iortiz

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?

Got it and corrected.

As you know, I'm planning to go in July to Boston. I think that I'm going to buy the destination pack. It is 1300 plus flight tickets around 1500 plus expenses 2000 (I think)... The whole thing is going to cost me around 5,000. I have a question, does this revenue (destination pack) go to Red Sox's books? or it is shared with the other teams.

I haven't made the tiers. That is going to be the next step. I'm going to suggest a criteria, then you can tell me if you agree. First off, we need solid data. The only data available and facts are those which I already presented. Over the last five years, other teams have made a lot of things that could have impacted their future in several ways and should be considered as well. Nobody could remember these factors with precession. This "intentions/projections" do not have a true value/rank, since those are not even realities. As I said...Let's not speculate, Let's not put noise to the case. Let's not put "ifs". Let's not put "woulds". Let's put hard data. IMO it is the good way to do it. I could speculate in other several things, and we will end in circles again. Are you guys agree? can we continue?

I said that I didn't want to continue with this thread since we were going in circles and it was not fun anymore. Nevertheless I'm still curious in this baseball topic. I was about to open a thread but we already have this one here. I do not want to fight, Trust me. That is not my intention with this excersice at all. I just want to clarify some concepts and make my own conclusion. If you want to help me, I will appreciate it. I will understand if you do not want to participate anymore. My first question is, what is the accurate definition of big/small market team?, and the must important thing, How do we measure its size? I already put one definition and several were not agree. ORS said that the size of a market team = revenue. I agreed with this since it was somehow correlated with that definition, but again, I want to start with a good base. Do not throw numbers yet. Just the definition. My attempt is that together we can reach a good conclusion here. Step by step. Can we take revenue as a measure unit? Or do you suggest another measure unit?

He said that some of them are his personal friends/family. Thanks for the opportunity SFOC.

I know Spud, I was agreeing with you when I said "Asi es= de acuerdo=Agree", I was joking with you, no big deal at all my friend.

I really hope so...