Comments on: Beckett 20 Questions: Rookies, RCs & collecting

By: Cory Furlong

Cory Furlong — Thu, 13 Sep 2012 19:11:53 +0000

I agree with what baseball has going on at the moment. No true rookie card until the player plays in a MLB game. Prospect cards and Milb cards will be just that.

The down (or up)is if the player debuts later in the season he will have less rookie cards (See Mike Trout).

By: Dan

Dan — Tue, 11 Sep 2012 17:45:13 +0000

Chris: A rose by any other name. My point is MLB can keep their RC definition, it has nothing to do with which cards I deem most desirable, which is the first time a player has his face on a card.

By: rick

rick — Tue, 11 Sep 2012 17:15:56 +0000

OMG PEOPLE!!! A parallel is NOT a ROCKIE CARD (RC)!!! A insert is NOT a ROOKIE CARD (RC)!!!

By: Raylon C. Ruggles

Raylon C. Ruggles — Tue, 11 Sep 2012 04:59:53 +0000

MLB Miscellany: Rules

Determining rookie status:
A player shall be considered a rookie unless, during a previous season or seasons, he has (a) exceeded 130 at-bats or 50 innings pitched in the Major Leagues; or (b) accumulated more than 45 days on the active roster of a Major League club or clubs during the period of 25-player limit (excluding time in the military service and time on the disabled list).

My opinion as of a Rookie Card, is the year when he first batted or first pitch in the Major League game. Doesn’t matter if it’s the last regular game of the season and batted once and only took one pitch. Same as a pitcher and threw one pitch. That’s why they call it “The Show”

By: chrisolds

chrisolds — Mon, 10 Sep 2012 19:30:44 +0000

Dan: Unless the previous cards were from 2005 or earlier, they are not RCs. Since 2006, Bowman-brand prospect cards have been separated from the MLB veterans in sets, so they aren’t RCs — they are insert cards.

By: Dan

Dan — Mon, 10 Sep 2012 19:17:16 +0000

… even with the more common stuff, the RC logo does nothing for me. It always kills me to pull a card with an RC logo on it when I’ve got cards of that player that were issued five or six years prior. “1st Bowman Card” is far superior in my eyes.

By: Dan

Dan — Mon, 10 Sep 2012 19:14:03 +0000

The term rookie card has become totally useless to me. The card I most want of any player is his first card of any kind. 1961 Lake to Lake Packers Ray Nitschke is FAR more desirable to me than is a 1963 Topps Nitschke. In more modern terms, I prefer a 2008 Trevor Bauer UCLA team issued stadium give away than any of his “rookie cards.”

By: deeez

deeez — Mon, 10 Sep 2012 16:47:56 +0000

topps is ruining the whole prospect vs rc thing
it seems every prospects (at least good ones) has a bowman and or bowman chrome., a bowman chrome auto, a platinum auto and some base “inserts”, bowman sterling base and auto…. all before the crack the show
then
when they are rookie logos a card in every product and even more autos

By: bearcatlawjd

bearcatlawjd — Mon, 10 Sep 2012 13:29:36 +0000

Does anybody remember 1994 Collector’s Choice with its future foundations subset and 1995 Collector’s Choice SE with its rookie class subset? Both had silver and gold signature parallels. I always loved the 1995 SE set, card #1 Alex Rodriguez Rookie Class, Card #2 Derek Jeter Rookie Class. I am still trying to find a high quality gold singature of both players at a reasonable price.

By: Bill

Bill — Mon, 10 Sep 2012 10:17:10 +0000

Chris, the Islanders are my favorite team. That Scott Scissons questions made me laugh and cry at the same time. Freaking hilarious.