Nationals to Sign Edwin jackson

[example1]

You are such a bitter kill joy.

 

We may share a certain bitterness, a700.

 

At least I haven't blessed the world with my bitterness over 30,000 times. I have no idea how you have been able to hit "submit reply" that many times.

[a700hitter]

We may share a certain bitterness, a700.

 

At least I haven't blessed the world with my bitterness over 30,000 times. I have no idea how you have been able to hit "submit reply" that many times.

That's why I am the King, and only a small percentage of my post have been bitter.

[iortiz]

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.

 

Yes, bravo! A700's perspective is accurate.

 

We are making progress though. You, A700 and me are agreeing that they are not a Big Market team. No way.

 

On the other hand, If you want to split the market saying that KC/Pitt/SD are small market teams and NY and BOS are Big market teams and the rest mid-market team, fine, we can agree on that and move on but I have to tell you that they are still closer to the small market teams than the big market teams. A700 already put another perspective which is fair to me.

 

You are battling in the dark side of the moon with me and A700. I wonder, are you going to battle in the other side of the moon with those who still saying that the Washington Nationals are a big market team? or this is just against A700 and me?

 

BTW check out how the discussion started. I said that the Nats are small market team. Then MVP said that DC is a big market place (Those concepts are different). The rest is history.

[User Name]

Because you keep confusing market size with popularity. Therein lies the conceptual problem.

[iortiz]

this is exactly how confusion starts...

[User Name]

Let's just say the Nats aren't a "small market" team and call it a day. Because they're really not a small market team.

[ORS]

Why is this in the Sox section of the forum? This belongs in the general MLB section.

[example1]

Why is this in the Sox section of the forum? This belongs in the general MLB section.

 

This belongs in the steaming pile of s*** section.

 

Do we still have one of those.

 

Early front-runner for worst thread of the year.

[example1]

Yes, bravo! A700's perspective is accurate.

 

We are making progress though. You, A700 and me are agreeing that they are not a Big Market team. No way.

 

On the other hand, If you want to split the market saying that KC/Pitt/SD are small market teams and NY and BOS are Big market teams and the rest mid-market team, fine, we can agree on that and move on but I have to tell you that they are still closer to the small market teams than the big market teams. A700 already put another perspective which is fair to me.

 

You are battling in the dark side of the moon with me and A700. I wonder, are you going to battle in the other side of the moon with those who still are saying that the Washington Nationals are a big market team? or this is just against A700 and me?

 

BTW check out how the discussion started. I said that the Nats are small market team. Then MVP said that DC is a big market place (Those concepts are different). The rest is history.

 

I saw how the conversation started. You said "small market" they said "you're not just wrong about small market, but DC could arguibly be classified as a big market team". I suspect since you started fighting "on that side of the moon" that you gave up the "small market" argument? If so, you should just say so when I am talking about small markets instead of lecturing about international markets, etc., It's wasted space.

[a700hitter]

This belongs in the steaming pile of s*** section.

 

Do we still have one of those.

 

Early front-runner for worst thread of the year.

But yet you are compelled to repeatedly try to prove that some are wrong in this steaming pile.

[iortiz]

But yet you are compelled to repeatedly try to prove that some are wrong in this steaming pile.

 

That's the funny thing

[iortiz]

I saw how the conversation started. You said "small market" they said "you're not just wrong about small market' date=' but DC could arguibly be classified as a big market team"[/b']. I suspect since you started fighting "on that side of the moon" that you gave up the "small market" argument? If so, you should just say so when I am talking about small markets instead of lecturing about international markets, etc., It's wasted space.

 

[User Name]

Why is this in the Sox section of the forum? This belongs in the general MLB section.

 

Yeah we kinda took the discussion in the wrong direction.I Apologize about that.

[a700hitter]

I saw how the conversation started. You said "small market" they said "you're not just wrong about small market' date=' but DC could arguibly be classified as a big market team". I suspect since you started fighting "on that side of the moon" that you gave up the "small market" argument? If so, you should just say so when I am talking about small markets instead of lecturing about international markets, etc., It's wasted space. [/quote']U.N. had insisted that the Nationals are both a big market team and a big spender. That's just not true. As far as this middle market stuff, IMO there are about 8 or 9 big market team and the rest of the teams are small in comparison that are pretty tightly packed in the bottom 20. You have wasted space trying to prove this distinct middle. The argument was small versus big market with relation to the Nats, but you felt compelled to prove a middle market. Congrats, I am not interested in arguing that. As I said a few pages ago that the middle is much closer to the bottom than the top.

[ORS]

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?

You have abosolutely no idea how revenues are shared in MLB. The jerseys, the hats, the promotional baseballs....ie all the merchandise, and, this is important, all outside the US revenues are split 30 ways with each team getting an equal share. The only, ONLY, place an MLB team has a chance to differentiate from the competition in revenues is in the local market. Most "big" market teams actually own the broadcast network that airs the games to the local market.

