Nationals to Sign Edwin jackson

[iortiz]

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

 

Exactly.

Hell, Get a fan base is not easy (media market). It takes a lot of time and championships. It is not Nats' position at all even they improved their team the last couple of seasons.

[User Name]

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.

 

This makes no sense.

 

First off "Big" and "Small" market are not only defined by TV ratings, but also by the amount of money the team can spend and how many people walk through the gate, as welll as the revenue they move.

 

Second, the bigger and more populated the place you play at, the more likely you are to have a big fan base. The entire upper echelon of high-rating, high-spending teams is comprised of teams that play in cities with dense populations. You couldn't be more wrong if you tried.

 

Third, what you spend does matter, and it matters a lot. You can't be a big-market team if you don't spend.

 

You are confusing popularity with market size.

 

Btw, i know the definition. Which is why i'm making this point.

[mvp 78]

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']

To your "franchises keep failing in DC" point: when was the last time a professional team in DC failed and left town? Capitals - good franchise. Redskins - good franchise/bad owner. Wizards/Bullets - bad franchise but not because of a lack of fans and they aren't leaving town anytime soon.

[User Name]

According to Baseball Almanac, the Nationals play in the fourth biggest sports market in the nation. Just an FYI.

 

http://www.baseball-almanac.com/articles/baseball_markets.shtml

 

They also have the average market size at 5,293,083, and the Nationals at 7,608,070.

 

Small market?

[iortiz]

This makes no sense.

 

First off "Big" and "Small" market are not only defined by TV ratings, but also by the amount of money the team can spend and how many people walk through the gate, as welll as the revenue they move.

 

Again, Look at the definition.

Second, the bigger and more populated the place you play at, the more likely you are to have a big fan base. The entire upper echelon of high-rating, high-spending teams is comprised of teams that play in cities with dense populations. You couldn't be more wrong if you tried.

Its not the case with the Nats. Nobody follows them.

 

Third, what you spend does matter, and it matters a lot. You can't be a big-market team if you don't spend.

 

You are confusing popularity with market size.

 

Btw, i know the definition. Which is why i'm making this point.

 

 

Look at Marlins, Steelers and Clippers cases among others and probably you find the answers.

[User Name]

Again' date=' Look at the definition. [/quote']

 

What definition? The one you arbitrarily chose. No thanks.

 

Its not the case with the Nats

 

It is, look at the post above. They play in a densely populated market.

 

 

Look at Marlins, Steelers and Clippers cases among others and probably you find the answers.

 

The Marlins were small-market because of an inability to spend.

 

And really? The Washington Redskins are THE SECOND MOST VALUABLE TEAM IN THE NFL, coming in at 1.55 B. You know why? Because of the market they play in.

[iortiz]

What definition? The one you arbitrarily chose. No thanks.

 

Share yours and source, and probably we can enrich the discussion.

 

It is, look at the post above. They play in a densely populated market.

 

 

Again, No body follows them.

The Marlins were small-market because of an inability to spend.

 

And really? The Washington Redskins are THE SECOND MOST VALUABLE TEAM IN THE NFL, coming in at 1.55 B. You know why? Because of the market they play in.

My skins? Even in Mexico they have huge fan base. Please do not compare my skins with the f***ing Nats.

[User Name]

 

Share yours and source, and probably we can enrich the discussion.

 

I already posted my classification of market above. It is defined by the population density of the city and the team's spending power.

 

Per baseball Almanac, Washington is the fourth highest per CSMA statistics, and the 8th biggest TV Market in the country.

 

Their spending power is well-publicized. They could easily sustain a 120-million plus payroll.

 

Again, No body follows them.

 

My skins? Even in Mexico they have huge fan base. Please do not compare my skins with the f***ing Nats.

 

They play in the same market. The size of the market, along with the spending power define the market nomenclature. I am correctly comparing them.

 

You also dismissed my example of Texas and Phillie with the Nationals, which i find to be dishonest. They were exactly in the same situation Washington is now a couple years ago: Big population, big market, not an upper-echelon following. They start winning, and boom!.

 

That is how it works.

