Jump to content
Talk Sox
  • Create Account

User Name

Old-Timey Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    18,192

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Profiles

Boston Red Sox Videos

2026 Boston Red Sox Top Prospects Ranking

Boston Red Sox Free Agent & Trade Rumors, Notes, & Tidbits

Guides & Resources

2025 Boston Red Sox Draft Pick Tracker

News

Forums

Blogs

Events

Store

Downloads

Gallery

Everything posted by User Name

  1. User Name
  2. User Name
    Apparently the one with the "poor business acumen" here is you. If your business acumen is so "strong" then how come you don't understand that most of the money made from global merchandising and tv rights sales are distributed equally amongst all teams so it has no direct impact on a team's standing as a big or small market team. You gloat of your business acumen yet you don't know what you're talking about. If you desire to avoid foot in mouth moments like this one in the future, get over yourself and do the research before you post.
  3. User Name
  4. User Name
    This is completely and utterly incorrect. Check the ratings statistics and don't make stuff up.
  5. User Name
    Unfortunately, your point is wrong. No amount of rationalizing is going to change that. They play in one of the most densely populated markets, with a huge TV base, and a huge pool of resources. This Global market thing is secondary to gates and tv ratings.
  6. User Name
    Did you even check the rankings are posted? The DC area (and the Nationals TV market base) is the 8th biggest tv market in the US. 8th biggest. That is big market by definition. Remind me again what's your point?
  7. User Name
    It's the 8th biggest tv market in the US. Also, the TV revenues are not more important, by themselves, than the gate, stop spouting that misconception.
  8. User Name
    It's really frustrating that we don't have access to accurate data as to where they stand regarding the LT.
  9. User Name
    I already posted my classification of market above. It is defined by the population density of the city and the team's spending power. Per baseball Almanac, Washington is the fourth highest per CSMA statistics, and the 8th biggest TV Market in the country. Their spending power is well-publicized. They could easily sustain a 120-million plus payroll. They play in the same market. The size of the market, along with the spending power define the market nomenclature. I am correctly comparing them. You also dismissed my example of Texas and Phillie with the Nationals, which i find to be dishonest. They were exactly in the same situation Washington is now a couple years ago: Big population, big market, not an upper-echelon following. They start winning, and boom!. That is how it works.
  10. User Name
    It is, look at the post above. They play in a densely populated market. The Marlins were small-market because of an inability to spend. And really? The Washington Redskins are THE SECOND MOST VALUABLE TEAM IN THE NFL, coming in at 1.55 B. You know why? Because of the market they play in.
  11. User Name
    According to Baseball Almanac, the Nationals play in the fourth biggest sports market in the nation. Just an FYI. http://www.baseball-almanac.com/articles/baseball_markets.shtml They also have the average market size at 5,293,083, and the Nationals at 7,608,070. Small market?
  12. User Name
    This makes no sense. First off "Big" and "Small" market are not only defined by TV ratings, but also by the amount of money the team can spend and how many people walk through the gate, as welll as the revenue they move. Second, the bigger and more populated the place you play at, the more likely you are to have a big fan base. The entire upper echelon of high-rating, high-spending teams is comprised of teams that play in cities with dense populations. You couldn't be more wrong if you tried. Third, what you spend does matter, and it matters a lot. You can't be a big-market team if you don't spend. You are confusing popularity with market size. Btw, i know the definition. Which is why i'm making this point.
  13. User Name
    You seem to have a problem with reading comprehension. Not meant as an insult btw. I never said they were as big or a bigger market than Tex or Phi. Can you quote me on that? What i said was that they're a similar market that's in a similar situation to what Tex/Phi were a couple of years back. They play in a big market (indisputable), have a lot of money to spend (indisputable), but are not drawing a lot of fans or big TV ratings. The point was that as the team becomes more competitive they will draw more fans and TV ratings. That's how it evolves. However, calling a team with as much money and that plays in the nation's capital "Small market" is just silly.
  14. User Name
    That doesn't mean s*** if they have money to spend, which they do. As they spend that money, then viewership will follow. Ask the Texas Rangers. Or the Phillies. Or the Brewers (even though they're mid-market). Or were the Rangers small market when they didn't win and people didn't care that much about them?
  15. User Name
    So? That is not conclusive evidence that they are a small market team. They operate from the nation's capital, in one of the biggest metropolitan areas.
  16. User Name
    The Jays don't have the pitching and their offense can't get on base. Lots of HR's, not a lot of runs scored.
  17. User Name
    Patriots?
  18. User Name
    They can still spend like drunken sailors though. If you have the ability to spend and a large potential fanbase, you are essentially a big-market team by operational standards.
  19. User Name
    TRAITOR! I thought you agreed with me on everything! On a serious note, i believe it's much more likely to happen at mid-season. Just my opinion though.
  20. User Name
  21. User Name
    This would work if it wasn't the other way around. I'm the one who always agrees with MVP-boo.
  22. User Name
    Lannan is not the answer for this team. Sign Oswalt, or go as is and explore your mid-season options.
  23. User Name
    A) Your Guardians fans don't know what they're talking about. B ) Your scenario proposes a lot of "ifs" understates the difference in pitching (Romero and ???) and disregards the fact that both the Red Sox and Yankees were miles better offensively last year. Your point is mostly conjecture of what "could" happen and is not grounded in reality. The Red Sox also have a bunch of prospects who could be ready by mid-season. Don't mean they'll be up.
  24. User Name
    The Nationals are both a big market team and a big spender.
  25. User Name
    Lol odds. Even the pre-season power rankings are better than that.
×
×
  • Create New...