Nationals to Sign Edwin jackson

[iortiz]

The point is that no team that you could consider outright "small market" has attempted to sign a player to a 100 million dollar contract this past five years.

 

Find me an instance where the Rays, Marlins (pre-2012), Padres, Pirates, Royals, Reds, A's, Diamondbacks or Guardians have reportedly offered a Free Agent 100 million or more to sign with them. The inability to do so is a large component of a team's "Small Market" moniker.

 

My view of payroll as an indicator of Market size is that it is very unreliable. Miami is spending a lot on payroll for the upcoming season and in past seasons they have also spent big --1997 and 2002. However' date=' they were unable to maintain those payrolls consistently because their market wouldn't sustain it. They were trying to stimulate interest and build a fan base by building powerhouse teams that won championships. It didn't work.[/quote']

 

... And Miami have been considered a small market team.

 

Again, it opens a lot speculation in order to build the case.

 

The Nationals are trying very much the same thing. It should work better than it did for the Marlins, but will it work well enough to support a big payroll consistently? Will it work well enough to build a loyal consistent fanbase, when it has been pointed out by other posters that DC residents don't go to games and the suburban base of fans would rather avoid the torturous traffic patterns in the area? Only time will tell, as E1 would say. However, at this point in time, they are not a big market team, and there isn't a single reliable report saying otherwise.

 

Compa, I do not know how american baseball fans are, but soccer fans around the world, you do not change your team just like that, even if this team has a L-record. Elk you and I have been saying the same, this thing is going to be their main challenge. IMO this is going to take a lot of time. If they invest in big (they haven't until 2011) and if they do not make a solid fan base, do not be surprised that they move/sale the franchise to other city.

 

I have to be honest. When I said the small-market thing, I rapidly imagined their fanbase=customers=market share=media market share (attendance/TV ratings) and I quickly put that "adjective". I did not make all this analysis .

 

On the other hand when I see all the signs/facts/hard data like its Forbes' rank, Payroll, TV ratings, Attendance, DC's market complexity (Elk's explanation/view), Global/US exposure, etc. Call me crazy but I just do not see them even as a mid-class team as some suggest, far less as a big market team.

 

But let's continue with the analysis... if they allow me and let's see if we can reach another conclusion.

[User Name]

... And Miami have been considered a small market team.

 

Again, it opens a lot speculation in order to build the case.

 

But the situation has changed. The Marlins are in a completely different standing now with the construction of their new stadium, and they have to keep a payroll around 90-110 million to be able to receive their picee of the revenue sharing pie. This was mentioned before in the thread.

 

For all intents and purposes, the "Miami" Marlins are no longer a small market team.

 

 

I have to be honest. When I said the small-market thing, I rapidly imagined their fanbase=customers=market share=media market share (attendance/TV ratings) and I quickly put that "adjective". I did not make all this analysis .

 

On the other hand when I see all the signs/facts/hard data like its Forbes' rank, Payroll, TV ratings, Attendance, DC's market complexity (Elk's explanation/view), Global/US exposure, etc. Call me crazy but I just do not see them even as a mid-class team as some suggest, far less as a big market team.

 

But let's continue with the analysis... if they allow me and let's see if we can reach another conclusion.

 

That's because you have tunnel vision and a pre-conceived notion. The fact that they have the ability and willingness to spend is easily identifiable, you simply choose to ignore it because it doesn't mesh with your viewpoint.

 

Suit yourself.

[iortiz]

I'm not sure if you are aware of this' date=' but operating income can be a little misleading, particularly for the Red Sox and Yankees, here's why....[/quote']

 

 

The problem is that these companies/teams are not public. I just put what Forbes' foot notes indicate as the baseball team's operative income is = EBITDA = profit. This is the only hard-data/fact thing that I know ORS, other than that is only speculation, how much does this represent? IDK...I think that we all agree that RS and NYY are big market teams Nevertheless, there's a red flag in Boston's operations ... Let's take a look at the Nats...

 

Nats just renegotiated its RSN contract, didn't they? for how much? 13%? how much does it represent? "This revenue" hasn't even been generated, has it?. Today all the signs tell me that the Nats are a small market team. Can they change the scenario? Honestly IDK even if they invest, I see a huge risk in that team, but it is only my opinion of course.

