Featured Big Baller Brand Thread- Lonzo Ball's first sneaker the ZO2! UNDEFEATED NEVA LOSST!!

Discussion in 'Other Brands' started by evansst, May 4, 2017.

  1. wuchi01

    wuchi01

    3,326
    1,597
    Joined
    May 30, 2016
  2. joeoh29

    joeoh29

    5,882
    2,478
    Joined
    Feb 2, 2014
    my dad told me to cop all 3 pairs today.. he said IF and IF Ball is this new generations "kobe" "MJ" "you-name-it" these shoes will triple in value... if not, well that's the risk you take...

    I'm shook..pops got me thinking now.....
     
  3. Lakers

    Lakers

    10,704
    5,569
    Joined
    Apr 17, 2013
    It's more of a message, so far he's worn: Kobes, Hardens, Currys, Jordans...all "brands", not a coincidence at all that he's rotating signature shoes, I'd say they're actively shopping BBB around to UA, Nike, etc...just no one is willing to pay their price. I might have to cop some BBB's soon
     
  4. dragicon

    dragicon

    10,373
    3,876
    Joined
    Jul 13, 2013
    Just imagine how much those original Grant Hill Filas could be worth now
     
    airdavid13 likes this.
  5. kaz109

    kaz109

    562
    79
    Joined
    Jan 21, 2015
    He has never worn Jordan's....at least not while in college or in summer league. And yes this is a marketing message, he has had a triple double wearing Z02, and the harden LS and had his highest scoring output in Nike kobe AD. He has proved he can ball in any shoe brand and he has single handedly sold out pointless summer league games proving he has a following and is worth much more than their normal rookie shoe deal.



    If any brand does a co-branding deal with BBB it would be a win win. I believe ppl would buy BBB with Nike backing them and it would always bring production cost down. They could make a hoop shoe with a a swoosh and they make a premium shoe( luxury/lifestyle) shoe using the BBB image. They both would sell because they would be selling to two different markets.
     
  6. kaz109

    kaz109

    562
    79
    Joined
    Jan 21, 2015
    I took the gamble by ordering the original colorway that is no longer available. I think ordering the red and the blue colorway a couple days ago. It is a big gamble but I believe it will pay off. If he ends up the face of the new generation and never gets a major shoe endorsement these original Z02's will be worth much more because its the first of its kind and it has a story behind it.

    If he ends up getting a major endorsement deal then this shoe will be will be worth something because if the history of it. Either way I think it will be something of hot topic in the years to come. Just have to play the waiting game
     
  7. Lakers

    Lakers

    10,704
    5,569
    Joined
    Apr 17, 2013

    He wore 31 lows tonight. Some guy at the gym I play bball at said it best, "look at the name, "Big Baller Brand", if you're a big baller, you got the $$$ for these"

    But both parties (Nike/BBB) could benefit from some kind of partnership. Look how much buzz his on-court shoes has gotten for no other reason than having $500 shoes with no major brand.
     

    Attached Files:

  8. ewingfan206

    ewingfan206 New Users

    4
    11
    Joined
    Jul 13, 2017
    Facts! Fayva and Payless had Hakeem Spaldings back in the day. Trust me I was trying to steer away from them when I was young with mom dukes and grandma. 1st time I got my 1st pair of Nike after begging and pleading, ended up getting my Cb34.
     
  9. kaz109

    kaz109

    562
    79
    Joined
    Jan 21, 2015
    My bad, did not know he played today. And yes I believe that was part of the marketing plan pricing them so high. Had it been a regular $110-150 shoe it would never have even been talked about
     
  10. rfx45

    rfx45

    39,370
    10,523
    Joined
    Dec 14, 2004


    I think they might have changed their mind :lol: it's not marketing, it's a bidding war but is he still insists on being a partner, I don't think they're going to get any offers like before

    but by Lavars logic, he would sign another player to BBB and let them wear another brand? he'd pay another player without restrictions to wear whatever he wants on the court? isn't this what he is saying? he wants other players to sign somewhere and be free to wear whatever they want?
     
  11. trueprada

    trueprada

    20,773
    7,066
    Joined
    May 2, 2012
     
  12. kaz109

    kaz109

    562
    79
    Joined
    Jan 21, 2015
    I don't believe that is what he is saying. BBB is Lonzo 's brand so since he owns it he has the right to wear other brands, He's not just signed to BBB.

    Lavar can't sign " another " player to the brand because he hasn't even signed a first player to the brand. If he does sign somebody then they would wear BBB exclusively just like any other endorsement deal.
     
  13. rfx45

    rfx45

    39,370
    10,523
    Joined
    Dec 14, 2004
    No, he clearly says it is what other players wants but can't do it (wear other brands) while with BBB they have that freedom. He has also been saying in other interviews that brands should be scared because they started something that will be copied by future players.



    This doesn't really make sense, so because there is no one signed to the brand means he can't sign anyone? That means he can't ever sign anyone if he can't sign his first one so he'll never be able to sign anyone lol


    And if they do sign somebody and then make them wear BBB exclusively then what he is saying that BBB is about freedom and that they can wear what they want makes no sense. He never said Lonzo can wear what he wants because he owns BBB, he said "at BBB" they can wear what they want.

    According to Lavar:



    Lonzo himself said it too, "at BBB":

    Here's another quote from Lavar about having an "open mind":

     
  14. kaz109

    kaz109

    562
    79
    Joined
    Jan 21, 2015
    You are missinturpurting what he is saying /meaning completely.

