Baseball's Competitive Balance

Is There Really "Competitive Balance" in the MLB?

11/6/09 in MLB   |   jasonwrites   |   1563 respect

The baseball-watching nation, outside of Yankees fans, let out a collective yawn, or perhaps groan, as New York predictably won its 27th World Series championship on November 4, 2009.

It was predictable because, by all rights, a team that can afford to buy and keep all the best players available, and an owner who will spend more than anyone to do just that, should win it all. Perhaps the only surprise should be that they don't win it all every year, given these advantages. The fact remains that during this past decade (2000-2009) they were in the postseason all but one year (last year, 2008) and so every one of those years they were one of eight teams that were in position to claim the ultimate prize. The run of success of course extends much farther back, but I want to focus on this decade.

There is much hue and cry, but the simple fact remains that MLB is the only one of the four major professional leagues (the NFL, NBA, and NHL being the others) that does not employ some form of a salary cap to force at least a semblance of payroll balance. The MLBPA, only the most powerful trade union in the United States, is diametrically opposed to anything that even smells like a salary cap.

In the face of this, though, is baseball so competitively unbalanced compared to the other three sports? Judging by participants in the championship game or series during this decade, the answer would be no. Here are the results of the championship game or series for each of the four during this past decade (the number in parentheses refers to the number of unique teams competing):


Championship Participants 2000-2009
MLB (14)
NFL (14) NBA (11) NHL (11)
2000 Yankees def. Mets
2001 Diamondbacks def. Yankees
2002 Angels def. Giants
2003 Marlins def. Yankees
2004 Red Sox def. Cardinals
2005 White Sox def. Astros
2006 Cardinals def. Tigers
2007 Red Sox def. Rockies
2008 Phillies def. Rays
2009 Yankees def. Phillies
99-00 Rams def. Titans
00-01 Ravens def. Giants
01-02 Patriots def. Rams
02-03 Buccaneers def. Raiders
03-04 Patriots def. Panthers
04-05 Patriots def. Eagles
05-06 Steelers def. Seahawks
06-07 Colts def. Bears
07-08 Giants def. Patriots
08-09 Steelers def. Cardinals

99-00 Lakers def. Pacers
00-01 Lakers def. 76ers
01-02 Lakers def. Nets
02-03 Spurs def. Nets
03-04 Pistons def. Lakers
04-05 Spurs def. Pistons
05-06 Heat def. Mavericks
06-07 Spurs def. Cavaliers
07-08 Celtics def. Lakers
08-09 Lakers def. Magic
 
99-00 Devils def. Stars
00-01 Avalanche def. Devils
01-02 Wings def. Hurricanes
02-03 Devils def. Ducks
03-04 Lightning def. Flames
04-05 (No season played)
05-06 Hurricanes def. Oilers
06-07 Ducks def. Senators
07-08 Wings def. Penguins
08-09 Penguins def. Wings

Baseball actually ties for first with the NFL in terms of unique teams which have competed in the championship game or series. In the span of ten years, eight different teams won the World Series; only the Yankees and Red Sox won more than once. By comparison, seven different teams won the Super Bowl and the Stanley Cup, and only five different teams won the NBA championship.

It's also worth noting that although it is an apples and oranges comparison between these leagues when discussing how many unique teams have simply qualified for postseason play, since baseball qualifies significantly fewer teams for its playoffs-- only eight each year, as compared to 12 in the NFL and 16 (twice as many) in the NBA and NHL-- 23 of the 30 teams did play in the postseason this decade.

Does all this mean anything? Maybe, maybe not. Looking at the eight teams qualifying for the postseason in 2009, six of them-- Yankees, Red Sox, Phillies, Dodgers, Cardinals, and Angels-- were among the top 10 highest payrolls; the remaining two, the Twins and Rockies, are in the bottom half of in terms of payroll. You see a team like the Twins get in this year and the Rays get in last year-- even going all the way to the World Series-- and you think there's a chance for teams on all levels to compete. But just making it one year doesn't prove much. The Colorado Rockies reaching the postseason in two of the last three seasons is a more promising sign. But will a mid-market team like Colorado ever be able to keep enough of their best players to sustain a long run of success? They already traded Matt Holliday before this past season rather than watching him walk as a free agent. Meanwhile, on the bottom, teams like the Royals, Nationals, and Pirates have no chance of competing in the current economic climate, and their fan bases will continue to erode until their ownership shows the willingness to truly turn their situation around.