[a700hitter]

To your "franchises keep failing in DC" point: when was the last time a professional team in DC failed and left town? Capitals - good franchise. Redskins - good franchise/bad owner. Wizards/Bullets - bad franchise but not because of a lack of fans and they aren't leaving town anytime soon.

I was referring to baseball franchises. Supporting a team for 81 games in a 45,000 seat stadium is much different than 8 Sundays or in the case of basketball- only an 18,000 seat arena. It apples and oranges.

[iortiz]

I already posted my classification of market above. It is defined by the population density of the city and the team's spending power.

 

Per baseball Almanac, Washington is the fourth highest per CSMA statistics, and the 8th biggest TV Market in the country.

 

Their spending power is well-publicized. They could easily sustain a 120-million plus payroll.

 

 

 

They play in the same market. The size of the market, along with the spending power define the market nomenclature. I am correctly comparing them.

 

You also dismissed my example of Texas and Phillie with the Nationals, which i find to be dishonest. They were exactly in the same situation Washington is now a couple years ago: Big population, big market, not an upper-echelon following. They start winning, and boom!.

 

That is how it works.

 

Yes DC is a big market place in the US (8?.. not even in the top 3? but interesting). They play in the same market but they definitely do not have the same fan-base in their own hometown/US or around the world. Hence, their media market is abysmal local/US/Around the world. Also, DC is nothing if you take a global perspective. Only a handful are big/global market teams in professional sports around the world. (Real Madrid, Barcelona, Dallas Cowboys, Yankees, Manchester Utd. Lakers, etc.). The Nats are not in that category, not even close. The population/density that these teams cover is worldwide (worldwide media market). The Natas are not in that category, not even close. The Nats are not a big market team. First, They have to win loyalty in their own hometown. In order to do that, they have to win championships since they are young franchise. It is going to take time.

 

Let me put this in perspective.

 

Soccer.

 

El Atletico de Madrid plays in the most important spain market (Madrid), they have a lot of money but they are not a global/big market team, not even close. On the other hand, look at El Real Madrid, they are definitely a global/big market team. Between them, theres an abysm. They are not in the same category. The same applies for Nats/Skins.

 

Football.

 

Steelers do not play in a big market city like DC but they are a global market team. They have a huge fan-base world wide (hence world wide media market).

 

Basket.

 

Clippers play in the same city/stadium where Lakers play and they are not even close to be a global market team.

 

Base.

 

Marlins already spent a lot of money. Nobody follow them in FLorida. They are trying to gain loyalty, first, in their hometown. Going to take time.

 

ETc...

 

BTW I asked for the definition of a market team, no big market city. Still no source.

[mvp 78]

Per iOrtiz, the NY Rangers aren't a big market team.

 

Globally, I doubt anyone gives two shits about the Mets. Still a big market team.

 

Enjoy your bizzaro definition of market size.

[iortiz]

Per iOrtiz' date=' the NY Rangers aren't a big market team. [/quote']

 

so?

 

Globally, I doubt anyone gives two shits about the Mets

 

Agree, so?

 

Still a big market team.

 

Probably in NY and arguably in US.

 

Enjoy your bizzaro definition of market size.

 

Its not my definition. It is the definition. Read it. I already posted it

[mvp 78]

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.

 

Keep throwing "globally in there even though it's neither mentionned nor inferred in the definition you provided.

[iortiz]

Keep throwing "globally in there even though it's neither mentionned nor inferred in the definition you provided.

 

I used the global term in order to give it a larger perspective. World wide media market. Whats the problem with that?

[example1]

This is an unbelievably stupid discussion. Everyone in the US apparently knows the DC area is a big media market. It is a big market in football, is a big market by population standards, and the owners have a lot of money. A700 is absolutely right that DC franchises have failed in the past. This franchise is trying to take a different approach, undoubtedly.

 

But all of that aside, the argument started over shock that the Nationals signed Edwin Jackson to a one year deal, because they weren't a large market team. Even if we admit that they aren't a large market team (they are, but it isn't worth arguing anymore) they aren't a SMALL market team by any stretch... and regardless of market size, they have an owner who is willing to spend right now. I don't see why there is even any discussion to be had about this right now.

