a700hitter

No offense taken. I am not on the Corporate compliance side so I am not involved. With Company filings. I advise with regard to the taxation of company products which doesn't involve filings. Nevertheless, I am here way too much. LOL!

I have said 2 things consistently throughout the thread: 1. That the Nats are not now a big market team. 2. That all teams in the middle are closer to being small market teams than big markets teams. Witness the vicissitudes of the Twins. I have seen nothing to convince me otherwise. Elk's contributions confirmed my knowledge of the city and the surrounding area. Thus confirming the challenges that they will have in building a fanbase. They had better hope that the O's continue to suck. I didn't jump to anyone's defense. These guys don't need defending especially when they are right. ORS entered the thread long after I thought the matter was settled, and he brought nothing new or compelling to the discussion. Superhero? That is appealing to a poster with an over-sized ego. Nah, I'm just happy to be a humble King. Have a good night, E1. Let's put the Nats behind us. If Benny Boy got us a pitcher, we wouldn't even be discussing their sorry asses. I'm still holding out hope for a starting pitcher.

Hopefully, this will not be our final pitching acquisition before camp opens.

No, it should be closed, because as pointed out by ORS in his initial post in the thread, it's in the wrong damn section of the forum!

Well, glad to see that you are as upbeat as ever. The argument that the Nats were a big market never got backed up. It was a loser argument from the beginning. Those on the losing side persisted vigorously in the face of overwhelming evidence. The insults were pretty one-sided as usual.

Thank you. It was great fun. I'm still recovering.

We can rest our case. The case was established days ago, and no one has provided any credible evidence to the contrary. I took almost a two day break to go to Atlantic City to watch the Super Bowl and gamble and nothing has changed since I left on Saturday. They are entitled to their completely unsubstantiated, unsupported opinion, no matter how wrong it may be.

I'll let this speak for itself. I don't chase anyone around this forum. I am always here. I don't jump in in the middle of threads. I'm not the hit and run expert with the wise crack remarks. I am there at the start of the thread if I don't start it myself. From one blowhard to another, a good man always knows his limitations.

If by tried, you mean that you have taken cheap shot time after time with no substance at all, you would be right. Emmz provides substance to the board in baseball, football, basketball, music and politics. She is very well informed and makes very coherent arguments supporting her position. I don't always agree with her. Right now, we are not in agreement about Eli Manning. She adds substance and challenges people to prove her wrong. She doesn't try to shut down opposing views. You, VA, on the other hand provide almost no substance. Without the insults, cheap shot and use of emoticons, you have added little.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

Simple things can be difficult to do. They aren't rocket science and they don't require a particularly high level of intelligence. The job is probably art more than science to some extent. There is luck involved. Finally, the biggest differentiator is resources. If you have the best scouts and the best coaches throughout the organization, the GM will get more reliable and better information.

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, 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. 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.

You have no solid information about anything you are saying above, and neither do I. We can't quantify these revenues streams, but the Sox do have numerous income streams that other teams do not. They are not going through all of the trouble to create these income streams unless it is putting money directly into their coffers. I have 62 Red Sox tickets sitting on my shelf. How do you know what the impact on the sellout streak is from people venturing to Boston from beyond Massachusetts. You don't. What point are you trying to make anyway? I thought the discussion was with regard to whether the Nationals were a big market team? Everything that I have read and the figures that I have seen indicate otherwise. On the one hand when I ask you for figures to support the assertion that the Nats are a big market team, which they clearly are not, part of your argument that the Nats are a big market team has been based on the fact that a lot of the financial information isn't public and therefore not considered by Forbes. You have no figures to support your argument. Yet, on the other hand you are claiming to know the magnitude of the variuos income streams benefiting the Red Sox that are also not disclosed publicly. It seems that you are talking out of both side of your mouth.

Okay, so Rocket Science is easier than being a GM. Now we are arguing about the meaning and usage of common phrases and expressions. Being a garbage man or a mail man is a lot harder than being a Rocket Scientist too with all that walking and lifting. Many GMs don't even have an advanced level of business training. Theo is a History major with a Law Degree, neither of which involve business training. The heads of most major businesses are run by people with formal business training. A GM in baseball doesn't need that training. Many old jocks etc have become GMs. It ain't that hard. You need to know how to evaluate talent and work within a budget. The are 10,000 candy store owners in Brooklyn that could do the job. What common expression should we argue about next? How about "That's how the cookie crumbles."

Have you factored in the revenue from Red Sox Nation Memberships. They have several levels of membership that entitle you to different levels perks. Also, have you factored in the nuber of fans that travel to Boston from outside the region to see Sox games. I go to about 8-10 games every year. There are thousands of fans like me. On this forum, just for the upcoming season we have posters who will be traveling to Fenway from Miami, Mexico and California. I don't know if Elk is coming up from MD or VA is coming from VA. Other teams don't have that. How do you factor that in? You are surely missing some of these revenue streams. The Red Sox are not missong any of them. They have done an excellent job at creating these many income streams.

Overall attendance is 21 out of 30. They were 49 ahead of Pittsburgh who was #22.