ivotuk
Well-known member
I've been thinking about this, and I keep coming back to one question, "What good does it do a player to let leak that they want more money, or may do a hold out" when there's no chance of it being successful?
Using Kam and Michael Bennett as examples, it's obvious that Russell and BWagz are priorities, and that once those 2 contracts are signed, there won't be any money left over for Kam and MB. So what's the upside?
There's a saying out there that celebrities have, "there's no such thing as bad publicity."
So what's one way that celebrities make money? Name or brand recognition. They can use that to land lucrative advertising deals.
So what's an easy way to build one's name/brand recognition while all the headlines are about Tom Brady and Russell Wilson? Threaten a hold out. Sure, some fans will be upset about it, but as soon as the season starts, and the player gets that first sack or big hit, all is forgiven and forgotten.
And the player? Their name is now recognizable to thousands more fans in other venues who had never heard of them before.
So if I'm a fairly well known player on a Superbowl winning team and I want to build my brand recognition, I will do anything to get it out there. Knowing that as soon as the season starts, all those negative feelings will be forgotten.
What proof do I have that this may in fact be the case? None. But look at the trouble Vernon Davis went to in order to keep his name relevant. He was selling "shares" in his name.
http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/10816 ... -next-week
I'm sure many of you will see this as far-fetched, but I refer you back to my original question: "What good is it to threaten a hold out when there's zero chance of it being successful?"
There's some kind of strategy there, the question is, what kind?
Using Kam and Michael Bennett as examples, it's obvious that Russell and BWagz are priorities, and that once those 2 contracts are signed, there won't be any money left over for Kam and MB. So what's the upside?
There's a saying out there that celebrities have, "there's no such thing as bad publicity."
So what's one way that celebrities make money? Name or brand recognition. They can use that to land lucrative advertising deals.
So what's an easy way to build one's name/brand recognition while all the headlines are about Tom Brady and Russell Wilson? Threaten a hold out. Sure, some fans will be upset about it, but as soon as the season starts, and the player gets that first sack or big hit, all is forgiven and forgotten.
And the player? Their name is now recognizable to thousands more fans in other venues who had never heard of them before.
So if I'm a fairly well known player on a Superbowl winning team and I want to build my brand recognition, I will do anything to get it out there. Knowing that as soon as the season starts, all those negative feelings will be forgotten.
What proof do I have that this may in fact be the case? None. But look at the trouble Vernon Davis went to in order to keep his name relevant. He was selling "shares" in his name.
http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/10816 ... -next-week
I'm sure many of you will see this as far-fetched, but I refer you back to my original question: "What good is it to threaten a hold out when there's zero chance of it being successful?"
There's some kind of strategy there, the question is, what kind?