[uniquecards]

you are starting to show a glimpse of an ability to understand that "rookie" can be applied in more than one context. now you just need to make the jump to understanding how the card collecting world is different from the playing world.

The licensing bodies in the card collecting world you describe don't agree with you... and certainly neither do all collectors. Neither do card manufacturers... So...what are you talking about again?

The only reason why one would think of the context you're attempting to promote, where rookies aren't rookies and players aren't on a team they're playing on, would be to try to get people to buy cards they wouldn't want to buy in the first place. THIS is the root cause of the confusion the OP refers to. The only way to make selling these cards profitable was to promote (and to continue to promote) inaccuracy and to exaggerate a player's pro status. What happens when these exaggerations are removed? Nobody is confused any more. And not coincidentally sales fall.

---

again you are confusing being a baseball rookie with a baseball rookie card. the two are completely different. a rookie card is not a card that commemorates a player's rookie year in baseball. It is their first card by definition. That is where your confusion lies. I could ask anyone in the world if Bryce Harper is a rookie, and their answer is irrelevant because it has nothing to do with his cards. I could also ask anyone in the world if they have seen a Bryce Harper rookie card and they will mostly agree that they already exist. Do you understand the difference? The two types of "rookies" (i.e. playing rookie and card rookie) refer to two separate things. In card collecting it refers to the player's first card from a major league release. In playing it refers to the year(s) that they meet certain maximum eligibility requirements.

Until people can distinguish between the two concepts of "rookie", this confusion will persist. Once people grasp that the term "rookie" means different specifics in different circumstances/arenas, then there will be no confusion.

If you're saying the player's team doesn't make a difference, then photoshopping is unnecessary, and people would call players in MiLB uniforms rookies. The only problem with your point of view is that *nobody* would ever think to call a player in a MiLB jersey a rookie, even in the hobby. As great as MiLB may be, 99% of people only care about MLB.

Having two meanings of the word rookie as you describe adds another rule to the hobby...even though earlier you were against anyone making rules for the hobby if I'm not mistaken... If you were consistent a rule wouldn't be necessary and someone could tell just by looking at the front of a card whether the card was a RC.

What we're seeing in this discussion is that the hobby has to become more complicated to accommodate the sale of cards people wouldn't have wanted in the first place. Who needs that. Show the players as they are and no rules or crazy complications are necessary.

[011873]

In my dealings, I label a players first card a rc (like how its been for 30 yrs) and that players mlb rc logo a "rookie yr" card.

ex: 2007 bowman heyward is RC
2010 bowman heyward (mlb logo) is rookie yr

[jhyde77]

In my dealings, I label a players first card a rc (like how its been for 30 yrs) and that players mlb rc logo a "rookie yr" card.

ex: 2007 bowman heyward is RC
2010 bowman heyward (mlb logo) is rookie yr

I do the same thing. If I'm at a card shop, I call the '07 Bowman Heyward a rookie.

[_ZENAS_]

lol Uniquecards, how is it that the collectors in the hobby don't agree with me? They speak through their purchasing, and they clearly prefer the first issue in a major league set over a card from the first year they made it to the majors. Clearly they agree with me.

And how exactly does it create confusion for a rookie card to be the first card issued of that player? It would take a pretty small brain to find that confusing. It falls in line with what the word "rookie" means and it would also reflect the way the hobby deals with cards. It would remove all this other crap. It truly is sad if that is confusing to you.

Again, this isn't a "new rule", but the way the hobby has always dealt with the concept of "rookie" cards. It requires no second guessing and no complex determinations. It is either the player's first major league issue or it isn't.

And please don't keep bringing up the MLB and the licensing agreements. You can't be that clueless to think these organizations are following the desires of the hobbyist or even what actually makes a "rookie" card. These are contracts and licenses between large organizations. They are completely irrelevant to us as collectors in defining terms in the hobby.

*awaits posting of an irrelevant list of players with cards more expensive than their rookie cards that in no way changes what the definition of a rookie card is nor does it in any way contradict the fact that your list contains a small sample size and 99.9999% of players' first major league issue card is by FAR their most valuable base card.

