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

[brewtown107]

Originally Posted by ThoseBackPages

this is the crux of the issue indeed lol

Haha, I didn't even realize the big picture point that statement could appear to be making! But it is the crux of the issue indeed.

Edit: caught you before you edited! :P

For the record, I don't think tradition should be "thrown out" here. The rule can still be the rule. But I believe in making an exception where one is clearly warranted. That's probably not the position most take, and that's fine.

[theshowandme]

Can we all agree that a few of us will ask Topps/Fanatics questions regarding this at the 2022 NSCC?

[brewtown107]

We can agree on that. Topps/Fanatics will be asked about this for sure, and it will be interesting to see what they say about it.

This is why I think they'll come out and call it an error. What else can they possibly say?

[imbluestreak23]

Originally Posted by theshowandme

Can we all agree that a few of us will ask Topps/Fanatics questions regarding this at the 2022 NSCC?

Yes, the two critical questions that must be asked
1) What is Wander's rookie card
2) Will etching return to shiny shine? Chrome is not chrome unless it has etching

[cj828282]

Originally Posted by theshowandme

Can we all agree that a few of us will ask Topps/Fanatics questions regarding this at the 2022 NSCC?

Yes, and the BD 1st Edition 50 pack box.

[Goldie]

Originally Posted by brewtown107

Why are you ignoring 2020?

Because the person I was quoting referred to "every other year" than 2020.

[Pacmeyer]

Originally Posted by brewtown107

We can agree on that. Topps/Fanatics will be asked about this for sure, and it will be interesting to see what they say about it.

This is why I think they'll come out and call it an error. What else can they possibly say?

Error is an easy response but so is the classic "I don't know" or "we'll look into it" if they don't feel like answering.

[Goldie]

Originally Posted by pewe

“considered some of the most popular/successful players, whose cards would carry a substantial premium over a randomly chosen veteran”… is literally the definition of all players included in Bowman Best. (Thus the “Best” in the name)

So clearly that’s not a very relevant bar, when trying to see if they repeatedly selected someone special for #50.

Special feels like it would be MVP, Cy Young, ROY, top ASG vote getter, etc. And #50 has rarely been used for that distinction.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Ok, lets set the bar at top 3 in popularity for rookies, future sure-fire HOF, and/or winner of MVP no more than one season prior. Every #1, #50, and the lone #100 count between 2015-19. The only one that sticks out even slightly is Ortiz.

But they put a lot of random players in the set. And as you can clearly see, they make deliberate choices with their spots to not put one of the random players there. I don't know what was going on with 2020's checklist, maybe they fired that person and put in the person here, but the point all along is that 2020 is the exception, not the rule, and 2021 seems to be following the clear pattern established by 2015-19 releases.

[Goldie]

Originally Posted by brewtown107

We can agree on that. Topps/Fanatics will be asked about this for sure, and it will be interesting to see what they say about it.

This is why I think they'll come out and call it an error. What else can they possibly say?

I think legally they might have to, because they released cards in a way that makes them rookie cards in violation of their agreement with the MLBPA.

Again, these cards can't be unreleased now.

I think the primary point anyone could make is that BB50 will have an outsized value relative to a traditional BB release, and will probably become one of Wander's key base cards because of this. And when compared to the millions of S1 base rookies that will be printed, to say nothing of Chrome, Bowman, SC, Archives, Heritage, etc, this card will likely carry a premium when there was no chance of that happening had Topps printed this as per their agreement with MLBPA. But they DID print them this way, and the first source anyone looks to for product checklists (to say nothing of grading) has declared this to be his lone Rookie Card, something that will keep people interested in it.

People can bury their heads in the sand and hope that overproduced 2022 cards will be collectors items for the player or stop and recognize that something special actually happened in this hobby.

I own zero BB50 Wanders, and don't have plans to pay these prices (just like I don't have plans to pay the prices for most any player's cards these days - I remember when 86 Donruss Cansecos were >$100 cards, and it damn near always comes crashing down permanently for base). But there's nothing special about Topps running the presses 24/7 because they manipulated Wander into 22 products, but here's something special that has inspired debate in this hobby. I'm impressed.

[SaltyCracker]

Originally Posted by imbluestreak23

Yes, the two critical questions that must be asked
1) What is Wander's rookie card
2) Will etching return to shiny shine? Chrome is not chrome unless it has etching

TBP. You have only one question at the NSCC. Which one will you ask?

