example1

Is this the link you were talking about? Here: http://www.arbitron.com/home/mm001050.asp Where does DC rank in media market. You look and report whether it is near the top or bottom of the list.

How about you provide a link or two instead of nonsensical questions. What is the media market coverage? What does that mean? Every city broadcasts games locally and that's where most of their money comes from. I've said a dozen times I'm not arguing the nationals are the Yankees. Those comparisons should stop because you are wasting your time. Compare the nationals to the rest of the league. By franchise value and media market size (where money comes from for every team) they are middle of the pack. Mid-market. Not small market.

Why is the global market important when it is such as relatively small portion of ANY teams revenue? That doesn't mean they wouldnt want it to expand, but even teams like the Yankees make a vast majority of their funds locally. You may not think much of my business sense but Im not impressed with your reading skills. Did you read the article? No mention of international anything. I think you are mistaking the global business economy with the priorities of the businesses we are discussing. The NFL is by FAR the most profitable league in the US. It has virtually no international reach and doesn't need it. Apparently you haven't noticed many Americans don't care about the rest of the world unless it will make them a buck or two.

You got the argument-at least my part of it-wrong. I've stated it numerous times. He said they were a small market team. We said they aren't. He thinks he proved it by saying they aren't a big market team. I contest there is a middle group of teams. I'm not trying to create a middle class. I'm just trying to keep him (and you apparently) from being reductionistic. The nationals had a median salary above 1m last year. A few teams had median salaries closer to 400k. Those teams like TB, KC and PIT are small market teams. Call the group in the middle whatever you want, just don't stratify the bottom 85% of teams into the same group when salaries, spending patterns, market size and franchise values dictate another more nuanced view of a complicated topic.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505125_162-51210671/the-revenue-model-why-baseball-is-booming/ Here's an article talking about why and how baseball continues to make money. Nowhere on the list do they note how important it is to be international. Two most important sources? Ticket and concessions sales, and LOCAL media. IOrtiz, did you realize baseball is relatively unpopular here? The World Series has very little national viewership. Compared to the Super Bowl it gets maybe 1/10 the viewership. Nobody aside from good baseball fans even care about national games. It's all about local viewership.

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.

I think you are overestimating the value of a "world wide" media market. Baseball is a big game, but I just don't think that many teams at all have a significant portion of their income through the "national market" let alone the "world market". Yes, the game is world-wide, and yes there are fans in the Dominican and Mexico and Canada and Japan, but it just isn't about the world market compared to the local market. The Yankees make most of their money through the ticket gate and through YES Network. Sox do the same with tickets and NESN. The Rangers just completed a $3B deal for their own regional sports network, which catipults them into the 'big leagues' so to speak. Here's the Forbes ranking of the Nationals: http://www.forbes.com/lists/2011/33/baseball-valuations-11_Washington-Nationals_337401.html They were the #16 most valuable franchise in baseball in 2011, behind Seattle and ahead of Colorado. They are listed as having promising growth potential. I still contest that this is all a giant strawman and in no way relates to their signing of Edwin Jackson. Jackson is an affordable player to just about every team... who would have been shocked if he had signed with, say, Seattle, Colorado, Baltimore, or even San Diego? A) He's not that good (I would have been happy with him in BOS, but he's not that good) B ) He's not that expensive C) Most MLB teams can afford a number of players like him... I just don't see what the big deal is. :dunno:

