Just Say No

[fordronken]

Originally posted by elindholm
Now that you mention it, I didn't see much. I don't always pay attention enough to know what is a national ad and what is a local one. But I think that O'Neal has always been much more of a local advertising presence.

Yes. That seems to be the case.

 

[George O'Brien]

Local versus national advertisers is less of an issue with NY and LA. Someone who is a big deal in NY has an easier time becoming a national figure because the player is already known to well over 20 million people to start with.

Like most other tendencies, a small number of counter examples does not disprove the tendency. Kobe used to have a lot more national advertising contracts than other worthy players such as Tim Duncan. Duncan is a household name in NBA circles, but I'll bet that Kobe was a lot better known to the general public even before the incident in Colorado.

Are there exceptions to the rule that stars in NY and LA have greater national visibility? Sure, but if you wanted to bet -- go with big cities.

What causes the exceptions? Yao Ming is a physical freak and the first Chinese player - so he has an usual level of visibility. Sir Charles was arguably the most colorful player in an era which had some spectacular performers.

But the list of super players that were all but invisible outside of NBA circles because of being in small markets is legend: Clyde Drexler, Hakeem, Regie Miller, Karl Malone, Kevin Garnett, etc. Hakeem won two NBA championships, Drexler and Malone went to the finals.

Dennis Rodman was wild and outrageous in Detroit and San Antonio -- but he did not get national commercials until he went to Chicago.

Does this matter in the Kobe case? I don't know. After the court case, maybe Kobe will have to simply write off his prospects of getting national advertising contracts. But if he comes out without blemish, it is just one more thing for him to think about.

 

[elindholm]

Like most other tendencies, a small number of counter examples does not disprove the tendency.

There you go again. You said you couldn't remember a case -- implying that there weren't any -- not that such cases were rare.

First you changed your original statement to make it more specific, and then you changed it to make it more vague. Keep shifting around; you'll get there eventually.

With the general point to which you have now retreated, I agree. However, the case has already been made here (persuasively, in my opinion) that Bryant is an exceptional case for many reasons.

But the list of super players that were all but invisible outside of NBA circles because of being in small markets is legend: Clyde Drexler, Hakeem...

Garnett and McGrady do just fine for endorsements. O'Neal was a big endorsement presence even with Orlando. Kidd did well in Phoenix, and even Marbury did okay while with the Suns.

The bigger issue is that it's tougher for players to become endorsement stars if they haven't won championships, because of the average fan's obsession with titles. And it is true that teams from the largest markets are the most likely to win championships, because of greater financial resources and officiating bias. But that is a weaker, and less direct, connection than you are implying.

It is hard to know what will happen to Bryant's endorsement potential and general reputation. O. J. Simpson's is shot, but Ray Lewis's (that's the right guy, right?) is fine. Kidd is now featured in a commerical with his lovey-dovey wife calling to him from the bed; the scene turns my stomach, but apparently it plays well to the sports fan nation as a whole.

And by the way, I have always maintained that Bryant is unlikely to leave the Lakers. I just haven't flip-flopped on whether the Suns should attempt to pursue him just in case.

 

[George O'Brien]

I guess I'm pretty secluded. I can't remember ever seeing a Reggie Lewis ad, a Kevin Garnett Ad, or some of the others you have named. If that is the case, then I'll back down (slightly).

Perhaps you are right and Kobe is already a big enough star that endorsements will come no matter where he is. I can't remember the national ads that Kidd was supposed to have made, but perhaps you are right and I just don't watch enough TV

It would be interesting to see a list of advertising contracts by NBA players. Obviously there are weird situations such as with LeBron that has nothing to do with where he is playing. Shaq was a national figure in Orlando - but still he jumped to the LA. Wonder why he did that since it doesn't matter where he is playing.

 

[thegrahamcrackr]

KG has done a ton of ads.

There was that controversial one this summer where he argued with a mirror image of himself.

Something along the lines of

"Im overpayed? If anything I am underpayed. Who else leads their team in boards, assists points steals every year?"

