Nationals to Sign Edwin jackson

[ORS]

I have explained to you in so many different ways over and over again. Sorry' date=' I just do not find another better way to do it. This is turning in circles.[/quote']

I find this unacceptable. You have accused me of going in circles and you have not provided a sensible explanation of your accusation. If you are going to make such an accusation, you should have the good character to explain it when asked by the accused. Disappointing.

[iortiz]

Not clear at all. Spending' date=' 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".[/quote']

 

Wrong again.

 

If you try, yes, you can succeed, no doubt, but you can fail as well, even investing as UN? suggests.

 

BL. This big market place doesn't guarantee anything in order to succeed or fail. Their money doesn't either.

 

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

[iortiz]

I find this unacceptable. You have accused me of going in circles and you have not provided a sensible explanation of your accusation. If you are going to make such an accusation' date=' you should have the good character to explain it when asked by the accused. Disappointing.[/quote']

 

Sorry, but you have been in circles, I suggested several times to drop it., You refuse, you insist in going in circles...

 

I'm not sure if this is an insult in english, if yes I won't use it anymore and my apologies.

[ORS]

Wrong again.

 

If you try, yes, you can succeed, no doubt, but you can fail as well, even investing as UN? suggest.

No, that's how you posted it. Of course you can fail, that's in the saying "nothing ventured, nothing gained". Ventured means "risked", as in you could lose it and fail. It goes without saying.

 

However, the saying is meant to convey that you lose the opportunity to gain by doing nothing. In other words, you do not win every bet that you do not make. It is not meant to convey that you could fail if you try.

 

You got it backwards.

[ORS]

Sorry, but you have been in circles, I suggested several times to drop it., You refuse, you insist in going in circles...

 

I'm not sure if this is an insult in english, if yes I won't use it anymore and my apologies.

It's not an insult, but it is an accusation.

 

When you say my argument is going in circles, you are saying that it is not consistent. It starts in one direction, makes many changes in direction, even to the point where it is going in the opposite direction, and makes more changes to where it gets back to the original direction, like a circle.

 

If this is not what you meant, then I'll drop it.

 

If it is what you meant, you should have the good character to explain where my argument has lost consistency if I ask for it.

 

If you lack to good character to provide this explanation, then I have no interest in discussing with you further, on any topic.

[iortiz]

No, that's how you posted it. Of course you can fail, that's in the saying "nothing ventured, nothing gained". Ventured means "risked", as in you could lose it and fail. It goes without saying.

 

However, the saying is meant to convey that you lose the opportunity to gain by doing nothing. In other words, you do not win every bet that you do not make. It is not meant to convey that you could fail if you try.

 

You got it backwards.

My bad, I put a bad perspective here, and you are right.

 

What I was trying to say is that a big market place doesn't guarantee them success.

[Elktonnick]

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.

 

The O's draw from Northern Va will go to DC maybe. The O's draw from the Maryland suburbs will stay with the O's. There are several problems the NATS have that the O's didn't and don't. When I went to a Nats game, if saw few very few African Americans in the stands. The NAts have to attract the City's African American population. Who are their African American stars. If they hadn't gotten Fielder that would have been a start, a very good start. Second while Nats ballpark is a great ballpark it is on the wrong side of town to attract from the Northern Va suburbs. Parking is expensive and the Metro is notoriously slow in non rush hour. Baseball plays everyday unlike football. The Washington commute starts very early 5:30 am to 6 to beat the worst of it. When I worked in DC ot would take two hours to get to work if I left at 6:30 and I lived less than twenty five miles from my office. One of baseball's biggest problems in DC is whether the DC suburban fans will go to night games during the week. Traffic is worse today then ever IMHO. These aren't small issues to overcome

[ORS]

The lack of African American interest in baseball is nationwide, not a DC issue. Traffic is going out of the city in the evening. I think these issues, while legitimate, will be overcome by a competitive team. We'll find out soon. If Strasbourg stays healthy and Harper is the real deal, they'll have the star power (with Morse and Zimmerman) to attract the fans.

[iortiz]

It's not an insult, but it is an accusation.

 

When you say my argument is going in circles, you are saying that it is not consistent. It starts in one direction, makes many changes in direction, even to the point where it is going in the opposite direction, and makes more changes to where it gets back to the original direction, like a circle.

 

If this is not what you meant, then I'll drop it.

 

If it is what you meant, you should have the good character to explain where my argument has lost consistency if I ask for it.