Many people say the Yankees are bad for baseball. They believe any situation in which one franchise can handily outspend its competition is inherently unfair, imbalanced, and noncompetitive. They believe that Major League Baseball has been reduced to, as another writer on this site termed it, a "feudal system" in which the 30 teams are split, roughly equally, into three basic tiers: at the top, the teams which can spend almost as much as they want, sign elite free agents, and sign their own homegrown players to long-term contracts; the middle tier, whose treasure chests are not quite so deep; they cannot spend as freely, but they are blessed with dedicated owners and intelligent upper management, who run superior minor-league systems, scout well, and seem to be able to keep replenishing their rosters with a mix of promising young players and veteran talent that serve to fill in missing pieces but aren't the elite "name" players; and the bottom tier, plagued by small payrolls, unfavorable television contracts, and perhaps worst of all, inept or simply uncaring ownership and management. These teams, perennial cellar dwellers, become, essentially, farm teams for the top tier.

In the end, it's not pointless to be a team of any team besides the Yankees. At least half the teams in both league can be considered real playoff contenders, at least at the beginning of the season. But there's a considerable difference between merely being able to reach the postseason, and having a realistic shot of winning it all, and it's an even smaller group of teams that can win the World Series more than once over the course of several years. And until drastic change occurs in baseball's basic economic structure, that group will remain quite small indeed.
 
Notify me by email about comments that follow mine. Preview

11/19/09   |   nortonsfury   |   130 respect

ML31 wrote:
Wow.  You just posted a pinata of ignorance.  No matter how one attacks this he will be rewarded.

Trust me, the cap would not be moved to the point above 29 of the 30 teams.  It would likely be moved closer to the mean.  Which last year was around $80 million.  How well do you think the Yankees would do if they had to slash their budge by $110 million?  Think that one through.   You can deny it all you want.  But the fact that you are a Yankee fan who is against a cap proves you know it is the money.  If you honestly believed the Yankees would do well spending less than 1/2 they do now, you would welcome a cap.  You are scared the Yankees wouldn't win.  I know it.  You know it.  Anyone who has read your posts knows it.

IF the Yankees were to continue to win with a cap and revenue sharing, then more power to them.  We would all be wrong about them.  I would freely admit it.  Too bad we will never find out.  Until then, the one and only one reason the Yankees do will is because they have more money.  Not because they are a good organization.

Why do you keep running back to the NBA?  The cap works there.  BTW...  The NBA does not have a hard cap.  They have a soft cap.  Meaning, teams are allowed to exceed the cap under certain conditions. 

You are wrong about baseball not existing without the Yankees.  Baseball existed before the Yankees and will exist after the Yankees.  If the American League was never created, Babe Ruth would have just played for some other team. 

The luxury tax was not created to "bring down the Yankees".  That is paranoia.  The tax was created to allow the teams that were bleeding money to get a small cash injection.  And that's all.  It had nothing to do with Yankee hating nor was it a tool to create a competitive balance.  All with a brain that worked properly knew the Tax would do any good on that front.

You know, if I were a Yankee fan and I honestly felt we had the best front office in baseball, I would welcome a cap and media revenue sharing.  Because I would want to end the idea that the Yankees win only because of money.  You don't want a cap.  You are afraid the Yankees will suck if they had to get by on a mere $90 payroll.  Admit it.

I know I'm late to the party but "pinata of ignorance" may be the funniest thing I have ever read on this site.

11/16/09   |   ML31   |   3675 respect

Bud is not a fan of any team and he doesn't hate any team.  His only interest is to please those who employ him.  the 30 owners.  That's all.
Where have you been?  National ratings for MLB suck!  And have been falling steadilly for years.  National interest in the game is at an all time low.

You are also wrong about my reaction should the Yankees still win under a cap.  If they do, then they will have deserved a tip of the hat and a hearty "well done".

You seem to have a lot of faith that the same spendy teams who win now would still win under a cap.  I think some may still win.  Although the Yankees spend so much I just can't believe they would be one of the.  It will be a lot harder for them (the current spendy teams) to maintain that winning team year after year.  Thus, allowing more opportunity of other teams to reach the spotlight.  Which would be good for MLB.

What you call "Yankee hating" I call "Baseball loving".  You are being selfish while I am looking out for the entire institution of Major League Baseball.

