Reply to thread

Message: [QUOTE="BlueMAB, post: 3520024, member: 920"] There's a difference between "good for his brand" and "has no leverage". HUGE difference. Based on what exactly? Kids are getting a couple hundred thousand dollars from sneaker companies while in HS to push them to certain schools. Why in the world would they "need" the G League to prove their marketability? Provide some evidence or rationale rather than just making blanket proclamations. [URL='https://www.si.com/longform/2017/zion-williamson-basketball-dunks-high-school/index.html']The viral thunder-dunks delivered by Zion Williamson don't merely demoralize opponents. They have made him better known than any prep star ever. (Yes, including LeBron.)[/URL] You don't know that. It's a supposition that you'll never be able to prove (nor would I ever be able to disprove it). But let's play this silly game anyway. You're moving the goalposts. You didn't say [I]"he wouldn't have gotten as much without Duke"[/I]. You said this: [I]"While 500k for a season is nice. A kid like Zion, if he takes that deal, also isn’t in a position with leverage to sign the 80+ million dollar endorsement deal"[/I] What does $500k have to do with an $80 million contract? You think Nike is going to say (internally) "Well we were going to give him $80MM, but he's getting $500k from the G League, so let's offer up $10MM, he's got no leverage now" His value to the G League, and his value to the sneaker company, are entirely different. And they don't factor in his NBA salary in their valuation of his worth to them. How many of his sneakers they can sell, has nothing to do with how much the G league pays him, and therefore doesn't impact his leverage in any way. Explain your argument instead of just repeating the same statements. [/QUOTE]

Verification: First name of men's bb coach