Leaf Exclusive Nico Hischier

I don't see any hockey cards there, do you? And are you sure the poster wasn't just trolling Upper Deck? The Artifacts Rookie blow up looks like a home made 8x10.

Fairly certain the exclusive is only for hockey cards.

Cory
 
This is a hypothetical question directed at the Leaf folks, I might have asked this in the Eichel thread way back but I'm not sure I remember, and these are now growing w/prospects.

What happens if one of your exclusive players (Eichel, Patrick, Hischier, etc.) DO sign a UD card?

Say Little 5 year old Johnny in Buffalo, Philadelphia, NJ, wherever walks up to one of them and has nothing but lets say an OPC RC to get signed. Do they have to decline?

I would be interested to hear how your exclusive athletes are supposed to handle a situation like that. Because here you would have a little kid who probably idolizes that specific player, and they might have to be turned down?

Let me know - honest question.
 
geschrocks33 said:
What happens if one of your exclusive players (Eichel, Patrick, Hischier, etc.) DO sign a UD card?

Say Little 5 year old Johnny in Buffalo, Philadelphia, NJ, wherever walks up to one of them and has nothing but lets say an OPC RC to get signed. Do they have to decline?

I would be interested to hear how your exclusive athletes are supposed to handle a situation like that. Because here you would have a little kid who probably idolizes that specific player, and they might have to be turned down?

Let me know - honest question.
Click to expand...

At least Eichel signed Upper Deck cards @ World Cup. :veryhappy:
 
on a note similar to that, i work security at the bell center and 2 years ago there was an nba exibition game between the raptors and wizards, and was working where the players came onto the court and john wall goes back into the dressing room but decides to stop and sign for a couple of kids, the kid hands him a sneaker to sign, wall starts to sign but a wizards rep stopped him and said dont sign that its not a reebok , so wall didnt sign the kid's shoe
 
Last edited:
JonX said:
on a note similar to that, i work security at the bell center and 2 years ago there was an nba exibition game between the raptors and wizards, and was working where the players came onto the court and john wall goes back into the dressing room but decides to stop and sign for a couple of kids, the kid hands him a sneaker to sign, wall starts to sign but a wizards rep stopped him and said dont sign that its not a reebok , so wall didnt sign the kid's shoe
Click to expand...

I've also seen video of Blake Griffin refusing to sign a Topps card for a kid because he is/was Panini exclusive. A contract is a contract, especially in an age where there is always a camera rolling.
 
TADontAsk said:
Does Upper Deck have motivation to do that? Looking strictly from their point of view, is it worth it to give up your exclusive NHL license to get the handful of players under contract with Leaf? I truly don't know, so I'm asking.
Click to expand...

I was referencing the end of player exclusives, not Upper Deck'e exclusive with the NHLPA. I could be wrong; I was reading the thread at the end of a night of work, but it seemed as though Brian Gray was talking about getting Upper Deck to end player autograph exclusives. So that, for example, Leaf could do a deal with Patrick Roy to get him to sign for some Leaf products. If my interpretation was wrong so be it.
 
frankiefives said:
We are starting to see UD moving away from auto content as the driving force behind many of their products. I for one couldn't be happier. I miss the days of set collecting being what drives the hobby. Group breaks have taken over and everything now is about "How many hits do I get per box?". Even though most of those autos and jerseys will eventually end up in $1 bins, people still want more in packs! I'd much prefer to see cool, innovative inserts and parallels instead. It would also help bring wax prices down!

If Leaf signing these exclusives helps push UD to move in this direction then I'm all for it! :)
Click to expand...

I wonder if this works and they do bring the hits down will the set collectors come back or are they gone for good?
 
will-411 said:
I'm going to throw this out here for those that are passionate about the companies signing players to autographs exclusives, and the pain it is causing segments of the hobby. Why is it that none of your anger is aimed at the players themselves? Why is there no blame leveled at them for depriving you of your autograph rookie card? All that a card company can do is make an offer. It takes someone on the other side of the table to agree to it.

If your thinking is that it's a business, and the player would be silly not to take the best offer given to them, then to me, that is the same as recognizing Leaf and UD are businesses too and have to do what they have to do to forge ahead.

Curious to see if there is any thought on the players part in this.

Cory
Click to expand...

It's pretty tough to get mad at an 18-20 year old kid getting lots of money thrown at him for his signature. Unless they actually collect, they don't know the ins and outs of it all.
 
RGM81 said:
It's pretty tough to get mad at an 18-20 year old kid getting lots of money thrown at him for his signature. Unless they actually collect, they don't know the ins and outs of it all.
Click to expand...

Imagine if a Legal Marijuana Dispenser approached one of these 18 year old kids with a bag of cash to an exclusive contract for their image and support. Can your argument still be applied? "Unless they actually toke, they don't know the ins and outs of it all." It's their duty to know the ins and outs of any contract they sign.

That's why I don't give players the "I'm stupid" free pass. It's a contract. They are just as culpable for accepting the deal, as Leaf/UD for proposing it.
 
