Nationals to Sign Edwin jackson

[a700hitter]

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.

Finishing 16 out 30 on Forbes list of MLB franchises doesn't mean that they are not a small market team. There are many more small market teams than big market teams. After the top echelon of teams, the market values of the rest are probably not hugely divergent, so an argument could be made that there are 2 categories-- Big market and small market teams. Are you on a mission to build a middle class in baseball? I'm not sure the point that you are trying to make. I thought the argument/discussion was with regard to whether the Nats were a big market team? Clearly, they are not.

[iortiz]

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.

 

The global market is everything for any business and mostly in global TELCO companies, if you can't see that, your business acumen is poor . Nats' global coverage is 0.

 

You insist in focus the discussion in DC, which media market percentage is very small in the US and few less in a global perspective.

[example1]

You got the argument-at least my part of it-wrong. I've stated it numerous times. He said they were a small market team. We said they aren't. He thinks he proved it by saying they aren't a big market team.

 

I contest there is a middle group of teams. I'm not trying to create a middle class. I'm just trying to keep him (and you apparently) from being reductionistic.

 

The nationals had a median salary above 1m last year. A few teams had median salaries closer to 400k. Those teams like TB, KC and PIT are small market teams. Call the group in the middle whatever you want, just don't stratify the bottom 85% of teams into the same group when salaries, spending patterns, market size and franchise values dictate another more nuanced view of a complicated topic.

[iortiz]

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.

 

One question. What is the Nats' media market coverage in US? What is the NY/Bos media market coverage in the US? Now... Make the same excerise World Wide?

 

If you can't see that, sorry but I do not know what else to say.

[example1]

The global market is every thing for any business, if you can't see that, your business acumen is poor and mostly in global TELCO companies. Nats' global coverage is 0.

 

You insist in focus the discussion in DC, which media market percentage is very small in the US and few less in a global perspective.

 

Why is the global market important when it is such as relatively small portion of ANY teams revenue? That doesn't mean they wouldnt want it to expand, but even teams like the Yankees make a vast majority of their funds locally.

 

You may not think much of my business sense but Im not impressed with your reading skills. Did you read the article? No mention of international anything.

 

I think you are mistaking the global business economy with the priorities of the businesses we are discussing.

 

The NFL is by FAR the most profitable league in the US. It has virtually no international reach and doesn't need it. Apparently you haven't noticed many Americans don't care about the rest of the world unless it will make them a buck or two.

[example1]

One question. What is the Nats' media market coverage in US? What is the NY/Bos media market coverage in the US? Now... Make the same excerise World Wide?

 

If you can't see that, sorry but I do not know what else to say.

 

How about you provide a link or two instead of nonsensical questions. What is the media market coverage? What does that mean? Every city broadcasts games locally and that's where most of their money comes from. I've said a dozen times I'm not arguing the nationals are the Yankees. Those comparisons should stop because you are wasting your time. Compare the nationals to the rest of the league. By franchise value and media market size (where money comes from for every team) they are middle of the pack. Mid-market. Not small market.

[iortiz]

Why is the global market important when it is such as relatively small portion of ANY teams revenue? That doesn't mean they would want it to expand, but even teams like the Yankees make a vast majority of their funds locally.

 

You may not think much of my business sense but Im not impressed with your reading skills. Did you read the article? No mention of international anything.

 

I think you are mistaking the global business economy with the priorities of the businesses we are discussing.

 

The NFL is by FAR the most profitable league in the US. It has virtually no international reach and doesn't need it. Apparently you haven't noticed many Americans don't care about the rest of the world unless it will make them a buck or two.

 

180 country market coverage is irrelevant? Ok.

 

You do not like the global thing? Ok. Let's limit the territory coverage in the US. What is the Nat's market media coverage in the US?

[iortiz]

How about you provide a link or two instead of nonsensical questions. What is the media market coverage? What does that mean? Every city broadcasts games locally and that's where most of their money comes from. I've said a dozen times I'm not arguing the nationals are the Yankees. Those comparisons should stop because you are wasting your time. Compare the nationals to the rest of the league. By franchise value and media market size (where money comes from for every team) they are middle of the pack. Mid-market. Not small market.

 

Means everything in order to rate the size of a market team. I already posted the definition. Read it.

[iortiz]

How about you provide a link or two instead of nonsensical questions. What is the media market coverage? What does that mean? Every city broadcasts games locally and that's where most of their money comes from. I've said a dozen times I'm not arguing the nationals are the Yankees. Those comparisons should stop because you are wasting your time. Compare the nationals to the rest of the league. By franchise value and media market size (where money comes from for every team) they are middle of the pack. Mid-market. Not small market.

 

say that to UN?, no me. They said that the Nats are a big market team. I said that they are not. If they were a big market team they should be similar to NY or slightly above/below them, shouldn't they?