    To the first part of your post.....

    It is what other players what but can't do.....meaning they can't wewr what ever they want because they are tired down to a contract to a certain brand. Lonzo is not, he has his own brand and not forced to wear only one brand.

    Second part of your post, ....I did not say he csnt sign anyone to the brand I said he can't sign another person because he doesn't have a first person signed. You get what I'm saying? You can't say another if you don't have a first, another means there is already one.

    The last part of your post,.....Again you aren't realizing when he says " at BBB" he is talking about his family and not potential endorsers. He is says we ( out family ) wear what we want because we are independent and aren't forced to wear anything. They are not being paid by BBB to wear it where as if they sign someone they will be paid to wear the brand . There is a difference between owning a brand and being paid to wear a brand.

    Jordan could wear Adidas if he wanted to because he owns jordan but that doesn't mean Westbrook could do the same...why? Because he is being PAID to wear Jordan brand.

    Can't think of any other way to explain it.


    When he said they started something other players will try and copy he is talking bout started their own brand and not just signing with a major brand. He is telling about other players trying to be independent like Lonzo was coming into the league.
     
  15. rfx45

    rfx45

    39,370
    10,523
    Joined
    Dec 14, 2004
    I get what you're saying, what you're saying just makes no sense.

    Saying he can't sign anyone because he doesn't have the first person yet makes no sense, he has to sign someone to have that first person, obviously. Your statement makes absolutely zero sense.

    To me, it seems you are blinded by defending this brand that you completely lost any ability to understand what they are saying or what is being written, hence the "he can't sign anyone because he hasn't signed anyone" statement. I don't know, maybe because you bought the shoes and you are looking for any excuses on why you bought them? I am not getting at you but you really got to see what Lavar is doing and saying, hell Lonzo himself said it's to incite a bidding war for gods sake lol you can't even deny that statement versus it's about "freedom" lmao

    But anyways, saying "at BBB" means being part of BBB, he didn't say "this is my shoes, my company so I wear what I want" but at the end of the day, it also makes little sense to wear other brands over yours if you want your brand to succeed. You are pretty much saying your brand isn't as good so you'd wear something else and it doesn't help that his better games coincided with him playing spectacularly.

    And Lavar blatantly talking about freedom and being at BBB lets you wear what you want is just a bad look and if his brand does get big enough that he signs someone, then they'd expect to be allowed to wear another brand because he is promoting freedom to wear what you like. it is supported by claiming other players wish they could do the same. It's really as simple as that, not much layers to peel through there.
     
  16. kaz109

    kaz109

    562
    79
    Joined
    Jan 21, 2015
    Lol, dude I will say it one more time since you still did not read what I typed, I NEVER stated he COULD NOT sign anyone.....I said YOUR statement of " sign another player" was inaccurate because he had not signed a first player. .....I was correcting YOUR statement when you used the word " another" . When and if BBB signs it's first endorser then you can say another. Until they they have to sign the first one.....do you get it?
     
  17. rfx45

    rfx45

    39,370
    10,523
    Joined
    Dec 14, 2004
    wow, really? lol

    technically "another" is appropriate since Lonzo wears the shoes, even if he isn't technically "signed" he is that first player for BBB so if they signed someone it'll be "another"

    but I ain't going to play semantics with you
     
  18. kaz109

    kaz109

    562
    79
    Joined
    Jan 21, 2015
    The last part of your statement,....no not many layers but it sure can be interpreted in different ways and that is where you and I part ways.

    He is talking about freedom as being an independent. When you sign you are working for somebody.

    When you work for a company can you take a 3hr lunch like the CEO of the company can?? No you can't, it's really as simple as that.


    I will agree with you that if you are building your own brand it is all you should wear but I understand statement he is trying to make.

    Also it is a bidding war but I am willing to bet they are going to try and get the same deal they wanted when first coming into the league, a co-branding deal. They are showing the companies they following they have and that he can play in any brand.

    I could see LaVar doing a co-branding deal for x amount of years then going back independent.
     
  19. kaz109

    kaz109

    562
    79
    Joined
    Jan 21, 2015
    It's not semantics it's called a busniss contract and it seems that is what you are not understanding lol.....he wears them because he owns them not because he is under a busniss contract to wear them.

    Actually signing a player to a busniss contract is a different set of rules. So no it is not semantics it's busniss
     
  20. rfx45

    rfx45

    39,370
    10,523
    Joined
    Dec 14, 2004
    I understand what he is saying with "freedom" but again if it's on his brand and has a player signed, he wouldn't be preaching that freedom.

    It's only right that if you sign with Nike, Adidas, UA, etc... that you wear that shoe on court and nothing else. And I do think NBA players can wear whatever they want off the court, it's just that other players are loyal and stick to the brands even off the court.

    As for semantics, it is semantics, it means in some "logical" form and you knew exactly what I was saying but you chose to find something wrong with what I wrote to defend BBB completely ignoring logic. Lets not play now, you knew exactly what I meant but since it is BBB getting grilled you went into defense mode right away lol

    And stop acting like you're the only one who knows business, everything you've said or tried to explain is general knowledge but it is knowledge that Lavar doesn't seem to understand himself or adhere to. Again, if he owned Nike, he wouldn't be preaching freedom at all.