocking one side of the argument. Don't lie and say otherwise.

And wow... just wow... at your Orwellian attempt to label arguments that *maybe* this release wasn't a conspiracy by Topps---as an FU to the MLBPA---*is* the actual conspiracy!

Up is down... left is right... the idea that there might *not* have been a conspiracy here *is* the conspiracy!

Just wow!

[Goldie]

Originally Posted by SaveMeTheGum

So what happened last year?

Again, it doesn't seem to be a hard and fast rule. The point is that last year was the anomaly, and every other year the one and 50 spots were held by incredibly popular players for that year.

[oldgoldy97]

Originally Posted by brewtown107

Are you though? You're only mocking one side of the argument. Don't lie and say otherwise.

And wow... just wow... at your Orwellian attempt to label arguments that *maybe* this release wasn't a conspiracy by Topps---as an FU to the MLBPA---*is* the actual conspiracy!

Up is down... left is right... the idea that there might *not* have been a conspiracy here *is* the conspiracy!

Just wow!

[koneil]

Originally Posted by Goldie

Again, it doesn't seem to be a hard and fast rule. The point is that last year was the anomaly, and every other year the one and 50 spots were held by incredibly popular players for that year.

Almost like they could’ve made a mistake? Hold on though, wouldn’t want you getting all conspiratorial on us. Not allowed to believe in mistakes around these parts

[brewtown107]

Originally Posted by oldgoldy97

Thank you for your contribution to this conversation. Keep on trollin'!

[theshowandme]

Originally Posted by theshowandme

I am mocking everyone. The list is for comedic relief.

If you have to keep finding and adding fall guys (guy on couch in underwear, the $12 an hour employee working the printer, the QA/QC guy who doesn't have the skillset necessary, etc.) you are bordering conspiracy. The web keeps growing larger and larger for you folks. The story is getting more broad as the days play out. That is literally a conspiracy.

One side has stuck to 7 decades of tradition. The other side wants to blame new people every day and tie them to a story.

Again, remember, the list is for pure fun.

#BB50 forever

Originally Posted by brewtown107

Are you though? You're only mocking one side of the argument. Don't lie and say otherwise.

And wow... just wow... at your Orwellian attempt to label arguments that *maybe* this release wasn't a conspiracy by Topps---as an FU to the MLBPA---*is* the actual conspiracy!

Up is down... left is right... the idea that there might *not* have been a conspiracy here *is* the conspiracy!

Just wow!

I am. I was on the possible "maybe Topps did this as a response to Fanatics" train early. That doesn't mean anything though. I laid out the timeline of the draft (July), Fanatics/MLB/MLBPA announcement (August), and discussed at length the time and thought it took to design, print, ship autographs, receive cards back, and package for distribution. I thought that was reasonable and well accepted. Months of detailed thought went into this. It doesn't change the fact that these 30 cards are now rookie cards. It's just a term.

I never made wild claims about Topps finances, their workers skills, said it was an error, that numbering was irrelevant, etc. You have a dozen or so people in here who are apparently manufacturing savants and know the ins and outs of Topps financial portfolio. All while possessing law degrees if I might add. You do not find that silly? I find it quite funny to be surrounded by so many well educated folks on the the innerworkings of Topps.

[oldgoldy97]

[Goldie]

Originally Posted by koneil

Almost like they could’ve made a mistake? Hold on though, wouldn’t want you getting all conspiratorial on us. Not allowed to believe in mistakes around these parts

Why are you being insulting? I never claimed to know why this happened. But it happened.

I happen to think the most likely scenario is that someone made a decision to not follow precedent and just copy paste the checklist from last year while just changing the names. Whatever reason that happened, I have no idea nor will I ever know. The mistakes seem most likely to have been about not catching it before it went out for final approval and printing. I'm sure there are many checks made before a product goes live, and in this case those checks either were missed, messed up on, or ignored. It seems likely to me that someone along the way ignored it, and many other people missed it.

Mistake or not, these cards happened.

[oldgoldy97]

Originally Posted by theshowandme

I am. I was on the possible "maybe Topps did this as a response to Fanatics" train early. That doesn't mean anything though. I laid out the timeline of the draft (July), Fanatics/MLB/MLBPA announcement (August), and discussed at length the time and thought it took to design, print, ship autographs, receive cards back, and package for distribution. I thought that was reasonable and well accepted. Months of detailed thought went into this. It doesn't change the fact that these 30 cards are now rookie cards. It's just a term.

I never made wild claims about Topps finances, their workers skills, said it was an error, that numbering was irrelevant, etc. You have a dozen or so people in here who are apparently manufacturing savants and know the ins and outs of Topps financial portfolio. All while possessing law degrees if I might add. You do not find that silly? I find it quite funny to be surrounded by so many well educated folks on the the innerworkings of Topps.

Yur trollin....

[ClevelandIC]

Originally Posted by BabaORiley

Do you guys not think that the higher-ups at Topps would understand the hobby implications of including Wander Franco and 29 other prospects in a sequentially numbered, widely available major product alongside veterans and traditional rookies? This is a HUGE deal - one need only look at the number of pages we've spent discussing it on this thread - and would have raised huge red flags at some point along the development process for the implications it would have on the hobby. And you both are saying that at no point was there someone, anyone, who said something like "Uh, hey, the numbering scheme is wrong"? Not even when this would have been proofed? That absolutely just doesn't pass the smell test for me.

