Has Lebron's brand taken a major hit this summer in your eyes?

[westkoast]

Has Lebron James' brand taken a major hit this summer in your eyes?

I pose this question to the board because the consensus on sports talk radio seems to be that it did in fact take a major hit.  Between the series with the Celtics and the poorly executed announcement to play in South Beach many are saying that LRMR took a bullet proof brand and put holes on it.  What is your take on this?  Has Lebron's brand in your eyes been tarnished? 

[Joe Vancil]

Yes.

Not because of the Cleveland playoff loss, but because of the way things went down in his move to Miami.  It smacked of self-promotion, and all of you Kobe Bryant fans out there know what I think about that.  Had his move been done quietly, behind the scenes, I wouldn't have had so much problem with it.

The "super-team" mentality bothers me a bit, but there's one thing about it that I *DON'T* object to, and that's the fact that he chose Miami.  If he was going to leave Cleveland, and for purpose of argument, let's say Bosh and Wade signed with the Clippers (or some other meaningless team that LeBron wouldn't really consider), then the place that would be best for LeBron James, given the choices he had, was *MIAMI*.  Ownership willing to spend, a franchise that treats its old guys good, a team that wants to win with a winning tradition in place, Pat Riley and all that he brings, in a state with no income tax.  Add the positives of a happening city and the climate (which I would hate, but I'm a cold-weather person), and you've got a great place to be.  So picking Miami doesn't bother me as much as the "super-team" aspect does.  (If they'd have all gone to Chicago or New York or the Clippers, then I'd be up at arms about it.)

Now this is all in *MY* eyes.

A more interesting perspective is that of my Greyhounds - the 4th/5th/6th graders that I coach.  Most of them looked at this as a GOOD thing, and were very eager to see what Miami would be like.  There were a few skeptics, but given the fact that these guys don't have a "home team," I think it's a good perspective of how most are going to look at it.  And my guys seemed to feel that it would be how much and how quickly they start winning that was the final measure, and didn't really talk much about which player would get the most credit.  And I think that's how the general populace will see it.  In the eyes of my guys, it didn't "damage" his brand, but only set the stage for what it will become.

In other words, in the eyes of the young, LeBron James is already a big superstar, and is going to be the biggest superstar wherever he goes or whatever he does.

And that's why I'm really growing to hate him....

...just like when Kobe Bryant was voted to start in the All-Star game while not even being a starter on his own team. 

The NBA promotion machine is stuck in high gear again.  I think I'm going to be sick.

[westkoast]

A more interesting perspective is that of my Greyhounds - the 4th/5th/6th graders that I coach.  Most of them looked at this as a GOOD thing, and were very eager to see what Miami would be like.  There were a few skeptics, but given the fact that these guys don't have a "home team," I think it's a good perspective of how most are going to look at it.  And my guys seemed to feel that it would be how much and how quickly they start winning that was the final measure, and didn't really talk much about which player would get the most credit.  And I think that's how the general populace will see it.  In the eyes of my guys, it didn't "damage" his brand, but only set the stage for what it will become.

I think this is a very interesting point to bring up.  While in the minds of many right now this brand has been beaten to a pulp I wonder what the consensus will be from kids growing up thinking differently and not quite understanding what the big deal was.  Lebron will be in the league for another 10 years so when it is all said it done it might just be a blip.  Which actually leads me to my own opinion.....

To me the brand took a major hit in the eyes of NBA fans from yesteryear because it somewhat embodies a change in the mentality of the entire league (which might not be entirely fair).  You can hear it on sports talk radio.  You can read it in the newspaper when older players like Magic say they wouldn't have done it.  You can even watch a video of Michael Jordan's take on all this.  I think your comments and my own personal put us on this side as well.  The one constant  with everyone I just mentioned  is that basketball was different "back in the day".    For fans who grew up with pre-2000 basketball it signaled the end of the way things were done previously in the league and how players handled situations like moving from a franchise.  The loyalty to the franchise who drafted you is gone.  The desire to beat your rival is gone because these guys are at the club drinking champagne together when they are in town playing against each other.  I am not saying it is horrible and ruining the game but the mentality is different.

What is true though is a brand can rebound.  Look at Kobe Bryant.  Just a few years ago he was well hated outside of Los Angeles.  Now a lot of people are looking at him as the last NBA star who was cut from the old school cloth.  While I know he still has plenty of people who dislike him  his image has recovered after the olympics and titles.  He is currently the most popular sports athlete in the country based on polling a research firm did.

