Nationals to Sign Edwin jackson

[iortiz]

They were in Oakland' date=' then LA, then back to Oakland. The Rams were there for ages, and the Chargers I believe were originally from LA as well.[/quote']

 

I remember my skins losing a SB against them, I was a kid.

[a700hitter]

Because the 49ers' date=' Chargers and Raiders are all there. The Raiders and the Rams all took a shot, but LA is still a large market, which whatever team that plays there would inherit. Regardless, its right here that it becomes a subjective term.[/quote']LA is a large population center, but that doesn't equate to a big market for the new franchise. In order to do that, a team has to establish a footprint, a loyal fan following. That's the market-- the people that go to your games, watch them on TV and support them financially. LA is 350 miles from San Francisco and the Bay area supports 2 teams and they wouldn't interfere with the LA market. San Diego is much closer-- about 125 miles and they have a much smaller population and they have a successful long standing franchise.

[Emmz]

LA is a large population center' date=' but that doesn't equate to a big market for the new franchise. In order to do that, a team has to establish a footprint, a loyal fan following. That's the market-- the people that go to your games, watch them on TV and support them financially. LA is 350 miles from San Francisco and the Bay area supports 2 teams and they wouldn't interfere with the LA market. San Diego is much closer-- about 125 miles and they have a much smaller population and they have a successful long standing franchise.[/quote']

 

And there's a shitpile of teams that have devoted followings in smaller markets. Look at the Packers. Sorry, but you're absolutely confusing market with popularity, that's all I can say.

[a700hitter]

The Nationals play in Washington. Washington is a big market. The Nationals draw from Washington, which is a big market. Therefore, they're a big market team.

 

How the f*** could this be the least bit difficult to understand?

Because people don't follow or support the team. Check the figures that allocate the value of the team amongst various factors-- one of those factors is market. The figures don't support your conclusion. I already posted that information.

[a700hitter]

And there's a shitpile of teams that have devoted followings in smaller markets. Look at the Packers. Sorry' date=' but you're absolutely confusing market with popularity, that's all I can say.[/quote']If they are more popular and their fans support them more than other teams, they have a bigger market than those teams. Population density does not define your market size. It doesn't hurt, but it doesn't determine it.

[iortiz]

If they are more popular and their fans support them more than other teams' date=' they have a bigger market than those teams. Population density does not define your market size. It doesn't hurt, but it doesn't determine it.[/quote']

 

That's the case of Toros Neza in Mexico City. They play in a 32 M city and his market share is 0. America, Chivas and Pumas rules that market place.

[Emmz]

If they are more popular and their fans support them more than other teams' date=' they have a bigger market than those teams. Population density does not define your market size. It doesn't hurt, but it doesn't determine it.[/quote']

 

the Green Bay Packers are not a big market team. They're a popular team in a small market. Nuff said.

[iortiz]

the Green Bay Packers are not a big market team. They're a popular team in a small market. Nuff said.

 

Who are the big market NFL teams? I bet the Cowboys are one of them.

[a700hitter]

the Green Bay Packers are not a big market team. They're a popular team in a small market. Nuff said.

They have a large loyal following. That is their market. Those nutcases travel to NY and buy up tons of tickets on the secondary market when they play in NY. The Vikings fans have never done that. The Packers built their brand and their market. The fact that they are a small town stop them from establishing a big market. Your market is your customers not a population that isn't interested in your product. You are mixing things up.

[Emmz]

Who are the big market NFL teams? I bet the Cowboys are one of them.

 

Because the Dallas/Fort Worth metro area isn't enormous, right?

[iortiz]

They have a large loyal following. That is their market. Those nutcases travel to NY and buy up tons of tickets on the secondary market when they play in NY. The Vikings fans have never done that. The Packers built their brand and their market. The fact that they are a small town stop them from establishing a big market. Your market is your customers not a population that isn't interested in your product. You are mixing things up.

 

Yup, your customers is your market. Your potential market is your potential customers.