 

As I've been saying, the fair scenario IMO should be a stand alone scenario since we do not have any idea how much these guys are going to mask in their broadcast-related profits and what percentage of this revenue should be recognized in the team. In the end, if you value only the franchise and only the franchise you only want to know its ability to generate revenue by itself beyond the RSN (which is other company), unless I buy you your RSN share. Let me put this speculation... If the Nats are not capable to gain fan base=customers=market share=ability to generate revenue even if they invest in the mid-long future, they will be in serious troubles, since their value will decrease even more. They even could move.

 

Notice, that I'm not saying that we can not debate the scenario that you suggest, but it would end in a circle-discusion mostly since this share is not that big and we do not know its 2012 revenue value IMO.

[ORS]

The problem is that these companies/teams are not public. I just put what Forbes' foot notes indicate as the baseball team's operative income is = EBITDA = profit. This is the only hard-data/fact thing that I know ORS, other than that is only speculation, how much does this represent? IDK...I think that we all agree that RS and NYY are big market teams Nevertheless, there's a red flag in Boston's operations ... Let's take a look at the Nats...

 

Nats just renegotiated its RSN contract, didn't they? for how much? 13%? how much does it represent? "This revenue" hasn't been generated,, has it?. Today all the signs tell me that the Nats are a small market team. Can they change the scenario? Honestly IDK even if they invest, I see a huge risk in that team, but it is only my opinion of course.

 

As I've been saying, the fair scenario IMO should be a stand alone scenario since we do not have any idea how much these guys are going to mask in their broadcast-related profits and what percentage of this revenue should be recognized in the team. In the end, if you value only the franchise and only the franchise you only want to know its ability to generate revenue by itself beyond the RSN (which is other company), unless I buy you your RSN share. Let me put this speculation... If the Nats are not capable to gain fan base=customers=market share=ability to generate revenue even if they invest in the mid-long future, they will be in serious troubles, since their value will decrease even more. They even could move.

 

Notice, that I'm not saying that we can not debate the scenario that you suggest, but it would end in a circle-discusion IMO.

Why would they move? In 2010 they generated $36M in operating income while being a middle market team (not small). For someone so afraid of any speculation that goes counter to your point, you are running at full speed on the "move the franchise" opinion shared by Elktonick. Have some consistency.

 

They are already profitable. The just renogotiated their broadcast deal, and their stake in the RSN goes up annually. They are middle market, profitable, and on their way up. Furthermore, they are looking like they will be increasingly competitive on the field in the near future.

[iortiz]

Why would they move? In 2010 they generated $36M in operating revenue while being a middle market team (not small). For someone so afraid of any speculation that goes counter to your point, you are running at full speed on the "move the franchise" opinion shared by Elktonick.

 

They are already profitable. The just renogotiated their broadcast deal, and their stake in the RSN goes up annually. They are middle market, profitable, and on their way up.

 

If they invest as UN? suggests and for whatever reason do not win (look at us) and do not gain fan base through the years, it is a possibility ... again, it is speculation.

 

As I said, We can speculate all you want, but it won't take us anywhere. IMO

[Elktonnick]

... And Miami have been considered a small market team.

 

Again, it opens a lot speculation in order to build the case.

 

 

 

Compa, I do not know how american baseball fans are, but soccer fans around the world, you do not change your team just like that, even if this team has a L-record. Elk you and I have been saying the same, this thing is going to be their main challenge. IMO this is going to take a lot of time. If they invest in big (they haven't until 2011) and if they do not make a solid fan base, do not be surprised that they move/sale the franchise to other city.

 

I have to be honest. When I said the small-market thing, I rapidly imagined their fanbase=customers=market share=media market share (attendance/TV ratings) and I quickly put that "adjective". I did not make all this analysis .

 

On the other hand when I see all the signs/facts/hard data like its Forbes' rank, Payroll, TV ratings, Attendance, DC's market complexity (Elk's explanation/view), Global/US exposure, etc. Call me crazy but I just do not see them even as a mid-class team as some suggest, far less as a big market team.

 

But let's continue with the analysis... if they allow me and let's see if we can reach another conclusion.

 

There is a concept called market penetration. Let's say for the sack of discusssion I decide to put a MLB team in London and Mexico City. Both are huge markets. The team in London would have a high probability of failure, the team in Mexico City less so. Why because there is greater likelyhood of market penetration in Mexico City than London. That is the situation that the NATS face. Washington is not a baseball town. The NATS are fighting for survival. They may win I hope they do.

 

The NAts do benefit from one of the same things that the O's do. Frequently the NATS and the O's are visiting teams in their home ball park. I know trhat is the case because I've seen the Red Sox play in both ball parks and Red Sox fans out numbered NATS/O's fans every time.

