Nationals to Sign Edwin jackson

[mvp 78]

The Nationals are both a big market team and a big spender.

 

I totally agree.

[iortiz]

I totally agree.

 

Maybe just stick with saying "I totally agree" to UN? posts.

[Laser Show]

Lannan would be a serviceable #5 in Boston, better than any we've had these past few years. His numbers aren't much different than Jackson, and he's cost controlled.

 

If he's on the cheap, how could you be against it?

[mvp 78]

Maybe just stick with saying "I totally agree" to UN? posts.

 

Uh, that was on purpose.

[User Name]

Maybe just stick with saying "I totally agree" to UN? posts.

 

This would work if it wasn't the other way around.

 

I'm the one who always agrees with MVP-boo.

[iortiz]

This would work if it wasn't the other way around.

 

I'm the one who always agrees with MVP-boo.

 

Chevere.

[a700hitter]

The problem is that Washington is in search of a market. They have never been able to get a following. That's why franchises in DC keep failing. Baltimore is very close geographically and those markets overlap. The O's have stunk for several years, and that should have helped the Nats get a foothold in the market, but it hasn't. Every season they finish 13th or 14th out of 16 in attendance. Last year they played .500 ball and they had a lot of exciting players and they were still 14th out of 16. If fans don't come to watch you play and you are getting screwed over on your local TV and radio contracts, you are a small market team. They are putting on a big push to improve, and maybe they take away some O's fans this season if the O's continue to stink, but if they finish 14th in attendance again that will not be a good sign.

[a700hitter]

Lannan would be a serviceable #5 in Boston, better than any we've had these past few years. His numbers aren't much different than Jackson, and he's cost controlled.

 

If he's on the cheap, how could you be against it?

I'd rather get Jamie Moyer out of retirement. Lannan would have a John lackey- type ERA in the ALE. He brings a salary of $5 million plus we would have to give up talent for him. Oswalt is in a diferent universe altogether-- well worth double of this guy. On Lannan, we'd be throwing away money and prospects. I'm not against trading prospects, but not for this type of player.

[User Name]

The problem is that Washington is in search of a market. They have never been able to get a following. That's why franchises in DC keep failing. Baltimore is very close geographically and those markets overlap. The O's have stunk for several years' date=' and that should have helped the Nats get a foothold in the market, but it hasn't. Every season they finish 13th or 14th out of 16 in attendance. Last year they played .500 ball and they had a lot of exciting players and they were still 14th out of 16. If fans don't come to watch you play and you are getting screwed over on your local TV and radio contracts, you are a small market team. They are putting on a big push to improve, and maybe they take away some O's fans this season if the O's continue to stink, but if they finish 14th in attendance again that will not be a good sign.[/quote']

 

The definition of "Big Market" and "Small Market" is defined by two things:

 

1) Your actual market (Nationals are top-10).

 

2) How much money you spend, and the Nationals have Phillie-type money to spend.

 

They have become a big-market team.

[Palodios]

The problem is that Washington is in search of a market. They have never been able to get a following. That's why franchises in DC keep failing. Baltimore is very close geographically and those markets overlap. The O's have stunk for several years' date=' and that should have helped the Nats get a foothold in the market, but it hasn't. Every season they finish 13th or 14th out of 16 in attendance. Last year they played .500 ball and they had a lot of exciting players and they were still 14th out of 16. If fans don't come to watch you play and you are getting screwed over on your local TV and radio contracts, you are a small market team. They are putting on a big push to improve, and maybe they take away some O's fans this season if the O's continue to stink, but if they finish 14th in attendance again that will not be a good sign.[/quote']

 

You bring up some very good points. I would argue that the one thing that the Nationals has lacked over the last few years is superstar presence. For Strasburg games, their attendence doubled. They tried to get a quality player in Jayson Werth, but that didn't turn out well. The moves they made this offseason has given them an incredibly good team... but Bryce Harper is the guy who will sell tickets.