[rlriii13]

I will own one of each Wander - BB50 and 22 Flaghsip. After following this thread from the start, my conclusion is that I HOPE that history deems BB50 to be his one and only rookie card. I think it is good for any collecting community to have whales to chase. Certainly, there are more than enough holy grail baseball cards for any of us, but I know I can't afford 99% of the cards I admire. So to have this one potentially becoming iconic (right or wrong) before our eyes is pretty exciting to the collector in me. And for collectors who enjoy rookie cards, only having one is an increasingly old notion.

The only other guy I remotely paid attention to in the modern era who I know of with one rookie card is Luke Voit. I don't collect him, but when I learned he had one rookie card, I went a bought one to have in my collection. (I was curious how he compared with everything in this thread so I looked up some details: Voit debuted 6/25/2017. He was in 2017 Update and Chrome Update... so not actually one rookie, but close enough for me. With the RC logo.)

[redauto5]

Originally Posted by 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.

Wrong. The initial hype was compounded exponentially by easily 2/3 of the case inventory being late from Topps and the Distros to the end users, breakers and LCS's. Yes there were BB50 sales at $100. Prices corrected within days to $30ish, and we've had a week+ of steady and even positive movement into the $40-$50 range. With a TON of inventory being churned through, sold by the RC Logoers and bought by the BB50 Enthusiasts. Inventory is being sucked up quickly, and this story isn't going away. Your assumption is a very precarious one, your future casting dangerous. Your position is undoubtedly on the side of convention, but this situation is ANYTHING but conventional.

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

[imbluestreak23]

Originally Posted by rlriii13

I will own one of each Wander - BB50 and 22 Flaghsip. After following this thread from the start, my conclusion is that I HOPE that history deems BB50 to be his one and only rookie card. I think it is good for any collecting community to have whales to chase. Certainly, there are more than enough holy grail baseball cards for any of us, but I know I can't afford 99% of the cards I admire. So to have this one potentially becoming iconic (right or wrong) before our eyes is pretty exciting to the collector in me. And for collectors who enjoy rookie cards, only having one is an increasingly old notion.

The only other guy I remotely paid attention to in the modern era who I know of with one rookie card is Luke Voit. I don't collect him, but when I learned he had one rookie card, I went a bought one to have in my collection. (I was curious how he compared with everything in this thread so I looked up some details: Voit debuted 6/25/2017. He was in 2017 Update and Chrome Update... so not actually one rookie, but close enough for me. With the RC logo.)

NICE! Updated!

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.

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 Voit - 6/25/17 - RC Logo in 2017 products including TU released 10/18, 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
Angel Rodon - 6/6/21 - RC Logo in 2021 products including Topps Update released on 10/29
Wander Franco - 6/22/21 - RC Logo in 2022 products as hobby poster boy, but true RC released in 2021 BB

[pewe]

Originally Posted by Goldie

Ok, lets set the bar at top 3 in popularity for rookies, future sure-fire HOF, and/or winner of MVP no more than one season prior. Every #1, #50, and the lone #100 count between 2015-19. The only one that sticks out even slightly is Ortiz.

But they put a lot of random players in the set. And as you can clearly see, they make deliberate choices with their spots to not put one of the random players there. I don't know what was going on with 2020's checklist, maybe they fired that person and put in the person here, but the point all along is that 2020 is the exception, not the rule, and 2021 seems to be following the clear pattern established by 2015-19 releases.

The criteria you propose define something like half of the players included in the set every year…

FWIW Gleyber was probably #4 in the hobby rookie popularity in 2018, too, so I guess that makes the ‘18 set a mistake???


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Goldie]

Originally Posted by pewe

The criteria you propose define something like half of the players included in the set every year…

FWIW Gleyber was probably #4 in the hobby rookie popularity in 2018, too, so I guess that makes the ‘18 set a mistake???


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I just think you're trying to be obtuse here, saying that "half of the players included in the set" won a MVP within a year of production or are one of the most popular/valued 3 rookies in a year (and Gleyber 100% was one when Topps was making decisions for who to prioritize during their 2018 Bowman/Bowman Chrome checklists, of which this product claims to be the "Best" of), or are a 1st/2nd ballot HOF. You're wrong, and deep down inside you know you're wrong, so you grab onto the smallest thread and yank it for all it's worth.

[BabaORiley]

Originally Posted by pewe

And yet, #50 has never had any importance in this set. And #100 has never existed before.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I wasn't talking about Bowman's Best numbering. 1,50,100 have ALWAYS - save for a few years when they started getting cute - been reserved for Superstars in the Flagship set.

Keeping with the theory (only a theory) that Topps did this deliberately and with a bit of anger & feelings of betrayal at losing the license driving them, releasing this set with Trout at 1, Wander at 50, Torkelson at 100 is a not-so-subtle middle finger. To the MLBPA? To Fanatics? Or maybe even just an internal venting of frustration over the entire situation?