[iortiz]

Because the Dallas/Fort Worth metro area isn't enormous' date=' right?[/quote']

 

Am I wrong? Aren't they a big market team? :dunno:

[Emmz]

Am I wrong? Aren't they a big market team? :dunno:

 

Is there a point to this? Of course they are.

[a700hitter]

Yup' date=' your customers is your market. Your potential market is your potential customers.[/quote']You can't sell a lot of surfboards in Chicago, even though it is a big big city. More enters into establishing a market than finding a dense population. No one here has explained to me why the Dodgers and Giants left NY. NY was and still is a huge population center. Their teams were very good. The Dodgers were excellent and they had a good management team, but their NY market had evaporated.

 

Here's a story about the negotiations to keep the Dodgers in NY. This has been reported in several books and stories about the negotiations. O'Malley, the Dodger owner had his eye on a run down portion of Brooklyn at the intersection of Atlantic and Pacific avenues. It was a decayed slum. O'Malley wanted Robert Moses to condemn the land and sell it to O'Malley who would build the ballpark from his own pocket, no government funding or subsidy of any sort. O'Malley wanted this site because it was a hub for mass transportation. Many major subway lines came through that stop, and more importantly the Long Island Rail Road had a terminal there. Many of the Dodger fans were migrating to Long Island and they stopped coming to the games because the commute was inconvenient. Moses refused to condemn private property for a private business like a baseball team. One could somewhat admire his principled stand.

 

During that time Moses was already working on the concept of the Worlds Fair that would come to Flushing Meadow, Queens in the early 1960's. He offered to build O'Malley a new ballpark in Queens. Queens had a smaller population than Brooklyn but it still had a population of near 2 million. It was later the location for Shea Stadium. O'Malley response to Moses was that his fan base was in Brooklyn. That was his main market. He said that if Moses insisted on putting him in Queens that he might as well take his team to Los Angeles and build a new market for his brand out west. The rest is history. The population of LA at that time was about 2.4 million, larger than the 2 million in Queens but the Greater New York had triple the population.

[iortiz]

You can't sell a lot of surfboards in Chicago, even though it is a big big city. More enters into establishing a market than finding a dense population. No one here has explained to me why the Dodgers and Giants left NY. NY was and still is a huge population center. Their teams were very good. The Dodgers were excellent and they had a good management team, but their NY market had evaporated.

 

Here's a story about the negotiations to keep the Dodgers in NY. This has been reported in several books and stories about the negotiations. O'Malley, the Dodger owner had his eye on a run down portion of Brooklyn at the intersection of Atlantic and Pacific avenues. It was a decayed slum. O'Malley wanted Robert Moses to condemn the land and sell it to O'Malley who would build the ballpark from his own pocket, no government funding or subsidy of any sort. O'Malley wanted this site because it was a hub for mass transportation. Many major subway lines came through that stop, and more importantly the Long Island Rail Road had a terminal there. Many of the Dodger fans were migrating to Long Island and they stopped coming to the games because the commute was inconvenient. Moses refused to condemn private property for a private business like a baseball team. One could somewhat admire his principled stand.

 

During that time Moses was already working on the concept of the Worlds Fair that would come to Flushing Meadow, Queens in the early 1960's. He offered to build O'Malley a new ballpark in Queens. Queens had a smaller population than Brooklyn but it still had a population of near 2 million. It was later the location for Shea Stadium. O'Malley response to Moses was that his fan base was in Brooklyn. That was his main market. He said that if Moses insisted on putting him in Queens that he might as well take his team to Los Angeles and build a new market for his brand out west. The rest is history. The population of LA at that time was about 2.4 million, larger than the 2 million in Queens but the Greater New York had triple the population.

 

Interesting story.

 

In a survey of nearly 200 senior marketing managers, 67 percent responded that they found the "dollar market share" metric very useful, while 61% found "unit market share" very useful.