[uniquecards]

lol Uniquecards, how is it that the collectors in the hobby don't agree with me? They speak through their purchasing, and they clearly prefer the first issue in a major league set over a card from the first year they made it to the majors. Clearly they agree with me.

And how exactly does it create confusion for a rookie card to be the first card issued of that player? It would take a pretty small brain to find that confusing. It falls in line with what the word "rookie" means and it would also reflect the way the hobby deals with cards. It would remove all this other crap. It truly is sad if that is confusing to you.

Again, this isn't a "new rule", but the way the hobby has always dealt with the concept of "rookie" cards. It requires no second guessing and no complex determinations. It is either the player's first major league issue or it isn't.

And please don't keep bringing up the MLB and the licensing agreements. You can't be that clueless to think these organizations are following the desires of the hobbyist or even what actually makes a "rookie" card. These are contracts and licenses between large organizations. They are completely irrelevant to us as collectors in defining terms in the hobby.

*awaits posting of an irrelevant list of players with cards more expensive than their rookie cards that in no way changes what the definition of a rookie card is nor does it in any way contradict the fact that your list contains a small sample size and 99.9999% of players' first major league issue card is by FAR their most valuable base card.

You keep changing your argument, it is pointless to have a meaningful discussion with you and, ahem, your "small brain". First you say about RCs (and I quote): "It is their first card by definition" - which includes MiLB issues obviously - and now you say its their first major league issue. You're so confused yourself you try to make others feel small, I assume this is a common tactic of yours.

You also say contracts, licenses, rules and regulations don't make a difference but yet you follow them without question. If you actually believed what you say you wouldn't think a minor league player could have a major league card. Think about this. Minor league player with major league card. How do minor league players get - and look like - major league players? Only with a special license. You're the most confused person on this thread by far.

Further, when you're talking about licenses you're conveniently leaving the most important one out - the MLBPA license. If you truly think a card a rookie card, that card needs to have the MLBPA license. Minor league players do not have this license as they're not in the MLBPA, although anyone can appear on a measly MLB licensed card nowadays. Not only do you actually believe in licensing, you pick and choose which licenses to use in order to cause confusion.

I'll just spell it out slowly: Confusion will always happen when minor league players have major league cards. Once more: Minor league players having major league cards is confusing. This confusion helps sell cards. How does one remove the confusion? Don't have minor league players in major league sets.

Lastly *collectors* aren't driving the prices for almost every first year card until they know about said player...which, not coincidentally is when they reach the MLB. Until then the value of a card is almost entirely supported by investors and prospectors who care little or nothing about hobby definitions - they want their money. Why do prices of these cards inevitably drop? Its because investors and prospectors abandon these cards in favor of other short-term investment activities. Granted some collectors prospect and invest, but they're not interested in keeping (or COLLECTING) these cards, they're interested in selling them.

BTW as I said earlier I don't have a problem with people buying this stuff if they know what they're buying, but its apparent the game is rigged in a purposefully CONFUSING manner.

* awaits posting full of more contradictions

[_ZENAS_]

You keep changing your argument, it is pointless to have a meaningful discussion with you and, ahem, your "small brain". First you say about RCs (and I quote): "It is their first card by definition" - which includes MiLB issues obviously - and now you say its their first major league issue. You're so confused yourself you try to make others feel small, I assume this is a common tactic of yours.

I haven't changed my argument at all. I always spoke of "first major league issue". I have never once included minor league cards and I also mentioned that only licensed cards are generally considered "rookie" cards. Get your facts straight. And this isn't my definition, but the hobby's.

You also say contracts, licenses, rules and regulations don't make a difference but yet you follow them without question. If you actually believed what you say you wouldn't think a minor league player could have a major league card. Think about this. Minor league player with major league card. How do minor league players get - and look like - major league players? Only with a special license. You're the most confused person on this thread by far.

When have I followed a license? You are clueless. I am saying the hobby and the league are two separate things and as such, there can certainly be a major league card of a minor league player. You are the confused one because you are so hung up on licenses. THIS HOBBY ISN'T ABOUT LICENSES! We make the rules and I could care less which card company had permission to use whose likeness. I wouldn't care if Topps didn't get permission to make a player's card, if they issued it (to their own legal demise) I would still consider the player's first major league issue their "rookie".