This is an unbelievably stupid discussion. Everyone in the US apparently knows the DC area is a big media market. It is a big market in football, is a big market by population standards, and the owners have a lot of money. A700 is absolutely right that DC franchises have failed in the past. This franchise is trying to take a different approach, undoubtedly. But all of that aside, the argument started over shock that the Nationals signed Edwin Jackson to a one year deal, because they weren't a large market team. Even if we admit that they aren't a large market team (they are, but it isn't worth arguing anymore) they aren't a SMALL market team by any stretch... and regardless of market size, they have an owner who is willing to spend right now. I don't see why there is even any discussion to be had about this right now. Why does the owner want to spend? Well, as was mentioned, there is potentially a market. The Orioles share the market and they are constantly pathetic. There is a lot of potential for natural rivals with the Mets and the Phillies in easy driving distance. And, most importantly, the Nationals truly think they have the next generational talent on BOTH sides of the ball. Stephen Strasburg was increasing attendence on the road during his rookie campaign. If he is healthy then he could truly be something special. Remember the gushing about Michael Pineda? Strasburg laughs at that. He has the potential to laugh at Felix Hernandez. He's that good. Bryce Harper is also billed as one of the more exciting players on the other side of the ball, especially considering his age. He's a stud and has HOF caliber ceiling. THAT'S what the ownership thinks it is building around. Edwin Jackson is just a tiny, tiny piece of a much larger puzzle.

Cherington doesn't know what he's doing. Valentine doesn't know what he's doing. Ownership are fools. Scott Boras should get his way and the stupid Sox should just give his clients what he's asking for, even while another Boras client is recovering from TJ and costing 10m plus. Ownership may just be saying "make do Ben. You have two very expensive pitchers on the DL and we refuse to pour more money into another one."

There was a lot to like about Manny Delcarmen. He was a bit of a disappointment but served well for awhile there. He wasn't a Joba or Phil Hughes level disappointment, but he was a disappointment.

and you wonder why I would say this thread has jumped the shark? The difference in our views is apparently that I think a team about as good as last years is capable of doing quite a bit, especially if they get better performances from a few key guys. The difference between the 2011 team getting hot at the right time and having luck with injuries is a matter of degrees, not highly improbable. That's just my opinion though. We will see.

Jung, nobody is saying that you shouldn't post your opinion and given the length of your post, you didn't think that was required. My post was about my own view of whether it is worth arguing the same thing over and over again. After opinions have been stated and stated again I think it is ok to just say "we will see". Nothing wrong with that. You can call it pissing in the wind if you want.

Have I accused others of engaging in conjecture? I think I've said that all anyone is doing is conjecture, because the only way to know who is "right" or "wrong" is based on how the team does. If I accused others of conjecture I bet it was in response to being accused of conjecturing myself. I just suspect it because I don't really use the word "conjecture" as a regular part of my vocab. All we can do is wait to see the results... or just keep saying the same things over and over and over. It's all conjecture at this point. No shame in that. I've stated my reasons for my thought time and time again. Anyone who is using a projection of 2012 performance is basing it on conjecture because the season hasn't started yet. "Bard could be a good SP" is conjecture. So is "Melancon is probably getting better". This team is built on "mights", with the clear theory that the players they have can get the job done. I know you aren't comfortable with that. You want to have the certainty that Roy Oswalt provides. Of course, assuming that Oswalt will produce anything like what he has in the past is conjecture at its best, but I accept conjecture because, again, its all we have now. As I said in a previous post, I think this thread has jumped the shark. The same arguments have been restated literally dozens, maybe hundreds of times. We all know that you don't think that looking at the rosters gives us the assurance the team will be better than it was. When people give you reasons why it might be better (Bard could be a very good starter, Buchholz should be back, they are unlikely to have the worst collapse in sports history again, they have a new manager, they don't have Wakefield and Lackey throwing s*** innings, Crawford is bound to be better, etc.,) you come back with the same alternate arguments (they lost Papelbon, Ellsbury will regress, they don't have a clear #5 starter, etc.,). Now, we could try to figure out exactly how many wins the possible good points and the possible bad points could make, but that is an exercise in futility. Your estimation is that they will be "the same" or "worse". I'm saying that I think they will be roughly "the same" or "better". I fully admit I could be wrong. You fully admit you could be wrong. Attempts to be more specific will be conjecture on conjecture... there's nothing wrong with conjecture when it's all you have, but conjecturing about conjecture just to keep a conversation going--one which is the longest in board history despite a really, really slow offseason--is not worth doing in my mind. Your view may differ.