[iortiz]

The problem is that Washington is in search of a market. They have never been able to get a following. That's why franchises in DC keep failing. Baltimore is very close geographically and those markets overlap. The O's have stunk for several years' date=' and that should have helped the Nats get a foothold in the market, but it hasn't. Every season they finish 13th or 14th out of 16 in attendance. Last year they played .500 ball and they had a lot of exciting players and they were still 14th out of 16. If fans don't come to watch you play and you are getting screwed over on your local TV and radio contracts, you are a small market team. They are putting on a big push to improve, and maybe they take away some O's fans this season if the O's continue to stink, but if they finish 14th in attendance again that will not be a good sign.[/quote']

 

Interesting what you are saying.

 

I found out this article.

 

 

Time for Nats to market winning baseball

 

THURSDAY, JANUARY 5, 2012

 

The Nationals have highly recognizable players who should bring fans to the park.

You don't have to be an avid sports fan to know that the state of athletics in Washington right now absolutely stinks.

 

The Redskins just wrapped up another lousy season -- did you know they've averaged a pathetic 6.8 wins over the last 20 years?! -- and don't appear on the verge of a major turnaround anytime soon. The Capitals had high hopes a couple of months ago but have already fired their coach and until a recent four-game winning streak ranked 11th in the 15-team Eastern Conference. And the Wizards ... well, the lockout could never have ended and their win total would remain the same.

 

Ah, but there is one glimmer of hope amid this vast wasteland of sporting ineptitude. Yes, your Washington Nationals stand poised to take this town by storm in 2012 with a legitimate shot at success that heretofore was not within the realm of reason.

 

The question is: Does anyone outside of the Nationals' loyal fan base realize it?

 

You get the sense most don't. All the chatter around town right now focuses on the Redskins, Caps and Wizards. Now, obviously there's going to be more attention given to teams that are in-season or just finished their season. But that doesn't mean the Nationals can't try to squeeze their way into the conversation.

 

And not by touting racing presidents or ballpark bars or community outreach. That stuff is nice and all and perhaps helps bring some more casual fans to South Capitol Street. But none of that attracts folks as much as a winning ballclub does.

 

Anytime Stan Kasten was asked about low attendance figures, the former club president used to say: "We'll get the attendance we deserve." In other words: Once we start winning, they'll show up.

 

Kasten is right about that. You can have the nicest ballpark in the world and offer as many promotions and distractions as you like. You still won't draw as many fans as you would if your team was winning on a regular basis.

 

But it doesn't hurt to sell the public on the idea that your franchise is ready to win at last, instead of simply waiting for it to actually happen.

 

Plain and simple, it's time for the Nationals to start marketing the baseball being played inside their ballpark, not the carnival sideshow.

 

How do you do that? Start by embracing the fact you've got several highly recognizable stars on your roster in Stephen Strasburg, Ryan Zimmerman, Jayson Werth and (soon enough) Bryce Harper. Then start touting the other core, young players who diehard fans already know but the general masses do not. Jordan Zimmermann. Gio Gonzalez. Michael Morse. Wilson Ramos. Danny Espinosa. Drew Storen.

 

Those guys' faces should be plastered all over the District right now, on buses and Metro platforms, on television and radio and in print and online.

 

Yes, it's only the first week of January, Opening Day remains three months away and single-game tickets won't go on sale for quite some time. But now is the time to start getting the public acquainted with the roster of talented players who are going to attempt to produce the first winning season by a Washington baseball club since 1969 (not to mention the first postseason appearance since 1933).

 

The dead of winter is a perfect time to sell baseball. As the temperatures start plummeting around town and everyone bundles up for the dreariness that awaits us, what better image to tout than a sun-splashed ballfield and the crack of the bat? It warms the heart just to think about such a scene.

 

This Nationals organization has never been particularly adept at marketing itself. It always seems to be a day late and selling the wrong message. Why stage a fan fest on a weekday afternoon right before Opening Day when fans are already geared up for baseball, as opposed to an otherwise dead weekend in January when you have the opportunity to get people excited well in advance of the first pitch ever being thrown?

 

Make no mistake, a golden opportunity is presenting itself to the Nationals right now. Just as the rest of the local sports scene wallows in failure, the best assemblage of baseball talent this town has seen in at least four decades is gearing up for a potential breakthrough season.

 

Hardcore Nats fans already know this. It's time for the rest of Washington to find out as well.

[User Name]

They can still spend like drunken sailors though. If you have the ability to spend and a large potential fanbase, you are essentially a big-market team by operational standards.