11/16/09   |   ML31   |   3675 respect

????   Huh?

What the eff are you on about?  Please clarify.  You aren't making any sense. 

A cap is not favored because people want to hurt the Yankees.  People favor it because they are tired of seeing the same 6 (rich) teams in the playoffs year after year after year.  Paranoid much?

11/16/09   |   ML31   |   3675 respect

Believe it or not, my opinions and feelings on baseball matters are not ruled by how those things would affect the Yankees.  Shocked?

The welfare card does not make it harder to win the Series.  It only makes the outcome more random.

A cap would be another thing that Yankees will break

You mentioned this before.  Why do you think the Yankees will be allowed to break the cap (if one existed) while everyone else would be restricted by it?  Why why why?  Are you truly that out of touch?

If you think the Yankees would still have the best shot under a cap, then why are you afraid to support the cap?  I would think you would want to prove your faith was well placed.  
Of course, that is using logic.  Something that your Yankee kool-ade addiction seems to be suppressing.

11/16/09   |   ML31   |   3675 respect

Swisher wasn't traded for to play first.  His ability to play first was just a bonus or a back up if, by some miracle, someone offered more money to Tex.   They were going after Tex from day one.  There were no good free agent outfielders so they packaged the Swisher deal. 

I don't think Jeter would sign a cheezy deal.  I wouldn't either.  But I'm not surprised you would.  I'd want a solid deal.  One that payed good coin.  
It seems that you still aren't getting the point.  I honestly don't know if it is because you are intentionally missing it or are just not sharp enough to get it.  It must be the Kool-ade.  The team Jeter may have played for if the Yankees couldn't pay him that high amount doesn't matter.  The point is that at any point in his career, if some other team made it clear that they were willing to give Derek $2 more, he would sign with them.  It is not about the Yankees with these guys.  It is about the money.  You are blind to it if you think it is about the Yankee pinstripes.

Tiexiera would indeed be a National if they paid him more than the Yankees did.  And he would probably say he signed there for such and such reason.  But would never admit it was about the money.  No player does that.  Remember, when A-Rod signed with the Rangers, yeah it was the richest deal ever.  But he said it wasn't about the money.  He said he wanted to go somewhere where he had a chance to win.  Never mind the fact that the Mariners, the team he just bailed out on, just came off three division titles in 6 years.  Never mind the fact that the team he was going to sucked and whose future looked bleak even WITH him at short.

BTW...  What's all this "we" stuff?  What position do you play on the Yankees? 
Plus, who cares if YOU wanted AJ or not.  The Yankees did.  And paid him so huge that no one even came close.

BTW...  CC said he preferred to play on the west coast closer to his Bay Area home.  But guess what?  That Yankee money sure can change a man's tune on that!

11/16/09   |   ML31   |   3675 respect

wrote:
Wow, this has been entertaining to read, although Dragon's Yankees blinders are maddening.

I also had to laugh when you, Dragon, call yourself a "baseball purist." Now, ML I'd call a baseball purist. It's why he hates the Wild Card. Whereas you, Dragon, are, for one thing, an American League fan. And why not, it's just an extension of being a Yankees fan. Go with the side that's been winning most lately. But the truth is that if you're a real baseball purist, you would prefer the National League. The AL has been playing under different rules since 1973, a rule designed to artificially inflate offense and thus, theoretically, fan interest. The DH creates an entirely different game. More offense, yes, more "true hitters" 1-9 in the lineup. But also, pitchers have no fear to pitch inside because they know they're won't have to step up to the plate and face retribution. Also, managers have it easy in the AL. The chess moves that NL managers have to make in the late innings are one of the most enjoyable aspects of the game for real fans, and AL managers don't have to worry about any of that. Which also means that they need put little focus on bunting, sacrificing, the hit-and-run, stealing bases, and playing "small ball" because they can generally stock their lineups with sluggers. Yawn. All of which plays into my opinion that I stated on your other poll as to why in my mind Pujols is clearly the superior player compared to A-Rod.

You know, you refer to me as a "purist" when I don't think I am that "pure" when it comes to baseball.  I embrace changes to the game.  I do not wish to go back to bats with 3 inch handles.  Gloves with no webbing.  The dead ball.  I don't even have a problem with the DH existing in the American League while not in the National League.  I am all in favor of expansion when the time is right.  Yet I get labeled as a "purist" only because I hate the wild card and love (the long since dead) pennant races.