 

Why does the owner want to spend? Well, as was mentioned, there is potentially a market. The Orioles share the market and they are constantly pathetic. There is a lot of potential for natural rivals with the Mets and the Phillies in easy driving distance. And, most importantly, the Nationals truly think they have the next generational talent on BOTH sides of the ball. Stephen Strasburg was increasing attendence on the road during his rookie campaign. If he is healthy then he could truly be something special.

 

Remember the gushing about Michael Pineda? Strasburg laughs at that. He has the potential to laugh at Felix Hernandez. He's that good.

 

Bryce Harper is also billed as one of the more exciting players on the other side of the ball, especially considering his age. He's a stud and has HOF caliber ceiling.

 

THAT'S what the ownership thinks it is building around. Edwin Jackson is just a tiny, tiny piece of a much larger puzzle.

[SoxSport]

Market size refers to TV market size--not fan base. Big TV markets like NY and LA have the advantage in spending because they have higher TV revenues. Bringing fans in the park is important, too, but TV brings in more revenues. ESPN, for example, gets $4 per month per cable subscriber--whether you view it or not. It's part of the cable package. That's why they're rich.

 

Mark Cuban pulled out of the LA Dodger bidding because he saw that he was really buying the TV rights, and not the ball club. It was too expensive, and the appreciation due to media was already built in.

You take the TV revenue away from these teams, and their value collapses.

[a700hitter]

This is an unbelievably stupid discussion. Everyone in the US apparently knows the DC area is a big media market. It is a big market in football, is a big market by population standards, and the owners have a lot of money. A700 is absolutely right that DC franchises have failed in the past. This franchise is trying to take a different approach, undoubtedly.

 

But all of that aside, the argument started over shock that the Nationals signed Edwin Jackson to a one year deal, because they weren't a large market team. Even if we admit that they aren't a large market team (they are, but it isn't worth arguing anymore) they aren't a SMALL market team by any stretch... and regardless of market size, they have an owner who is willing to spend right now. I don't see why there is even any discussion to be had about this right now.

 

Why does the owner want to spend? Well, as was mentioned, there is potentially a market. The Orioles share the market and they are constantly pathetic. There is a lot of potential for natural rivals with the Mets and the Phillies in easy driving distance. And, most importantly, the Nationals truly think they have the next generational talent on BOTH sides of the ball. Stephen Strasburg was increasing attendence on the road during his rookie campaign. If he is healthy then he could truly be something special.

 

Remember the gushing about Michael Pineda? Strasburg laughs at that. He has the potential to laugh at Felix Hernandez. He's that good.

 

Bryce Harper is also billed as one of the more exciting players on the other side of the ball, especially considering his age. He's a stud and has HOF caliber ceiling.

 

THAT'S what the ownership thinks it is building around. Edwin Jackson is just a tiny, tiny piece of a much larger puzzle.

The Nats have a few problems. First, the have not built any sort of following. Maybe the talented players and winning will help, but curiously, in their best season 2011, they still finished 14th out of 16 in attendance. Only the Marlins and Pittsburgh were behind them.

 

Next, is the problem that they have with their TV rights. They have a huge problem with the O's in this regard. If people don't watch them, it will be very hard for them to build a following.

 

The traffic situation in that area is horrendous. Suburban dwellers don't go to the games. They are the people with money and families who would traditionally fill ballparks. They don't.

 

Edit: The one thing they have going for them is that the O's stink.

[iortiz]

This is an unbelievably stupid discussion. Everyone in the US apparently knows the DC area is a big media market. It is a big market in football, is a big market by population standards, and the owners have a lot of money. A700 is absolutely right that DC franchises have failed in the past. This franchise is trying to take a different approach, undoubtedly.

 

But all of that aside, the argument started over shock that the Nationals signed Edwin Jackson to a one year deal, because they weren't a large market team. Even if we admit that they aren't a large market team (they are, but it isn't worth arguing anymore) they aren't a SMALL market team by any stretch... and regardless of market size, they have an owner who is willing to spend right now. I don't see why there is even any discussion to be had about this right now.

