Kyrie Irving

[gourimoko]

.

 

[Derek]

The guarantee can be made. Nike, Coca-Cola, etc, can talk to Irving at any time and about anything. If I'm Nike, I'm advising Irving to leave. I'm telling his father, "the best thing for your son is to get out of Cleveland." These influences exist, and yes, they can guarantee the money would be made back, contractually.

I'm sure they would tell him that they'll give him more if he went to a larger market, but who's to say that they won't give him the same money in Cleveland and just aren't advertising it to him? Plus, there's always a chance for an injury, especially with Irving. I really think there are a lot of unknowns and risks that would make it very difficult for Kyrie to turn down guaranteed money just because he didn't get the offer a year sooner.

I do have a question though, how may guys have been given a max extension without playing a playoff game? I don't think it's unreasonable to want to see Irving put it all together on the court before throwing the bank at him.

 

[chuck0609]

. Anecdotelly, here in the Philippines, I dunno why, but you see a lot of people wearing basketball jerseys. Whose name is predominantly on those jerseys? James #6.

Well, unused garmets are typically sent to poor people in third world countries.

 

[Jack Brickman]

Did no one learn anything from Minnesota and Kevin Love? They didn't offer him the five year max because they were saving it for Ricky fucking Rubio, who doesn't look anywhere close to a max player now. They're going to lose Love after three years because of that bungled decision, and you can bet your ass that they wish they could have that one back.

If you have a guy who might be a max player, you don't lowball him in the name of giving it to a player who might be better later.

 

[gourimoko]

Kyrie already has already had the "Uncle Drew" campaign with Pepsi and a pretty big deal with Nike.

He's not going to get bigger deals anywhere else until he starts winning.

But this isn't true. Market size is vitally important to the size of the deal. Irving's Pepsi and Nike deals are exactly what I'm talking about. Lin renegotiated his endorsement deals with American companies as he became more popular in China. Dwayne Wade signed exclusive Chinese deals for the exact reason (market size).

Market size is the primary determining factor of the dollar value of any endorsement deal.

Lebron went national in Cleveland, so did Kyrie,

And Kyrie hasn't anywhere near the hype machine that LeBron had coming into the league; not remotely the same situation. Kyrie should be looking at guys like Griffin, Paul, Melo and Wade as his model - not LeBron James or Kobe Bryant.

Peyton Hillis made the cover of Madden, Johnny Manziel is a cash machine.

NFL is very different, obviously.

The world is tiny now. Markets don't matter as much as you apparently think they do.

I agree that the internet does change things considerably, however I think you are drastically underestimating the historical and present-day importance of market-size for endorsement deals. A player in Cleveland and a player in New York, with similar W-L records (neither are championship teams) aren't likely to make the same amount of money in endorsements.

 

[DELONTEizDad]

.

David Falk:

Falk: In 2012, I find that to be incredible that someone would think that. We live in a digital age, and I think people like Dwight Howard, LeBron James, Kobe Bryant, Dwyane Wade, Kevin Durant -- Kevin Durant is incredibly marketable in Oklahoma. He doesn't have to be in New York or L.A. I think he could be the best player in the league in two years, at the most. And if someone said to you, "If you represented him, would you move him to New York?" I'd say, "No, for what? I think he has a certain homespun credibility being in Oklahoma. It's like Brett Favre being in Green Bay." And I think these guys are being told by these agents who aren't very sophisticated in marketing that you have to be in New York or L.A. to be marketable. Maybe they've never heard of the Internet.

Read More: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2012/writers/sam_amick/03/02/david.falk.qa/index.html#ixzz33UktgxH6


Dwight Howard's endorsement opportunities went down when he went to LA.

Howard said playing in a bigger market, like the Big Apple, won’t help a player’s brand if the team is losing.
“If you don’t win, you’re not going to get all the (off-court) stuff you want anyway,” Howard said. “I saw that last year (in Los Angeles). I was in the biggest market for the NBA, and we lost, so those (companies) aren’t going to be coming to you for losing.
“When I was in Orlando, a small market, and we were winning. I was very popular with a lot of different deals on the table. So it’s moreso about winning, and you’ve got to put yourself in a position to where you’re winning basketball games and you’re having fun doing it. Losing is not fun, and Melo wants to win.”


Read more: http://sportsglory.com/nba/dwight-howard-advising-carmelo-anthony-free-agency/14269#ixzz33UmOFfEx


First two years in Miami Lebron's endorsement money was almost exactly the same as it was in Cleveland.

 

[DELONTEizDad]

But this isn't true. Market size is vitally important to the size of the deal. Irving's Pepsi and Nike deals are exactly what I'm talking about. Lin renegotiated his endorsement deals with American companies as he became more popular in China. Dwayne Wade signed exclusive Chinese deals for the exact reason (market size).

Market size is the primary determining factor of the dollar value of any endorsement deal.



And Kyrie hasn't anywhere near the hype machine that LeBron had coming into the league; not remotely the same situation. Kyrie should be looking at guys like Griffin, Paul, Melo and Wade as his model - not LeBron James or Kobe Bryant.



NFL is very different, obviously.



I agree that the internet does change things considerably, however I think you are drastically underestimating the historical and present-day importance of market-size for endorsement deals. A player in Cleveland and a player in New York, with similar W-L records (neither are championship teams) aren't likely to make the same amount of money in endorsements.

Jeremy Lin and Wade don't play in China. You are making my point for me.