 

[SweetD]

Don't forget the Mia Ham and KG Commercial that one was funny

 

[elindholm]

I can't remember ever seeing a Reggie Lewis ad

Ray Lewis, not Reggie Lewis. Ray Lewis, if I have the right guy, is a linebacker (?) with the NFL Ravens (?) who was suspected of murder but basically got out of it by claiming that he was merely at the scene, and it was his friends who committed the crime. Or something similar to that. Somehow his reputation has been completely rehabilitated, and he's now the first one interviewed at any game he plays in, plus has had some commericals (not that football players at the non-"skilled" positions ever get much air time).

Garnett has had shoe commericals, I think for K-Swiss, and I'm also pretty sure that he's in the latest Nike (?) commerical with athletes appearing to participate in sports unusual to them, e.g. Serena Williams playing volleyball and Andre Agassi playing baseball. But I could be wrong on that last one.

Shaq was a national figure in Orlando - but still he jumped to the LA. Wonder why he did that since it doesn't matter where he is playing.

Of course this is not relevant to the discussion. If you want to take a cheap shot, make it on target.

 

[Chaplin]

Kevin Garnett is not a K-Swiss spokesman, he's with-or was for a long time at least-And1 (which incidentally is the best basketball shoe out there).

 

[Chaplin]

Originally posted by elindholm
Joe, does Kobe do local advertising in LA? Even before the trial?

Now that you mention it, I didn't see much. I don't always pay attention enough to know what is a national ad and what is a local one. But I think that O'Neal has always been much more of a local advertising presence.

Actually, Derek Fisher and Rick Fox seem to be in the majority of local commercials. Shaq seems to be strictly a national guy, and Kobe for some reason is hardly in anything except Sprite ads.

 

[thegrahamcrackr]

I havent seen many Shaq national ads, just the nestle one comes to mind.

Kobe did a ton of sprite, also some addidas (i think).


My main point was that the local ads market is irrelevant, because super stars dont do them. They get the higher paying, national ads.

Same reason why Marbury was never in a local ad here, but CJ was.

 

[Gee!]

Originally posted by thegrahamcrackr
My main point was that the local ads market is irrelevant, because super stars dont do them.

Thats not true. Randy Johnson does Sleep America ads, Emmitt Smith does car dealership ads.

 

[cardsunsfan]

Some of these posts are getting way off track I thought I read some of these posts and I wanted to see what peoples reactions were on getting TMac and Kobe so I went to the third page and all there were, were posts on the best commericals! lol...

Maybe we need an Adminstrater that can be like and editor and split these posts into the correct topic headers...

 

[cardsunsfan]

It goes from "Just Say No We don't need Kobe or T-Mac." to "Thats not true. Randy Johnson does Sleep America ads, Emmitt Smith does car dealership ads."

 

[thegrahamcrackr]

Originally posted by SameOleGee
Thats not true. Randy Johnson does Sleep America ads, Emmitt Smith does car dealership ads.

Ok, point taken.

I will rephrase.

Baketball superstars do not do local ads

 

[Ryanwb]

Originally posted by thegrahamcrackr
Baketball superstars do not do local ads

Kevin Johnson did Big Two toyota for years when he was considered a "Super Star"

 

[sly fly]

I'll combine it.

We don't need Kobe & T-Mac because we have enough bad commercials.

 

[cardsunsfan]

That's better Commercials are what it's all about!!!

 

[Joe Mama]

Originally posted by Ryanwb
Kevin Johnson did Big Two toyota for years when he was considered a "Super Star"

Kevin Johnson was a local superstar, but he was never considered a superstar on a national level. Jason Kidd was/is a bigger national star than Kevin Johnson ever was. Charles Barkley is probably the only player people would consider a superstar that has played for the Phoenix Suns.

Joe Mama

 

[George O'Brien]

I have never figured out why elindholm gets so upset abot these discussions. I think it is economically more advantageous for a superstar to be in LA and I suspect most agents agree. Objectively that may not be the case, but I am not the only one who thinks this way. In any case, I just don't get the hostility bit.