I'm just sayin'.

11/15/09   |   ML31   |   3675 respect

?????   Chief, you are so far gone it's unbelievable. 

I don't know why I am even bothering.  But here goes...

The Yankees needed a first baseman.  Tiexiera was the best free agent catch last year.  Rumor had it that he did want to play in the east.  But that didn't help the Yankees any.  They ponied up an offer that was longer and more money than anyone else.  The only other eastern team that showed an interest was, believe it or not, the Nationals.  NOT the Red Sox.  And the Yankees offer blew the Nats one out of the water.  If the Nationals had offered him the most, he would be playing for them.  That is a promise.  I know you don't believe that but it is the God's honest truth.  You are just so high on the Yankees it is preventing you from seeing the reality.  
I was hoping the Giants would offer up some coin for Tex.  He was a perfect fit for the team.  But they didn't even bother.  They did not want to get involved in a bidding war they knew they would lose.  Their budget was limited considering the bad free agent signings earlier AND they have a huge mortgage to pay on a ball park they paid for 100% themselves.  Something even the rich Yankees didn't do.  And they could have. 

Yes, a cap would indeed help my team.  It would help ALL teams who don't spend like the Yankees, Mets, Cubs and Red Sox do.  No it won't cause teams to not spend money stupidly.  Nothing can stop that.  But it will put all teams on a more even playing field.  Tell me, would you play a fantasy league where when you do your draft, one player has a budget that is twice as much as every other player?  Hell no. 

And chief, you didn't read and understand what I said about Jeter.  Pay closer attention.  I said IF the Yankees could not afford (I know that is a fantasy concept you can't understand...  Yankees not being able to afford someone, but go with it so I can make a point.) to pay Jeter as much as other teams could come contract time, Jeter would not, I repeat, NOT be a Yankee.  Because he would go where the money is.  It has nothing to do with image.  Players do not place image ahead of their paychecks.  Yankee players more than anyone.

I know you love your Yankees, but it is possible to be a fan and also be aware reality.

11/15/09   |   ML31   |   3675 respect

Nice.  Each time I confront you with the truth, you run and hide behind the "hater" defense. 

As I told you, it's not so much that I hate the Yankees, it is that I hate the system.  The Yankees are the team that are capable of taking advantage of the system the most.  So they personify everything that is wrong with the system.

You know what?  If the Yankees paid me $13 million more than anyone else would, I'd say I wanted to work for them too!  Funny how all those players want to play for the Yankees yet the Yankees still offer them the most money by far!  I bet you think Sebathia would have signed with the Yankees if some other team offered $10 million more, don't you?  Saying you WANT to play for the team that gave you the most money by far is kinda part of the job.  When a player signs with the team that offered the most, they NEVER say it was about the money.  Ever.  If you don't know that then you are the most naive baseball fan in existence.  

True, the Giants had the best player of his time.  But, he WANTED to play for the Giants.  He could have gotten more elsewhere but stayed here. He grew up here.  His dad played here.  Only twice in his time here did he even get to the point where he filed for free agency.  The other times his contract came up, he signed extensions before that point.  The difference is, if the Giants had Yankee money they would have not only had Bonds, but every other good free agent out there too!  But they just couldn't afford it.
There are rare occasions when a player takes less to stay with a team.  Gwynn did it.  Ripken did it.  Even the lesser known Terry Steinbach did it when he took less to play in his home state of Minnesota and gave up the much higher A's offer.

You have to know that Tex, CC and Burnett would have NEVER gone to the Yankees if another team offered $2 more.  Gee, I wonder who Jeter would be playing for if the Yankees decided they could only afford $13 million instead of $21.  The Red Sox maybe?  What's that?  You say he would still play for the Yankees because he loves playing there?  Oh, that's rich!   That is just deranged thinking.

11/13/09   |   ML31   |   3675 respect

It is likely a cap will never happen.  But that would be because the MLBPA is a selfish and self serving organization who doesn't even have the best interest of their own members at heart.  Much less what is good for the game.

So, you are thinking that if there is a cap, the Yankees will be able to go over it?  Why would the Yankees be allowed to break the rules?  Would they buy exemptions?

