Bursting Bubble

[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

[Mark17]

What caused the bubble to burst in the late 1980's, primarily, was that the card companies realized they could print huge amounts of money, so they kept the presses rolling and absolutely flooded the market. That's always going top be the danger with modern - there is nothing to stop card companies from continuing to crank out stuff. Unless they state something is a 1/1 they can make as much stuff as they want, even years after the original release. I remember buying 1987 Topps "cut" cases well into the middle of 1988 and being told by someone that those sheets were still being printed.

Even with the 1/1 concept, they can come up with different gimmicks to create dozens of 1/1s by making them different in some way - different photos, different border colors, whatever.

Bottom line, with this kind of crazy money being spent on modern, expect the card companies to start capitalizing on it.

Vintage, aside from the ever present counterfeit and doctoring threats, has a finite supply, save for the occasional "new to the hobby" find.

If I had any modern stuff that had gone crazy price-wise, I'd be dumping it. If I had any big ticket vintage that was moving up, I'd hang onto it awhile longer, maybe forever.

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

Originally Posted by Mark17

What caused the bubble to burst in the late 1980's, primarily, was that the card companies realized they could print huge amounts of money, so they kept the presses rolling and absolutely flooded the market.

I hear this all the time and it has always confused me. They didn't "flood the market" they met demand. Blaming them for the demand is bassackwards.

Card companies are basically printing companies. Even now they don't give a rip about the secondary market except in the most indirect way. They care about selling boxes, packs, and sets. If a 1/1 purple neon snowleopard autographed laser refractor sells a bunch of boxes today they don't care what it's worth tomorrow.

Hell, you can't even get Topps to protect their own intellectual property on Ebay and demand the counterfeits be removed. Coach, Tiffany, Micahel Kors all protect their property even though they don't make any money on the secondary market. The point being, all the card companies care about is selling cards TODAY. If they need 100,000 cases they're not printing 1,000,000 and "flooding the market."

[Eggoman]

I GOTTA agree with Scott!

I bought AND sold during that time and EVERYTHING was GREAT until the Collector/Investor/Get-Rich-Quick guys on one side of the Dealer's Table stopped buying from the Dealer/Investor/Get-Rich Quick guys on the other side of the table.

Before that, I could sell Junk Wax as fast as I could get it! Canseco Rookies, Benito Santiago, Mike Greenwell, Gregg Jefferies, Ripken FF cards, on and on and on... Baseball, Football, even Hockey & Hoops - it all sold as fast as I could replace it.

1987 Topps was EASY to get, but still sold GREAT! 1987 Fleer was HARD to get, but still sold GREAT!

Prices went up every week, every day...

But then, new product seemingly started coming out every week with all of the new companies joining in. It seemed to render Last Week's stuff nearly unsaleable.

I couldn't get rid of Last Week's product fast enough... Manufacturer's met demand so fast. Everyone got theirs and moved on to what was next... Inventory sat on the shelves, but I still bought NEW product.

[moogpowell]

Impossible to ascertain magnitude and timing of any selloff but I think HOF baseball players from 1950s to 1970s roughly graded PSA 6 to 8 offer a healthy risk/reward regardless of market conditions. Sort of equivalent to large-cap value with a 2.5% to 3% dividend yield. You won’t get make a lot fast but downside seems limited.

[joshuanip]

Originally Posted by moogpowell

Impossible to ascertain magnitude and timing of any selloff but I think HOF baseball players from 1950s to 1970s roughly graded PSA 6 to 8 offer a healthy risk/reward regardless of market conditions. Sort of equivalent to large-cap value with a 2.5% to 3% dividend yield. You won’t get make a lot fast but downside seems limited.

They are absolutely different. The former, regardless prewar or postwar high grade vintage are non income producing alternative assets. They are also illiquid assets, unique in each example similar to real property.

The latter are income producing assets that carry a risk premium (cards cant default or cut your divy) and are based on discounted cashflows of that stock (whether to use the dividend discount model or discounted free cashflow yield remains to be seen). Liquidity is much better as transaction costs are minimal and there is a open marketplace that provides daily liquidity. Also, those stocks are dictated by passive ETF investing and are subject to flow.

I think what you mean is that those investment grade cards are better investments, which I agree, due to the fact that there will always be higher liquidity and demand for that type... but not the same as large cap stocks.

[pherbener]

Originally Posted by Eggoman

I GOTTA agree with Scott!


1987 Topps was EASY to get, but still sold GREAT! 1987 Fleer was HARD to get, but still sold GREAT!

Prices went up every week, every day...

But then, new product seemingly started coming out every week with all of the new companies joining in. It seemed to render Last Week's stuff nearly unsaleable.

I couldn't get rid of Last Week's product fast enough... Manufacturer's met demand so fast. Everyone got theirs and moved on to what was next... Inventory sat on the shelves, but I still bought NEW product.

I was in undergraduate school in 87 and it was near the Topps plant.. I got as many 800 count boxes of Greenwell, Santiago, Joyner, Bonds etc. that I needed. Crazy stuff! Helped put me through school!!

