Nationals to Sign Edwin jackson

[iortiz]

]Wiki is fine in my book.

well, some do not trust it.

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.

It was another perspective if you do not like it, it's up to you.

 

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.

 

This.

 

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.

[iortiz]

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".

 

Well, as I said, I considered several factors in the analysis.

[Elktonnick]

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.

 

The NATS have the worst TV ratings in MLB. That amount of money is insignificant when others get over 100 million a year. The potential market may be bigger but that includes the northern suburbs who are O's fans. The Nats have potential but the question is whether they achieve it. The track record is against them. Spin it any way you want but until they do they are a small market team hoping to expand their market. That is the accurate picture.

[User Name]

So did the Rangers a couple of years ago, and look at what they are now. That's a shaky argument to say the least.

 

If there are enough people in the market, team success will improve TV ratings. That is a non-issue.

[ORS]

well, some do not trust them.

 

It was another perspective if you do not like it, it's up to you.

But, it's not a matter of perspective. We are not talking about subjective terms. We are talking about specific terms.

 

You want to know what I like? I like it when people use definitions properly in their arguments. You aren't understanding what the definition you used is saying.

 

This.

Wait, wait, wait. Where did your love for hard data go? I guess that love of hard numbers only applies when it is convenient. Elktonnick's statement is not supported by the facts, the data. People are watching. People are watching enough for them to have been paid $29M for broadcast rights, with most following the current contract negotiations anticipating that amount will increase by 2x to 3x in magnitude. Results are what matters, right? No excuses.

[iortiz]

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.

 

Totally disagree. If they do not penetrate as they expect, or even worse, if they do not gain more fans or lose their current fans they will be in jeopardy mostly if they invest as UN? suggests.

 

The market place is only an opportunity to succeed, it is not for granted (for sure). They have to win that market place, they have not. Elk already gave us the current DC scenario. It will be very challenging.

[ORS]

The NATS have the worst TV ratings in MLB. That amount of money is insignificant when others get over 100 million a year. The potential market may be bigger but that includes the northern suburbs who are O's fans. The Nats have potential but the question is whether they achieve it. The track record is against them. Spin it any way you want but until they do they are a small market team hoping to expand their market. That is the accurate picture.

Not according to several insiders who have followed both the business of sports and Washington sports, who call them mid, and/or, big market. Boswell's been around forever. I remember reading him when I was in HS 25 years ago.

 

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

 

Clearly, I'm out here on crazy island.

[User Name]

The point of revenue sharing and the MASN deal has been conveniently ignored several times throughout the thread.

[VA Sox Fan]

Good idea VA; why don't you become a Nats fan? It would do you good and you wouldn't have to read things that would upset you since Nats fans are all pretty homgenious and maybe a little dull. Let me know when you make the conversion and I'll even throw in pink Nats hat on me.:thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:

 

Maybe I will when I'm 60 years old (NEVER EVER IN A MILLION). About the same time you became a Red Sox fan. Pink hat??? LIFE LONG Red Sox Fan here.

[Elktonnick]

Not according to several insiders who have followed both the business of sports and Washington sports, who call them mid, and/or, big market. Boswell's been around forever. I remember reading him when I was in HS 25 years ago.

 

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

 

Clearly, I'm out here on crazy island.

 

I used to read Boswell when I read the Post everyday but the Post sports page isn't very good except for football. The insiders and Boswell are painting an overly rosy picture. The DCTV website which follows the Baltimore Washington Media market is the authoratative source on this area's media market. They reported that NATs ratings declined by 4% this year and are the worst in MLB. Washington has potential but it isn't a baseball town. Again read what their fans are saying on the Nats forum.

[User Name]

So now the opinion of the people who "make a living talking about sports" doesn't matter, but what fans in forums say matters?

 

SMH.

[VA Sox Fan]

You should become a Nationals fan. You live in their big market.

 

And you should become a NYY fan because you live in their big market. That would be perfect for you "realistic" attitude.

[ORS]

Totally disagree. If they do not penetrate as they expect, or even worse, if they do not gain more fans or lose their current fans they will be in jeopardy mostly if they invest as UN? suggests.

 

The market place is only an opportunity to succeed, it is not for granted (for sure). They have to win that market place, they have not. Elk already gave us the current DC scenario. It will be very challenging.