[SoxSport]

Who gives a s*** about globally. In the US' date=' Boston is 7th largest tv market, DC is 8th.[/quote']

 

 

Boston #7? That bad? The Red Sox do pretty well in media attention considering market size. The other Boston teams--not so well.

[SoxSport]

Interesting what you are saying.

 

I found out this article.

 

Pretty easy to do well in Baseball--just spend a lot of money on FAs.

 

There are others ways to do well, too, but it's much harder.

[a700hitter]

You bring up some very good points. I would argue that the one thing that the Nationals has lacked over the last few years is superstar presence. For Strasburg games' date=' their attendence doubled. They tried to get a quality player in Jayson Werth, but that didn't turn out well. The moves they made this offseason has given them an incredibly good team... but Bryce Harper is the guy who will sell tickets.[/quote']If they can't build a strong following that translates to attendance in the next few seasons they will be in some trouble. A resurgence by the O's would be a very bad thing for the Nats, but I don't see that happening for a while.

[User Name]

Boston #7? That bad? The Red Sox do pretty well in media attention considering market size. The other Boston teams--not so well.

 

Patriots?

[iortiz]

According with wiki "In the terminology of professional sports in North America, teams are often said to be based not in a city but in a media market. The size of the media market is usually a good indication of the potential viability of a major league team"

 

The Washington Nationals' global media market is not as big as big media market teams like Boston or NY. Not even close.

[SoxSport]

According with wiki "In the terminology of professional sports in North America' date='[u'] teams are often said to be based not in a city but in a media market[/u]. The size of the media market is usually a good indication of the potential viability of a major league team"

 

The Washington Nationals' global market media is not as big as big market media teams like Boston or NY. Not even close.

 

media market = TV market. It's all about TV. What they charge for TV advertising depends on the size of the market. NY is the highest. That's why the NY teams get on network TV all the time.

[iortiz]

media market = TV market. It's all about TV. What they charge for TV advertising depends on the size of the market. NY is the highest. That's why the NY teams get on network TV all the time.

 

yup, and mostly globally. Do you really think that foreign broadcasters are interested in transmit The Washington National games? In DC, they do not even care about their team according with the article. The Nats are not even attractive for their local audience. Said that, I wouldn't grade the Nats as a big market team.

[a700hitter]

media market = TV market. It's all about TV. What they charge for TV advertising depends on the size of the market. NY is the highest. That's why the NY teams get on network TV all the time.

The O's screwed them over with regard to TV rights. They have been in litigation about it.

[User Name]

According with wiki "In the terminology of professional sports in North America' date='[u'] teams are often said to be based not in a city but in a media market[/u]. The size of the media market is usually a good indication of the potential viability of a major league team"

 

The Washington Nationals' global media market is not as big as big media market teams like Boston or NY. Not even close.

 

So? That is not conclusive evidence that they are a small market team. They operate from the nation's capital, in one of the biggest metropolitan areas.

[iortiz]

So? That is not conclusive evidence that they are a small market team. They operate from the nation's capital' date=' in one of the biggest metropolitan areas.[/b']

 

So? Nobody give a s*** about them even in their own market.

[Laser Show]

Boston #7? That bad? The Red Sox do pretty well in media attention considering market size. The other Boston teams--not so well.

 

The Patriots and Celtics are disliked nationally, that is usually a sign of success.

[User Name]

So? Nobody give a s*** about them even in their own market.

 

That doesn't mean s*** if they have money to spend, which they do.

 

As they spend that money, then viewership will follow.

 

Ask the Texas Rangers. Or the Phillies. Or the Brewers (even though they're mid-market).

 

Or were the Rangers small market when they didn't win and people didn't care that much about them?

[a700hitter]

People who think that D.C. Is a big market because it is a big city and big Metropolitan area doesn't know or understand D.C. If Elk comes on here later he can speak more authoritatively about them. There is a reason why several baseball franchise have failed in DC. It is not a big sports town. There aren't enough interested sports fans in the city to support a team for 81 games in a 45,000 seat stadium. The suburban fans don't go to the games because traffic around that area maybe some of the worst traffic in the country.