[Joe Vancil]

On Kobe Bryant being a star cut from the old school cloth:

I disagree.  He was cut from the LAST school's cloth, which was the Jordan image, which started with Jordan and ended with Bryant (and included the likes of Vince Carter, Allen Iverson, and Tracy McGrady).  That image is "one guy, bigger than the team, does it all."  I'd even go as far as including Barkley and Dominique Wilkins, and maybe even Shaq.  Grant Hill circa Detroit is another example.

He was NOT cut from the cloth of the previous school - that included Magic, Bird, Isiah Thomas.  That image was "one guy, the focus, but not bigger than the team."

And he was not cut from the "old school" cloth, which is where you get your Abdul-Jabbar's.  That image is "foundation of power and enforcer, on which all else is built."  I'd say the last guy in this line was Hakeem Olajuwon.  The biggest names are your true greats like Abdul-Jabbar and Russell.  Other names on this list would include guys like Bob Lanier, Patrick Ewing, Willis Reed, Moses Malone, and the guy who puts the "old" in "old school," George Mikan.

And I'm not ready to say that Bryant was the last of them.  But I do agree with you, 'koast, in that the sport is in the process of change.  I believe it's become a private club moreso than ever before.  And I'm going thrown blame to that:  the AAU system "growing up" into the premiere place where talent is gauged, rather than college.  These guys are buddies from a private, privileged club, long before they sign their first contract (which is probably a shoe deal).

Now part of me says, "That's good."  It means a potential death to the Jordan image (and good riddance) and model, and a return to a sense of team.  But what is missing is the sense of competition.  It more resembles a bunch of guys going to the gym to play together as a team every week than it does a competition AGAINST your buddies.  And I miss the "nastieness" of the rivalry.  What was the last REALLY GOOD rivalry out there?  Has there been a great one since New York/Miami?  (Sacramento/Lakers ?  Not much of a rivalry to my line of thinking.  Lasted for about 15 minutes in the minds of Laker fans, although I suspect Kings fans hate the Lakers to this day...but heck, that could describe anybody in the West.)

So, while I can't say that this is all bad, I sure can't call it "good.

The question is whether I'd rather watch Kobe and Jordan duke it out, or watch Showtime vs. the Bird-Era Celtics, or watch Russell vs. Abdul-Jabbar.  (Yes, I know they never met.)  I'd have to say I'd most prefer Russell vs. Abdul-Jabbar.  Of course, that may be because it's the one era I *HAVEN'T* seen.  I might get just as sick of it after a while.

[westkoast]

So you would not consider Michael Jordan part of that old school cloth?  I certainly would.  That drive and detail to every facet of the game is not a 'new school' trait.   The constant need to improve your game and spend countless hours in the gym is not a 'new school' trait, quite the opposite.   Neither is the competitive edge and rip-his-throat-out-on-the-court mentality.  That is long gone and the AAU is partially to thank for that like you mentioned.

  I believe old school basketball was more 'All I do is play basketball' than it is 'I hang out with Jay-z and I am a business man just as much as a basketball player'  The mentality of the player is what I am talking about.  Not the shift in the league to stretch out talent, make it so isolation did benefit teams with strongguards  by removing hand checking, and other small tweaks they've made to make it a more offensive minded, more guard dominated league.  I don't think you blame Kobe Bryant for that and diminish characteristics he has of players before him.  He is cut from the same cloth.  The game, however, is not.  That is not Kobe Bryant's doing so I don't see how you can hold that against him.  If you want to bring up his previous me me me attitude, I think that is valid.  I would also argue that as he matured and got older it went away as he learned just like Jordan did and other players before him (I don't include Magic, he came into the league straight onto a big time team)

I think that maybe our definition of 'old school' is different that is the problem.  The hay day of Michael Jordan is fast approaching 20 years ago.  Tim Duncan in his prime was almost a decade ago.   There is no such thing as mid-old school or 'last school' in the eyes of most people.   Ask the kids you coach about anything in the 2000s and you will hear the words of 'thats old' or 'thats old school'  Every passing moment that becomes the old way and the times before that turn into 'classic'   Nirvana is considered old school rock by most now.  The Doors and Stones are 'classic rock'  I think the 80s was classic basketball and the 90s/Dream Team/Jordan era, almost 20 years removed, is 'old school' now.

[Joe Vancil]

So you would not consider Michael Jordan part of that old school cloth?  I certainly would.  That drive and detail to every facet of the game is not a 'new school' trait.   The constant need to improve your game and spend countless hours in the gym is not a 'new school' trait, quite the opposite.   Neither is the competitive edge and rip-his-throat-out-on-the-court mentality.  That is long gone and the AAU is partially to thank for that like you mentioned.