If there was ever a good time to say "lets wait and see" this is it. I'm not going to react to other posters constant worst case scenarioing, I will just let it be. I suspect the team will make moves during the season of they don't before it. Frankly this high level of argument about things that have little certainty either way gets tiresome. Will it be a net positive if Bard becomes an ace but Melancon sucks and Ortiz rakes but Ellsbury misses 17 games but Youkilis plays 152 and Bailey is the reliever of the year despite the increase in his BB/9 and WHIP, even though the Sox play .579 on the road... It just makes my head hurt. Yes, in theory they could be better with Bard starting. In theory they could be worse. What will dictate that is not the number of ways one has of discussing the same topic, but rather how those players perform on the field. As much as I like discussing baseball I can only stand so much conjecture. When asked why I (and others) think something is plausible I am at a loss to "prove it". I realize this is just part of the fun off season hot stove talk but this is probably the most boring offseason combined with the longest thread in Talksox history by far. That's a very low ratio of substance and a high ratio of conjecturing about conjecture. The first level of conjecture is reasonable, the subsequent ones are akin to The Fonz on waterskis, in my humble view.

We can just disagree. I don't think their margain for error is razor thin and I don't think losing one of the top three is "armageddon" because other teams will deal with injuries/underperformance too. We act as if the Red Sox are the only team with any question marks. It's absurd.

Yet if Bard is able to turn into a good SP then it is a net gain, particularly if the Sox can extend him to a team friendly deal. I think there are too many possibilities to have a definitive view on this yet. Bard throws 100 mph. He has an elite arm. He's young and has proven durable. He has the potential to not only be a decent SP but to quickly be part of the "big 4". Clearly the Sox scouting/coaching staff thinks this is possible. I'm actually of the belief that Bard is a good pitcher in the 8th, 9th or 1st inning. He was put on this earth to pitch.

Yes they do! That's the point. You get a margain for error when you have multiple really good SPs and the league's best offense an dmultiple gold-glovers. You just do. The team everyone is s***ing on is the team that was the best in baseball for 120 games last season... even WHILE Buchholz was down, and Youkilis was down. They don't have an infinately deep margain for error. Nobody does.

If you read my other posts, you will see I don't disagree with that. What you are NOT arguing is that they are likely to be out for LONGER than in previous years. You either are injured or you are not injured. Historically, Beckett has had seasons where he missed more time than he did in 2011. Your argument would dicate that he should have progressively missed more time each season until he wasn't starting at all. That's not what happened. I work in health insurance, essentially risk management. I know the type of analysis you are referring to. First of all, in order to be valid it needs to have a really high N (which I suspect it does). However, with a really high N the predictive power for any particular individual is likely going to drop. In other words, there can be a trend ("it appears 51% of pitchers who have a DL stint in season 1 have at least one DL stint in season 2") but it doesn't apply to all and it doesn't reflect anything about the actual time on the DL or the number of innings pitched. It just doesn't. Like I said before, Buchholz could have FOUR separate injuries next year, which would back up your point and make him 'statistically' in the category you refer to. He could have a hangnail, he could sprain his ankle, he could have tightness in his quad, and he could strain his pinkey toe. If he missed two weeks with each of those injuries (thus fitting into your "more injuries" category) he could STILL pitch more innings than last year. If he pitches more innings than last year then there is a very good chance that combined they hit more than 467 IP, which is the basis of my discussion.

You haven't been around long enough to be right about things ANY of the time. The only way to be shown to be right is to see how the season plays out... hence "we will see". Also, it really IS hot air, whether it is you, me, a700, Peter Gammons, or Bill James. The best anyone can do is an educated guess. I'm still waiting for the Talksox poster who is right most of the time. The closest I have seen is ORS and he's wrong a lot too. After years of posting (and hoping it would be me) I have realized it isn't, and it isn't a700 and it isn't anyone else who is here. All we do is opine, sometimes we are right, sometimes we are wrong, and some are wrong more often than others. That's all.