So, you like the fact that your team has so much more resources that the season isn't even a fair fight?  How sporting of you.  Man, you must really fear a level playing field.  You know it.  I know it.  You may as well admit it.  You fear losing your advantage.  That's understandable.  But facing your fear is the best medicine for overcoming it.

Why trade for Cain and Timmy?  Why not just wait until they are eligible free agents and just buy them?  That's what the Yankees do, right?  Out spend everyone.   God knows the Yankees don't win because they run an efficient team.

11/13/09   |   ML31   |   3675 respect

Sure.  That may be right.  Zito was a foolish signing.  And that move has pinched the Giants ability to spend.  Unlike the Yankees, if they make a $20 million mistake, they can blow it off and keep throwing more money around.

You know, you are justifying the Yankees the wrong way.  This is the argument Yankee fans ought to use...

"Yes, the Yankees spend more than everyone.  But they HAVE more than everyone.  There is no rule against high payrolls.  The Yankees operate within MLB rules." 

Then, you need to admit the real reason you don't want a salary cap.

"I, as a Yankee fan, am against a salary cap in Major League Baseball because it will keep my Yankees from using the biggest weapon they have in their quest to win every year.  It will force them to work within a much smaller budget closer to all the other teams.  This will make it more difficult for my Yankees to win.  And I, as a fan, do not like that."

Try going that route?  Honesty garners respect.

11/13/09   |   ML31   |   3675 respect

I did not keep a daily tab on the status of Rodriguez' contract.  All I know was it was re-negociated when he was dealt to the Yankees with the Rangers paying for almost half his pay.  It's good for the Rangers that they are finaly out from under that albatross.

The Yankees are not the most popular team world wide.  You are foolish to believe that.  However, in addition to being the most popular baseball team, they are also the least popular.  If there was a salary cap, that hatred would drop.  As we know it is not the Yankees people hate.  It is the system that allows them to spend everyone else into oblivion.

The Yankees haven't cornered the market with international development.  The Royals have had a South African baseball camp for the last 5 or so years.  Other teams have done similar deals. 

Thank you for realizing that YES is something that no other team can do and is indeed one of the primary reasons the Yankees have so much more than every other team in the Majors.  YES is an argument in favor of revenue sharing and a salary cap.  For all the reasons you mentioned when blowing it up.

So...   Am I to understand that you are trying to show me that the Yankee payroll really isn't as high as people think?  Chief, that is spit take material.  You are trying to say that the billionaire up in Beverly Hills is really not as rich as people think because he only has 9 limos.   You have got to be joking, right?     right?

You know, even without A-Rod's pay the Yankees would STILL be $20 million ahead of the Mets.  And still almost $100 million ahead of the mean.  You know, 9 players making more $10 million puts that total ahead of EIGHTTEEN teams payrolls.  EIGHT-TEEN!!

Friendly advice...    I highly recommend you cease trying to prove that a $201 million payroll is really "not so bad."  That is a loosing cause.

11/13/09   |   ML31   |   3675 respect

Wrong.  The Steinbrenners put in ZERO personal assets into the Yankees.  (Apart from the initial purchase price)  They don't need to.  

Why do you keep repeating stuff that has been brought up before?  A YES type of network will not work in most markets.  Remember...  The Royals tried it and lost.  It is a combination of foolishness and ignorance to think that all teams can do what the Yankees do.  Please, stop repeating arguments I have already addressed.

Other teams have put up the money for players.  All have found they can't keep it up.  Even if teams make every decision correct, make all the right moves, there are many teams that will still not be able to maintain the high payroll. They simply can't do it.  Not because the owner is cheap.  Not because they don't make good decisions.  But because their team is  NOT  IN  NEW  YORK  CITY.   Again, please stop repeating your points.

Are you telling me that there are Met fans who think the Mets don't spend enough?  Good grief!  Those fans are just plain dumb.  There is no other word for it.  The Mets spent $149 million last year.  2nd only to your Yankees.  If they can't win with that then those running the team are either stupid or cursed.

Fans lose interest in their team because they know their team has no chance to win before the first pitch is even thrown.  They know that if their team ever gets a good player, they will lose him because their team cannot afford to keep him around.  All owners want to win.  And all owners do what they can to win. 

Trust me...  NO ONE wants their team to be like the Yankees.  People see the Yankees as what is WRONG with Major League Baseball.  People want their team to be part of the solution.  Not part of the problem.