 

Their challenge is to create a market for NATS baseball where none existed before. Until they do they aren't a large market team. Two MLB teams have failed in Washington for a reason.

[Elktonnick]

Welcome to Natstown!

 

 

 

 

This illustrates the problem:

 

 

 

Nats' TV ratings lowest in baseball

 

« Topic Start: October 04, 2011, 10:05:44 PM »

 

 

 

From dcrtv.com: Despite a surge at the beginning of the season, the Nationals attracted the smallest average regional sports network audience in MLB. SportsBusiness Journal reports that Nats games on MASN and MASN2 in 2011 averaged a 1.22 share in the Washington market this season, down 4.7% from 2010.

[a700hitter]

I provided an analysis of the figures that Forbes used that you have, apparently, ignored. That's not my fault, and it's lazy, and/or dishonest, of you to portray may argument as lacking in data.

 

I acknowledged that any attempt to understand other revenue sources would be speculative, and that I thought it was better to speculate than to ignore them completely. Ownership, or part ownership, of a regional broadcast network is a strategic move to supplement team revenues that has been in the playbook for years. It's common knowledge. Why should we ignore it when a team does it in such a large media market? In other words, use common sense to apply them. I have not stated I know the magnitude of these things, I'm asking you if you think their magnitude is large enough to have any impact given the size of the revenues tracked by Forbes. I don't think they are. Your response to that is a failed attempt to portray me as contradictory. I'm not. I openly accept, and have even asked for speculation, but I expect what you are speculating on to make a good case for inclusion.

 

Why won't you answer my questions? If RSN costs $14.95 and includes access to MLB Gameday audio, and MLB Gameday audio costs $14.95, how much do you think they get out of this? Is this an unreasonable question? I don't think it is, not when you are using it to suggest it will have a meaningful impact on a team that generated over $270M in revenues as reported by Forbes in 2010.

 

I'm open to other suggestions, but ask yourself if they pass the smell test first. That's all. Yes, I acknowledge they are making something from these ventures. They wouldn't do it for nothing, but there's also more to this than revenues. This is a "branding" type of move. Generating interest, engaging fans, gaining popularity, which ultimately increases the valuation of the team. I think a lot of these moves aren't big money makers so much as they are name makers to inflate the team's valuation. In 9 short years, Henry has increased the valuation of the team from $400M to over $900M. That's where these types of moves are real money makers.

 

What point am I trying to make? Follow the discussion. This tangent was initiated by iortiz's comment about focussing on expansion into markets outside of the local market. Yes, they are absolutely interested in that. Every business owner in the world is interested in increasing the valuation of his/her enterprise, but in the discussion of big vs. small market teams, where the generally used dividing point is revenues and the ability to spend money, I don't see where the Sox out-of-market popularity generates a revenues differential from the competition based on the current revenue sharing.

The RSN membership is not limited to the $14.99 package. In fact, it may not be the most popular level. I don't know. The others are more costly and provide extras like guaranteed opportunities to buy tickets including Monster tickets. The Sox would keep almost all of the money from the more expensive membership tiers. RSN is not the only come stream that the Sox have established. The Forbes figures do break down the valuation. These streams of income are probably factored into Brand Management which is covered by Forbes figures.

[iortiz]

But the situation has changed. The Marlins are in a completely different standing now with the construction of their new stadium, and they have to keep a payroll around 90-110 million to be able to receive their picee of the revenue sharing pie. This was mentioned before in the thread.

 

For all intents and purposes, the "Miami" Marlins are no longer a small market team.

 

 

What will happen if they they do not win. What will happen if they do not take more revenue sharing pie?

 

Again UN?.. We are speculating...

 

BTW We are going in circles. That is exactly what I wanted to avoid.

 

 

That's because you have tunnel vision and a pre-conceived notion. The fact that they have the ability and willingness to spend is easily identifiable, you simply choose to ignore it because it doesn't mesh with your viewpoint.

 

Suit yourself.

Not at all. I just want to put a fair scenario, with current/solid facts, I want to avoid "ifs" and "woulds" as possible, that's all. Your suggestion brings noise to case, IMO. I would like to hear other's opinion about this before continue.

[Elktonnick]

This is from the NATS fan forum To further illustrate my point:

 

Re: Nats Marketing

 

« Reply #8: January 26, 2012, 02:22:00 PM »

 

 

 

 

 

Quote from: Lintyfresh85 on January 26, 2012, 02:17:47 PM

 

Bullcrap.

 

They've done everything they can to make fans not interested in this team.

 

From no proper fan fest to the very minimum on marketing the team and its players, the Nationals have done nothing to build a baseball culture in DC.