Not really. All they need to do is get good, and there are multiple paths to achieving that goal. There are risks associated with each path, but let's remember, they've only been there for a handful of years.

 

Elktonnick is right in that there are some unique challenges in that market, but his perspective is not without fault. I spent the first 24 years of my life in the DC area. It's not true to say it is a not a sports town. It supports the 'Skins, Capitals, and Wizards just fine, and the town will support a baseball team as well.

[iortiz]

But, it's not a matter of perspective. We are not talking about subjective terms. We are talking about specific terms.

 

You want to know what I like? I like it when people use definitions properly in their arguments. You aren't understanding what the definition you used is saying.

 

I suggested to read the whole thing, You refused to do it. I use it as another perspective, beyond that definition which btw was not accepted in this thread. You said that revenue is the way to do it. I supposed that you didn't accept it either. Now you say that wiki is good book. You are contradicting yourself. You are confused dude, you are going in circles with this. You will not change my position on this, no matter how hard you try, I know what I meant. That call stands.

 

Wait, wait, wait. Where did your love for hard data go? I guess that love of hard numbers only applies when it is convenient. Elktonnick's statement is not supported by the facts, the data. People are watching. People are watching enough for them to have been paid $29M for broadcast rights, with most following the current contract negotiations anticipating that amount will increase by 2x to 3x in magnitude. Results are what matters, right? No excuses.

look at TV ratings, that is a way to measure. Those are the facts. if you can't see that, the conversation is worthless. I invited everybody to participate in the analysis. You only want to go in circles. Make your conclusions. I already made mine. if you do not like it... sorry but that's the way I see the thing.

[Elktonnick]

While Washingtonshould be considered a large market based on population and wealth, the problem for the NATs and O's is they share the market, just like the Braves and Red Sox did in Boston 60 years ago. The Baltimore Washington area has been through this before. Every time the Washington team folded and had to move. Why should this be any different

[User Name]

TV ratings are as prone to fluctuation as attendance, and directly tied to team success. Again, 2008 Rangers.

 

It's not solid footing to stand on.

[User Name]

Sharing a market is not a basis for dismissal when the market is that big.

[VA Sox Fan]

You didn't post for about a week' date=' and you come back and still post nothing of substance. You just bitch and moan about other posters. [b'] There was a lot less whining when you were on hiatus.[/b]

 

I remember how awesome it was around here when you got banned for fighting with ital, someone approximately 30 years younger than you. Ahhhhh...the good old days!

 

My posting style has been consistent for about 6 years. Now you have some other "realist/negative" posters that agree/worship you and you challenge me. I've never had to put trolls on ignore for harassing me. In fact, SBF was the pretty much the first ever. And I still haven't put him on ignore or anyone for that matter. To quote jacksonianmarch, the "Ignore feature is for pussies"

 

I was busy for a week or so. Work/family issues. Sorry, my life gets busy from time to time.

[Elktonnick]

Not really. All they need to do is get good, and there are multiple paths to achieving that goal. There are risks associated with each path, but let's remember, they've only been there for a handful of years.

 

Elktonnick is right in that there are some unique challenges in that market, but his perspective is not without fault. I spent the first 24 years of my life in the DC area. It's not true to say it is a not a sports town. It supports the 'Skins, Capitals, and Wizards just fine, and the town will support a baseball team as well.

 

Washington is a great football town, a great hockey town, a great college basketball town, and so so pro basketball town, it is a crappy Major League baseball town.

[ORS]

I suggested to read the whole thing' date=' You refused to do it. I use it as another perspective, beyond that definition which btw was not accepted in this thread. You said that revenue is the way to do it. I supposed that you didn't accept it either. Now you say that wiki is good book. You are contradicting yourself. You are confused dude, you are going in circles with this. You will not change my position on this, no matter how hard you try, I know what I meant. That call stands.[/quote']

In the name of all that is good and holy, what in the f*** are you talking about? You posted a definition and then proceeded to interpret it wrong multiple times in the thread. "Check the definition" .... it's in like 50% of your posts after you posted the definition. You used the definition wrong. Period, you did.

 

Where have I contradicted myself on the use of wiki?