 

Why does the owner want to spend? Well, as was mentioned, there is potentially a market. The Orioles share the market and they are constantly pathetic. There is a lot of potential for natural rivals with the Mets and the Phillies in easy driving distance. And, most importantly, the Nationals truly think they have the next generational talent on BOTH sides of the ball. Stephen Strasburg was increasing attendence on the road during his rookie campaign. If he is healthy then he could truly be something special.

 

Remember the gushing about Michael Pineda? Strasburg laughs at that. He has the potential to laugh at Felix Hernandez. He's that good.

 

Bryce Harper is also billed as one of the more exciting players on the other side of the ball, especially considering his age. He's a stud and has HOF caliber ceiling.

 

THAT'S what the ownership thinks it is building around. Edwin Jackson is just a tiny, tiny piece of a much larger puzzle.

 

Nobody is disputing that E1, trust me.

 

I said that the Washington Nationals are not a big market team in the US nor worldwide. 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". Look at the definition I already posted. You can split the market media tough; Local (DC) Country (US), World wide (Global). Nats' local market media is arguably big (according with the article that I already posted nobody follows the Nats, even in their home town). Nats' market media in the US is small (e.i. They rarely appear in National TV). World wide? They are nothing. In other words, buy advertising in Nats games is not attractive and/or very cheap, since nobody follows them (US/Worldwide). In big market teams like NY or BOS the things are completely the opposite.

 

Hence they are not a big market team. Not even close.

[jung]

The only thing I can take from the Jackson signing is still only a matter of conjecture at this point as we will never know for sure what the Sox offered unsuccessfully and don't know as yet the particulars of the Nationals offer. But if the Nationals did offer between $8M and $12M and the Sox did offer $5M without a willingness to increase beyond that then I think it says something about how important the number is to the Sox relative to the importance of that player.

 

I think an offer of about $5M without an effort or willingness to "compete" for the player from there suggests that the number for the Sox was more important than the particular player was. I am not commenting at all about whether that is right or wrong. It is what it is. I have thought that the Sox were looking for players of Jackson's calibre to fall to something like $5M and while that might seem unrealistic, neither right nor wrong but unrealistic if in fact the reported numbers are accurate then I think that is pretty close to correct.

 

I have often thought that the numbers that get reported early on are likely accurate reflections of what is being offered but that offers begin to percolate once teams begin to feel like a player that is attractive begins to get close to actually signing somewhere. So it looks in this case like $5M set something of a floor and once Jackson's agent began to make the rounds a team or teams got the impression that he was close to signing and upped the anti to the point where the player finally did sign.

 

I never got the impression that the Sox went after Jackson hard and I don't get the impression that they are after Oswalt hard and don't think they are likely to go after Floyd hard either.

[User Name]

Market size refers to TV market size--not fan base. Big TV markets like NY and LA have the advantage in spending because they have higher TV revenues. Bringing fans in the park is important, too, but TV brings in more revenues. ESPN, for example, gets $4 per month per cable subscriber--whether you view it or not. It's part of the cable package. That's why they're rich.

 

Mark Cuban pulled out of the LA Dodger bidding because he saw that he was really buying the TV rights, and not the ball club. It was too expensive, and the appreciation due to media was already built in.

You take the TV revenue away from these teams, and their value collapses.

 

It's the 8th biggest tv market in the US. Also, the TV revenues are not more important, by themselves, than the gate, stop spouting that misconception.

[User Name]

Nobody is disputing that E1, trust me.

 

I said that the Washington Nationals are not a big market team in the US nor worldwide. 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". Look at the definition I already posted. You can split the market media tough; Local (DC) Country (US), World wide (Global). Nats' local market media is arguably big (according with the article that I already posted nobody follows the Nats, even in their home town). Nats' market media in the US is small (e.i. They rarely appear in National TV). World wide? They are nothing. In other words, buy advertising in Nats games is not attractive and/or very cheap, since nobody follows them. In big market teams like NY or BOS the things are completely the opposite.

 

Hence they are not a big market team. Not even close.

