TV market size rankings 1 1 New York 6,812,540 6,874,990 2 2 Los Angeles 5,135,140 5,234,690 3 3 Chicago 3,164,150 3,204,710 4 4 Philadelphia 2,667,520 2,670,710 5 5 San Francisco-Oakland-San Jose 2,368,970 2,423,120 6 6 Boston (Manchester) 2,186,100 2,210,580 7 7 Dallas-Ft. Worth 1,959,680 2,018,120 8 8 Washington, DC (Hagerstown) 1,956,160 1,999,870 9 9 Detroit 1,846,950 1,855,500 10 10 Atlanta 1,722,130 1,774,720 11 11 Houston 1,665,550 1,712,060
I don't disagree with you, and their defense is definitely improved with A-Rod over Sorieno, but losing Sorieno will detract quite a bit from the offense. It's more than just replacing a scrub at third with A-Rod. Now you moved the scrub to second.
Here is the fact, all of those team make money and come close to posting a winning record over the past 3 seasons EXCEPT for the Rangers. Just because the payroll is high does NOT mean it's a big market team, it just means they have an owner who didn't mind losing money... and that owner is just now realizing he doesn't want to lose money for the 4th straight season.
That low and away pitch got Soriano EVERY time. I've never seen a guy fall for one pitch so often. That took a lot of shine of his star. Just ask yourself if you are picking a team, who do you pick first between these two? Arod or Soriano? I'd easily pick Arod so I see this as an improvement to the Yankees.
The Yankees have been shopping Soriano all off season. They offered him to the Royals for Beltran, didn't get him so they signed Kenny Lofton. They offered Soriano to the Cardinals for Albert Pujols, didn't get him. Hopefully they get the ARod deal done, and get a productive 2nd baseman. Not saying they will get someone who puts up Soriano type numbers, but ARod's #'s will make up the difference. Soriano strikes out way too much and is a horrible defensive 2nd baseman.
The difference in offensive numbers and defensive numbers for Sorieno isn't worth the 17 million difference in their salaries for 2004. A-Rod is by far the best player in baseball, but NO player is worth 20m a season... and the Marlins and Angels have proved that nicely the past two seasons.
This is something I've never understood. Can someone explain why Houston, the fourth largest city in America, is the 11th largest market?
I just friggin hate how it seem like the Yankees won't have to give up anything to get him. One would assume to get better in one team aspect you'd have to sacrifice part of another. And please don't argue with me because you're not right.
If the Rangers can't afford a $25 million contract, the Cubs wouldn't do a whole lot better. The Rangers revenues aren't that far off that of the Cubs and the Rangers have higher revenues than the Cardinals. And the Mariners, hardly a high-profile team in a large city, have revenues higher than the Dodgers, Giants, Cardinals and Cubs, etc. And the Dodgers have lost money for years.
Because "markets" include the suburbs, etc. while the city is just the city. For example, Dallas is smaller than Houston proper, but add in Plano and Fort Worth and Arlington and all the other suburbs and the Dallas/Fort Worth market grows by over 4 million people from the city of Dallas alone.
More facts: These are dollars lost after revenue sharing subtracted from income for the 2001 season Redsox $13 million Rangers $24 million Braves $26 million Dodgers $54 million
You have to take a lot of things into account for this. Weather is a big part, Houston for the most part has weather that allows you to be outdoors and do other things all year round. We are a rural city, with most of our population actually living outside the city limits. We're a city that loves our night life and the city that eats out more then any other city in the nation... so fewer prime time viewers? Basically there is cut and dry answer and hundreds of different things can account for the lack of television viewers.
This is what I hate about baseball. There are only 2 teams in the league that can continuously go after big free agents. For a mid to low market team, they would have to clear payroll for two or three seasons just to make a run at a big star like A-Rod. I hope the Stros kick their ass this season...hopefully if we make the series, it will be against the damn Yanks so Roger and Andy can waive a championship in the face of their old team.
And Hicks needs money because of investments outside of sports that have come up craps. His buyout firm has had a whole mess of investments go bad in recent years, and it's finally caught up to him. It's entirely likely that Hicks is paring payroll in an effort to sell the teams. Since the Rangers aren't going to win with or without A-Rod, paring payroll is a way to make the team potentially more attractive to a buyer. There's no reason that the Rangers couldn't live with a $72 million payroll (which is roughly what it was going to be with A-Rod) if they were forced to simply live within the means of the team. Even Drayton McLane (who does run his team within its means) will allow a higher payroll with lower revenues than the Rangers. You can't tell me that the Rangers revenues dictate having a payroll around $50 million in order to break even or make a small profit.
Markets are a number that includes television households within a designated broadcast area. It has nothing to do with the weather, etc. or even how many of those television households turn on the television to watch a game or anything else. If you've got a television, you're a television household whether you ever watch the thing or not. Count all those up, you get the number of television households, and when you rank them, Houston comes out 11th overall. If everyone in the broadcast area of Houston watched every single game the Astros broadcast, Houston would still be the 11th largest TV market.
And of all of those teams the Rangers could afford it the least... and the Rangers haven't posted a winning season in 4 years (1999), while the other 3 were in playoff contention last season and have all had winning seasons the past 4+ years. So which makes the most sense? Losing big money 4 seasons in a row while not even coming close to the playoffs is crazy... it would be one thing if it was a team that wasn't trying to win like the Expos or Tigers, but the Rangers are far from that. Regardless of the numbers here, the Rangers are not a big market team simply because they've spent big... they don't have the cult following that the teams mentioned do. I'd also be interested in seeing the revenue for last year, not 3 seasons ago.