 

If you lack to good character to provide this explanation, then I have no interest in discussing with you further, on any topic.

 

 

 

The thing ORS is that you always show up with a bad attitude "you do not know this or that..." "No excuses" " f*** this, f*** that" "running speed...", etc. and you do not even read the threads and its contexts. You have said that you weren't interested in this thread and suddenly you seem to be the most interested poster; you said that you didn't want to read the whole thread, but you make me accusations... sorry I just do not get it.

 

I've been telling you that I used that argument as an another perspective, you refused to accept what I meant. You do not want to believe me. I do not know why. What else can I do?. I really do not know what are your intentions. If you had read my post #323 we shouldn't even have this discussion. Since you didn't read that post (I suppose) we are going in circles again, look at your post #373. We already had begun a new whole exercise.

[ORS]

The thing ORS is that you always show up with a bad attitude "you do not know this or that..." "No excuses" " f*** this' date=' f*** that" "running speed...", etc. and you do not even read the threads and its contexts. You have said that you weren't interested in this thread and suddenly you seem to be the most interested poster; you said that you didn't want to read the whole thread, but you make me accusations... sorry I just do not get it. [/quote']

Why is it a bad attitude if I tell you that you don't know how something works when what you posted demonstrates that you don't know how it works? That's the reality of the situation. If it bothers you, then don't post stuff that is wrong. I entered this discussion because you demonstrated no understanding of MLB revenue sharing from international markets. After that post, I started getting mocked and laughed at by you and your buddy. My attitude definitely soured after that, but you played a part there.

 

I've been telling you that I used that argument as an another perspective, you refused to accept what I meant. You do not want to believe me. I do not know why. What else can I do?. I really do not know what are your intentions. If you had read my post #323 we shouldn't even have this discussion. Since you didn't read that post (I suppose) we are going in circles again, look at your post #373. We already had begun a new whole exercise.

At this point, since you seem to struggle with the concept of "perspective" what argument are you talking about that I refused what you meant? Are you talking about the definition you posted on the first page? If so, my issue with it is that you misread what it means. That isn't "perspective" no matter how many times to try to excuse it as such. It's just wrong. Wrong is wrong.

 

I don't think revenues are the only determinant of big vs small market team, but I do think they are very important. I think the size of the local media market is very important too. In terms of revenues, they were #15, in the upper half.....definitely not small. In terms of media market, they are #8. I've said before, I think they are mid-market, but if forced to choose between big and small, based on their revenues and media market, I put them in the big category.

[a700hitter]

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.

The top 10 big market value teams account for as much value as the bottom 20 combined. As I posted earlier, the bottom 20 are very closely bunched together. In 2002, the Twins were considered for contraction and now they are ranked #12. The movement in the bottom 20 will be more fluid over time than movement among the big market teams. I conceded that the Nats were in the middle of the rankings but anyone in the so-called middle market is closer to being a small market team than a big market team. This thread contains pages and pages of nothing that would support the proposition that the Nats are a big market team at this time. All financial information and information regarding their television ratings points in the opposite direction. Yet you continue to argue a position for which there is no support.

[a700hitter]

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.

Your posting has been amazingly consistent for 6 years-- totally devoid of any substance and always intolerant of those who disagree with your point of view. Kudos to you for that. Add some substance for a change and get off the backs of others.

[a700hitter]

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.

How can he say that? They are on their 4th chance with a baseball team. The first 3 failed. Theis team can boast:

 

14th rank in attendance out of 16 teams in NL

27 out of 30 ranking in TV ratings

 

That sounds like a good baseball town?

[User Name]

Inconsequential to the current discussion.

[ORS]

How can he say that? They are on their 4th chance with a baseball team. The first 3 failed. Theis team can boast:

 

14th rank in attendance out of 16 teams in NL

27 out of 30 ranking in TV ratings

 

That sounds like a good baseball town?

Yeah, ignore my caveat, and argue the point I didn't make. Please try and stick to what I actually said.

[User Name]

Yeah' date=' ignore my caveat, and argue the point I didn't make. Please try and stick to what I actually said.[/quote']

 

It's a specialty skill. Oops, sorry, forgot we're nerds and spend too much time playing video games if we say things like that...

[a700hitter]

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

He has to go in circles, because he has nothing to support his assertion of big market. Every published study and report provide financial and other measures proving otherwise. We have had a resident from the area weigh in about the various demographic and geographic challenges etc. All he is left with is arguing the periphery and trying to identify some inconsistencies on the periphery to try to create some confusion and uncertainty. This issue was closed days ago.

