Anyone know why Orioles All Star catcher Matt Wieters is missing from Topps releases? He wasn't in a single issue last year and so far more of the same for 2013.
Why Is Matt Wieters missing from Topps releases?
- Thread starter greyminis
- Start date
Disclaimer: Links on this page pointing to Amazon, eBay and other sites may include affiliate code. If you click them and make a purchase, we may earn a small commission.
http://www.freedomcardboard.com/forum/baseball/119088-matt-wieters-finally-topps-card-sort.html
Looks like he signed a deal with Razor way back and just hasn't signed a contract with Topps yet, at least that's the impression I get from the first dozen or so results when I googled 2012 Topps Matt Wieters
Looks like he signed a deal with Razor way back and just hasn't signed a contract with Topps yet, at least that's the impression I get from the first dozen or so results when I googled 2012 Topps Matt Wieters
So each player has to sign on separately with Topps?
Yes, that is my understanding.
Wonder if there are any other active players unsigned by Topps.
Also wonder how good an unsigned guy has to get before Topps makes an offer that a player finds hard to pass on.
Because Topps signs the players to individual deals rather than just using a blanket MLBPA agreement, sometimes players don't want to sign with them for some reason. Notice that Ichiro wasn't in Topps Heritage this year? Other players who weren't on Topps cards for years were Alex Rodriguez (debuted in 1994 but didn't have a Topps card until 1998) and Kevin McReynolds (debuted in 1983 but didn't have a Topps card until 1987), off the top of my head.
On the flipside, Topps sometimes does include players that aren't covered under the MLBPA deal that other companies weren't allowed to have. Barry Bonds towards the end of his career is the most notable example. Also there were the guys who were replacement players during the strike in 1995 such as Cory Lidle, and of course minor leaguers not on the 40-man roster.
Richard
On the flipside, Topps sometimes does include players that aren't covered under the MLBPA deal that other companies weren't allowed to have. Barry Bonds towards the end of his career is the most notable example. Also there were the guys who were replacement players during the strike in 1995 such as Cory Lidle, and of course minor leaguers not on the 40-man roster.
Richard
Way back when, Topps had snubbed Maury Wills for a card when he came up with the Dodges, so he refused to sign with them for years. His first season was in 1959, and he didn't have a Topps card until 1967.
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/spo...wills-because-he-was-such-a-bad-prospect.html
Makes for interesting reading.
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/spo...wills-because-he-was-such-a-bad-prospect.html
Makes for interesting reading.
Last edited:
Good enough to make the demand worth the investment. Realistically, Topps name alone is good for $x in sales a year, would a Wieters card really sell that many more cases? It'll be a nice perk when they add it, but he isn't driving sales. Plus it sets bad precedents, if they give a huge offer to sign Wieters, what about the next prospect that decides to hold out, or a superstar that won't sign?
all makes good sense. hope he signs up soon.
You might be interested to know what the compensation is for signing with Topps for players.
$200-$500 a year cash, or they get to choose an item out of a gift catalog. I have Todd Hundleys original Topps contract, and his renewal contract 5 years later, and he went from $75 (1989)a year to $200(1994).
$200-$500 a year cash, or they get to choose an item out of a gift catalog. I have Todd Hundleys original Topps contract, and his renewal contract 5 years later, and he went from $75 (1989)a year to $200(1994).
That can't be presently relevant or there would be a lot more guys missing from the checklist.
Topps doesn't make money on individual players. They sell baseball cards, not Matt Wieters baseball cards or Derek Jeter baseball cards.
It may have gone up some, but probably not a lot. For most players, it's the cool factor of being on a baseball card. Sure, they could try to hold out for more, but WHY? There are only a handful of players who might noticably impact sales (Note: I'm talking for Topps here, not about the secondary market) Very few people would stop buying Topps because Jamey Carroll, or Todd Hundley, aren't in the set. Minimum salary is over $400,000 a year if I remember right. What does a Jamey Carroll gain by not signing? No baseball cards of him made, the fan base he does have is left without the cards. Most of them have no leg to stand on. Don't want the money, don't take it, they won't make a card of you. The few guys who MIGHT actually impact sales, make enough in salary, endorsements, appearances, etc that the baseball card payments aren't a drop in the bucket anyways. If you are making $20 million a year in salary, another $15 million in endorsements, another $5 million in appearances, even if Topps paid $500,000, that's just over a 1% difference in your income. All those players would be doing is upping the cost of baseball cards for collectors by adding to the costs of production
It may have gone up some, but probably not a lot. For most players, it's the cool factor of being on a baseball card. Sure, they could try to hold out for more, but WHY? There are only a handful of players who might noticably impact sales (Note: I'm talking for Topps here, not about the secondary market) Very few people would stop buying Topps because Jamey Carroll, or Todd Hundley, aren't in the set. Minimum salary is over $400,000 a year if I remember right. What does a Jamey Carroll gain by not signing? No baseball cards of him made, the fan base he does have is left without the cards. Most of them have no leg to stand on. Don't want the money, don't take it, they won't make a card of you. The few guys who MIGHT actually impact sales, make enough in salary, endorsements, appearances, etc that the baseball card payments aren't a drop in the bucket anyways. If you are making $20 million a year in salary, another $15 million in endorsements, another $5 million in appearances, even if Topps paid $500,000, that's just over a 1% difference in your income. All those players would be doing is upping the cost of baseball cards for collectors by adding to the costs of production
Feel free to go to the Topps vault and look at the contracts they have for sale there. It hasn't changed, around $75 a season for lesser players, about $100 for stars.
Here's a link to a Mark Bellhorn contract from 2004:
http://www.ebay.com/itm/2004-Topps-...0908223074?pt=US_Baseball&hash=item2ec7103262
What a great deal for Topps to only have to pay $75 to $100 per player a year to be able to include them in their releases.
They have to pay the players association WAY more than that. Then add on the MLB fee. So Topps has to pay 3 different entities to produce one card. and $75 doesn't sound like much until you think about how many players Topps pays that to- all the 40 man rosters, all the retired guys, then keeping up with the minor leaguers that just got added to rosters- it's thousands of players.
Similar threads