[Silent George]

Hate myself, but just went for BB50 Wander. I'm a "first topps" guy - in the majors nothing matters to me much on the rookie front except flagship. But I acknowledge 1) the debate for this card isn't going away 2) it's chump change compared to what it will be.

This same sort of debate existed for the 2012 Harper sp, and I wish I bought that back in the $40 range.

[BabaORiley]

https://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/19/s...criticism.html

An article about the history of Topps flagship numbering scheme as they briefly abandoned the traditional numbering scheme in 2013 while trying to get cute with jersey numbers. Topps may screw up various things ROUTINELY (customer service immediately jumps to mind) but one thing they're pretty good about is promoting Topps history (P70, Archives, Heritage, etc). It seems more plausible to me that the numbering scheme for '21 Best (1. Trout, 50. Wander, 100. Torkelson) is intentionally following a numbering scheme that Topps has been known for (by long time collectors) than Trout, Wander and Tork happening to fall at 1,50,100 respectively.

[Silent George]

I will say I find it hilarious that there's such an attack on people "slave to the rc" logo, who are themselves slave to a numbering system. You've got guys who aren't in the majors, not on the 40 man, etc. But there's a card that doesn't specifically call them a prospect, so it MUST be a major league card. TO me that's just as much idol warship as a RC logo is.

Rookie cards started going crazy 15+ years ago, with card companies racing to put fetuses in their card sets so they could lay claim to having the rookie you had to chase. MLB specifically went to put an end to this with the RC logo. And while the market obviously dictates, and some players are sort of grandfathered in that crossed over in that time, this was an issue that was clearly defined by MLB itself.

Why it's a debate - or why Beckett should have some sort of say in it because they failed to adjust with the times, well that's beyond me. But it seems illogical that, say, topps should be able to sneak an OOPS numbering system into the mix and kill the value of a Panini rookie card. Or worse yet, Panini does this with some future prospects in a few years, makes some unlicensed crap cards the must chase rookies of 2023 because of how they managed to number the cards on the back.

[ddouglas14]

Originally Posted by brewtown107

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

Does anyone on here understand Occam's razor? Honest question. The RC logo is explained in a 23 page SEC filing, and that is being put up as the "Occam's razor" approved solution? Whereas first card in a widespread set with veterans, is the more difficult answer? This seems more like the dollar shave club razor

[ThoseBackPages]

Salty, just ONE question?

why do you hire staff that knows nothing about the history of your company?

[brewtown107]

Originally Posted by BabaORiley

I wasn't talking about Bowman's Best numbering. 1,50,100 have ALWAYS - save for a few years when they started getting cute - been reserved for Superstars in the Flagship set.

Keeping with the theory (only a theory) that Topps did this deliberately and with a bit of anger & feelings of betrayal at losing the license driving them, releasing this set with Trout at 1, Wander at 50, Torkelson at 100 is a not-so-subtle middle finger. To the MLBPA? To Fanatics? Or maybe even just an internal venting of frustration over the entire situation?

The "ALWAYS" part has been disproven. See the previous page.

This convention has been a thing in Topps sets, except when it hasn't been. Hit-or-miss. They seem to miss a lot.

I'll just link the post on the previous page again here for ease of reading:

Originally Posted by brewtown107

2010 Topps Series 1

1 Prince Fielder
50 Zack Greinke
100 Albert Pujols
150 Joe Mauer
200 Roy Halladay
250 Mark Teixeira
300 Chase Utley
330 Brandon Allen (last card)

2010 Topps Series 2

331 Ryan Braun
350 Prince Fielder / Ryan Braun CC
400 Alex Rodriguez
450 Omir Santos
500 Brad Lidge
550 Freddy Garcia
600 Hanley Ramirez
650 Dustin Pedroia
660 Brandon McCarthy (last card)

2020 Topps Series 1

1 Mike Trout - Los Angeles Angels
50 Cody Bellinger - Los Angeles Dodgers
100 Alex Bregman - Houston Astros
150 Ronald Acuña Jr. - Atlanta Braves
200 Christian Yelich - Milwaukee Brewers
250 Bryce Harper - Philadelphia Phillies
300 Javier Baez - Chicago Cubs
350 Pete Alonso - New York Mets CUP (last card)

2020 Topps Series 2

351 Gerrit Cole - New York Yankees
400 Hyun-Jin Ryu - Toronto Blue Jays
450 Jorge Soler - Kansas City Royals
500 Nick Anderson - Tampa Bay Rays CUP
550 John Means - Baltimore Orioles CUP
600 Drew Steckenrider - Miami Marlins
650 Kelvin Herrera - Chicago White Sox
700 Adam Wainwright - St. Louis Cardinals (last card)


We could do this all day. In the end, it appears they do it sometimes, and other times they do not.