 

1. They are not a big market team today. This has been in no way controverted with any reliable evidence or data.

 

2. They have a lot of challenges ahead in trying to become a big market team. IMO, winning will obviously help the situation, but it will not be enough by itself.

 

3. Any team in the bottom 20 of the Forbes rankings is closer to a small market team than a big market team.

[User Name]

Lots of assumption and little hard data here.

[a700hitter]

Yeah' date=' ignore my caveat, and argue the point I didn't make. Please try and stick to what I actually said.[/quote']He said that Washington was a crappy baseball town and you asked in reply how he could definitively say that? I gnored no caveat. I addressed the point head on and directly something that you never do.

[ORS]

He said that Washington was a crappy baseball town and you asked in reply how he could definitively say that? I gnored no caveat. I addressed the point head on and directly something that you never do.

 

And my post, which you quoted, stated a circumstance that has not existed in over 40 years, a winning baseball team in Washington, in questioning the definitive nature of that statement. Thus, you ignored my caveat. Quit jumping in half-cocked in your zeal to argue with everything I say. You're making yourself look foolish.

[a700hitter]

And my post' date=' which you quoted, stated a circumstance that has not existed in over 40 years, a winning baseball team in Washington, in questioning the definitive nature of that statement. Thus, you ignored my caveat. Quit jumping in half-cocked in your zeal to argue with everything I say. You're making yourself look foolish.[/quote']You are looking foolish in this thread. You have utterly failed in providing any support for the position that the Nats are a big market team, but yet you persevere without any clear point.

[User Name]

Point A: ORS says that the Nats are most likely a mid-market team, but that if given the "Big" or "Small" categories to work with, he would go with big.

 

Point B: Pertinent data about spending power, growth rate, MASN deal, and and population and tv statistics posted.

 

Response: No sensible point has been made.

 

My reaction: Time for bed.

[ORS]

You are looking foolish in this thread. You have utterly failed in providing any support for the position that the Nats are a big market team' date=' but yet you persevere without any clear point.[/quote']

If you have failed comprehend my point to date in this thread, it says a ton more about you than it does me.

[iortiz]

Why is it a bad attitude if I tell you that you don't know how something works when what you posted demonstrates that you don't know how it works? That's the reality of the situation. If it bothers you' date=' then don't post stuff that is wrong.I entered this discussion because you demonstrated no understanding of MLB revenue sharing from international markets. After that post, I started getting mocked and laughed at by you and your buddy. My attitude definitely soured after that, but you played a part there. At this point, since you seem to struggle with the concept of "perspective" what argument are you talking about that I refused what you meant? [/quote'] That is exactly the problem, I am not wrong. Since you did not read the whole thread (You said that you did not want to) hence you do not realize the context of the discussion, and you are only making wrong accusations. Again, and for Nth time please try to understand my position (I do not care whether you agree or not at this point)...

 

1.- The global thing was another perspective. Usually global/big market teams, beyond the professional sport have global penetration. The Nats are not even followed in its own homeland. I already put some facts. (e.i. attendance and TV ratings). Elk put another perspective as well.

 

2.- Their global exposure thing will impact the value of a team's brand as a franchise, Hence its size (valuation) will be different if a team has exposure in other markets.

 

3. A700 already put some examples of other revenue streams and how MLB team's exposure in other markets could impact their overall revenue as well. For how much will it impact their revenue? What other things could impact their revenue via other markets (directly/indirectly) ? We do not know since we do not know their financial statements. Nevertheless I already put a EBITDA perspective.

 

I do not have the NYY's/BOS's books in order to know what is the impact (value) of these income streams via other markets (directly/indirectly). I do not know if these streams are about 100* of millions or 10* of millions or only a couple of millions. I do not even know how much their global exposure/popularity could impact the BRAND-value specially in big market teams like Boston or NYY, e.i. if they decide to sell only the franchise someday. I suppose a lot.

 

On the other hand, and looking at MLB teams' operative incomes (EBIDA), the magnitudes fluctuate from -6 M to 30 M; Forbes suggests. It's curious that the only two teams that had negative records were the Mets and the Red Sox in this regard. We have been saying that our baseball operations did not look good from an outside-in perspective. Forbes suggests that Red Sox' 2011 EBITDA was -1.1 M (Probably this was the driver of the clean up). This team was not profitable according with Forbes last year (Maybe this was the reason why they do not want to spend this year among other). If these streams represent the 1-3% of Red Sox' franchise value (which is a very viable quantity IMO) , and if we put this in perspective, it would have represented a 10-20 M EBITDA. NYY's operative income (EBITDA) according with Forbes was 25 M. If all these is true, their interest in other markets is legit and important IMO, and could play an interesting role in the size of a team (franchise value/brand value). But again, we will never know since we do not know how they make their revenue recognition.