  I believe old school basketball was more 'All I do is play basketball' than it is 'I hang out with Jay-z and I am a business man just as much as a basketball player'  The mentality of the player is what I am talking about.  Not the shift in the league to stretch out talent, make it so isolation did benefit teams with strongguards  by removing hand checking, and other small tweaks they've made to make it a more offensive minded, more guard dominated league.  I don't think you blame Kobe Bryant for that and diminish characteristics he has of players before him.  He is cut from the same cloth.  The game, however, is not.  That is not Kobe Bryant's doing so I don't see how you can hold that against him.  If you want to bring up his previous me me me attitude, I think that is valid.  I would also argue that as he matured and got older it went away as he learned just like Jordan did and other players before him (I don't include Magic, he came into the league straight onto a big time team)

I think that maybe our definition of 'old school' is different that is the problem.  The hay day of Michael Jordan is fast approaching 20 years ago.  Tim Duncan in his prime was almost a decade ago.   There is no such thing as mid-old school or 'last school' in the eyes of most people.   Ask the kids you coach about anything in the 2000s and you will hear the words of 'thats old' or 'thats old school'  Every passing moment that becomes the old way and the times before that turn into 'classic'   Nirvana is considered old school rock by most now.  The Doors and Stones are 'classic rock'  I think the 80s was classic basketball and the 90s/Dream Team/Jordan era, almost 20 years removed, is 'old school' now.

I believe that our differences are in the views of what constitutes "old school."

I never heard Larry Bird or Magic Johnson worrying about an "image" or a "brand."  Jordan and Kobe both did, and to me, that is a huge distinction, and in that regard, I think they more resemble James than Bird/Magic.  However, Jordan and Kobe were both about beating their competition rather than joining up with them, and that's more indicative of Bird/Magic.

The idea of spending hours working on your game is nothing new, nor is it anything that is gone from today's players.  There is the "rock star" mentality, and I agree that it's a different feel with James than with Jordan or Bryant.  And while I would agree that Bryant is more gym rat than rock star, I think I can say the same about many of today's players.

And let's not kid ourselves that even in Russell's day there was an "all that I do is play basketball" mentality.  This is something that Charles Barkley has alluded to, in talking about being an ambassador for the sport.  While I grant you that Barkley has a strange view of ambassadorship in regards to his own conduct, I believe he has a point.  Russell was a landmark figure in pre-civil-rights Boston, due to his status as basketball's greatest champion.  While there were definitely financial concerns, he wasn't one who avoided controversy to "build his brand."

And while Magic and Bird openly respected Jordan, folks forget that they often sided with Isiah in terms of things like shutting him out in the All-Star game.  I think it's fair to say that Bird, Magic, and Thomas saw Jordan as an entirely different animal in terms of priorities.  While "win" was at the top of the list for each of them, Jordan's "marketing" or "brand" or whatever you want to call it was second on his list, and it never figured prominently on the list of Magic, Bird, and Thomas.  In that regard, I'm more likely to lump Duncan in with these guys than I am Jordan or Bryant or O'Neal.  And I'm not sure that O'Neal isn't the father of this "rock star" mentality for all practical purposes.  In fact, I might very well lump O'Neal in with James and crew.

[westkoast]

So you would not consider Michael Jordan part of that old school cloth?  I certainly would.  That drive and detail to every facet of the game is not a 'new school' trait.   The constant need to improve your game and spend countless hours in the gym is not a 'new school' trait, quite the opposite.   Neither is the competitive edge and rip-his-throat-out-on-the-court mentality.  That is long gone and the AAU is partially to thank for that like you mentioned.

  I believe old school basketball was more 'All I do is play basketball' than it is 'I hang out with Jay-z and I am a business man just as much as a basketball player'  The mentality of the player is what I am talking about.  Not the shift in the league to stretch out talent, make it so isolation did benefit teams with strongguards  by removing hand checking, and other small tweaks they've made to make it a more offensive minded, more guard dominated league.  I don't think you blame Kobe Bryant for that and diminish characteristics he has of players before him.  He is cut from the same cloth.  The game, however, is not.  That is not Kobe Bryant's doing so I don't see how you can hold that against him.  If you want to bring up his previous me me me attitude, I think that is valid.  I would also argue that as he matured and got older it went away as he learned just like Jordan did and other players before him (I don't include Magic, he came into the league straight onto a big time team)

I think that maybe our definition of 'old school' is different that is the problem.  The hay day of Michael Jordan is fast approaching 20 years ago.  Tim Duncan in his prime was almost a decade ago.   There is no such thing as mid-old school or 'last school' in the eyes of most people.   Ask the kids you coach about anything in the 2000s and you will hear the words of 'thats old' or 'thats old school'  Every passing moment that becomes the old way and the times before that turn into 'classic'   Nirvana is considered old school rock by most now.  The Doors and Stones are 'classic rock'  I think the 80s was classic basketball and the 90s/Dream Team/Jordan era, almost 20 years removed, is 'old school' now.