Like I said, hit-or-miss.

It's certainly not an "every time in every set" thing. It does not make someone deficient in their knowledge of the hobby if they did not believe these numbers are reserved for significant players, like Eric is implying.

But Eric likes to imply that others are lacking in knowledge about the hobby. It is his thing.

The bolded guys are not superstars. Not in the hobby, and not in real life.

Originally Posted by BabaORiley

https://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/19/s...criticism.html

An article about the history of Topps flagship numbering scheme as they briefly abandoned the traditional numbering scheme in 2013 while trying to get cute with jersey numbers. Topps may screw up various things ROUTINELY (customer service immediately jumps to mind) but one thing they're pretty good about is promoting Topps history (P70, Archives, Heritage, etc). It seems more plausible to me that the numbering scheme for '21 Best (1. Trout, 50. Wander, 100. Torkelson) is intentionally following a numbering scheme that Topps has been known for (by long time collectors) than Trout, Wander and Tork happening to fall at 1,50,100 respectively.

I'd be interested in reading the article, but it's paywalled. Not gonna pay to read it.

[LVDan]

Originally Posted by Silent George

I will say I find it hilarious that there's such an attack on people "slave to the rc" logo, who are themselves slave to a numbering system. You've got guys who aren't in the majors, not on the 40 man, etc. But there's a card that doesn't specifically call them a prospect, so it MUST be a major league card. TO me that's just as much idol warship as a RC logo is.

Rookie cards started going crazy 15+ years ago, with card companies racing to put fetuses in their card sets so they could lay claim to having the rookie you had to chase. MLB specifically went to put an end to this with the RC logo. And while the market obviously dictates, and some players are sort of grandfathered in that crossed over in that time, this was an issue that was clearly defined by MLB itself.

Why it's a debate - or why Beckett should have some sort of say in it because they failed to adjust with the times, well that's beyond me. But it seems illogical that, say, topps should be able to sneak an OOPS numbering system into the mix and kill the value of a Panini rookie card. Or worse yet, Panini does this with some future prospects in a few years, makes some unlicensed crap cards the must chase rookies of 2023 because of how they managed to number the cards on the back.

As someone who won't be buying any Wanders at all-
This is one of the strongest RC logo opinions on here so far. What makes beckett's definition more valid than MLBs?
If you prefer the beckett definition that is perfectly fine. Collect how you like.
If you prefer MLB's definition that is perfectly fine. Collect how you like.

I just think anyone trying to tell the other camp they're flat out wrong is just like, flat out wrong.

[ThoseBackPages]

what if one likes how it was when Jim Beckett was a boy?

[imbluestreak23]

Originally Posted by Silent George

I will say I find it hilarious that there's such an attack on people "slave to the rc" logo, who are themselves slave to a numbering system. You've got guys who aren't in the majors, not on the 40 man, etc. But there's a card that doesn't specifically call them a prospect, so it MUST be a major league card. TO me that's just as much idol warship as a RC logo is.

Rookie cards started going crazy 15+ years ago, with card companies racing to put fetuses in their card sets so they could lay claim to having the rookie you had to chase. MLB specifically went to put an end to this with the RC logo. And while the market obviously dictates, and some players are sort of grandfathered in that crossed over in that time, this was an issue that was clearly defined by MLB itself.

Why it's a debate - or why Beckett should have some sort of say in it because they failed to adjust with the times, well that's beyond me. But it seems illogical that, say, topps should be able to sneak an OOPS numbering system into the mix and kill the value of a Panini rookie card. Or worse yet, Panini does this with some future prospects in a few years, makes some unlicensed crap cards the must chase rookies of 2023 because of how they managed to number the cards on the back.

I can get behind the logo. First card released is a rookie in my book but I see why it's necessary. Nobody wants to buy 4-5 year old wax and have half your bass players now serving pizza.

What I cannot get behind is calling:
-Schwarber 2016s (273 PA in 2015)
-Bregman 2017s (217 PA in 2016)
-Yordan 2020s (369 PA in 2019)
-Wander 2022s (308 PA in 2021)

RCs when they were clearly and deliberately held back to make MLBPA and it's license holders more money. These are not RCs. MLBPA started off doing the right thing. Trout made the RC logo popular. 2015 RC logo class made RC logos "a thing." 2015 wax went to the moon. Moonbois began getting involved, speculating 2016, 2017, 2018. And at that moment, MLBPA realized what they had. An incentive to hold over as many good players called up in June or later for a full 12 months worth of RC logo releases.

To me, that's a scam that I can't support.