 

In other words, you can mesure you market share in both, Revenue (via your cutomers) or quantity (number of customers)... in the end, it is always related with customers. Professional sport teams need quantity. Followers. Fanbase. They do not exist without fans. Their revenue comes from them. The more fanbase you have the more customers you have. The more fans you have, the more people wach you. The more fans you have the more revenue you have. The more revenue you have, the more market share you have. The more market share you have, the more the value of your company is. You can operate in a big territory. You can operate in small territory. If you have no fans, if you have no one who watches you, if you have no customers, you won't have revenue. Hence your company loses value. Hence your company loses market.

 

That's the value chain. Advise, take care your customers. They are the most important thing. (local/domestic/foreign). Big Market teams have in common a huge fanbase/followers (customers), beyond where they play. if they play in big market places/territory, doesn't guarantee a big market share=revenue=customers=fans. Plenty of examples are out there. We have mentioned several.

 

Are fans/followers a good thermometer in order to rate the value/market share/coverage/importance/size of a professional sport team?. If you agree from what I said, the answer is pretty simple.

[mvp 78]

Because the 49ers' date=' Chargers and Raiders are all there. The Raiders and the Rams all took a shot, but LA is still a large market, which whatever team that plays there would inherit. Regardless, its right here that it becomes a subjective term.[/quote']

 

Plus the huge USC and UCLA followings.

 

The Rams left because they were a crap organization. The Raiders left because they couldn't get a new stadium. Putting an NFL team in a 90k seat stadium didn't work (plus they were there for 10 years? Less?). Bringing them back to Oakland was probably a worse decision as they've struggled with blackouts ever since. Also, by playing up a renegade image, they alienated a good portion of the LA fan base. To this day, the Raiders still have a large following from San Diego to LA.

 

A new team would do great there depending upon where the stadium is built in relation to the traffic clusterf***.

[Spudboy]

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.

 

Excellent f***ing post. Quite eloquent, actually.

[User Name]

Opinion.....a poorly formed one at that. The key components of your argument are Forbes valuations that do not account for a large source of revenues and popularity which is irrelevant.

 

Again, tell me how international popularity benefits the NYY revenues over the Nats revenues?

 

They don't, because as i said before, all of the revenues from international broadcasting deals and merchandise sales are distributed equally amongst all teams. He disputed that point by saying i "misconstrued" his position. Um, no i didn't.

[User Name]

And there's a shitpile of teams that have devoted followings in smaller markets. Look at the Packers. Sorry' date=' but you're absolutely confusing market with popularity, that's all I can say.[/quote']

 

Absolutely correct.

[Palodios]

They don't' date=' because as i said before, all of the revenues from international broadcasting deals and merchandise sales are distributed equally amongst all teams. He disputed that point by saying i "misconstrued" his position. Um, no i didn't.[/quote']

 

Is it just me, or does anyone think this is a bad policy by the MLB? It exemplifies why communism doesn't work-- the teams in the MLB have absolutely no incentive to go after the international markets, so the sport relies mostly on the league itself to reach out to other regions. Maybe that's why baseball hasn't expanded much besides South America and Japan.

[User Name]

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.

 

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.

[User Name]

Is it just me' date=' or does anyone think this is a bad policy by the MLB? It exemplifies why communism doesn't work-- the teams in the MLB have absolutely no incentive to go after the international markets, so the sport relies mostly on the league itself to reach out to other regions. Maybe that's why baseball hasn't expanded much besides South America and Japan.[/quote']

 

It's because the merchandising aspect of it is controlled by MLB itself. Nothing to do with the teams themselves.

[Palodios]

It's because the merchandising aspect of it is controlled by MLB itself. Nothing to do with the teams themselves.

 

I'm referring to are international tv rights, not the merchandising.

[User Name]

I'm referring to are international tv rights' date=' not the merchandising.[/quote']

 

The problem regarding international TV rights is that teams that don't have enough money to buy their own cable network simply can't compete. I believe the point that they have "no incentive" to be competitive in this aspect is incorrect, because of the amount of money a cable network represents locally, which is massive.

