Topps Countdown; #59: 2000 Topps

[*censored*]

60 Years of Topps Baseball Countdown

#59: 2000 Topps
by Drew Pelto, AKA *censored*

The 2000 Topps set is all about really bad, really unlucky timing. McGwire cranked 70 homers in 1998, so that was fodder for the 1999 set. Bonds hit 73 in 2002, a year that was still off in the future yet, where we would have flying cars, or so we believed. The Yankees had just won World Series number 25, eliciting a snore from outside the Empire State. And there wasn't much to celebrate as it was the 49th year of Topps. And no one cares about 49 when 50 is on its way.

To quote Mr. Horse from Ren & Stimpy: "No sir, I don't like it."

You know you're going to have a bad set when you have to create loads of filler material to get up to even 500 cards (when your best-known number is 792). And in 2000, Topps created ten "Magic Moments" cards, and made each one in 5 versions. Nothing like turning 10 cards into 50! Topps also added Season Highlights, League Leaders, and 20th Century's Best into the mix as well.

And have you seen those Magic Moments cards? Cut corners a little, Topps? Each card of the five players uses the SAME EXACT PHOTO. Talk about mailing it in. This isn’t even mailing it in, or even phoning it in. This is closer to carrier pigeoning it in. Perhaps even thought about mailing it in but instead decided to sit in front of the TV watching a Gilligan’s Island marathon and eating Cheetos while pondering both the merit and faux-pas of mailing it in. Because of your hard work on this awesome subset, I plan to spend every penny on packs of your product until I complete the set. Not. This is why Upper Deck was owning you for about 15 years and even Pinnacle, Pacific, Donruss, and Fleer were even with you. And considering None of those companies were doing anything truly earth shattering, well, that should speak volumes.

Really Topps? I mean really? This is what passes as "different" cards to you?

Sets like this make me miss the days of those aforementioned 792 card sets, when you could guarantee your favorite team would have at least 25 players represented and the only extras were All-Stars and maybe some Record Breakers. Maybe you want multiple cards of big-name players, but I want the card of the little guy. Give me the backup catcher and the lefty bullpen specialist, not 7 cards of Jeter or 5 cards of Wade Boggs with the exact same photo on them all.

2000 was another year that got screwed on rookies. Kaz Sasaki and Rafael Furcal were the Rookies of the Year. You know it's a bad year when a short-lived closer wins and guys like Kelly Wunsch and Chuck Smith got votes for the award. Of course, in another moment of poor luck, 2001 was a banner season: Ichiro, Pujols, Sabathia, Oswalt, Soriano, and Dunn were in the running for the Rookie of the Year. Pretty nice crop there, even though three of them were featured in 1999 Topps Total for their rookie card (which I still believe should have the XRC designation seen with 1980‘s Traded set rookies). And in the 2000 Topps set, the lone notable rookie is-- drumroll please-- a dual card of Barry Zito and Ben Sheets. Now, it could be worse: Larry Bigbie and Damien Miller were the next best ones. Of course the set could have been stronger by giving Zito and Sheets individual cards as well or by making Draft Pick cards of guys like Sabathia, Josh Beckett, Brian Roberts, Carl Crawford, or Josh Hamilton. Oh well, you live, you learn.

Last but not least, the design was underwhelming. I don't mind the use of non-white borders. It's good to switch it up from time to time. I once made a set for the junior hockey team I work for that had red borders. It pushed the envelope, but remained tasteful. But 2000 marked the third year in a row (and the middle of a six-year festival of crap) where Topps decided to go with colored borders. And who thought gray would be a good idea? It was bad in 1970. It was still bad in 2000. And before you get any ideas Topps, it will still be bad in 2030.

And what makes it worse? It can't even get the honor (or dishonor) of being the worst of all-time! Who remembers the second-worst of anything? No one, that's who. If second place is first loser, then second worst must really be the biggest loser of them all. 2000 Topps will be a forgotten set in the annals of collecting history and would likely be just as memorable if it had never been made.

About the Author: Drew Pelto was more interested in hockey and the recent return of the Cleveland Browns than baseball in 2000 so he luckily missed this set for the most part. He currently lives in North Texas with a wife and enough cats to start a small cat ranching business if ever there was a market for it.

[Pheebs888]

posted article: https://www.sportscardforum.com/artic...59-2000-topps/

[Dabigyankeeman]

So we have a new thread for each year? I guess i will comment on each thread here, where i am now.

I agree on this year. I dont like gray borders, hated 1970, these arent much better. I do like non-white borders, but i like darker colors.

Uninspired design. Those Boggs cards, geez, the basic design is horrible and gaudy, and then to have all those looking alike, pretty weak.

I think all set should be 792 cards minimum. I dont like smaller sets, you miss a lot of players, and that hurts team collectors more than anyone, and of course i am a team collector.

[*censored*]

If you check out the Baseball Card Forum, I'm linking each article in the original thread on the intro just to keep them all in one place and hopefully generate some discussion. Whatever works!