You just admitted yourself that the Rangers tried to buy a player and it didn't work.  They gave out a Yankee like contract.  It was foolish and it hurt the team.  They tried to find someone willing to take Rodriguez off their hands.  No one would.  The only way they were able to get rid of him was if they paid some of his contract.  And you forget, the Red Sox were interested first.  But they needed to get him to take a pay cut.  But the MLBPA does not allow players to take the kind of cut the Red Sox were talking about.  Even if the player was OK with it.  Alex was getting paid WAY more than Jeter because the Rangers were, and still are, paying a part of his salary.

11/12/09   |   ML31   |   3675 respect

You may think a position cap would work.  But you'd be wrong. 

And people are right.  The only reason the Yankees get the players they do is because they always offer the most money.  Period.  It a team salary cap, the Yankees could not do that unless they had room under the cap.  Just like everyone else.  A $150 million cap is ridiculous.  Considering only one team pays more than that.  It HAS to be low enough so ALL teams can have a shot.  

The cap in basketball and the NFL has been great for those leagues.   You have yet to provide one reason why you hate it.  It seems you just do for no reason.

There may be owners whose personal wealth is greater than the Steinbrenners.  But there is no team that makes money like the Yankees do.  We have been down this path before and you keep ignoring it.  It doesn't matter how much personal wealth an owner has.  All that matters is does the team make enough on its own to create a competitive product?  For 2/3 or the teams the answer is no.  Also, if owners of those teams pumped their own personal fortune into those teams they would soon not have a personal fortune anymore. 

Now please...  Unless you can counter that with a rational argument, drop the "richer owners who don't pay" crap.  It is a blind alley.  Worthless.  Meaningless.

11/12/09   |   ML31   |   3675 respect

No...  Salary cap per position makes no sense.   A general team salary cap allows for teams to mix and match where they want to spend and where they don't.  It does not lock a team into anything. 

BTW... Players already choose where they want to go.  And under a cap, they still could.  If they REALLY wanted to play in New York, but the Yankees (or Mets) were near the cap limit, they could simply take far less to play there than they could for some other team that had lots of cap room.  Completely fair for everyone.

Another great side effect of a cap is that if the cap is tied into how the game is doing nationwide, it would mean the players would have a personal stake in how the business is doing.  I mean, they essentially control what happens in the business anyway.  They should have a stake in it.  If business is down, the cap goes down.  If business is up, the cap goes up.  So, as the game does better, the players make more money.  It might case some players to think twice before dissing the fans.  Of course, this is also a reason why the MLBPA is against the cap.  They don't WANT any responsibility.  They want all the power but don't want a personal stake in the business.

And you are missing the entire boat for why a salary cap is needed.  It is to keep a good competitive balance.  I honestly do not care what the players make.  My whole thing is to make it so all teams have a shot.  If there is a system where all teams are even with all players making $50 a season, I'd be all for it.  If there is a system where all teams are even with all players making minimum wage, I'd be all for that too.  

11/12/09   |   ML31   |   3675 respect

With a Cap they would still be able to buy top free agents they would always be able to do that.

Dude...  Come on.  No one is THAT dim.  They would not be able to sign anyone if they were at or near the cap.  Do you even know what you are writing?

And why do you completely ignore what I have said?  I already addressed the Babe Ruth thing in a previous post.  If there were no Yankees Ruth would have played for someone else.  Get with it, chief.

You don't even know your own TEAM'S history.  For nearly their entire existence, the Yankees have paid more for their guys than any other team.  The total amount is relative.  If there is no cap, I promise you the Yankees will be the first team with a $300 million payroll.  

Why do you keep using the NBA?  Again, you completely ignore the facts in addition to what I write.  The Kicks suck because the cap keeps them from spending money on all the good players.  The Knicks are what the Yankees would be if MLB had a cap.  You have to know this.  You are frightened by it.  Afraid your Yankees can't dominate if the competition was more fair.

Your $100-$150 million range us absurd.  The mean is currently $80 million.  Why go so high?  Oh that's right...  To make it easier on your Yankees.  And a salary floor is a very very bad idea.  Such a thing would not allow teams to enter a rebuild mode.  It would cause some players to get overpaid and lock many teams into perpetual mediocrity.

11/11/09   |   ML31   |   3675 respect

Wow.  You just posted a pinata of ignorance.  No matter how one attacks this he will be rewarded.

