a700hitter

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.

I had posted much of this information based on my experience. I have friends who have lived in the area and worked in DC for more than 20 years. I have also visited DC about 100 times. I am somewhat familiar with the demographics of the city and surrounding suburbs and the challenges of the traffic. Your observations are much more authoritative. I am glad you have weighed in.

Bullpen depth in the minors.

Fred, you lucky bastard!

I've been waiting for you to weigh in on this issue as I know that you have more knowledge about the region than anyone posting in this forum. iortiz has made compelling business arguments coming to this conclusion, but we have been lacking some reliable regional input. What is your opinion about the reasons for their failure to build a following in the region?

There are still other income streams that are not shared under the licensing agreement. You are ignoring them. A significant amount of those income streams comes from outside the local area.

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

I am a very Benevolent Monarch. I am letting all the Patriots fan live tonight. :lol:

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

Two facts: 1. No one goes to their games. Attendance 14 out of 16 trailed only by Pittsburgh and Marlins. 2. No one watches their games. Ranked 27 out of 30 teams in the ratings. Conclusion: They are a big market team. LOL! They should be a big market team , but they are not.

This assumes facts that were not in play, so this is a pure strawman. If the Yankees were willing to pay Ortiz $12 million it would mean that the market for Ortiz would be different than it currently is. The Red Sox misjudged the actual market value for Ortiz. That was a mistake, and that is why they are being criticized. You are flipping the facts on their head and assuming that Ortiz had a $12 million market value. If the Yankees signed him for $12 milion for 1 year, a number of fans would have been upset because that would have been a misjudgment of the market in the other direction. Some fans would have been happy to let him go. What's your point-- that they are damned if they do and if they don't. Sure, you are right about that. Almost any move they make or don't make will have it's detractors. Are looking for unanimous acclaim from fans?

They have a large loyal following. That is their market. Those nutcases travel to NY and buy up tons of tickets on the secondary market when they play in NY. The Vikings fans have never done that. The Packers built their brand and their market. The fact that they are a small town stop them from establishing a big market. Your market is your customers not a population that isn't interested in your product. You are mixing things up.

Because people don't follow or support the team. Check the figures that allocate the value of the team amongst various factors-- one of those factors is market. The figures don't support your conclusion. I already posted that information.