 

If what others have posted is correct, and I haven't gone back far enough to check because I simply don't care enough to, and this discussion started because you said the Nats are a "small market team", then they are right. The Nationals ownership is part owner of MASN (shared with the Baltimore Orioles), the regional network that airs their games, and their media market is massive.

[a700hitter]

Minnesota is ranked at #12, but as recently as 2002 MLB considered contracting and eliminating the Twins franchise. That shows just how close the bottom 2 0 are bunched together with relation to market size and value.

[iortiz]

You have abosolutely no idea how revenues are shared in MLB. The jerseys, the hats, the promotional baseballs....ie all the merchandise, and, this is important, all outside the US revenues are split 30 ways with each team getting an equal share. The only, ONLY, place an MLB team has a chance to differentiate from the competition in revenues is in the local market. Most "big" market teams actually own the broadcast network that airs the games to the local market.

 

If what others have posted is correct, and I haven't gone back far enough to check because I simply don't care enough to, and this discussion started because you said the Nats are a "small market team", then they are right. The Nationals ownership is part owner of MASN (shared with the Baltimore Orioles), the regional network that airs their games, and their media market is massive.

 

Read the thread.

[TheWiffler]

So bummed the Sox didn't get him. At least we still have Diasuke

[ORS]

Read the thread.

Not that interested.

[iortiz]

Not that interested.

 

Then, do not bother in reply.

[a700hitter]

You have abosolutely no idea how revenues are shared in MLB. The jerseys, the hats, the promotional baseballs....ie all the merchandise, and, this is important, all outside the US revenues are split 30 ways with each team getting an equal share. The only, ONLY, place an MLB team has a chance to differentiate from the competition in revenues is in the local market. Most "big" market teams actually own the broadcast network that airs the games to the local market.

 

If what others have posted is correct, and I haven't gone back far enough to check because I simply don't care enough to, and this discussion started because you said the Nats are a "small market team", then they are right. The Nationals ownership is part owner of MASN (shared with the Baltimore Orioles), the regional network that airs their games, and their media market is massive.

So you are saying that the Nats are a big market team. Because that was really the argument. Everything not in the top 10 is small comparatively. As I said, the Twins at #12 were under consideration to be eliminated through contraction in 2002. Has their market increased so materially since 2002? I don't think so. MLB is comprised of a few big dogs and a bunch of small fish. The Nats are still small fish, but making a bold effort to move out of that category.

[a700hitter]

Why is this in the Sox section of the forum? This belongs in the general MLB section.

A little OCD?

[TheWiffler]

Baseball needs a salary cap. The difference in payrolls and farm systems is a joke

[Emmz]

You have abosolutely no idea how revenues are shared in MLB. The jerseys, the hats, the promotional baseballs....ie all the merchandise, and, this is important, all outside the US revenues are split 30 ways with each team getting an equal share. The only, ONLY, place an MLB team has a chance to differentiate from the competition in revenues is in the local market. Most "big" market teams actually own the broadcast network that airs the games to the local market.

 

If what others have posted is correct, and I haven't gone back far enough to check because I simply don't care enough to, and this discussion started because you said the Nats are a "small market team", then they are right. The Nationals ownership is part owner of MASN (shared with the Baltimore Orioles), the regional network that airs their games, and their media market is massive.

 

/thread

[Divinity]

Baseball needs a salary cap. The difference in payrolls and farm systems is a joke

 

Actually they don't, they already solved the problem with the new luxury cap rules, it'll be difficult for even teams like the Yankees and Red Sox to stay above the cap for years at a time in the future.

[ORS]

So you are saying that the Nats are a big market team. Because that was really the argument. Everything not in the top 10 is small comparatively. As I said' date=' the Twins at #12 were under consideration to be eliminated through contraction in 2002. Has their market increased so materially since 2002? I don't think so. MLB is comprised of a few big dogs and a bunch of small fish. The Nats are still small fish, but making a bold effort to move out of that category.[/quote']

But, they are in the top-10. Not only that, but they have ownership of their broadcast network. The DC metro area is 12M strong, which means they get subscription revenues from a lot of those people through MASN. That's how the "big" market teams make gobs of money. Every month they get those subscription fees from the cable customers who buy into the regional networks via their cable packages. The Nats are absolutely big market, despite their popularity.

[a700hitter]

Then' date=' do not bother in reply.[/quote']Hit and run tactic.

[ORS]

A little OCD?

Not in the least. And, I'm also right, like usual.

[ORS]

Hit and run tactic.

Still here.

[Emmz]

Minnesota is ranked at #12' date=' but as recently as 2002 MLB considered contracting and eliminating the Twins franchise. That shows just how close the bottom 2 0 are bunched together with relation to market size and value.[/quote']

 

In the interest of the powers that be.