ITG ultimate oversight? - "Future Star"

C

canesice

Verified Trader
Joined
Sep 3, 2007
Messages
897
Reaction score
0
Location
Raleigh, NC, USA
Why did ITG include Future Star cards of a bunch of the same players as in ITG ultimate 9 within the ITG Ultimate 10 product?

Just looking at the Future Star Auto subset, each of these players as already appeared in ITG Ultimate 9.. For fringe players like Boychuk, this has to devalue the cards...

Brayden Schenn
Cody Hodgson
Dana Tyrell
Jared Cowen
Mikkel Boedker
Oliver Ekman-Larsson
Thomas Hickey
Zach Boychuk

Has this happened before? this seems like a complete screw up to me.
 
They're all still stars of the future as they're not stars of the present. Might as well get them some cards.
 
If these were meant to be rookie cards I would agree with the OP, but since ITG can't do rookies it's basically a set for young stars with potential.
 
RGM81 said:
They're all still stars of the future as they're not stars of the present. Might as well get them some cards.
Click to expand...

I was under the impression that the future star cards were the "rookie" subset of the ultimate series.. anyway I guess this isn't the case....

I did look back at ultimate 8 vs. ultimate 9 and found that Paul Stastny appears in both, so I guess it has been done before.
NOTE: Paul Stastny also is in Ultimate 7 as a future star .. :-) 3 in a row...
 
Last edited:
canesice said:
Why did ITG include Future Star cards of a bunch of the same players as in ITG ultimate 9 within the ITG Ultimate 10 product?

Just looking at the Future Star Auto subset, each of these players as already appeared in ITG Ultimate 9.. For fringe players like Boychuk, this has to devalue the cards...

Brayden Schenn
Cody Hodgson
Dana Tyrell
Jared Cowen
Mikkel Boedker
Oliver Ekman-Larsson
Thomas Hickey
Zach Boychuk

Has this happened before? this seems like a complete screw up to me.
Click to expand...

Ok, so if you take those guys out, who are you putting in? Guys who will likely never play in the NHL? If I am paying that much for a pack, I would hope that my auto isn't a fringe prospect, especially in a set called "Future Stars". I pulled a Ryan O'Marra Future Stars in the last pack I bought, and if my memorabilia card didn't totally rule, I would have been totally owned on that pack because my auto was a guy who might end up a 3/4 liner in the NHL someday at best. Those guys are fine in Heroes and Prospects, but not in UM 10!
 
Inferno said:
If these were meant to be rookie cards I would agree with the OP, but since ITG can't do rookies it's basically a set for young stars with potential.
Click to expand...

According to Beckett rules. It amazes me that people around here hack on Beckett pricing, but still follow their outdated "rules" surrounding rc designation and whatnot.
 
marvelman55 said:
According to Beckett rules. It amazes me that people around here hack on Beckett pricing, but still follow their outdated "rules" surrounding rc designation and whatnot.
Click to expand...

Actually I believe it's a licensing rule, the NHL/PA won't let non-licensed manufacturers make rookies cards. I for one could care less what Beckett says about anything, but in this case I don't think it has anything to do with them.
 
Inferno said:
Actually I believe it's a licensing rule, the NHL/PA won't let non-licensed manufacturers make rookies cards. I for one could care less what Beckett says about anything, but in this case I don't think it has anything to do with them.
Click to expand...

I am pretty sure that it was Beckett who first said that non-licensed cards aren't rookies. The NHLPA won't let pre-NHL cards be made at all anymore, but it was Beckett and the Beckett bretheren who first came out and claimed they weren't recognizing non-licensed cards as rc's. UD's pre- NHL cards from the 90's are rc's, but ITG's aren't, because Beckett said so first and everyone latched onto their rules for what makes a "true rookie card".

In actuality, the term "rookie card" is just a tag put on by collectors, its impossible for the PA to dictate which are rc's and which are not.