 

 

 

 

Do you really think that's a whole baseball culture is built?

 

A baseball culture is built when kids grow up going to ballgames with dad and mom, with getting cards signed by players, by catching foul balls, and by living and dying with every win and loss. They grow up loving a team and sharing that love with their children. And that can only happen over generations. A baseball culture is not "marketed." It is much more organic.

 

 

 

Logged

[iortiz]

Welcome to Natstown!

 

 

 

 

This illustrates the problem:

 

 

 

Nats' TV ratings lowest in baseball

 

« Topic Start: October 04, 2011, 10:05:44 PM »

 

 

 

From dcrtv.com: Despite a surge at the beginning of the season, the Nationals attracted the smallest average regional sports network audience in MLB. SportsBusiness Journal reports that Nats games on MASN and MASN2 in 2011 averaged a 1.22 share in the Washington market this season, down 4.7% from 2010.

 

The only definition that I found out of small market team is related with the size of its media market share. Some discredited that definition, fine. UN? suggested revenue (make money)/market share (ratings/attendance) /payroll (spend). Call me crazy, but the solid facts do not allow me see them even as a mid-market team. What do you think Elk? are they a mid-market team after seeing the facts?

[Elktonnick]

The only definition that I found out of small market team is related with the size of its media market share. Some discredited that definition' date=' fine. UN? suggested revenue (make money)/market share (ratings/attendance) /payroll (spend). Call me crazy, but the solid facts do not allow me see them even as a mid-market team. What do you think Elk? are they a mid-market team after seeing the facts?[/quote']

 

It is a pointless discussion and irrelevant to the reality that the NATS face. They are at best a mid market team. They have no market penetraion. The owners are taking a big gamble that they can create the market they need to survive. Right now that market doesn't exist in Washington. I think the NATs are more exciting then most teams in MLB but their TV broadcast can't draw flies.

 

 

.

[ORS]

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.

This is where you are all f***ed up.

 

The definition you used is talking about the size of the local media market. LOCAL. And, not how much of it they command, but just the overall size of it.

 

You are talking about global share of the overall media market for the entire sport, which is popularity.

 

You are way off.

[iortiz]

It is a pointless discussion and irrelevant to the reality that the NATS face. They are at best a mid market team. They have no market penetraion. The owners are taking a big gamble that they can create the market they need to survive. Right now that market doesn't exist in Washington. I think the NATs are more exciting then most teams in MLB but their TV broadcast can't draw flies.

 

 

.

 

Well my conclusion would be:

 

Nats' Value #16

Nats' Payroll #23

Nats' Market share:

#21 attendance

#27 in TV ratings.

 

If we split 1-10 Big market, 10-20 Mid market, 20-30 small market... and if we give values to each scenario... lets say... Big Market... 3 Mid Market... 2 Small Market ... 1.

 

Its values would be:

 

Value: 2

Payroll: 1

Attendance: 1

Ratings: 1

 

That gives you a 1.25, so... with this perspectives they are a small market.

 

On the other hand...

 

They have this RSN share that could help them to generate more revenue.

They have showed desire in invest and could change its payroll ranking in the future.

They play in an interesting market place but it has a complexity (fan base distribution).

Their fan base is very thin even in their own home town. This is their biggest challenge.

 

They could reach a mid-class market size in the mid/long term if those factors/issues play in their favor otherwise they will be in serious trouble.

[User Name]

What will happen if they they do not win. What will happen if they do not take more revenue sharing pie?

 

Again UN?.. We are speculating...

 

BTW We are going in circles. That is exactly what I wanted to avoid.

 

 

 

Not at all. I just want to put a fair scenario, with current/solid facts, I want to avoid "ifs" and "woulds" as possible, that's all. Your suggestion brings noise to case, IMO. I would like to hear other's opinion about this before continue.

 

 

Per the facts (Forbes, which you introduced to the discussion) the Nats are a mid-market team. Mid-tier revenue with high-tier growth (8 %), high-tier operating income and mid-tier attendance.

 

Nothing about them is in the lower-tier regarding financials, and the market penetration point is moot when you see their upper-tier year-to-year growth.

 

The information you provided lists them as mid-market, with the spending power being the wild card between classifying them as mid or large market.

 

So how can't you see them as anything else other than small market?

[ORS]

So how can't you see them as anything else other than small market?

Because he f***ed up and called them small market to start and he has too much pride to admit he's wrong.

[Elktonnick]

This is where you are all f***ed up.