 

Did you even check the rankings are posted? The DC area (and the Nationals TV market base) is the 8th biggest tv market in the US. 8th biggest. That is big market by definition.

 

Remind me again what's your point?

[iortiz]

Did you even check the rankings are posted? The DC area (and the Nationals TV market base) is the 8th biggest tv market in the US. 8th biggest. That is big market by definition.

 

Remind me again what's your point?

 

So?

 

A Big market place is one thing. A Big market team is a completely different thing. Still you can split the market place (Local/Country/Globe). What percent represent the DC market in the US? world wide?

 

My point is: The Washington Nationals are not a big market team in the US nor worldwide. No even close.

[iortiz]

It's the 8th biggest tv market in the US. Also' date=' the TV revenues are not more important, by themselves, than the gate, stop spouting that misconception.[/quote']

 

TV rights are a huge income for them. Mostly if you have penetration in other markets (countries). Big/Global market teams have that privilege (more revenue). Nats do not have that privilege since they are not a big/global market team. Nobody follows them, not even in their own home town.

[example1]

I think you are overestimating the value of a "world wide" media market. Baseball is a big game, but I just don't think that many teams at all have a significant portion of their income through the "national market" let alone the "world market". Yes, the game is world-wide, and yes there are fans in the Dominican and Mexico and Canada and Japan, but it just isn't about the world market compared to the local market. The Yankees make most of their money through the ticket gate and through YES Network. Sox do the same with tickets and NESN. The Rangers just completed a $3B deal for their own regional sports network, which catipults them into the 'big leagues' so to speak.

 

Here's the Forbes ranking of the Nationals:

http://www.forbes.com/lists/2011/33/baseball-valuations-11_Washington-Nationals_337401.html

 

They were the #16 most valuable franchise in baseball in 2011, behind Seattle and ahead of Colorado. They are listed as having promising growth potential.

 

I still contest that this is all a giant strawman and in no way relates to their signing of Edwin Jackson. Jackson is an affordable player to just about every team... who would have been shocked if he had signed with, say, Seattle, Colorado, Baltimore, or even San Diego?

 

A) He's not that good (I would have been happy with him in BOS, but he's not that good)

B ) He's not that expensive

C) Most MLB teams can afford a number of players like him...

 

I just don't see what the big deal is. :dunno:

[iortiz]

I think you are overestimating the value of a "world wide" media market. Baseball is a big game, but I just don't think that many teams at all have a significant portion of their income through the "national market" let alone the "world market". Yes, the game is world-wide, and yes there are fans in the Dominican and Mexico and Canada and Japan, but it just isn't about the world market compared to the local market. The Yankees make most of their money through the ticket gate and through YES Network. Sox do the same with tickets and NESN. The Rangers just completed a $3B deal for their own regional sports network, which catipults them into the 'big leagues' so to speak.

 

Here's the Forbes ranking of the Nationals:

http://www.forbes.com/lists/2011/33/baseball-valuations-11_Washington-Nationals_337401.html

 

They were the #16 most valuable franchise in baseball in 2011, behind Seattle and ahead of Colorado. They are listed as having promising growth potential.

 

I still contest that this is all a giant strawman and in no way relates to their signing of Edwin Jackson. Jackson is an affordable player to just about every team... who would have been shocked if he had signed with, say, Seattle, Colorado, Baltimore, or even San Diego?

 

A) He's not that good (I would have been happy with him in BOS, but he's not that good)

B ) He's not that expensive

C) Most MLB teams can afford a number of players like him...

 

I just don't see what the big deal is. :dunno:

 

1. There's no big deal to me. The confusion started when I said that I was not surprised that a small market team like the Nats signed Jackson (since I already have said that), then MVP said that DC is not a small market place. A big market place/territory and a big market team are different concepts. You can split your market place/territory (local (DC)/country (US)/globe). Your roll is totally different in every business aspect in those territories (local (DC)/country (US)/globe). A big market team plays in all those scenarios (local (DC)/country (US)/globe) and its business impacts are very significant in every aspect/level. They are often related at least in a country level penetration. Clearly, Nats do not have that kind of penetration. No even in their own home town. Hence they are not a big market team. It is Conclusive.

