Blazers interested in Aaron Gordon

got no problem with guys wanting to build their brand. i have more of an issue with them thinking they need to be in large markets to build them.

 

Realistically, large markets have always been better for endorsements. When it comes to national brands for superstars, market probably doesn't matter a lot. Kevin Durant or Michael Jordan will be huge nationally no matter where they play. But Gordon isn't a superstar--endorsing local car dealership and supermarket chains and such are much more lucrative in New York than in Sacramento.

 

Chris Haynes literally just reported that talks about Gordon with the Blazers have cooled.

 

How is that "his own doing?" Unless you're claiming he's not trying his best, he's as talented as he is--he can't change his own talent to be Stephen Curry or Damian Lillard. That's not "his own doing" that's out of his control. And he never said anything about how he can't brand himself because he's not in a big market, that's just a position you put on him because you're weirdly angry with him. All he said was he preferred the superior branding opportunities (for his level of talent) in a bigger market. What's wrong about that actual position?

All you have to do is be as talented as Dame. Gordon not being as talented as Dame is his own doing.

I don't agree I was being condescending. I do think people are being irrational about this, probably due to the latent sense of "Portland is being dumped on again."

 

Again, unless you think he's just being lazy about his game, you can't just make yourself more talented. "Being a better player" would garner him more opportunities, but no amount of work on his game is turning him into a superstar.

 

CJ has a 100 mil empire and multiple businesses outside of basketball including a BRAND name wine. He's managed just fine being a second/third tier star in Portland.

 

Are you in his local market? Do you know what endorsements he does or doesn't have? Again, I said that "national brand" is probably not market-dependent, but having a national brand depends on being a superstar by and large.

It shows that for a player as talented as Lillard when it comes to national branding. In that past, I've seen data that shows that larger markets yield far more lucrative local endorsements. In fact, Lillard himself might well be making more money if he had been playing in LA or New York. Saying he's doing well for himself doesn't in any way tell us whether he'd be doing better elsewhere.

That's your projection. I said nothing about being a "better brand of fan" and that thought never crossed my mind. I do think people are getting unduly upset with Gordon for no reason--it's perfectly reasonable for him to care about those things. But we have sentiments in this thread about "fuck him" and "if this is who he is, we're better off without him" and insinuations that he cares more about branding than working on his game. Sounds exactly like past comments about "mercenaries" for players who cared about the money they made.

 

I am not totally sold on a big like Gordon or Aldridge cause of Melo -- cause unless the deal involves Melo makes ZERO sense to trade for a 4 . If i am the Blazers i look for a SF who can play D and 3 and maybe either slide into SG or PF in certain spots but this team needs D . Then you get that piece then go try and find a 4/5 from buyout market or something to shore up the front court.

 

I'm pointing out that "being a better player" (the kind that garners national brands) isn't within his control, as you keep implying.

 

I think Trent and John Collins are more even in terms of value than Trent and Gordon. I'd be okay with giving Trent for Collins but less so for Gordon.

 

I'd wonder if the "bigger market" and "branding" stuff came from Gordon or his agent