 

Read the thread. I didn't started the polemic. I'm right. The Nats are not a big market team.

[example1]

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.

 

Is this the link you were talking about?

 

Here: http://www.arbitron.com/home/mm001050.asp

 

Where does DC rank in media market. You look and report whether it is near the top or bottom of the list.

[iortiz]

Is this the link you were talking about?

 

Here: http://www.arbitron.com/home/mm001050.asp

 

Where does DC rank in media market. You look and report whether it is near the top or bottom of the list.

 

Nope. It is from wiki, actually. You are not reading. Clearly, The post starts saying , according with wiki....

 

Again, you are rating the size of a market place/territory. We are talking about the size of a market team. As the definition says, it is related with media market coverage. Hence I asked what is the Nats' media market coverage in the US?

Do you realize that fanbase/popularity is related with media market? Nats' popularity, even in their own town is questionable. Read the article that I already posted. Nats games are not attractive. Buying advertising in Nats' games is not attractive and/or cheap compared with Big Market teams. Again, Nats are not a big market team.

[example1]

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)' date=' then MVP said that DC is not a small market place.[/quote']

 

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

 

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.

 

You got the argument-at least my part of it-wrong. I've stated it numerous times. He said they were a small market team. We said they aren't. He thinks he proved it by saying they aren't a big market team.

 

I contest there is a middle group of teams. I'm not trying to create a middle class. I'm just trying to keep him (and you apparently) from being reductionistic.

 

The nationals had a median salary above 1m last year. A few teams had median salaries closer to 400k. Those teams like TB, KC and PIT are small market teams. Call the group in the middle whatever you want, just don't stratify the bottom 85% of teams into the same group when salaries, spending patterns, market size and franchise values dictate another more nuanced view of a complicated topic.

 

say that to UN?, no me. They said that the Nats are a big market team. I said that they are not. If they were a big market team they should be similar to NY or slightly above/below them, shouldn't they?

 

Read the thread. I didn't started the polemic. I'm right. The Nats are not a big market team.

 

Read your own quote above. You said this whole thing started because you said a "small market team like the Nats...". I stated numerous times they aren't a small market team. For the 12th time: not being a "big market" team doesn't make you small.

 

In all seriousness, perhaps this is a language thing. In the US we have gradations between "not big" and "small". I stated that before. When something isn't the biggest it doesn't mean it is small. The DC Media market isn't small. Neither is Dallas.

[iortiz]

Read your own quote above. You said this whole thing started because you said a "small market team like the Nats...". I stated numerous times they aren't a small market team. For the 12th time: not being a "big market" team doesn't make you small.

 

In all seriousness, perhaps this is a language thing. In the US we have gradations between "not big" and "small". I stated that before. When something isn't the biggest it doesn't mean it is small. The DC Media market isn't small. Neither is Dallas.

 

This is not a language barrier/issue at all. Discuss with UN? And MVP. They are who are saying that the Nats are a big market team, not me. Or what? Don't you like debate with them?

[example1]

Nope. It is from wiki, actually. You are not reading. Clearly, The post starts saying , according with wiki....

 

Again you are rating the size of a market place/territory. We are talking about the size of a market team. As the definition says, it is related with media market coverage. Hence I asked what is the Nats' media market coverage in the US?

Do you realize that a /popularity is related with media market? Nats' popularity, even on their own town is questionable. Read the article that I already posted. Nats games are not attractive. Buying advertising in Nats' games is not attractive and/or cheap compared with Big Market teams. Again, Nats are not a big market team.

 

I read the Wikipedia quote. You said it was from wikipedia. I understood that. Then I typed in my own search and found the other article.

 

If you understand this so clearly then find a freaking list that says where the Nats' media market coverage ranks among all teams. That would put an end to this discussion quickly, IF we are actually disussing the same thing.

 

I've said now a dozen times that my sole argument is that the DC is NOT a small market. You called it a small market. I quoted you in my previous post. I've said over and over what my point is.

 

You may be trying to make a point that combines size of the population with the number of people watching and their international reach. If that's your measure then produce the damn measure, including all other teams in MLB. Perhaps the Nationals are at the bottom of the list, in which case you will be right that, by your measure, they are a small market team. Otherwise, just stop restating the argument in increasingly convoluted and non-data-based ways.

 

Wikipedia isn't a reliable post.

[example1]

This is not a language barrier/issue at all. Discuss with UN? And MVP. They are who are saying that the Nats is a big market team' date=' not me. Or what? Don't you like debate with them?[/quote']

 

You want me to start discussing with them? Because your wikipedia quote isn't sufficient to prove that you are right.

 

They are using the definition of "market" that most people use, which is the number of people in the broadcast area. I don't disagree with their definition. I'm trying to discuss the point you made, which was that they are a SMALL MARKET TEAM. You are wrong, if you take all MLB teams into account, regardless of which definition of "market" you use.