I believe that our differences are in the views of what constitutes "old school."

I never heard Larry Bird or Magic Johnson worrying about an "image" or a "brand."  Jordan and Kobe both did, and to me, that is a huge distinction, and in that regard, I think they more resemble James than Bird/Magic.  However, Jordan and Kobe were both about beating their competition rather than joining up with them, and that's more indicative of Bird/Magic.

The idea of spending hours working on your game is nothing new, nor is it anything that is gone from today's players.  There is the "rock star" mentality, and I agree that it's a different feel with James than with Jordan or Bryant.  And while I would agree that Bryant is more gym rat than rock star, I think I can say the same about many of today's players.

And let's not kid ourselves that even in Russell's day there was an "all that I do is play basketball" mentality.  This is something that Charles Barkley has alluded to, in talking about being an ambassador for the sport.  While I grant you that Barkley has a strange view of ambassadorship in regards to his own conduct, I believe he has a point.  Russell was a landmark figure in pre-civil-rights Boston, due to his status as basketball's greatest champion.  While there were definitely financial concerns, he wasn't one who avoided controversy to "build his brand."

And while Magic and Bird openly respected Jordan, folks forget that they often sided with Isiah in terms of things like shutting him out in the All-Star game.  I think it's fair to say that Bird, Magic, and Thomas saw Jordan as an entirely different animal in terms of priorities.  While "win" was at the top of the list for each of them, Jordan's "marketing" or "brand" or whatever you want to call it was second on his list, and it never figured prominently on the list of Magic, Bird, and Thomas.  In that regard, I'm more likely to lump Duncan in with these guys than I am Jordan or Bryant or O'Neal.  And I'm not sure that O'Neal isn't the father of this "rock star" mentality for all practical purposes.  In fact, I might very well lump O'Neal in with James and crew.

There is a difference between Jordan/Bryant's approach to a brand and say Lebron James and Dwayne Wade.  Magic and Bird didn't really get to build the brand in the same way Jordan or Bryant did because those two are the ones that really paved the way for NBA stars to do that.  Remember Larry and Magic's dual Converse Weapon Evo basketball shoe campaign?  At the time it was pretty much unheard of to see that kind of push but it wasn't taken to the next level until Jordan came in and the league grew in popularity.    (On a random side note, Converse just sent me shoes for free and one of the pairs was the throwback Magic purple and gold Weapon evos!!)  Also, I didn't see Jordan or even Kobe try to put their brand above basketball or even on the same level.  They might have hired others to do it but you never really heard them ever talk about it.  Nike and other companies did the leg work for them.  James, Wade, and others handled it much differently in where their 'brand' is as equally important as basketball.    There has been many occasions of them saying this.  I think the ESPN announcement was more about James' brand than it was about basketball even if it has the exact opposite effect of what they expected.

As for 'gym rat' being more of the norm than rock star/gangster, I think it falls more towards the later than former.  These NBA players party a lot more than you think.  Being near a city that is very much about the night life I can tell you that it seems as if some of the Lakers ::cough Jordan Farmar cough:: spent more time in Sunset blvd than they did working on their defense.  There are so many instances of guys like Gilbert Arenas and Stephen Jackson being caught out partying after a playoff loss.  Shaq made the statement that he was surprised they even won a title in Miami with all the partying they (the entire team) were doing in South Beach.  A friend of mine who use to be a body guard for Antoine Walker out here in Southern California when he was in town said the guy would party and spend money like water which might not be a surprise when you realize how broke he is right now.  Tracy McGrady and Carmelo are also notorious for being party guys.  I mean the list goes on and on.  Now granted I know you won't see reports on ESPN.com about 'Deron Williams spent entire weekend in gym' but knowing the rapper/rock star mentality that so many of them portray I feel like the party guys are the norm.

After all that the idea that 'money is the root of all evil' rings true in the NBA.  Maybe these guys have too much money to not be buddy buddy and party all the time.  Maybe I am just a jealous keyboard pusher working IT 

[jn]

It certainly has for me and some others in my age bracket.   I don't know that it's going to be a big deal for little kids.

btw, a fan at an Indians game had to be escorted out of the stadium and away from threatening fans.  He was wearing a LeBron Heat jersey.   