[ORS]

Washington is a great football town' date=' a great hockey town, a great college basketball town, and so so pro basketball town, it is a crappy Major League baseball town.[/quote']

How can you say that definitively? There hasn't been a team there in over 40 years (save the last handful). The O's always got a good draw from DC when they were good. I think the team will get behind them, but I do forsee a potential image problem. If Lerner goes turtle with his money and the area gets the sense that he's not going to put effort into the team, then there could be problems. Short of that, I think the town supports a winner.

 

EDIT: And, I don't mean just a winner. I think the first influx of fans will come with the first competitive team and that it perpetuates from there.

[iortiz]

Not really. All they need to do is get good' date=' and there are multiple paths to achieving that goal[/b']. There are risks associated with each path, but let's remember, they've only been there for a handful of years.

 

Elktonnick is right in that there are some unique challenges in that market, but his perspective is not without fault. I spent the first 24 years of my life in the DC area. It's not true to say it is a not a sports town. It supports the 'Skins, Capitals, and Wizards just fine, and the town will support a baseball team as well.

 

Again, nobody knows what is going to happen. It could take both directions (success and failure). Let me put a perspective.... I know I know... you do not like them, but let me try with this.

 

Let's say that you want a girl and you go to a bar where always are lot of hot girls. If you are ugly and shy and if you do not go and talk to a girl, your objective will fail. You will not get a lady, even if out there are tons of hot girls.

[iortiz]

In the name of all that is good and holy, what in the f*** are you talking about? You posted a definition and then proceeded to interpret it wrong multiple times in the thread. "Check the definition" .... it's in like 50% of your posts after you posted the definition. You used the definition wrong. Period, you did.

 

Where have I contradicted myself on the use of wiki?

 

Drop it. Move on. Seriously. You are going in circles.

[VA Sox Fan]

Again, nobody knows what is going to happen. It could take both directions (success and failure). Let me put a perspective.... I know I know... you do not like them, but let me try with this.

 

Let's say that you want a girl and you go to a bar where always are lot of hot girls. If you are ugly and shy and if you do not go and talk to a girl, your objective will fail. You will not get a lady, even if out there are tons of hot girls.

 

Well, ok I guess. But if you attempt John Nash's theory in " A Beautiful Mind" you just might get lucky with one of the hot ones.

[ORS]

Again' date=' nobody knows what is going to happen. It could take both directions (success and failure). Let me put a perspective.... I know I know... you do not like them, but let me try with this.[/quote']

You need to get something straight, to understand. I have no problem with perspective provided it is the right time to put something in a different perspective. Definitions are not a matter of perspective.

 

Let's say that you want a girl and you go to a bar where always are lot of hot girls. If you are ugly and shy and if you do not go and talk to a girl, your objective will fail. You will not get a lady, even if out there are tons of hot girls.

I get it, nothing ventured, nothing gained.

 

How does this apply to the conversation?

[ORS]

Drop it. Move on. Seriously. You are going in circles.

No, I'm not.

 

Explain, in detail, one circular argument I've made. If you are going to make this kind of accusation, you better be able to back it up, or you should retract it.

[User Name]

It applies even less seeing as how the Nats have been desperately trying to throw money around on elite FA's the last couple of years.

[iortiz]

No, I'm not.

 

Explain, in detail, one circular argument I've made. If you are going to make this kind of accusation, you better be able to back it up, or you should retract it.

I have explained to you in so many different ways over and over again. Sorry, I just do not find another better way to do it. This is turning in circles.

[iortiz]

You need to get something straight, to understand. I have no problem with perspective provided it is the right time to put something in a different perspective. Definitions are not a matter of perspective.

 

That definition was not accepted in this thread, reason why I started another analysis. UN? put the bases, the rest is history.

 

I get it, nothing ventured, nothing gained.

 

How does this apply to the conversation?

 

If the Nats do not get fans (even in a big market place) they will not succeed and mostly if they spend like UN? suggests. Clearer?

[ORS]

That definition was not accepted in this thread, reason why I started another analysis. UN? put the bases, the rest is history.

 

 

 

If the Nats do not get fans (even in a big market place) they will not succeed and mostly if they spend like UN? suggests. Clearer?

Not clear at all. Spending, like UN suggests, represents the "venture", getting fans is the "gain". You have it backwards. You are essentially saying, "You will not succeed if you try". The correct perspective is, "If you do not try, you will not gain".