Over the past few months I have changed my views to a degree on the Kobe issue. I no longer think that the Colangelos would reject him just because of the rape charges. I am reconcilied to the notion that the Suns could give a legitimate offer if they had $13 million available in cap space. Finally, I am convinced that Lampe is a strong enough prospect that signing a mid tier center is no longer their highest priority.

I still have no opinion about whether Kobe would be enough of team player to take the Suns to a championship. I'm not worried about JJ's ego, he will continue maturing. Getting someone who can score 40 a night does not mean he should. But I simply don't know if Kobe would be the final piece or the next AI.

At this point I remain skeptical that Kobe will actually come to Phoenix. It certainly would not be to get more money because he wouldn't. It would not be join a sure fire championship team because that is hardly the case. It is not because coming to Phoenix would enhance his endorsement opportunities because it won't. It will not be because he wants to finish his career playing for the Colangelos because that is not the case either.

So why are we so sure he will come to Phoenix? Yes, he has known Mike D'Antoni since he was a kid and winter in Phoenix is better than that in Denver. Is that enough to justify giving away a lottery pick to clear cap space?

 

[elindholm]

In any case, I just don't get the hostility bit.

It's because I find it insulting when people build their argument on fabricated evidence. I just generally think that, if someone is trying to convince someone else of something, he shouldn't resort to half-truths, hand-waving generalizations, or other partially dishonest misrepresentations of the evidence. Such a pattern patronizes everyone on this board.

So why are we so sure he will come to Phoenix?

"We" aren't. Many people on this board have said all along that, while it would be great to land Bryant, it seems quite unlikely.

Is that enough to justify giving away a lottery pick to clear cap space?

The other thing that's insulting is that you refuse to acknowledge points of view that aren't in agreement with what you've already decided, even if those competing points of view are backed by a lot more evidence. It gives the impression that all you really want is for everyone to bow down and declare you omniscient.

As has been expressed numerous times, it is unlikely that the Suns will trade away their pick unless they know Bryant is coming later (or if the trade immediately brings a quality player). Your response to this was that an unwritten understanding with Bryant could constitute tampering. Those with more familiarity with the NBA's tampering rules refuted that assertion. Then you changed the subject, and now you're rehashing your original position. Do you think we've all forgotten the previous discussion? Or do you have some reason for rejecting it that you are able to share with us?

I've tried desperately to engage you in serious debate, but because I take up contrary points of view, you ignore me. Okay, fine. If your circle of discussion is exclusive to people who won't challenge you, then I guess I won't be a part of it.

 

[George O'Brien]

Originally posted by elindholm
In any case, I just don't get the hostility bit.

It's because I find it insulting when people build their argument on fabricated evidence. I just generally think that, if someone is trying to convince someone else of something, he shouldn't resort to half-truths, hand-waving generalizations, or other partially dishonest misrepresentations of the evidence. Such a pattern patronizes everyone on this board.

So why are we so sure he will come to Phoenix?

"We" aren't. Many people on this board have said all along that, while it would be great to land Bryant, it seems quite unlikely.

Is that enough to justify giving away a lottery pick to clear cap space?

The other thing that's insulting is that you refuse to acknowledge points of view that aren't in agreement with what you've already decided, even if those competing points of view are backed by a lot more evidence. It gives the impression that all you really want is for everyone to bow down and declare you omniscient.

As has been expressed numerous times, it is unlikely that the Suns will trade away their pick unless they know Bryant is coming later (or if the trade immediately brings a quality player). Your response to this was that an unwritten understanding with Bryant could constitute tampering. Those with more familiarity with the NBA's tampering rules refuted that assertion. Then you changed the subject, and now you're rehashing your original position. Do you think we've all forgotten the previous discussion? Or do you have some reason for rejecting it that you are able to share with us?

I've tried desperately to engage you in serious debate, but because I take up contrary points of view, you ignore me. Okay, fine. If your circle of discussion is exclusive to people who won't challenge you, then I guess I won't be a part of it.

You claim to REFUTE things I say, yet it rarely involves counter examples. Just attitude. Lots and lots of attitude.

The reality is that your posts are almost always insulting. Always. You cannot seem to write without as sneer or fail to turn every disagreement into a personal attack. You seem to think that every disagreement is a personal insult, which is nonsense.