[westkoast]

It certainly has for me and some others in my age bracket.   I don't know that it's going to be a big deal for little kids.

btw, a fan at an Indians game had to be escorted out of the stadium and away from threatening fans.  He was wearing a LeBron Heat jersey.   

Just out of curiosity what was the reason you felt it took a hit?  I've asked the board here and some friends of mine while we were at the bar.  I've got a bunch of different answers.

I just read an article online about Cleveland being the new home of the most upset sports fans heh

[jn]

I think "The Decision" is seen as an incredible dick move.  I certainly see it that way.   Outside of Steeler fans I think most people feel for how Cleveleand's sports fans have been on the losing end of a lot of tough breaks.   That's just the SPORTS end of it.  Throw in the fact that Cleveland is generally seen as an underdog city in general and then the site of Lebron's hour long special seemed to a case of rubbing it in their face.   

[Reality]

While i was not in favor of the one hour Decision telecast, i am very happy that LeBron Co. gave the proceeds to charity.

And let's not kid ourselves that even in Russell's day there was an "all that I do is play basketball" mentality. 

Did he have any other choice?
If he could have made an additional 4 million by wearing and promoting "Bill Russel Brand" Converse sneakers, would he have?  Of course he would.

If the 1959, '62, and '63 Finals were corrupted by Maurice Podoloff and Walter Kennedy and co. by giving some inferior team 20-28 bogus FTAs in the 4th qtr to thwart the deserved Celtic win, would Russell have thought about teaming with Wilt if offered?  I say yes he would.

Would he, under any circumstances wear mascara and a burqua hat?  No.

[westkoast]

I think "The Decision" is seen as an incredible dick move.  I certainly see it that way.   Outside of Steeler fans I think most people feel for how Cleveleand's sports fans have been on the losing end of a lot of tough breaks.   That's just the SPORTS end of it.  Throw in the fact that Cleveland is generally seen as an underdog city in general and then the site of Lebron's hour long special seemed to a case of rubbing it in their face.   

A few people have said the same thing.  As unimportant as sports really is in the grand scheme of life it is a nice distraction from other parts of your life that you need a break from.

 

[Reality]

I think "The Decision" is seen as an incredible dick move.  I certainly see it that way.   Outside of Steeler fans I think most people feel for how Cleveleand's sports fans have been on the losing end of a lot of tough breaks.   That's just the SPORTS end of it.  Throw in the fact that Cleveland is generally seen as an underdog city in general and then the site of Lebron's hour long special seemed to a case of rubbing it in their face.   

The flip side is all Lebron has done for Cleveland.
Compare 2003 with 2010
W-L record as well as financials.
Went from half empty arena to every game sold out.
Value of team doubled.
All this done without one player colluded over and never having near the support that the other stars got (Timmy Duncan-GNob-Parker_Bowen.  Kobme Gasol Bavetta Crawford etc)

Yes, they are hurt he is gone and the one hour show didn't help at all.
Beyond that LeBron did nothing but help.
I see the one page ad Lebron took out thanks Akron, not Cleveland.  (Z had taken a one pager out for Cleveland.)  So i think just as Cleveland has had enough of LeBron, LeBron has had enough of Clevelands whining

[westkoast]

That's funny Reality.  Had the league not made sure the Spurs got to the finals by gifting them suspensions to key opposing players Lebron might actually still be in Cleveland after winning a title.  You of course try your hardest to ignore that.  Had it been the Lakers no one would hear the end of it.

This thread has nothing to do with the Lakers but you've already mentioned them twice in the only two posts you've made in here.  Amazing    I fully expect you to hide behind your Lakers pictures and not address this.

[Joe Vancil]

While i was not in favor of the one hour Decision telecast, i am very happy that LeBron Co. gave the proceeds to charity.

And let's not kid ourselves that even in Russell's day there was an "all that I do is play basketball" mentality. 

Did he have any other choice?
If he could have made an additional 4 million by wearing and promoting "Bill Russel Brand" Converse sneakers, would he have?  Of course he would.

If the 1959, '62, and '63 Finals were corrupted by Maurice Podoloff and Walter Kennedy and co. by giving some inferior team 20-28 bogus FTAs in the 4th qtr to thwart the deserved Celtic win, would Russell have thought about teaming with Wilt if offered?  I say yes he would.

Would he, under any circumstances wear mascara and a burqua hat?  No.

You miss my point.

I'm saying that there *WERE* other things going on, most especially in Russell's day.  It wasn't shoe contracts, it was the civil rights precursor.  Russell was very well aware of his status as both team captain and black man - and especially so in Boston.  His success in his role hammered home the point of the ridiculousness of discrimination.