Bursting Bubble

[pcoz]

A LOT more collectors, investors, and publicity in the hobby this past year. Also, a ton of liquidity in the marketplace as well chasing assets. I personally do not think it's a bubble, especially not in Prewar. There are one-off sales that may be an anomaly, like the Trout 1/1 for 4mm last year. But, there have been a consistent amount of modern cards selling for over 1mm. How can a Ruth RC sell for so little compared to all of these modern cards? I think Prewar is about to catch up real soon.

[SAllen2556]

The baseball strike in 1994-95 was a major cause of a price crash. Another work stoppage in baseball seems to be looming. It's tough to be a modern baseball card collector when everyone is pissed off at the "greedy" players and owners. If I collected modern cards I'd be worried about another work stoppage in baseball - just based off of history.

[campyfan39]

My opinion/prediction is we see a leveling off and small decline in the spring and summer when the weather gets better and people get out more and covid starts to fade from front and center of everything.

I also disagree about prewar going up or "catching up". Many, many collectors just see it out of their realm and won't venture in. Also there is no memories or nostalgia associated with it like there is 50's- modern day.

I know I tried to get into pre war about 10 years ago and after 6 months realized on my budget I would likely never have a solid Ruth or Cobb etc. and so I sold all that I had and concentrated on the stuff that you could get most of what you wanted (i.e. 50-70's)

[pcoz]

We'll see Chris. There has to be a leveling off on the modern for sure. Going back a year ago, modern went nuts first, then Postwar, then Prewar. Now, it's happening again. Investors will find better value and true rarity in Prewar. I think it's a natural hobby progression to start with modern, and eventually getting to the vintage. In a lot of respects nowadays, vintage is cheaper than modern.

[rats60]

Originally Posted by SAllen2556

The baseball strike in 1994-95 was a major cause of a price crash. Another work stoppage in baseball seems to be looming. It's tough to be a modern baseball card collector when everyone is pissed off at the "greedy" players and owners. If I collected modern cards I'd be worried about another work stoppage in baseball - just based off of history.

I wonder how the Mariners President spouting off about how they have been abusing the rules to screw players out of money is going to affect the on going labor negotiations?

[Belfast1933]

I read another “bubble” chain here recently and appreciated the perspective offered by one thoughtful poster...

While I am like many (most) members here - collector, first and foremost - I don’t begrudge anyone who decides to spend their hard earned money any way they want. If they consider this an investment, no real harm to me.

If that inflates prices, that’s free market - also ok by me.

There are always new ways to expand my collecting interests - one new hobby friend recently opened my eyes to great old magazines which are very affordable and are super cool to read, display etc.

I am not going to root for a huge drop in card value that would put lots of hobby businesses out of work just so that I can afford to buy that Ty Cobb card that is just about out of reach now.... there’s always another way to add Ty to my collection

[biggies]

Not sure of course but barring anything unforeseen I have to think that the dramatic rise in interest has helped the hobby overall.
I am not one of those interested in the commodity mentality of buying/selling modern cards but believe that even those non-hobbyist investor types my ignite a true interest in carboard.
I'm probably over hoping.

[GeoPoto]

Originally Posted by rats60

I wonder how the Mariners President spouting off about how they have been abusing the rules to screw players out of money is going to affect the on going labor negotiations?

I don't understand how using "rules" that were collectively bargained is "abuse". In the negotiations both parties had things they wanted and things they were willing to give up. If the players "traded" the rules on arbitration, (which give clubs the option of bringing top players up quickly thereby getting the players production and starting arbitration early or delaying both) in order to obtain concessions (that the players placed greater value on) from the owners, why shouldn't teams use them however they see fit.

It seems completely rational for the players to restrict the compensation somewhat of the best (soon to be highest paid) players in exchange for benefits such as salary minimums, pension rules, etc. that benefit all players, including ones who will never approach the compensation levels achieved by the elite players.

Looking at the effect on elite prospects in isolation may make it appear that they are being "screwed" (paid less than they could have commanded without the arbitration eligibility "rules"), but if those rules were traded during negotiations for things that benefit all players, it may be a completely sensible trade-off that the negotiators of the CBA wanted and agreed to.

[rats60]

Originally Posted by GeoPoto

I don't understand how using "rules" that were collectively bargained is "abuse". In the negotiations both parties had things they wanted and things they were willing to give up. If the players "traded" the rules on arbitration, (which give clubs the option of bringing top players up quickly thereby getting the players production and starting arbitration early or delaying both) in order to obtain concessions (that the players placed greater value on) from the owners, why shouldn't teams use them however they see fit.

It seems completely rational for the players to restrict the compensation somewhat of the best (soon to be highest paid) players in exchange for benefits such as salary minimums, pension rules, etc. that benefit all players, including ones who will never approach the compensation levels achieved by the elite players.

Looking at the effect on elite prospects in isolation may make it appear that they are being "screwed" (paid less than they could have commanded without the arbitration eligibility "rules"), but if those rules were traded during negotiations for things that benefit all players, it may be a completely sensible trade-off that the negotiators of the CBA wanted and agreed to.

You really don't think not using any prospects for a whole season because it was a shortened season isnt an abuse? Sure it is within the rules, but certainly not in the spirit of what was bargained. He admitted that they were deliberately holding back players so they wouldn't get fair market value. The players suspected this was going on and now have confirmation. It's not really any different than collusion in the 80s. I think the prospects of a strike just went way up. The only ones really losing are the fans.