 

How about this. Just say "you are right. I said they were a small market team and I was wrong to have said that. I misstated myself."

[a700hitter]

Read your own quote above. You said this whole thing started because you said a "small market team like the Nats...". I stated numerous times they aren't a small market team. For the 12th time: not being a "big market" team doesn't make you small.

 

In all seriousness, perhaps this is a language thing. In the US we have gradations between "not big" and "small". I stated that before. When something isn't the biggest it doesn't mean it is small. The DC Media market isn't small. Neither is Dallas.

That remark might have started the discussion, but almost the entire argument was about whether the Nats were a large market team. Read the thread. If you want to create some baseball middle class, fine, but I never really read about this mid market. In baseball, there are the big boys (Yanks, Mets, Boston, White Sox, Cubs,Angels, Dodgers) and everyone else.

[User Name]

The global market is everything for any business and mostly in global TELCO companies, if you can't see that, your business acumen is poor . Nats' global coverage is 0.

 

You insist in focus the discussion in DC, which media market percentage is very small in the US and few less in a global perspective.

 

Apparently the one with the "poor business acumen" here is you.

 

If your business acumen is so "strong" then how come you don't understand that most of the money made from global merchandising and tv rights sales are distributed equally amongst all teams so it has no direct impact on a team's standing as a big or small market team.

 

You gloat of your business acumen yet you don't know what you're talking about. If you desire to avoid foot in mouth moments like this one in the future, get over yourself and do the research before you post.

[iortiz]

If you understand this so clearly then find a freaking list that says where the Nats' media market coverage ranks among all teams. That would put an end to this discussion quickly, IF we are actually disussing the same thing.

I'm going to give you a clue. Lets use this thermomether. How many times are the Nats' games transmitted in national TV?

 

I've said now a dozen times that my sole argument is that the DC is NOT a small market. You called it a small market. I quoted you in my previous post. I've said over and over what my point is.

 

You are getting heat, your heat doesn't allow you read properly. I never disputed if DC was a small/big market place. I've said that dozen of times. We are disputing whether the Nats is a big market team or not. That is totally different. I already put several examples of other proffesional sport teams which play in big market places (Clippers, Atletico de Madrid) and are not big market teams. if you can't see that, I really do not know how to make it clearer to you.

 

 

Wikipedia isn't a reliable post.

 

Now, you are discrediting my source because you do not have arguments. Bring another definition and source of big/small market team and probably we can enrich the discussion.

[iortiz]

Apparently the one with the "poor business acumen" here is you.

 

If your business acumen is so "strong" then how come you don't understand that most of the money made from global merchandising and tv rights sales are distributed equally amongst all teams so it has no direct impact on a team's standing as a big or small market team.

 

You gloat of your business acumen yet you don't know what you're talking about. If you desire to avoid foot in mouth moments like this one in the future, get over yourself and do the research before you post.

 

Twisting the things, as usual. I should take Meh's advise. You take things out of context.

[User Name]

Twisting the things' date=' as usual. I should take Meh's advise. You take things out of context.[/quote']

 

Nice cop-out.

 

You made the point about the global aspect of the sport being important towards defining the market status of a team. I debunked the notion, because the spending power of a team (which directly influences said status) is not affected by said notion.

 

You are grasping at straws.

 

Take Meh's advice and eat some fast food too. It won't make you fat.

[User Name]

I'm going to give you a clue. Lets use this thermomether. How many times are the Nats' games transmitted in national TV?

 

A lot of Cardinals and Rays games go on National TV on a yearly basis. Are they large market?

 

 

You are getting heat, your heat doesn't allow you read properly. I never disputed if DC was a small/big market place. I've said that dozen of times. We are disputing whether the Nats is a big market team or not. That is totally different. I already put several examples of other proffesional sport teams which play in big market places (Clippers, Atletico de Madrid) and are not big market teams. if you can't see that, I really do not know how to make it clearer to you.

 

You are confusing market size with popularity. You can't make an incorrect point any clearer.

 

Now, you are discrediting my source because you do not have arguments. Bring another definition and source of big/small market team and probably we can enrich the discussion.

 

He doesn't need to, because everyone knows Wikipedia is not a reliable source.

[iortiz]

Well, I already rest my case. If you think that the Washington Nationals are a big market team, you are seriously confused.

 

And again, if you can't realize the importance and impact from a world wide/global approach (beyond the business including baseball), sorry but your business acumen is poor. As simple as that.