 

2. As I said, big/global market teams are a handful in professional sports around the world beyond the sport. Yankees, Real Madrid, Barcelona, Lakers, Cowboys, among others are big market teams. They play in the global market as well. Those teams (Yankees, Real Madrid, Barcelona, Lakers, Cowboys) are in that category (Big market teams). Clearly, the Nats are not in that category. You say that Forbes rate them in the #16? Is that the rank of a big market team?, I don't think so.

 

3. The size of a market team is correlated with the media market. I already posted the definition. Nats' media market in the US/world wide is small. DC market is not even ranked in the top 5 in the US, but it is still interesting market to explore. On the other hand, What is the DC's media market percentage in the US? World Wide? Insignificant. Make the maths. NY and Bos are world-wide/big market teams since they cover big media markets and large market places/territories (local/country (US)/globe). Trying to pretend that the Nats are in the same level is just insane.

 

4. MLB is a globalized league. Sportive/business-concerns/strategy/factors play an important roll outside the US. NY, Boston, Philli, among a few others are frequently transmitted on ESPN and Fox Sports in their Latin American networks since they are big market teams. They have a huge fan base in other countries. Nats are not in that position since they are not a big market team. They are rarely transmitted on National TV (US) and far less world wide. One of the few teams that didn't have a Spanish web site version was the Boston Red Sox. Last year, they released their Spanish version. Why did they do that? They want to attend other markets with more strength like NY. Adrian's contract was a key driver, you bet. 180 M payroll teams can not live only with the gate or their local market. They need to expand their horizons. This is a very good way to do it. Expanding to other countries; selling merchandise/Tv rights/ more tickets/ advertising/ etc. In some countries like Venezuela, Dominicana, Nicaragua, Cuba, Puerto Rico, Panama, etc. baseball is the # 1 sport. In other countries like Japon, Canada, Italy, Mexico, Colombia, Netherlands, etc. this sport has a huge fan base. Maybe you do not realize the important of other markets since you live in the US. When you merge all those markets the business/financial impact is significant. Hell, they reach 180 countries.

 

4. About Jackson, I already emitted my opinion. Worthless discusion at this point since he is not longer a option.

 

BL. The Washington Nationals are not a big market team. That's my point.

[SoxSport]

 

The only really big media(TV) markets are NY and LA. Followed by Chicago and South Florida. Those are the big advertising markets. And those are the markets whose teams get the most media attention--not by coincidence.

 

I believe TV controls much of sports these days because that's where the bulk of the revenues come from. Follow the money. They have a big say in the schedules, starting times, what teams get on TV, etc.

 

The late Roone Arledge, who started all this as head of ABC Sports many years ago, said that without TV, the salary structure in sports would collapse.

[User Name]

1. There's no big deal to me. The confusion started when I said that I was not surprised that a small market team like the Nats signed Jackson (since I already have said that), then MVP said that DC is not a small market place. A big market place/territory and a big market team are different concepts. You can split your market place/territory (local (DC)/country (US)/globe). Your roll is totally different in every business aspect in those territories (local (DC)/country (US)/globe). A big market team plays in all those scenarios (local (DC)/country (US)/globe) and its business impacts are very significant in every aspect/level. They are often related at least in a country level penetration. Clearly, Nats do not have that kind of penetration. No even in their own home town. Hence they are not a big market team. It is Conclusive.

 

2. As I said, big/global market teams are a handful in professional sports around the world beyond the sport. Yankees, Real Madrid, Barcelona, Lakers, Cowboys, among others are big market teams. They play in the global market as well. Those teams (Yankees, Real Madrid, Barcelona, Lakers, Cowboys) are in that category (Big market teams). Clearly, the Nats are not in that category. You say that Forbes rate them in the #16? Is that the rank of a big market team?, I don't think so.

 

3. The size of a market team is correlated with the media market. I already posted the definition. Nats' media market in the US/world wide is small. DC market is not even ranked in the top 5 in the US, but it is still interesting market to explore. On the other hand, What is the DC's media market percentage in the US? World Wide? Insignificant. Make the maths. NY and Bos are world-wide/big market teams since they cover big media markets and large market places/territories (local/country (US)/globe). Trying to pretend that the Nats are in the same level is just insane.