 

[DELONTEizDad]

A player in Cleveland and a player in New York, with similar W-L records (neither are championship teams) aren't likely to make the same amount of money in endorsements.

Uh, what.....?

What if the player on the Cavs is a bigger star?

All players in New York make more endorsement money?

You're talkin' out your ass, boy.

 

[tsteele316]

I dunno... maybe it just seems like you should have been banned??



There's like 2 posts ahead of this one that you obviously didn't read.

Will make it short (not something I'm good at): Kyrie may not lose money by leaving Cleveland. Players of his caliber, and how well liked he is (has many endorsement deals, with many large companies, just not large ones) can make $10+ annually in endorsements depending upon their market.

Carmelo Anthony, Amare Stoudemire, Chris Paul, Blake Griffin, Steph Curry, and Jeremy Lin are just a few examples of this. Endorsements for these players is/was just as important, if not more so long-term, than their NBA salary which will not fluctuate by much over the course of their career.

For example, take Melo out of New York and he is likely to lose a tremendous amount of money annually, whether he is traded or not. Put Kyrie there, and is annual earnings could potentially go through the roof; especially if he can make them serious contenders.

That's why midmarket teams like Cleveland shouldn't play chicken, especially publicly, with borderline superstar players that we hope to retain.

at this juncture, your theory on endorsements has largely fallen flat, so we've circled back to the point that you tried to assert that irving would leave tens of millions on the table because of some sort of grudge. the notion that you think i "should" have been banned because i made a post questioning the logic behind this flimsy assertion is pretty telling.

 

[Fuggles]

. Anecdotelly, here in the Philippines, I dunno why, but you see a lot of people wearing basketball jerseys. Whose name is predominantly on those jerseys? James #6.

Well, unused garmets are typically sent to poor people in third world countries.

I think they use basketball jerseys as currency in the sex trafficking there.

 

[Fuggles]

Did no one learn anything from Minnesota and Kevin Love? They didn't offer him the five year max because they were saving it for Ricky fucking Rubio, who doesn't look anywhere close to a max player now. They're going to lose Love after three years because of that bungled decision, and you can bet your ass that they wish they could have that one back.

If you have a guy who might be a max player, you don't lowball him in the name of giving it to a player who might be better later.

I agree in general but Rubio didn't have the crazy amount of hype that the top three guys in this draft have and that Love had more value at that point than Irving does now. Minnesota was just really really dumb.

 

[Jack Brickman]

I agree in general but Rubio didn't have the crazy amount of hype that the top three guys in this draft have and that Love had more value at that point than Irving does now. Minnesota was just really really dumb.

The top three guys in this draft haven't stepped foot on an NBA basketball court yet. All three could be busts. The one we pick could be a bust. The one we pick could turn out to just be a good player, but not as good as Kyrie. The one we pick could suffer some injuries that lower his value. The fact is, the guy we draft is, as of now, a total unknown. It's just incredibly risky to "save" our five-year offer for a guy who hasn't even laced up his shoes for a game yet, and won't for another six months. Even if the guy we draft is the next great superstar, do you really want to roll the dice on losing Kyrie early to save a five-year deal on such an unknown outcome?

You also need to consider that there will likely be another lockout in 2017, and that the current rules may change. Better to lock up Kyrie now and then have Gilbert lobby for rule changes that benefit him in the next lockout. :chuckles:

 

[Fuggles]

Oh, I am not willing to gamble on it, I would just prefer giving him a four year deal. If he is adamant about the five year deal I would give in as it isn't worth the headache.

 

[Dr. Gymbo]

Jack is 100% spot-on on two main things.

There's parallels for Cleveland and Minnesota right now back when they were going to extend Love beyond his rookie deal. Kahn tried to get cute by not signing Love to the 5-year max and it may cost Minnesota the one main bright spot they've had since they had Kevin Garnett. I remember there was a lot of talk about Love not deserving a max deal because he hadn't led his team to the playoffs. Disregard the fact that he still hasn't for a moment. To be fair, Kyrie also hasn't led the team to the playoffs, but let's be real - this team was tanking up until this year. If the Cavs get some insane offer to trade Kyrie, then fine. But if not, and they circle back to extending him, let's not get cute and have a Kevin Love type situation on our hands 3-4 years from now.

Second, there's a very real possibility that the CBA could radically change over the life of the Kyrie deal. This was how the Thunder were able to sign Kevin Durant to a 5 year deal under the previous CBA and Westbrook to a 5 year deal under the current CBA. It's very important to be conscious of the future of the team and the CBA any time transactions are made or considered. I think sometimes as fans, we can get a little shortsighted, but it's critical that the FO remains cognizant and diligent.

 

[Jack Brickman]

It's also worth mentioning that, if we lock up Kyrie long-term and he elevates his game to the next level, it will be much easier to keep around whoever we draft with number one assuming they pan out as expected too. Sure, we can only sign them for four years (let's pretend the CBA doesn't change for this example), but we can offer them more money than anyone else and they'd be playing beside another superstar. Given the nature of restricted free agency, that seems like a no-brainer for them to re-sign for the full four years.

The contrasting situation is that we give Kyrie an out after three years (as his agent would likely demand if we refuse to offer the max). Then, if our number one pick doesn't pan out as expected, we've given Kyrie the chance to bolt at the first opportunity.

The easy choice is offering him the five year max. If he refuses, then you have to make some tough decisions, up to and including trading his ass.