[dio]

Prices are softening. Not much bidder at heritage that ends in 3 days

[Mark17]

Originally Posted by Aquarian Sports Cards

I hear this all the time and it has always confused me. They didn't "flood the market" they met demand. Blaming them for the demand is bassackwards.

That's true from the perspective of the card manufacturers. If they sold everything they printed, then they didn't "over-produce." They met demand, as you say, and there was insatiable demand.

I sold 100 card lots of single players back then, and several customers bought rookie cards by the 800 count box. One fellow in New York bought 4,500 each of about 40 different 1987 Topps cards from me, which was basically a 300 vending case custom sort. I always wondered what the end game was supposed to be, when a guy had 4,500 Wally Joyner or Mike Greenwell rookies. Some day find another buyer who wanted thousands of those guys' cards I guess.

So I'm not placing blame on card companies for printing and printing and printing cards in the late 1980s. What I'm saying is that tons and tons of the stuff was printed, making its long-term value impossible to sustain.

[68Hawk]

Today's collector isn't buying the way the wild eyed 90's collector was. Not grabbing everything in sight in pure blind hope... it's targeted and based on a punters eye for talent.
If they buy packs/boxes/cases or in to breaks, it's in the hope of landing a prized rookie from that year - one whose name they already know and are praying for, or high end material/parallels of established superstars.
The flotsam players they gather in the wash mostly go in the bin.
No one's building entire sets from an issue, holding all the cards hoping a gem player floats up from the dust. They build subsets of one players' cards, or a few from their team, that have specific meaning whether fan based or monetarily.

People aren't buying the huge amount of product that's being made because they believe somewhere within it all they'll get lucky opening it up in 5 years after it's sat gathering dust in the closet.
They make their estimation much like Mel Kiper or any other so called draft expert and hope to predict the next young big thing whose cards will be worth big big dollars.

The new collector isn't going to have 50,000 junk cards he's got $50K in to, and needing to dump because they didn't play out. He's going to have a selected collection that may or may not pan out, but will probably take 5-10 years to truly make that evaluation. So he holds, waits, and watches sports.

There are still plenty of high end collectors holding significant Aaron Rogers collections and Russell Wilson collections who believe there still a chance, with say a run of 3 super bowls somehow materializing, their fancied horse having a chance to be considered as all time greats.

They've had that money in those players for 10+ years.
There's no dump, no bubble. Price corrections sure, but in quality players a baseline of value for rarer material holds strong.
Just some wins, some losses, and next years possibles.
There are more non KC Chiefs supporting collectors on the Pat Mahomes thread in Blowout than the idiologues. They buy his cards because of the slight promise of what he may one day achieve.

In my opinion, the hobby is at the OPENING of a chance to go truly mainstream. No bubble, no overproduction, just a free floating market like the stock exchange with an enormous number of people participating and prices for players will flow up and down accordingly. Only way more enjoyable because sportcards are awesome - yes even modern - and can have meaning even outside of their financial performance.
Vintage should likely be the stable steady earner.

The idea that more people in means more likely bubble is silly.
In fact it's the opposite.
More in, more believers, better understanding that it's a market to play and just like stocks the long hold in blue chip is safe, and the flutter on speculatives can be exhilarating and rewarding or flat loss making.
Aaand, they will feel far more knowledgeable about what they own than the faceless stocks with fake profit loss sheets they're currently indentured to.

Or none of it might happen, and sportscards recede back into the niche it's always held.
We'll know pretty shortly. Next 12-24 months should tell everything.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Historically, trying to time any market usually fails more often than succeeds. It's easy to pontificate but a lot harder to be right.

[JohnnyKilroy]

Originally Posted by 68Hawk

The idea that more people in means more likely bubble is silly.
In fact it's the opposite.
More in, more believers, better understanding that it's a market to play and just like stocks the long hold in blue chip is safe, and the flutter on speculatives can be exhilarating and rewarding or flat loss making.
Aaand, they will feel far more knowledgeable about what they own than the faceless stocks with fake profit loss sheets they're currently indentured to.

This is absolutely incorrect. You are giving humans way too much credit. It’s a very basic economic principle... The more people you throw into this, the more people are involved that have no idea what they’re doing. They get sucked in because they see their friend, brother, sister, mother, etc.. crushing it. They see how easy people make it look to turn huge profits. It’s one of the main contributors to a bubble! It’s those same people that loose their shirt, or throw the towel in early, or cut losses and dump cards. Once the initial fear hits, that happens on a MASSIVE scale. I applaud you for having that kind of faith in man kind, but statistically it’s incorrect. And every single economic crash will show you that.

[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.

[mq711]

Originally Posted by rats60

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.

Of course the Nationals brought up Harper and Rendon a little early and as soon as they could they left; even though they were offered nice contracts to stay inDC. Unfortunately it’s all a business now and everyone is in it for themselves.

[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.

[Jim F]

The bubble or no bubble argument can be had all day and trying to time a market is tough.
#1 rule if you are worried about anything being in bubble territory
-- You can't go broke taking profit!! ---