 

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.

 

It is just another perspective though.

 

 

Are you talking about the definition you posted on the first page?If so, my issue with it is that you misread what it means. That isn't "perspective" no matter how many times to try to excuse it as such. It's just wrong. Wrong is wrong.

 

For once and for all, Forget that definition it was not accepted in this thread anyway. Again, Read my post #323. Drop it. Move on.

 

I don't think revenues are the only determinant of big vs small market team, but I do think they are very important. I think the size of the local media market is very important too

 

Again that is your opinion (respectable one), and it could have helped a lot after my post #323, instead, you went in circles.

 

In terms of revenues, they were #15, in the upper half.....definitely not small. In terms of media market, they are #8. I've said before, I think they are mid-market, but if forced to choose between big and small, based on their revenues and media market, I put them in the big category.

 

Well that is your conclusion not mine.

 

Heres is mine

 

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 perspective they are a small market.

 

On the other hand...

 

They have this RSN share that could help them to generate more revenue. (We will never know the impact though)

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.

 

If you do not agree, fine, but please do not try to convince me that I'm wrong. I have read a lot and I won't change my opinion. I do not agree with your conclusion either.

[User Name]

Then why are you arguing? Besides, it doesn't change the fact that you've misinterpreted copious amounts of the data presented here.

[iortiz]

Then why are you arguing? Besides' date=' it doesn't change the fact that you've misinterpreted copious amounts of the data presented here.[/quote']

 

Read my post #323, and probably you will find the answer.

[User Name]

Read my post #323' date=' and probably you will find the answer. [/quote']

 

By the way, the Nats will get booted off the revenue sharing program, wanna know why?

 

Because MLB itself categorizes them as one of the fifteen largest markets.

 

Mark Zuckerberg:

 

Here's another subtle change to baseball's collective bargaining agreement that will have a significant effect on the way the Washington Nationals do business:

 

As part of the sport's new labor agreement, teams from the 15 largest markets in the country will no longer be allowed to receive money through MLB's revenue sharing program.

 

Which means the Nationals (who do come from a large market) will be losing out on funds coming their way from other clubs, beginning no later than 2016.

 

In the past, revenue sharing dispersal wasn't based on market size, but rather payroll size. So the Nationals, despite playing in the eighth-largest metropolitan area in the United States (according to the 2010 Census), have been on the receiving end of revenue sharing because their payrolls have consistently ranked in the bottom half of the league.

 

That's going to change in the future.

 

According to the rules of the new CBA, teams from the 15 largest markets will now be "disqualified from receiving revenue sharing by 2016." The revenue sharing funds that would have been distributed to those disqualified franchises will be refunded to the franchises that are paying out the funds.

 

In other words, there's no excuse anymore for the Nationals to field a club with a payroll in the bottom half of baseball.

[iortiz]

By the way, the Nats will get booted off the revenue sharing program, wanna know why?

 

Because MLB itself categorizes them as one of the fifteen largest markets.

 

market places, no market teams.

[User Name]

market places' date=' no market teams.[/quote']

 

Did you read the quote? It's what ORS and i have been talking about all along, and MLB itself sees it that way:

 

Team market size= Size of market place + Team Spending power.

 

According to MLB, the Nationals do not qualify as a small market team because they rank high in both items, therefore they will be left out of the revenue sharing program.

 

Call them mid-market if you will, but that is defining evidence that MLB itself does not consider the Nats small-market.

[iortiz]

The top 10 big market value teams account for as much value as the bottom 20 combined. As I posted earlier' date=' the bottom 20 are very closely bunched together. In 2002, the Twins were considered for contraction and now they are ranked #12. The movement in the bottom 20 will be more fluid over time than movement among the big market teams. I conceded that the Nats were in the middle of the rankings but anyone in the so-called middle market is closer to being a small market team than a big market team. This thread contains pages and pages of nothing that would support the proposition that the Nats are a big market team at this time. All financial information and information regarding their television ratings points in the opposite direction. Yet you continue to argue a position for which there is no support.[/quote']

 

This.