 

The definition you used is talking about the size of the local media market. LOCAL. And, not how much of it they command, but just the overall size of it.

 

You are talking about global share of the overall media market for the entire sport, which is popularity.

 

You are way off.

 

The point is there is no local market for the NATS TV broadcast. They have the worst ratings in all of MLB. It don't matter the size of their market if no one watches. And no one is watching NATS baseball unless it is a fan of the visiting team.

[Elktonnick]

Because he f***ed up and called them small market to start and he has too much pride to admit he's wrong.

 

The NAts are a small market team with hopes to become a mid sized market team. They are the Gerbil who wants to become a Hamster.

[User Name]

Directly tied to the National's non-contending status. Not necessarily an indicator of inability for "market penetration".

[User Name]

It's like the available data means nothing when compared to personal opinion.

[iortiz]

This is where you are all f***ed up.

 

The definition you used is talking about the size of the local media market. LOCAL.

 

You are talking about global share of the overall media market for the entire sport, which is popularity.

 

You are way off.

 

It was another perspective ORS, I have told you that hundred times; besides that definition was not accepted in this thread; They say that wiki is not reliable.

 

Also, their media market share is #27 in TV ratings and #21 in attendance through the 30 MLB teams. (poor fan base even in their own market)

[iortiz]

Because he f***ed up and called them small market to start and he has too much pride to admit he's wrong.

 

pride for this?

 

Nope... at all. Look at my conclusions.

[User Name]

It was another perspective ORS, I have told you that hundred times; besides that definition was not accepted in this thread; They say that wiki is not reliable.

 

Also, their media market share is #27 in TV ratings and #21 in attendance through the 30 MLB teams. (poor fan base even in their own market)

 

20 in attendance. Right at your "mid-market" threshold.

 

http://espn.go.com/mlb/attendance

[iortiz]

The point is there is no local market for the NATS TV broadcast. They have the worst ratings in all of MLB. It don't matter the size of their market if no one watches. And no one is watching NATS baseball unless it is a fan of the visiting team.

 

Exactly. This is why I put the small-market comment (thin fan base). The rest is history.

[User Name]

Fan bases are extremely fickle, as has been mentioned several times. What matters is actual fan base size.

 

A couple years ago (2008), Texas was ranked 25th in attendance in MLB. Are they a small-market team because of it?

 

That is shaky ground to stand on.

[iortiz]

20 in attendance. Right at your "mid-market" threshold.

 

http://espn.go.com/mlb/attendance

 

oks lets give them a 1.5 in that department since it is on the edge. agree?

[ORS]

It was another perspective ORS, I have told you that hundred times; besides that definition was not accepted in this thread; They say that wiki is not reliable.

 

Also, their media market share is #27 in TV ratings and #21 in attendance through the 30 MLB teams. (poor fan base even in their own market)

Wiki is fine in my book.

 

What does "it was another perspective" mean? Reading that definition and getting the correct meaning from the words is not a matter of perspective. The definition is very specific.

 

And, you are still getting it wrong. That definition is not talking about their "media market share". It is talking about the overall size of the media market in which they play their games. You demonstrate a failure to understand this every time share these popularity figures.

[iortiz]

Fan bases are extremely fickle, as has been mentioned several times. What matters is actual fan base size.

 

A couple years ago (2008), Texas was ranked 25th in attendance in MLB. Are they a small-market team because of it?

 

That is shaky ground to stand on.

 

yup, This is why I am making a deeper analysis. You put the bases and I already put my conclusions. Put yours If you are not agree... no big deal to me. As I said, I only wanted to enrich my perspective and I already did.

[User Name]

yup' date=' This is why I am making a deeper analysis. You put the bases and I already put my conclusions. Put yours If you are not agree... no big deal to me. As I said, I only wanted to enrich my perspective and I already did.[/quote']

 

With certain exceptions (like the Cubs) fan attendance and TV ratings are directly tied in to the success of the team. The real important factor isn't the ratings themselves, but the size of the potential base they can tap from.

 

"If we win, they will come".

[ORS]

The point is there is no local market for the NATS TV broadcast. They have the worst ratings in all of MLB. It don't matter the size of their market if no one watches. And no one is watching NATS baseball unless it is a fan of the visiting team.

I beg to differ. If there was no market for the product, they wouldn't have received $29M from MASN last year, a figure considered by many baseball insiders to reportedly be a sweetheart deal for Angelos.

 

Do they need to improve their market penetration? Absolutely, they are just now scraping ground, but the market is huge. This alone makes them a mid-market team.