And for the record, I believe that most of these "future stars" cards ARE licensced, but not by the NHL. I may be wrong, but I'm pretty sure that ITG has deals worked out with most of these junior and AHL teams that would make these cards "licesned", just not by the NHL or NHLPA.
 
marvelman55 said:
According to Beckett rules. It amazes me that people around here hack on Beckett pricing, but still follow their outdated "rules" surrounding rc designation and whatnot.
Click to expand...

Just because something originates from a certain source is not particularly relevant does not mean that every idea emanating from said source doesn't hold meaning. It's sensible that a non-licensed card featuring a player in his junior/AHL team uniform isn't an NHL rookie card. It's equally sensible that there be only one rookie card per licensed release; otherwise the term loses all meaning.

The pricing is something tangible that can, and often is, demonstrated to be flat wrong. The overall "rules" governing the hobby, more often than not, make sense - if something changes in the hobby that makes those "rules" outdated, the hobby will change along with it.
 
RGM81 said:
Just because something originates from a certain source is not particularly relevant does not mean that every idea emanating from said source doesn't hold meaning. It's sensible that a non-licensed card featuring a player in his junior/AHL team uniform isn't an NHL rookie card. It's equally sensible that there be only one rookie card per licensed release; otherwise the term loses all meaning.

The pricing is something tangible that can, and often is, demonstrated to be flat wrong. The overall "rules" governing the hobby, more often than not, make sense - if something changes in the hobby that makes those "rules" outdated, the hobby will change along with it.
Click to expand...

Then why are the Upper Deck rc's featuring guys in their World Junior gear still considered rc's? Is it simply because the NHLPA licensed Upper Deck, but the junior teams license ITG? Because honestly, that's kind of splitting hairs, isn't it?
 
marvelman55 said:
I am pretty sure that it was Beckett who first said that non-licensed cards aren't rookies. The NHLPA won't let pre-NHL cards be made at all anymore, but it was Beckett and the Beckett bretheren who first came out and claimed they weren't recognizing non-licensed cards as rc's. UD's pre- NHL cards from the 90's are rc's, but ITG's aren't, because Beckett said so first and everyone latched onto their rules for what makes a "true rookie card".

In actuality, the term "rookie card" is just a tag put on by collectors, its impossible for the PA to dictate which are rc's and which are not.

And for the record, I believe that most of these "future stars" cards ARE licensced, but not by the NHL. I may be wrong, but I'm pretty sure that ITG has deals worked out with most of these junior and AHL teams that would make these cards "licesned", just not by the NHL or NHLPA.
Click to expand...

I don't agree with the rookie card "rules" any more than you do, or the way people follow Beckett's every word, but when it comes down to it I don't have any interest in rookie cards so it's irrelevant to me anyway. I believe ITG markets these as "prospect" cards and nothing more, maybe Brian Price can clarify his intentions for us :)
 
You can call a rc whatever you want, but for me, it's got to appear in a licensed NHL/PA set. ITG does great stuff, and has an excellent reputation, but their product is still unlicensed by the NHL. As far as making 'NHL Rookie Cards' what they do is not a lot different then if you or I went in the garage and printed a bunch of rookie cards and sold them.

That being said, I don't think ITG is trying to make NHL Rookie Cards - they make what collectors will buy, and let the market set the value - the market eats up future stars and prospects that don't necessarily have cards elsewhere, and so ITG makes them (within the rules of the licensing they have).

So yes, they have repeated some of the Future Stars, but it's because collectors want them. That's all.

Cory
 
Last edited:
Using Paul Stastny as an example, I reckon ITG contracted him in 06-07 to sign "x" number of stickers, and "x" number of years for image use (likely three seasons, in his case). Makes business sense to do a deal that way, especially with the guys coming out of college (no past Junior cards), but may lead to some not-so-prospect players stickers that need using up later. Certainly not the case with Stastny, as I would love to see more ITG cards!
 

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
389,502
Messages
2,233,148
Members
4,147
Latest member
Robbyhav
Back
Top