Stale Gum: Shareholder revolt at Topps?

Wednesday, August 02, 2006

Is the Shorin dynasty over at Topps? Could be.

Props to espn.com's Page 2.

Chris Harris said...: If we lived in a perfect world, there would only be one card set per year, with one and only one card of each player. (Maybe a Traded set). Just in case you haven't figured it out yet, we don't live in a perfect world. The days of one-product-per-year per-company are long gone, and that is a good thing.

I don't know about you, but I kind of like having choices. I like have more than one card set to collect each year. Yes, there are too many brands. This has been obvious for years now, and the MLBPA's limit on the number of new card products is a positive first step. But there's no law forcing you to buy card sets you don't want to collect. The "invisible hand" of the free-market should be left to decide which products are worthy, and which are crap. Pinnacle, Pacific, and Fleer issued scores of crappy card sets. Collectors didn't buy them, and as a result, they're gone.

As for Topps, I see as their main problem -- at least among their 2006 product line -- is that they're trying to be something that they're not. Topps is not Donruss nor are they Upper Deck. They're Topps. They should stick to what they're good at, and stop ripping off the competition's ideas. Ask yourself this: Does Topps really need to be putting out $250/pack products like Topps Sterling?

Topps should concentrate on what they do best (comprehensive base brands and retro themed products) and let D-P and UD deal with the high-end collector.; August 06, 2006 1:32 PM

Wednesday, August 02, 2006