August 6, 2009

Sooz's View: I still don't like it

After getting the night to digest the information reported by the New York Times, my initial reaction hasn’t changed much.

I don’t like the idea of a monopoly. Upper Deck’s products had gotten a little stale over time (what were all those Xs about), but there were still products I definitely enjoyed. One of my favorite all-time Upper Deck products is 2007 Sweet Spot.

In reality, there is nothing the collectors can do about Upper Deck not getting its MLB license, however, it still has the MLBPA license.

Last night, during my outcry about the news, one of my Upper Deck Twitter buds (@ScoobyCub) said they could still use the players on the cards, just not any team logos. So, apparently there will be Derek Jeter cards just nothing that says New York Yankees or have the NY logo on it.

I am thinking portrait shots. Perhaps topless shots?! Guys in just uni bottoms and no tops?

Maybe this isn’t a bad thing for the female collectors out there.

All kidding aside, in a year’s time we will be able to gauge how this has affected the industry.

Topps will come out with invigorating products and drive the market because collectors want to get everything that is out there.

Or it will shut out the people keeping this business alive because they don’t like the idea of the companies pretending we don’t exist. This could have potentially big ramifications in the industry.

I am interested to hear MLB’s explanation for going with just one company.

16 comments:

  1. I thought of a Studio-esque portrait set last night as well. It'd be an easy way to hide the non-licensed aspect and still make an attractive set. I'm not so sure about the topless aspect but if it gets more collectors into the hobby, then I can live with it (although I don't know if I'd buy it). There's similar products out featuring ladies wearing all degrees of nothing.

    Ironic word verification (if you sound it out): predi

    ReplyDelete
  2. Topps Topless - Has a nice ring to it.

    ReplyDelete
  3. This is the first I am hearing of this. I knew the exclusive Panini deal with the NBA would set a precedent that would hurt the hobby. Topps better not drop the ball with this one. I hope this doesn't mean a huge increase in prices.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Heh, Topps Topless.

    But it's Upper Deck that has the logo issue. hmmm

    ReplyDelete
  5. I have no problem with the exclusive. Maybe when the license comes up for negotiation UD will try hard to get it. Ud isn't competitive right now 2007 sweet spot is one of my favorites too, but the disappearing autos makes the a and g invisible man auto look amature ish.

    ReplyDelete
  6. No team logos AND shirtless dudes?

    That really will kill Upper Deck for me.

    ReplyDelete
  7. What if, they were shirtless at night under the lights at Dodger Stadium?

    ReplyDelete
  8. How about shirtless in Seattle. If UD does shirtless, then Topps does Topless with tattoo logos. Topps wins again. The cards are 'stacked' in Topps favor.

    My subtle sense of humor seems to elude everyone.

    For some reason I think some creative Photoshop work is in order.

    ReplyDelete
  9. OK, here we go (Upper Deck, write this down):

    Hatless, shirtless dudes, under the lights, at Dodger Stadium, with girls in bikinis.

    I'd buy that.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Oh, I would totally buy that too.

    I see this thread going the wrong way.

    ReplyDelete
  11. UD UnDresssed?

    But that doesn't use an X...

    UD Xplicit?

    ReplyDelete
  12. The image in my bsnner is being used to create the first card of UD XXX.

    ReplyDelete
  13. willworkforcardsAugust 06, 2009 8:42 PM

    I am not for this at all, this whole thing has really got me going. (like ive actually supporting boycotting topps for it, but then reality sinks and i think of how useless it would be for me to not buy topps because it would not even cause a scratch on a dent of the funding topps gets, and i guess its not nesecarilly topps fault, its the MLB's.)

    ReplyDelete
  14. Monopoly - MLB is a Monopoly and anti trust laws don't apply. IF being a Monopoly is so bad, then maybe they will have to run a telefon on the MLB Network to raise money. This is not about a monopoly, this is about stop ripping off the collector. The collector who pays $80 dollars to get a box of cards worth $20. Remember the good old days of 1984 when you could buy a 30 cent pack of cards and get a $5 Don Mattingly. Today you pay $5 for a pack of 30 cent cards. - BATEMAN72

    ReplyDelete