What in the smokey green hell does the devil's lettuce have to do with hockey cards? In any event, the key word there is "legal." If high-ranked prospect James van der Weed of the Kamloops Blazers gets a reefer madness deal orchestrated by Brian Green of Sweet Leaf to sign some rolling papers instead of hockey cards, I'm sure that people will collect those too.

Also, please don't confuse "stupid" with "ignorant" as they're two very distinct concepts. A young kid getting a couple hundred grand to sign autographs on hockey card stickers may be naive about the mechanics of the world of hockey cards.
 
I get where you're coming from, but no 18 year old kid is being approached to sign an exclusive autograph deal without his agent. The kids that this is affecting have agents from the time they are 14/ 15 years old. Hence my later comment above about why aren't the agents informing them about the long term potential downfall of an exclusive deal? Because they are in it for the money NOW and they couldn't give a rat's behind about the card market. In my opinion, they choose to be shortsighted and ignorant as well, and deserve fault for signing the deals.

Cory

RGM81 said:
Also, please don't confuse "stupid" with "ignorant" as they're two very distinct concepts. A young kid getting a couple hundred grand to sign autographs on hockey card stickers may be naive about the mechanics of the world of hockey cards.
Click to expand...
 
I really can't fault players for signing exclusive contracts. The card companies, this is their main business - they know exactly what the implications of their actions are. UD was fully that continuing down the road of exclusives would provoke a response from Leaf, and Leaf is fully aware of the strong feelings a subset of collectors have about not being able to collect fully licensed auto rookies. They both chose to forge ahead for their own business reasons, clearly deciding that whatever anger or resentment it might cause, it was still overall in their best interest.

Players on the other hand, their main business is hockey - unless they happened to grow up collecting hockey cards, I wouldn't expect them to really have any clue as to the landscape of the hobby. It doesn't seem reasonable to expect them to know that signing an exclusive card deal is going to anger a few dozen grown men. Unless Upper Deck makes the effort to reach out and explain just how upset a few collectors will be, where else do we expect players / agents to even learn about these issues? Let's say UD actually did reach out to explain it, if they're not willing to make a comparable offer, what's in it for the player to turn down Leaf?
 
Now that H&P is out and it's Leaf's last CHL product I'm bummed that Hischier won't have any hard-signed licensed Mooseheads autos. After that realization I picked up a Leaf Metal blue refractor auto on eBay for my Mooseheads stash and it came in today. Sticker aside it's a pretty sharp card:


576046E1-2FFF-4F33-8790-CF999F6D98E6.jpg



The photo does the card no justice whatsoever. The chrome effect Leaf uses on these Metal cards is fantastic. Thumbs up Leaf :clap:

I wish it was on-card but Nico will have so few auto cards with the Mooseheads logo that I couldn't pass it up.

A little positivity in a heated thread :D
 
I agree totally with what you said.

But how forthcoming are the companies being with the agents/athletes?

For example, if I started up a company right now making non-licensed hockey cards, and wanted to sign a player to an exclusive, it is entirely possible that I may "fudge the facts" so to speak. I may tell the agent/athlete that my sales are through the roof, and by signing to my company that the athlete will get lots of exposure, I may exaggerate my financial standing to make the player assume that my company is in fine financial form, or I may make my company's standing within the hobby seem greater than it is in order to entice the athlete to sign with my company.

Using the companies with a stake in the game right now, if I am Upper Deck, am I using the fact that I can offer the athlete a chance to sign cards depicting them in their team jerseys as a selling point? Is Leaf telling the athletes that they CAN'T, and that many collectors will snub the products as a result, thereby limiting the athlete's exposure? Is Upper Deck using the exclusive to coerce athletes, but neglecting to tell them of how disenfranchised many collectors are with their lack of QC, redemptions and shoddy customer service?

I am just curious how many of these exclusive athletes understand all of the little nuances that can affect this hobby.



will-411 said:
I think that I have to disagree with that assumption though Rob, but on a point of concept. Connor McDavid for example is represented by the Orr Management group (Bobby Orr that is); you may be right in that even Bobby Orr doesn't know the implications of having a client sign an exclusive, but I would think that any GOOD agent (or representative as some of these guys aren't officially 'agents' to the players) needs to lay out to his client the issues around earning potential, fee being offered, etc. If they aren't looking at the long term viability of the business model for their client and their future clients, then they're not doing their jobs right, and they're focused solely then on "how much can I make right now?" No doubt there are agents like that. But even solely from an earnings perspective, shouldn't the agents and players take a more vested interest in the viability of the business model? To that end, the rookies should be demanding more from both companies for their autos, exclusives or not.

There are around 200 certified player agents in the NHL now, representing only 750 or so players a year. Given that earning a living is tougher than ever, you'd think some of them would be looking longer term and advising their players that way. I guess it may be small potatoes in the end, and perhaps it doesn't matter to the players or agents, but I'm not going to allow ignorance as a reason why the players don't share blame in the proliferation of exclusives.

Cory
Click to expand...
 

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
390,135
Messages
2,238,794
Members
4,169
Latest member
Misso
Back
Top