Further, when you're talking about licenses you're conveniently leaving the most important one out - the MLBPA license. If you truly think a card a rookie card, that card needs to have the MLBPA license. Minor league players do not have this license as they're not in the MLBPA, although anyone can appear on a measly MLB licensed card nowadays. Not only do you actually believe in licensing, you pick and choose which licenses to use in order to cause confusion.

Why should a MLBPA license mean anything to me given my definition of "rookie" card? You are showing you don't understand what I am saying. I don't care if they are in a union. All I care is that a major league team has drafted them and signed them so some sort of contract (minor or major). If they have, they are a professional baseball player and if a major card manufacturer puts out a major league card set that includes that player, it is their rookie. That license is irrelevant. You are still confusing the playing with the card making. THE HOBBY AND THE SPORT ARE SEPARATE! Why is that hard for you to grasp?

I'll just spell it out slowly: Confusion will always happen when minor league players have major league cards. Once more: Minor league players having major league cards is confusing. This confusion helps sell cards. How does one remove the confusion? Don't have minor league players in major league sets.

I'll spell it out slowly: NO IT WON'T! Confusion will always happen when people like you feel like you need a bunch of rules to determine what is or isn't a rookie card. If you follow my definition (which you seem incapable even as simple as it is), there can never be confusion. All you have to do is look for a player's first issue in a major league set. There you have a rookie. If that is confusing for you, I feel sad for you. Please oh please point to anything that is confusing there. That is the simplest and least confusing way possible. Having to distinguish at what level the player is playing in spite of the card being a major league card is FAR more confusing. You can't truly be that blind to think my way is confusing, can you?

Lastly *collectors* aren't driving the prices for almost every first year card until they know about said player...which, not coincidentally is when they reach the MLB. Until then the value of a card is almost entirely supported by investors and prospectors who care little or nothing about hobby definitions - they want their money. Why do prices of these cards inevitably drop? Its because investors and prospectors abandon these cards in favor of other short-term investment activities. Granted some collectors prospect and invest, but they're not interested in keeping (or COLLECTING) these cards, they're interested in selling them.

You don't know much about collecting if you think hype doesn't occur until a player reaches the MLB. LOLOLOL. You lost all credibility with that statement. The hobby is driving prices of Harper's cards right now. You are making the stupid mistake of trying to decide who is a collector and who is an investor. You are in no position to make that call. Many people collecting Harper and hoarding his cards are doing so for their collections and their future intent is neither relevant nor possibly known. As such, a prudent person must consider everyone buying and selling and trading cards as "collectors" and part of the "hobby." So it doesn't matter who is a prospector, collector, investor, or any other label you want to add. We are all part of the hobby, and as a whole we decide the values of cards.

BTW as I said earlier I don't have a problem with people buying this stuff if they know what they're buying, but its apparent the game is rigged in a purposefully CONFUSING manner.

exactly why you should use the traditional definition of "rookie" card that I have given. There is no confusion and no one can buy something they don't know what it is. The buyer doesn't have to make any determination about which part of the farm system the player is in. All they have to do is pick up a Beckett and work back until they find the earliest card. No confusion there and it can't be rigged to dupe the buyer like your position would result in.

* awaits posting full of more contradictions

You already posted it, so no need.

---

I am anxiously awaiting your response to how my definition is "confusing". This should be good.

---

And rather than continue this any longer, I won't post here anymore. I believe a rookie card to be the cards issued the year that the player first appears in a major league base set of an officially licensed card company.

I believe there is no confusion there. I believe this accurately represents the overall consensus of the hobby both now and historically. Feel free to disagree, but the hobby will continue to use it in deciding which cards they find important.

[ricelynnevans75]

I'll spell it out slowly: NO IT WON'T! Confusion will always happen when people like you feel like you need a bunch of rules to determine what is or isn't a rookie card. If you follow my definition (which you seem incapable even as simple as it is), there can never be confusion.

So this pretty much sums up all of your posts. The only people that are right are the ones of the same thinking as you.