 

4. MLB is a globalized league. Sportive/business-concerns/strategy/factors play an important roll outside the US. NY, Boston, Philli, among a few others are frequently transmitted on ESPN and Fox Sports in their Latin American networks since they are big market teams. They have a huge fan base in other countries. Nats are not in that position since they are not a big market team. They are rarely transmitted on National TV (US) and far less world wide. One of the few teams that didn't have a Spanish web site version was the Boston Red Sox. Last year, they released their Spanish version. Why did they do that? They want to attend other markets with more strength like NY. Adrian's contract was a key driver, you bet. 180 M payroll teams can not live only with the gate or their local market. They need to expand their horizons. This is a very good way to do it. Expanding to other countries; selling merchandise/Tv rights/ more tickets/ advertising/ etc. In some countries like Venezuela, Dominicana, Nicaragua, Cuba, Puerto Rico, Panama, etc. baseball is the # 1 sport. In other countries like Japon, Canada, Italy, Mexico, Colombia, Netherlands, etc. this sport has a huge fan base. Maybe you do not realize the important of other markets since you live in the US. When you merge all those markets the business/financial impact is significant. Hell, they reach 180 countries.

 

4. About Jackson, I already emitted my opinion. Worthless discusion at this point since he is not longer a option.

 

BL. The Washington Nationals are not a big market team. That's my point.

 

Unfortunately, your point is wrong. No amount of rationalizing is going to change that.

 

They play in one of the most densely populated markets, with a huge TV base, and a huge pool of resources.

 

This Global market thing is secondary to gates and tv ratings.

[User Name]

The only really big media(TV) markets are NY and LA. Followed by Chicago and South Florida. Those are the big advertising markets. And those are the markets whose teams get the most media attention--not by coincidence.

 

I believe TV controls much of sports these days because that's where the bulk of the revenues come from. Follow the money. They have a big say in the schedules, starting times, what teams get on TV, etc.

 

The late Roone Arledge, who started all this as head of ABC Sports many years ago, said that without TV, the salary structure in sports would collapse.

 

This is completely and utterly incorrect. Check the ratings statistics and don't make stuff up.

[example1]

IOrtiz, you said they were a small market team. They aren't.

 

I'm watching Sesame Street as we speak. They just did a bit on opposites. To my two year old daughter, if something is "not big" it is small. However, to adults like us we know that "not big" isn't necessarily small.

 

The Nationals fit into the group of about 25 teams with minimal international reach. That doesn't mean they are a small market. They are middle of the pack. This makes sense to those of us who realize that DC is in an enormous metro area. It isn't just a big area but there is a shitload of business and money in DC.

 

I'm making the point that you are wrong about their market size being small. That's not saying it is on par with NY or LA or PHI. It isn't. But it isn't small. Outside of those select teams, international market doesn't matter. It just doesn't. Being broadcast on ESPN isn't the same as establishing an international market. If international ESPN is like ESPN here it spends time showing drag racing, strongest man competitions, and other stuff most people don't care about.

 

Even though your argument is lengthy and repetitive it still strikes me as wrong, mostly because you are saying DC isn't NY or BOS and is, by extension of not being among the biggest, small. It certainly isn't small relative to being able to make plays for guys like Edwin Jackson.

 

Look at the Forbes list. It puts them smack in the middle in terms of value. That seems about right. Teams in a small market, with no noteworthy established stars, no record of success, etc., don't find themselves in the middle of the pack in overall value. Their relatively large market contributes to that.

[example1]

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505125_162-51210671/the-revenue-model-why-baseball-is-booming/

 

Here's an article talking about why and how baseball continues to make money. Nowhere on the list do they note how important it is to be international.

 

Two most important sources? Ticket and concessions sales, and LOCAL media.

 

IOrtiz, did you realize baseball is relatively unpopular here? The World Series has very little national viewership. Compared to the Super Bowl it gets maybe 1/10 the viewership. Nobody aside from good baseball fans even care about national games. It's all about local viewership.