BTW, the reason I was asked to be the ASFN reporter was not because they thought I had all the answers. It was because they thought I could write. I don't expect anyone to bow down and accept my word on anything. You don't seem to accept the fact that I have changed my mind on isssues when I have received confincing evidence.

If you don't like me and what I write, then put me on "ignore" and be done with it. But don't insult me by claiming to be trying to engage in a dialog when all you do is insult me.

 

[Chaplin]

Whoa, you guys really need to calm down. I'm having nasty flashbacks, eh, Eric?

Originally posted by George O'Brien

At this point I remain skeptical that Kobe will actually come to Phoenix. It certainly would not be to get more money because he wouldn't. It would not be join a sure fire championship team because that is hardly the case. It is not because coming to Phoenix would enhance his endorsement opportunities because it won't. It will not be because he wants to finish his career playing for the Colangelos because that is not the case either.

So why are we so sure he will come to Phoenix? Yes, he has known Mike D'Antoni since he was a kid and winter in Phoenix is better than that in Denver. Is that enough to justify giving away a lottery pick to clear cap space?

Anyway, you make some valid arguements here, George. But say for a moment that Kobe does not want to return to LA. What makes the other possible destinations better than Phoenix?

You are fairly consistent in coming up with scenarios for why Kobe WOULDN'T sign with the Phoenix Suns, most of them quite legitimate. BUT, you rarely, if ever, address the opposite. This board has for the most part assumed Kobe would leave the Lakers, and all these posts over the past months have been in support of him choosing Phoenix to play. Fine. I can understand if you don't agree with a lot of the people (me included) that think there is a better chance of Kobe playing here than you realize. But what makes Utah's, or Denver's, or Atlanta's chances any better? Or even San Antonio? Our main agreement about WHY Kobe would leave LA has nothing to do with money, it has to do with playing 2nd fiddle to Shaquille O'Neal. I personally don't think he wants to do that.

So with that in mind, you are definitely convinced that Phoenix is an unlikely destination, but what makes you think one of the other suitors are? Perhaps it's a little bit of homerism, but out of all the "lower tier" teams out there, Phoenix seems to be the most desirable--as we are definitely probably the most talented team in the bottom 10 of the NBA. Without Kobe. With him, we're suddenly one of the better teams overall.

And again, my point is that I want to win a championship. Do I want to spend the next 10 years "waiting" for this current group to mature--and the group after that--and the group after that? If this is the group, this is the group--but we still need a bonafide "star" if not "superstar". Amare may well become one, but Amare alone ain't going to do it.

 

[elindholm]

You claim to REFUTE things I say, yet it rarely involves counter examples.

In the most recent case, I offered Hill's move from Detroit to Orlando as a counterexample. You then changed your statement so that my counterexample didn't apply, claiming that that was what you meant all along. Previous clashes have been for the same reason: you say something, I provide a counterexample or conflicting evidence, and then you adjust your position without acknowledging it.

The reality is that your posts are almost always insulting. Always.

Actually, no. My first reponse to you in any thread is usually (I won't claim always) perfectly civil. Then you blow me off, and then I get insulting.

You seem to think that every disagreement is a personal insult, which is nonsense.

That is the last thing I think. Other people and I disagree all the time, and I almost never take it personally. If you poll the regulars on this board -- some of whom have been here much longer than either of us -- the majority will tell you that, while I disagree energetically and pull no punches in arguments, I don't take it personally. But someone talking past me, yes, I take that personally, especially when I've gone to the trouble to put thought into my words.

BTW, the reason I was asked to be the ASFN reporter was not because they thought I had all the answers. It was because they thought I could write.

I also think you can write, and you have the additional advantage of time. I haven't said anything negative about your articles for the board (except very minor things once or twice). I don't agree with a lot of what you say, but I think you are performing a valuable service. Most importantly, I think someone has to do it, and I believe the board's administrators should be (and are) pleased to have found someone articulate and energetic.

But ... so what? I didn't bring up your role as board reporter. I'm just talking about your posts.

