Triple B
Verified Trader,
So then, the point Leaf is trying to make about exclusives is working. Exclusives are horrible for the hobby. Give everyone a level playing field and let them innovate to survive.
Interesting note from the Topps Q&A at The National
- Thread starter Triple B
- Start date
So then, the point Leaf is trying to make about exclusives is working. Exclusives are horrible for the hobby. Give everyone a level playing field and let them innovate to survive.
LeafGregg
Leaf Trading Cards
Most likely if a 2nd license is granted, exclusives will not be allowed going forward, similar to how football was with 3 licensed companies in the 2000s
steen101984
Verified Trader
I'm convinced you're a little on the high side with the 2% estimation lol
Panini didn't die in hockey, UD felt threatened and bought the exclusive, much like EA did with Madden years ago, when the 2K series was nipping at its heels. It was a smart business approach but imo its the main reason we see crappy product after crappy product released, with minimal veteran content and tons of rookies. Quite a few products have had less hits and yet the price is still the same. It's much cheaper to do this and UD has blown a ton of money over the last few years with lawsuits and exclusives.
I can't believe someone is saying its all been done and there's no more creativity left. There was a thread on year a few months ago that had new ideas and there were a lot that were really innovative and IMO would be widely sought after.
+1 ANY new company would be great for the hobby. UD was at its best and had to be on its game when Panini was around. Instead now they rest on their laurels and keep pumping out 5000 Ronalds Kenins rookie cards every year.
30ranfordfan
Verified Trader,
^^^^^
Upper Deck makes some good products, but they've gone right back to their lazy ways, like they were pre-Panini. The best years for UD since their first (post-2005 lockout) IMO were 05-06 (that had a lot to do with stellar rookie class, the NHL being back on, the debut of The Cup) and every year they had to compete.
30ranfordfan
Verified Trader,
I would think this is correct - but how could the NHLPA enforce "no exclusives" if they're not dealing with Leaf 
They could tell Upper Deck (or Topps, or whomever they've got a deal with) that they can't keep current members under exclusive agreements. Gretzky, Roy, and Orr would still be locked in UD's vault (similar to when Panini had hockey) but they'd have to share Crosby.
I suppose the PA could lay down a verdict that its memebers are not allowed to sign exclusives with anyone though?
They could tell Upper Deck (or Topps, or whomever they've got a deal with) that they can't keep current members under exclusive agreements. Gretzky, Roy, and Orr would still be locked in UD's vault (similar to when Panini had hockey) but they'd have to share Crosby.
I suppose the PA could lay down a verdict that its memebers are not allowed to sign exclusives with anyone though?
Triple B
Verified Trader,
Give UD credit though, this bounty program is pretty damn smart. I'm guessing that next year, each product will be FULL of these bounty programs, considering that the 17/18 season will be pretty weak on a stand-alone basis. Could Spectrum Young Guns be around the corner?
The obvious issue with the bounty program is it is of minimal cost to Upper Deck (compared to the cost of obtaining autographs and making jersey cards) and shorting a hit to include a game card only helps to line UDs bottom line and lower the value in each box (the perception being that the game card replaces an actual hit).
The obvious issue with the bounty program is it is of minimal cost to Upper Deck (compared to the cost of obtaining autographs and making jersey cards) and shorting a hit to include a game card only helps to line UDs bottom line and lower the value in each box (the perception being that the game card replaces an actual hit).
achittka
Verified Trader,
I think a second or third company AND a reduced number of products for each company would be positive.
Upper Deck supporters could still get their staple sets and rookies, like Cup RCs, FWAs in SPA, YGs in Series I/II. "Filler sets" like Contours could be done away with as standalone sets, while their well-received subsets could be added to other products. I think this would permit UD to focus on innovation and adding value within their core products, something they would need to do to hold onto as much market share as they can. Game Used in RC pieces? Combine MVP, Victory, Contours into 1 action packed, low end product instead of spreading them out over multiple releases? Black Artifacts anyone? Or Black Premier?
People who want licensed choice would get more licensed options.
And if there's a chance that allowing competition would have the desired effect of ending exclusives for NHLPA players, great.
All that ^^^ comes from my personal hobbiest Point of View. I imagine the business Point of View would look much different, and will far and away outweigh any hobbiest Point of View.
I imagine UD would do whatever they could to hold onto Exclusive access to the licensed hockey market, including paying through the nose for it as long as they continue to can get enough money from the distributors to turn a profit.
Andrew
Upper Deck supporters could still get their staple sets and rookies, like Cup RCs, FWAs in SPA, YGs in Series I/II. "Filler sets" like Contours could be done away with as standalone sets, while their well-received subsets could be added to other products. I think this would permit UD to focus on innovation and adding value within their core products, something they would need to do to hold onto as much market share as they can. Game Used in RC pieces? Combine MVP, Victory, Contours into 1 action packed, low end product instead of spreading them out over multiple releases? Black Artifacts anyone? Or Black Premier?
People who want licensed choice would get more licensed options.
And if there's a chance that allowing competition would have the desired effect of ending exclusives for NHLPA players, great.
All that ^^^ comes from my personal hobbiest Point of View. I imagine the business Point of View would look much different, and will far and away outweigh any hobbiest Point of View.
I imagine UD would do whatever they could to hold onto Exclusive access to the licensed hockey market, including paying through the nose for it as long as they continue to can get enough money from the distributors to turn a profit.