[example1]

That remark might have started the discussion' date=' but almost the entire argument was about whether the Nats were a large market team. Read the thread. If you want to create some baseball middle class, fine, but I never really read about this mid market. In baseball, there are the big boys (Yanks, Mets, Boston, White Sox, Cubs,Angels, Dodgers) and everyone else.[/quote']

 

When I typed "baseball mid-market" into google a bunch of results came up:

 

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

 

That article starts with this phrase:

 

"Baseball markets are often described as small, medium, large and any of another dozen similar words."

 

I'm not making up terminology.

 

Heres another:

 

http://www.federalbaseball.com/2011/11/25/2586650/washington-nationals-revenue-sharing-tv-deal-and-stan-kasten

 

If the revenue sharing plan rewarded big market teams spending like small market teams in the past it won't in the near future and the Nationals and other teams listed above will have to find other ways to replace that revenue.

 

There's a lot of general consensus out there from people in the industry that the Nationals are kind of a sleeping giant, and I think that's true and I think they're going to be waking up pretty soon."

 

Make of it what you will...

[SoxSport]

Regarding TV markets, it's about local cable TV. That's where the Yankee advantage is--in their local cable network. they have the biggest--bigger than NESN, the Red Sox network. Teams don't share in these revenues. Plus, in MLB, the visiting team only gets about 10-20% of the ticket revenue, vs 40% in the NFL.

 

In LA, the Angels just signed a big local cable contract, and they had to sign Pujols to get their low cable ratings up. Signing Pujols was a must for their TV contract. That's why they made him an offer only a fool could refuse.

[a700hitter]

When I typed "baseball mid-market" into google a bunch of results came up:

 

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

 

That article starts with this phrase:

 

"Baseball markets are often described as small, medium, large and any of another dozen similar words."

 

I'm not making up terminology.

 

Heres another:

 

http://www.federalbaseball.com/2011/11/25/2586650/washington-nationals-revenue-sharing-tv-deal-and-stan-kasten

 

 

 

 

 

Make of it what you will...

They are still closer to the small market teams than the big market teams. The #23 team is only 10% less valuable than the Nats at #16. If you jump up 7 spots from the Nats, the #9 team is 33% more valuable. All the small guys are bunched together in the bottom half of the rankings. The lower you go the less difference there is in valuation between teams. Like I said earlier, there are the big boys and everyone else. In any ranking, there is always the top, middle and bottom. With regard to baseball franchises the teams in the middle are much closer to the bottom than the top. There is a lot of bunching in the bottom 20. One thing is certain is that they are not a big market team.

 

The Nats could turn things around, but they will have an uphill battle generating a loyal following. IMO their problems are not solvable merely by building a winning team.

[diony]

John Lannan in the AL East, yes please.

 

The Sox should've signed either Kuroda, Jackson or Oswalt on a 1 year deal. They're gonna regret the Bard experiment.

[a700hitter]

John Lannan in the AL East, yes please.

 

The Sox should've signed either Kuroda, Jackson or Oswalt on a 1 year deal. They're gonna regret the Bard experiment.

Bring back Lenny DiNardo--the same thing and almost no cost.

[iortiz]

They are still closer to the small market teams than the big market teams. The #23 team is only 10% less valuable than the Nats at #16. If you jump up 7 spots from the Nats, the #9 team is 33% more valuable. All the small guys are bunched together in the bottom half of the rankings. The lower you go the less difference there is in valuation between teams. Like I said earlier, there are the big boys and everyone else. In any ranking, there is always the top, middle and bottom. With regard to baseball franchises the teams in the middle are much closer to the bottom than the top. There is a lot of bunching in the bottom 20. One thing is certain is that they are not a big market team.

 

The Nats could turn things around, but they will have an uphill battle generating a loyal following. IMO their problems are not solvable merely by building a winning team.

 

Bravo, Maestro. As always you put my ideas in better words and perspective.

[example1]

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.

 

Bravo' date=' Maestro. As always you put my ideas in better words and perspective.[/quote']

 

Yes, bravo. He said that I was arbitrarily using a made up concept he has never heard of. I showed him it wasn't made up. He rebutted that there are really rich teams, and everyone else.

 

That's one way to look at it. Ever heard of the middle class? It's the exact same thing: small number of teams that are uber rich, good chunk of teams in the middle, and some really struggling teams on the bottom.

 

IOrtiz, would you still say that the Nationals are a small market team? Of not then this discussion is over as far as I'm concerned.

 

The only reason it started was because of that original point.

[a700hitter]

Yes, bravo. He said that I was arbitrarily using a made up concept he has never heard of. I showed him it wasn't made up. He rebutted that there are really rich teams, and everyone else.

 

That's one way to look at it. Ever heard of the middle class? It's the exact same thing: small number of teams that are uber rich, good chunk of teams in the middle, and some really struggling teams on the bottom.

 

IOrtiz, would you still say that the Nationals are a small market team? Of not then this discussion is over as far as I'm concerned.

 

The only reason it started was because of that original point.

You are such a bitter kill joy.