You say it's up to the collectors, true. But then you refer to people as confused if they use MLBPA's definition of a rookie. Well, if it's up to the collectors and that's the route they choose, how can you say they are wrong? They are collectors right? They are using a definition they like, correct?

[motu79]

Boy, this thread really took a turn from the original question. I always thought the Bowman brand was popular because it gave us 'gamblers' a way to also play the 'market'. I think there are also a lot of team collectors that like to not only have current major league players, but also prospects that could one day help their team in their collections.

With Bowman, all the license did in 2006 was give us a new color (green) in the main set, and a new logo. It tells us 'hey, this guy played in the big leagues this past year'.

I do agree that if you're a new collector it can be confusing at first, just like many things with this hobby, but you eventually figure it out very quickly. If you see a player with a green border and a RC logo on it, just look in prior Bowman sets for his '1st Bowman card'. Not too difficult.

And, for what its worth, uniquecards, you're probably in the less than 1% of the hobby that cares if players are photoshopped, but you do make a good point. Now that Topps has the MiLB license, they could use the players minor league uniforms, but still put the Major League teams logo and name on the card so collectors know who drafted them. The only problem, and probably why Topps hasn't done this, is when Bowman is being made and distributed, a huge percentage of these players don't know what minor league team they will be assigned to for the year, so Topps just photoshops the major league teams uniform on them (just my thought on that).

Anyway, continue on guys. This has been a good read.

[_ZENAS_]

So this pretty much sums up all of your posts. The only people that are right are the ones of the same thinking as you.

You say it's up to the collectors, true. But then you refer to people as confused if they use MLBPA's definition of a rookie. Well, if it's up to the collectors and that's the route they choose, how can you say they are wrong? They are collectors right? They are using a definition they like, correct?

Just to respond to this: I have never said anyone has to think like I do. As you pointed out, my position is that the collectors as a whole make the determination, and that requires each of us making our own personal decision. I put forth my opinion as such and believe it to be the least confusing way, and also the way the MAJORITY of the hobby has dealt with this issue for decades. I have never said someone else can't have their own opinion. In fact it is the opposite. Uniquecards is trying to tell us all what is right and I have been encouraging people to consider some of the issues for themselves and let he hobby speak for itself through the collective will of collectors. You have simply misinterpreted/misread what I have said. I didn't say using MLBPA's definition of rookie means someone is confused, I said their definition causes a confusion in the hobby. Big difference.

[srruss]

Boy, this thread really took a turn from the original question. I always thought the Bowman brand was popular because it gave us 'gamblers' a way to also play the 'market'. I think there are also a lot of team collectors that like to not only have current major league players, but also prospects that could one day help their team in their collections.

With Bowman, all the license did in 2006 was give us a new color (green) in the main set, and a new logo. It tells us 'hey, this guy played in the big leagues this past year'.

I do agree that if you're a new collector it can be confusing at first, just like many things with this hobby, but you eventually figure it out very quickly. If you see a player with a green border and a RC logo on it, just look in prior Bowman sets for his '1st Bowman card'. Not too difficult.

And, for what its worth, uniquecards, you're probably in the less than 1% of the hobby that cares if players are photoshopped, but you do make a good point. Now that Topps has the MiLB license, they could use the players minor league uniforms, but still put the Major League teams logo and name on the card so collectors know who drafted them. The only problem, and probably why Topps hasn't done this, is when Bowman is being made and distributed, a huge percentage of these players don't know what minor league team they will be assigned to for the year, so Topps just photoshops the major league teams uniform on them (just my thought on that).

Anyway, continue on guys. This has been a good read.

This has been quite the 'Runaway Train' and I have been following it to witness the crash to see who gets the last word. In my opinion Beckett Baseball should add a new column and call it 'Ask _ZENAS_'. We could send in our questions and concerns to be 'encouraged to consider issues for ourselves'. I believe _ZENAS_ is a practicing lawyer and has had a great opportunity to 'practice' here. I think counselors, it is time to present your closing arguments "and let he hobby speak for itself through the collective will of collectors", as 80% of the people I deal with have their own opinions which works quite well for each of them. The other 20% just follow the up arrows and buy then trade to me after the down arrows bottom out, regardless of RC; XRC; (RC); FY or FYC.