But don't insult me by claiming to be trying to engage in a dialog when all you do is insult me.

It's disingenuous to represent me that way, but if that's all you see, then you're right -- I shouldn't bother.

 

[thegrahamcrackr]

This has to be the best written "fight" I have seen in a long time. You both have a knack for writing thats for sure.

Anyways,

George, I think the point Eric was trying to make was that for someone who averages such an insane number of posts a day, he would assume you would directly answer some of his points.

A lot of people brush past certain counter arguements, myself included. I have noticed you have gotton a lot better at responding to counter arguements tho.

Anyways, you get more attention on this because you post so frequently. For better or for worse, that is just the facts.

Oh well, just my take


Andy.

 

[George O'Brien]

Originally posted by thegrahamcrackr
This has to be the best written "fight" I have seen in a long time. You both have a knack for writing thats for sure.

Anyways,

George, I think the point Eric was trying to make was that for someone who averages such an insane number of posts a day, he would assume you would directly answer some of his points.

A lot of people brush past certain counter arguements, myself included. I have noticed you have gotton a lot better at responding to counter arguements tho.

Anyways, you get more attention on this because you post so frequently. For better or for worse, that is just the facts.

Oh well, just my take

Andy.

I've decided to ignore Eric. I don't need the grief. I am sorry I unloaded on him and I'm sorry he feels insulted by me. For some reason I seem to be able to disagree with everyone else without being accused of insulting them. I guess the only way to stop insulting Eric is stop responding to him.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Actually I did respond to the Grant Hill case many moons ago. I did not feel Grant Hill was anywhere close to being a Kobe class player. T-Mac did not become a true superstar until he went to Orlando.

The superstar that Orlando went after was Duncan. Hill and T-Mac were supposed to be complementary players -- but it didn't happen that way.

But through all this, I point out that my views have changed somewhat. Two months ago I felt the Suns should focus on signing a center and a less expensive shooter rather than Kobe. At this point I am convinced Lampe has more long range potential than anyone the Suns can get (I like his potential much more than that of Okur), so getting Kobe is reasonable if the situation works.

I don't have any problems with the standard line which is

If Kobe wants to leave the Lakers and
If Kobe does not want to force the Lakers to do a sign and trade
If Kobe is rational about his options (Clippers?)
If Kobe likes the Suns Core and what D'Antoni is doing
If the Suns have enough money to make a legitimate offer.

Then sure.

Beyond this we talk in circles. For example, should the Suns give the Bobcats a draft pick to take White if they don't know the answers to these questions? Maybe they can find out without getting slapped with a tampering charge. We keep assuming they will know, but what if they don't?

Can we reasonably assume that likelyhood that Kobe would come justify giving up a player and a draft pick IF we don't know what he is going to do. Eric want's to assume this problem away, but I think it is real.

When Chad Ford wrote that the Suns would give their lottery pick to the Bobcats to take White, I insisted that this is too much to give unless there is inside information about Kobe's plans. The Cleveland pick is a lot less valuable, but it is still a high price to pay for cap space if there is no clear indication of what Kobe's intentions are.

The rest of my musings relate to THAT situation - what if we don't know? Issues of how much money he wants, weather, market size, personality of the owners, the coach, the team, etc. are all part of the mix IF we are considering giving up White and a pick just to get into the game. Assuming the Suns already know the answer simply begs the question.

Do issues about endorsement opportunties in one city or another make much of a difference? It did for Shaq, but I'm sure it would not be an overriding issue for most players. These are factors that come up when most of the other factors are roughly equal such as the money, if the player likes the GM and coach, team prospects, etc.

A lot depends on how much influence the player's agent has in the decision. Ordinarily, if the agent has a big influence the player will follow the money. (The McDyess deal with the Nuggets was screwy because the agent had a conflict of interest).. Ask an agent, and he will prefer a major market every time. Obviously once a player gets enough money, the agent has less influence.

In any case, I would certainly hope the Colangelos have inside information before they do a deal with the Bobcats. I am not sure there is a Plan B if they create an extra $5.8 million in cap space with no one to use it on.