[iortiz]

That doesn't mean s*** if they have money to spend, which they do.

 

As they spend that money, then viewership will follow.

 

Ask the Texas Rangers. Or the Phillies. Or the Brewers (even though they're mid-market).

 

Or were the Rangers small market when they didn't win and people didn't care that much about them?

 

Are you suggesting that the Washington Nationals is a bigger market team than TEX/PHilli? Really? you are confused with the term dude. Take a look at the definition.

 

Nobody is disputing whether they have money to spend or not. They are not a big market team according with the definition. They are not a big media market team. Nobody gives a s*** about the Washington Nationals; DC/US/Global. Their fan base is limited, even in their hometown. Buy advertising in a Nats game is not attractive since nobody follows them, Hence the broadcasters do not compensate them as they do with NY/BOs or even Philli or Tex. Hence, their media market is limited in both domestic and foreign. Hence they are not a big market team. It is conclusive.

[User Name]

Are you suggesting that the Washington Nationals is a bigger market team than TEX/PHilli? Really? you are confused with the term dude. Take a look at the definition.

 

Nobody is disputing whether they have money to spend or not. They are not a big market team according with the definition. They are not a big media market team. Nobody gives a s*** about the Washington Nationals; DC/US/Global. Their fan base is limited, even in their hometown. Buy advertising in a Nats game is not attractive since nobody follows them, Hence the broadcasters do not compensate them as they do with NY/BOs or even Philli or Tex. Hence, their media market is limited in both domestic and foreign. Hence they are not a big market team. It is conclusive.

 

You seem to have a problem with reading comprehension. Not meant as an insult btw.

 

I never said they were as big or a bigger market than Tex or Phi. Can you quote me on that?

 

What i said was that they're a similar market that's in a similar situation to what Tex/Phi were a couple of years back.

 

They play in a big market (indisputable), have a lot of money to spend (indisputable), but are not drawing a lot of fans or big TV ratings. The point was that as the team becomes more competitive they will draw more fans and TV ratings. That's how it evolves.

 

However, calling a team with as much money and that plays in the nation's capital "Small market" is just silly.

[iortiz]

People who think that D.C. Is a big market because it is a big city and big Metropolitan area doesn't know or understand D.C. If Elk comes on here later he can speak more authoritatively about them. There is a reason why several baseball franchise have failed in DC. It is not a big sports town. There aren't enough interested sports fans in the city to support a team for 81 games in a 45' date='000 seat stadium. The suburban fans don't go to the games because traffic around that area maybe some of the worst traffic in the country.[/quote']

 

The things in Mexico are quite different. The biggest proffesional sport market teams are in Mexico City.

 

I bet that the biggest market teams in US are in NY LA and MA.

[a700hitter]

h

Are you suggesting that the Washington Nationals is a bigger market team than TEX/PHilli? Really? you are confused with the term dude. Take a look at the definition.

 

Nobody is disputing whether they have money to spend or not. They are not a big market team according with the definition. They are not a big media market team. Nobody gives a s*** about the Washington Nationals; DC/US/Global. Their fan base is limited, even in their hometown. Buy advertising in a Nats game is not attractive since nobody follows them, Hence the broadcasters do not compensate them as they do with NY/BOs or even Philli or Tex. Hence, their media market is limited in both domestic and foreign. Hence they are not a big market team. It is conclusive.

Miami spent a lot of money too and they are not big market either.

[iortiz]

You seem to have a problem with reading comprehension. Not meant as an insult btw.

 

I never said they were as big or a bigger market than Tex or Phi. Can you quote me on that?

 

What i said was that they're a similar market that's in a similar situation to what Tex/Phi were a couple of years back.

 

They play in a big market (indisputable), have a lot of money to spend (indisputable), but are not drawing a lot of fans or big TV ratings. The point was that as the team becomes more competitive they will draw more fans and TV ratings. That's how it evolves.

 

However, calling a team with as much money and that plays in the nation's capital "Small market" is just silly.

 

It doesn't matter where you play. It doesn't matter if you have money. if nobody follows you, theres no way you have a big media market. Hence you are not a big market team. As simple as that.

 

I have no problem with my reading comp. Maybe you have wit yours (no offense) .Take a look at the definition.