[GeoPoto]

Originally Posted by rats60

You really don't think not using any prospects for a whole season because it was a shortened season isnt an abuse? Sure it is within the rules, but certainly not in the spirit of what was bargained. He admitted that they were deliberately holding back players so they wouldn't get fair market value. The players suspected this was going on and now have confirmation. It's not really any different than collusion in the 80s. I think the prospects of a strike just went way up. The only ones really losing are the fans.

I don't know what "not in the spirit of what was bargained" means. The CBA establishes a framework that prevents teams from keeping players in the minors indefinitely. It establishes how much leeway teams have to manage when each player's clock toward arbitration and ultimately free agency begins. If it allows a team to do something at its sole discretion, why is it abuse when a team goes ahead and uses that discretion however it sees fit. It might be unwise, unfair to fans, etc. But not "abuse" of the players.

Again, the players primarily affected by this phenomena are the elite prospects who figure to make life-time security before their career is over. If it delays (for a year) a 9-figure contract for a handful of elite players in exchange for more generous minimums/benefits for players who may never see an 8-figure contract, it could easily be justified as beneficial to the union membership as a whole.

Your point about a strike might be valid. Union leadership might regret the trade-off they made last time in light of how the rules are used and might want a different deal; owner's might balk. His comments were unwise because they were unnecessary and may be used to inflame opinion going into negotiations, but "abuse" I don't get.

[todeen]

Originally Posted by GeoPoto

I don't know what "not in the spirit of what was bargained" means. The CBA establishes a framework that prevents teams from keeping players in the minors indefinitely. It establishes how much leeway teams have to manage when each player's clock toward arbitration and ultimately free agency begins. If it allows a team to do something at its sole discretion, why is it abuse when a team goes ahead and uses that discretion however it sees fit. It might be unwise, unfair to fans, etc. But not "abuse" of the players.



Again, the players primarily affected by this phenomena are the elite prospects who figure to make life-time security before their career is over. If it delays (for a year) a 9-figure contract for a handful of elite players in exchange for more generous minimums/benefits for players who may never see an 8-figure contract, it could easily be justified as beneficial to the union membership as a whole.



Your point about a strike might be valid. Union leadership might regret the trade-off they made last time in light of how the rules are used and might want a different deal; owner's might balk. His comments were unwise because they were unnecessary and may be used to inflame opinion going into negotiations, but "abuse" I don't get.

There's nothing wrong from your standpoint. I'm a union negotiator and sometimes hard decisions bite back in the wrong way. Next go round they become a priority. But as a fan, the Mariners are "suck d*** for crack" bad and refuse to bring up their name recognized prospects to bring fans into the stadium. It just means that these players will feel no guilt or remorse to stay in Seattle because their boss is a jerk who doesn't care and is willing to publicly run their name through the dirt.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk

[rats60]

Originally Posted by GeoPoto

I don't know what "not in the spirit of what was bargained" means. The CBA establishes a framework that prevents teams from keeping players in the minors indefinitely. It establishes how much leeway teams have to manage when each player's clock toward arbitration and ultimately free agency begins. If it allows a team to do something at its sole discretion, why is it abuse when a team goes ahead and uses that discretion however it sees fit. It might be unwise, unfair to fans, etc. But not "abuse" of the players.

Again, the players primarily affected by this phenomena are the elite prospects who figure to make life-time security before their career is over. If it delays (for a year) a 9-figure contract for a handful of elite players in exchange for more generous minimums/benefits for players who may never see an 8-figure contract, it could easily be justified as beneficial to the union membership as a whole.

Your point about a strike might be valid. Union leadership might regret the trade-off they made last time in light of how the rules are used and might want a different deal; owner's might balk. His comments were unwise because they were unnecessary and may be used to inflame opinion going into negotiations, but "abuse" I don't get.

I was taught to treat others like you want to be treated. If you don't see what is wrong with this, then I don't know what else to say. A player works hard for an organization and when he is ready for the majors, he doesn't get the promotion to the majors that he deserves. Kris Bryant was a perfect example of this. When you treat people like that, you lose your integrity.

[Tabe]

Originally Posted by GeoPoto

I don't know what "not in the spirit of what was bargained" means. The CBA establishes a framework that prevents teams from keeping players in the minors indefinitely. It establishes how much leeway teams have to manage when each player's clock toward arbitration and ultimately free agency begins. If it allows a team to do something at its sole discretion, why is it abuse when a team goes ahead and uses that discretion however it sees fit. It might be unwise, unfair to fans, etc. But not "abuse" of the players.

It's abuse because the teams aren't making decisions that are best for the product they're putting on the field. They are intentionally not bringing up major-league-ready players to save money. Tanking is, and always will be, unethical. Yes, it makes fiscal sense for the team. Yes, it's "allowed". But it's definitely abusive to not bring up a player simply because you don't want to pay him.

[Leon]

Originally Posted by SAllen2556

The baseball strike in 1994-95 was a major cause of a price crash. Another work stoppage in baseball seems to be looming. It's tough to be a modern baseball card collector when everyone is pissed off at the "greedy" players and owners. If I collected modern cards I'd be worried about another work stoppage in baseball - just based off of history.

I quit watching or caring about MLB after the 94-95 season. I never looked back and don't regret it one bit. Everyone else can have it.

I also think pre war stays strong but I do think there has been too much of a run up in new cards. Some of those will fall way back down, imo. Only time will tell. And as Warren Buffet says, you can never time the market.

.