Add in Wander, the timing of this product likely taking center stage shortly after the Fanatics license deal but before the Fanatics/Topps deal closed, the weirdness going on with Bowman Heritage...

You guys keep harping about Occam's Razor and the simplest explanation, to me, is that Topps goosed this product, knowing that it would result in some lively debate and attention and also knowing it wouldn't have too much of an effect on 2022 RC logo stuff.

I know we're not changing any minds here and this post will get lost with all of the others BUT. The "error" that you're saying was a "HUGE DEAL" - it is only because we now know the outcome. The average Topps employee likely doesn't collect cards, buy cards, sells cards or visit a card message board. Even if they noticed the numbering it doesn't seem out of place unless you are a die hard hobby enthusiast. As someone who has collected (although I can't call myself a collector according to some here because I don't consider BB50 a RC) for 25+ years - I would have NEVER foreseen the debate this sparked. Right or wrong every person has different experiences and speaking in absolutes like any of us know exactly what happened is foolish.

[brewtown107]

Originally Posted by theshowandme

I am. I was on the possible "maybe Topps did this as a response to Fanatics" train early. That doesn't mean anything though. I laid out the timeline of the draft (July), Fanatics/MLB/MLBPA announcement (August), and discussed at length the time and thought it took to design, print, ship autographs, receive cards back, and package for distribution. I thought that was reasonable and well accepted. Months of detailed thought went into this. It doesn't change the fact that these 30 cards are now rookie cards. It's just a term.

I never made wild claims about Topps finances, their workers skills, said it was an error, that numbering was irrelevant, etc. You have a dozen or so people in here who are apparently manufacturing savants and know the ins and outs of Topps financial portfolio. All while possessing law degrees if I might add. You do not find that silly? I find it quite funny to be surrounded by so many well educated folks on the the innerworkings of Topps.

You didn't make those "wild" claims. You're making an even more wild claim that the arguments that Topps could have possibly made a mistake = a conspiracy.

[ThoseBackPages]

i realize some of you didnt know what a rack pack was called, but there are also some of you that didnt know that Topps has traditionally put the better (in their opinion) hobby players in the 1/50/100/150/etc spots over the years? like, topps runs "voting" to "let people" select who will be #1 in the Flagship set?

is this even real life?

holy heck the #LogoBois cant really ignore history this badly, can they?

[theshowandme]

Originally Posted by brewtown107

You didn't make those "wild" claims. You're making an even more wild claim that the arguments that Topps could have possibly made a mistake = a conspiracy.

It is well known and accepted that Topps made a mistake and broke their agreement (if you even take the agreement seriously). No one is arguing that. That was said on the first few pages.

If they wanted these cards to be prospect cards, they needed to make them inserts. They did not do that. They made them base cards instead, and thus why we are here!

If you need a white board to draw connections to all the different scenarios of how these are not rookie cards, you are going to look silly. That is why I made the list. Someone literally called Wander Franco a midget. Someone said the checklist was invalid because a guy in his underwear working remote can not be trusted. A printer was blamed. Someone said we are being fraudulent calling these rookie cards. Children on twitter/instagram were used as potential victims. Topps was deemed poor. Terrapeak sales history was used for some reason. The web keeps growing, it is pure silliness.

Laugh a little. Collect your 2022 Topps Series 1 RC logo cards.

#BB50 forever

[oldgoldy97]

Originally Posted by ThoseBackPages

i realize some of you didnt know what a rack pack was called, but there are also some of you that didnt know that Topps has traditionally put the better (in their opinion) hobby players in the 1/50/100/150/etc spots over the years? like, topps runs "voting" to "let people" select who will be #1 in the Flagship set?

is this even real life?

To be fair it came from the same person who considered 87 Topps McGwire’s rookie

[ThoseBackPages]

Originally Posted by oldgoldy97

To be fair it came from the same person who considered 87 Topps McGwire’s rookie

good point

[ThoseBackPages]

i know that some of them collected before the internet existed, but i really have to wonder. damn

[brewtown107]

Originally Posted by ThoseBackPages

i realize some of you didnt know what a rack pack was called, but there are also some of you that didnt know that Topps has traditionally put the better (in their opinion) hobby players in the 1/50/100/150/etc spots over the years? like, topps runs "voting" to "let people" select who will be #1 in the Flagship set?

is this even real life?

This is sometimes true, but anybody who puts together complete sets can tell you that this is hit-or-miss.

I just took a random example. 2017 Topps Series 1 Flagship.

1 Kris Bryant - Chicago Cubs
50 Clayton Kershaw - Los Angeles Dodgers
100 Nate Jones - Chicago White Sox
150 Miguel Cabrera - Detroit Tigers
200 Homer Bailey - Cincinnati Reds
250 Sean Rodriguez - Pittsburgh Pirates
300 Arodys Vizcaino - Atlanta Braves
350 David Ortiz - Boston Red Sox

Are these all hobby stars? This is just one example picked quickly and at random.

[theshowandme]

2018 Topps Update

US1 - Shohei Ohtani
US50 - Andrew Cashner
US100 - Ichiro
US150 - National League / Combos (Bellinger and Hosmer)
US200 - Gleyber Torres
US250 - Ronald Acuna Jr
US300 - Juan Soto

5 of the key numbers in 2018 were as big of names as you could have in the hobby at the time because of star/rookie status

[oraclesports]

the wander has dropped in price and will continue to do so as his 2022 rookies come out. Continue to argue logo or not, prices will continue to drop and if you do not believe this, you are a pumper.