iortiz

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.

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?

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.

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

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.

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. 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.

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.

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

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

yup, This is why I am making a deeper analysis. You put the bases and I already put my conclusions. Put yours If you are not agree... no big deal to me. As I said, I only wanted to enrich my perspective and I already did.

oks lets give them a 1.5 in that department since it is on the edge. agree?

Exactly. This is why I put the small-market comment (thin fan base). The rest is history.

pride for this? Nope... at all. Look at my conclusions.

It was another perspective ORS, I have told you that hundred times; besides that definition was not accepted in this thread; They say that wiki is not reliable. Also, their media market share is #27 in TV ratings and #21 in attendance through the 30 MLB teams. (poor fan base even in their own market)

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 perspectives they are a small market. On the other hand... They have this RSN share that could help them to generate more revenue. 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.

The only definition that I found out of small market team is related with the size of its media market share. Some discredited that definition, fine. UN? suggested revenue (make money)/market share (ratings/attendance) /payroll (spend). Call me crazy, but the solid facts do not allow me see them even as a mid-market team. What do you think Elk? are they a mid-market team after seeing the facts?

What will happen if they they do not win. What will happen if they do not take more revenue sharing pie? Again UN?.. We are speculating... BTW We are going in circles. That is exactly what I wanted to avoid. Not at all. I just want to put a fair scenario, with current/solid facts, I want to avoid "ifs" and "woulds" as possible, that's all. Your suggestion brings noise to case, IMO. I would like to hear other's opinion about this before continue.

If they invest as UN? suggests and for whatever reason do not win (look at us) and do not gain fan base through the years, it is a possibility ... again, it is speculation. As I said, We can speculate all you want, but it won't take us anywhere. IMO

... And Miami have been considered a small market team. Again, it opens a lot speculation in order to build the case. Compa, I do not know how american baseball fans are, but soccer fans around the world, you do not change your team just like that, even if this team has a L-record. Elk you and I have been saying the same, this thing is going to be their main challenge. IMO this is going to take a lot of time. If they invest in big (they haven't until 2011) and if they do not make a solid fan base, do not be surprised that they move/sale the franchise to other city. I have to be honest. When I said the small-market thing, I rapidly imagined their fanbase=customers=market share=media market share (attendance/TV ratings) and I quickly put that "adjective". I did not make all this analysis . On the other hand when I see all the signs/facts/hard data like its Forbes' rank, Payroll, TV ratings, Attendance, DC's market complexity (Elk's explanation/view), Global/US exposure, etc. Call me crazy but I just do not see them even as a mid-class team as some suggest, far less as a big market team. But let's continue with the analysis... if they allow me and let's see if we can reach another conclusion.

I got you point perfectly. The thing is that those "100 M" (inexistent) are the double of its 2011 payroll for whatever reason. They will always face those market challenges. Their past suggest me that they will likely lose those bid wars vs Big Market teams. Besides, What about other 29 teams' intentions over the last five years? how would you re-rank this department considering those intentions in order to be consistent through this exercise? I just do not see your point viable/practical. I'm not sure if I'm clear here. What other people think?

Do you really want to explore that avenue? UN?, those "actions" are not realities. As I said, in order to be consistant and put a good foundation to this excersise those considerations/intentions will not easy to rate/measure through each team. How would you re-rate/rank that department? we should consider other teams' "intentions" over the last five years that would have changed their future. We would go in circles over and over again. That would be an endless path. I want to avoid that. That exercise will take us a lot of time and a lot speculation. As I said, that path is not practical IMO. What does the rest of the people think?