[jung]

Boy I am not sure that the teams are strong enough as marketeers to actually do a better job individually than the league does as a whole. By and large the teams are not great marketeers.

 

Actually it is something of a mute point. As currently configured the teams really do not have a dog in that fight. They would be marketing against the league's efforts which would seem counterproductive. If MLB stepped out of the picture then the teams would be marketing against each other in those markets as well as against other sports enterprises and I think that would be a tremendous expenditure of team resources with little benefit accruing back to the team.

 

I actually think it is better left like it is. It is not really an issue of MLB teams competing with each other so much as it is MLB competing against English League Football in those international markets for example or even the NFL for that matter.

[Palodios]

The problem regarding international TV rights is that teams that don't have enough money to buy their own cable network simply can't compete. I believe the point that they have "no incentive" to be competitive in this aspect is incorrect' date=' because of the amount of money a cable network represents locally, which is massive.[/quote']

 

The MLB has worked far too hard to cater to the bottom feeders of the league. If some teams can't compete, then contract the league. There are a good number of teams that haven't fielded a competitive team in years, and there are some teams that will have a surprise team one year then completely disappear for 5-10 more years. The luxury tax is going straight into the pockets of baseball owners, and not back into baseball. Merchandising money from teams with superstars shouldn't go back to teams that don't have a single player on their team that I can name.

[User Name]

The MLB has worked far too hard to cater to the bottom feeders of the league. If some teams can't compete' date=' then contract the league. There are a good number of teams that haven't fielded a competitive team in years, and there are some teams that will have a surprise team one year then completely disappear for 5-10 more years. The luxury tax is going straight into the pockets of baseball owners, and not back into baseball. Merchandising money from teams with superstars shouldn't go back to teams that don't have a single player on their team that I can name.[/quote']

 

The problem here is twofold:

 

Number one, the misconception that Luxury tax money goes straight to team FO's. It does not work like that. You are speaking of revenue sharing, which is a different beast altogether.

 

This is how the money collected from the luxury tax is used:

 

Money collected under the MLB luxury tax are apportioned as follows: The first $5m is held in reserve, to pay for possible luxury tax refunds. Once it is clear that there are no refunds to be issued, this money is then earmarked for the Industry Growth Fund (IGF). 50% of the remaining money is used to fund player benefits, 25% is used to fund baseball programs in developing countries with no high-school baseball, and 25% is put into the Industry Growth Fund (IGF).

 

Now, here is the second problem:

 

The fact that you don't know a player from any given team is not a proper indicator of lack of interest in building a winning team. Some teams (like the Astros and Orioles) were competitive but made several erroneous business decision and are now rebuilding. These teams, along with teams like KC, the Pirates and the Marlins (pre-2011) actually sinked most of their benefits from the revenue sharing program into the draft and international signings, and they have done so because MLB oversees the program, as they should.

 

The whole idea of owners pocketing revenue sharing is a sensationalist misconception.

[Spudboy]

Excellent post.

 

Yes it was.

 

I hope this thread does not devolve into a s*** storm.

[Palodios]

The fact that you don't know a player from any given team is not a proper indicator of lack of interest in building a winning team. Some teams (like the Astros and Orioles) were competitive but made several erroneous business decision and are now rebuilding. These teams, along with teams like KC, the Pirates and the Marlins (pre-2011) actually sinked most of their benefits from the revenue sharing program into the draft and international signings, and they have done so because MLB oversees the program, as they should.

 

The whole idea of owners pocketing revenue sharing is a sensationalist misconception.

 

My bad, revenue sharing. Either way, I have read multiple articles (5-10) talking about this, and there are definitely a couple teams that the league would be better off without.

[User Name]

My bad' date=' revenue sharing. Either way, I have read multiple articles (5-10) talking about this, and there are definitely a couple teams that the league would be better off without.[/quote']

 

I don't disagree with this. But remember that by taking an absolutist approach like that you also harm the teams who are doing their best to put out a competitive team out there with a limited pool of resources.