Andrew
:clap:
JonX
Verified Trader,
i would welcome topps anyday, my favorite years of collecting were during the 00-05 era when you had UD , topps, pacific, iTg and fleer who made licensed hockey products, every company had their strong and weak poibnts but the collectors had the choices of what they had to collect
LeafGregg
Leaf Trading Cards
I would think this is correct - but how could the NHLPA enforce "no exclusives" if they're not dealing with Leaf
They could tell Upper Deck (or Topps, or whomever they've got a deal with) that they can't keep current members under exclusive agreements. Gretzky, Roy, and Orr would still be locked in UD's vault (similar to when Panini had hockey) but they'd have to share Crosby.
I suppose the PA could lay down a verdict that its memebers are not allowed to sign exclusives with anyone though?
It wouldn't include deals already in place, just going forward. Leaf wouldn't have reason to do exclusives if no one else was locking up players.
creasecollector
Verified Trader ,
First, who said anything about collectors to stop opening UD's products? There are some who have already stopped due to the terrible ROI, and there will be others who will never stop breaking boxes/cases.
Secondly, sort of back to the ROI point, does UD have a "proven winner" anymore from the collectors viewpoint? I get they have some big players signed to Exclusive contracts, but even if those players were in every product (they're not), what about the rest of the product? If you don't hit a McDavid or a Crosby, you're pretty much getting skunked on that box. I hate bringing ROI into the fold, but when you break as much as some people break, it does come into play.
Thirdly, as for the Exclusives, I would rather have exclusive rights given to an licensed company, and if more companies were licensed, this gives more back to the collector too. Because no matter who signs "x player" to an exclusive autograph deal, from the collectors point of view, at least there were be officially licensed cards coming out of it at the end of the day.
And finally, to your last point, that would be great if the card content involved all the players, but even UD doesn't do that on average (OPC is the closest). They recycle the majority of the same players every year in their releases, which gets very stale after a while. With more companies making new licensed products, this will encompass more players and make more variety for the collectors. Just like it was when UD & Panini were both competing with one another. Good for the hobby.
Just my 2 cents. Great discussion points so far everyone.
cremona71
Verified Trader,
I don't think what they are doing is smart for the hobby. I get their message but the way they are going about it is wrong. Its like a drug dealer going on and on about how horrible drugs are yet they sell the stuff to make their living. Its just morally bad.
I would have more respect for Leaf if they just straight up said that their signing of exclusives is to make life for UD harder.
LeafGregg
Leaf Trading Cards
Is UD signing Exclusives to make life harder for Leaf?
cremona71
Verified Trader,
Collectors will never stop opening Upper Deck products. They are to well known and have been in the game since it started. As a producer of hockey cards as a whole Upper Deck is absolutely a winner. Essentially every piece of innovation put into sports cards has been done by Upper Deck. Shields, Property Of's, Ice Rookies, Draft Boards etc. Other companies that make other sports don't really have any cool memorabilia subsets.
I am all for licensed companies getting the exclusives but when you have multiple companies with different players on their books it really puts the collector at a disadvantage. If I collect Gretzky and Lemieux for example and two separate companies own their rights as a collector I need to open two separate brands to potentially get what I want. Not good.
Lastly, Yes Upper Deck keeps recycling the same old players. Guys like Crosby,Malkin, Stamkos,Mcdavid and Kane are very in demand and are what drives people to buy hobby boxes. Including your non star players like 3-4th liners and enforcers you will for sure appeal to more people but you will further destroy a hobby boxes expected value which will lead to lower sales across the board. A strong tighter checklist is far superior to a weak expanded one.
cremona71
Verified Trader,
Considering that Upper Deck has been signing exclusive deals far before Leaf was in the hockey market I will say that Upper Deck does not think of Leaf before they decide to sign anyone.
creasecollector
Verified Trader ,
webottew
Verified Trader,
Which begs the question, why does UD sign current hockey players to exclusives at all?
OK, I get the retired players like Roy and Gretzky, since they are no longer obligated to sign as part of the NHLPA. But why sign the recent exclusive contracts with Connor McDavid and Auston Matthews?
Don your tin foil hats. Could it be that UD knows that they are going to be losing the exclusive contract in a few years, so they signed key players to long range contracts? If the contract is long enough, this would prevent a possible competitor from using these player autos in the beginning. A preemptive strike, perhaps?
cremona71
Verified Trader,
You cannot expect to get decent value out of a product anymore. While every product is created differently and thus its variance you absolutely cannot expect to get all the value out of what you spent. It simply does not work that way. It is like this for all sports and the companies that create the products. Box breaking now is in fact gambling. There is no question about it.
One of the main reasons for a boxes EV being bad is due to the types of products that are released. The variance on a Series 1/Series 2 box is a heck of a lot lower then a box of Ultimate Collection. This is due to the content of the product. Higher price points mean autographs, better memorabilia and generally more expensive costs to create the product. This is why I believe in opening high end product by the case. I may spend more money but case hits help with the variance.
One more thing killing value are the rapid costs increases after release at retail. This year there have been a handful of products that have shot up $30-$40 a week after release. This is the fault of the retailer but at the end of the day it hurts the consumer.
creasecollector
Verified Trader ,
I don't expect to get 100% return value on every purchase, but what collectors see now after a box break can be straight up sad. Now, it's not entirely the companies fault, as there are many factors which contribute to that as you mentioned, but whole situation we're in right now isn't so hot.
creasecollector
Verified Trader ,
I could be wrong, but hasn't Upper Deck done the same thing in the past ? Sign big time athletes to autograph exclusives even though they don't have the current licence for that major sport? That would suck if it happened with McDavid autos. But I would suspect, at least somewhere down the line, that McDavid would sign cards again even if UD found themselves out of the game sometime the future. I hope the next licence is shared though between 2-3 companies to prevent a situation like this from occurring.