Trust me, the cap would not be moved to the point above 29 of the 30 teams.  It would likely be moved closer to the mean.  Which last year was around $80 million.  How well do you think the Yankees would do if they had to slash their budge by $110 million?  Think that one through.   You can deny it all you want.  But the fact that you are a Yankee fan who is against a cap proves you know it is the money.  If you honestly believed the Yankees would do well spending less than 1/2 they do now, you would welcome a cap.  You are scared the Yankees wouldn't win.  I know it.  You know it.  Anyone who has read your posts knows it.

IF the Yankees were to continue to win with a cap and revenue sharing, then more power to them.  We would all be wrong about them.  I would freely admit it.  Too bad we will never find out.  Until then, the one and only one reason the Yankees do will is because they have more money.  Not because they are a good organization.

Why do you keep running back to the NBA?  The cap works there.  BTW...  The NBA does not have a hard cap.  They have a soft cap.  Meaning, teams are allowed to exceed the cap under certain conditions. 

You are wrong about baseball not existing without the Yankees.  Baseball existed before the Yankees and will exist after the Yankees.  If the American League was never created, Babe Ruth would have just played for some other team. 

The luxury tax was not created to "bring down the Yankees".  That is paranoia.  The tax was created to allow the teams that were bleeding money to get a small cash injection.  And that's all.  It had nothing to do with Yankee hating nor was it a tool to create a competitive balance.  All with a brain that worked properly knew the Tax would do any good on that front.

You know, if I were a Yankee fan and I honestly felt we had the best front office in baseball, I would welcome a cap and media revenue sharing.  Because I would want to end the idea that the Yankees win only because of money.  You don't want a cap.  You are afraid the Yankees will suck if they had to get by on a mere $90 payroll.  Admit it.

11/11/09   |   ML31   |   3675 respect

It makes perfect sense that a Yankee backer would not want a salary cap.  It shows that they have no faith in their team.  It shows they KNOW the only reason the Yankees are in a position to win year in and year out is because of their money.  A Yankee backing poo-pooing a salary cap is a completely selfish action.
You say the cap is bad for the NBA?  Wrong.  The bad teams remain bad not because of money.  But because they are run poorly.  That is what the salary cap reveals.  Those bad teams can never say "we don't have the money to compete".  Also, it allows for teams in low revenue markets to succeed.  Like San Antonio.  The NFL is a different animal.  But the cap does tend to make it so fans of bad teams can have hope.  Something MLB desperately needs.

So, you want to make the regular season even MORE worthless than it already is?  You must have never ever seen a pennant race.  They became extinct after the 1993 season.  That was something that made MLB unique to all other sports.  A do or die race with only the winner advancing.  It was GREAT!  Now, it doesn't exist.  Trust me, more playoffs will only turn more people off.  Part of the reason the World Series gets fantastically low numbers today is because the playoffs are so veeeerrrrrryyyyy  lllllloooooonnnnnnnggggggg.  The casual fan just gets turned off to that.  Die hards will watch anyway.  But there just aren't enough of them.  You need casual fans to watch for the numbers to go back up.  The Series went into November this year for the first time.  We implement your convoluted playoff, and it starts threatening to go into Thanksgiving!  The World Series needs to be over BEFORE Halloween at the absolute latest.  

Go back to two divisions in each League with only the Division Winners advancing to the World Series.  This will encourage good pennant races and keep the World Series contained in October.  The numbers will go back up.  No one wants to see more playoffs.

Yes, if the current economic structure remains intact, such a format does help the teams that spend the most in each division.  But that is why media revenue sharing AND a salary cap is needed to make this work.

I honestly believe what the public is starving for in baseball is a good old fashioned pennant race, and hope for their favorite teams.  Get that...  And MLB will rise again.

11/11/09   |   ML31   |   3675 respect

Wait...  In your post a few up you wrote...   I'm not talking about the teams that just can't compete with the Yankees no one can.  Now you are changing your tune on that?  The Angels win the division a lot and guess what?  They spend the most of any team in their division.  

Look, I have never claimed that money guarentees playoffs.  Nothing can do that.  But, what money does it increase the odds tremendously.  Not only that, but when a money team makes a money mistake, they can shrug it off.  They can absorb the hit.  If a low revenue team rolls the dice and throws a ton of money at a player and it turns out to be a mistake...  It can ruin the team for years.  The consequences of mistakes is just far far greater for the low revenue teams.  Therefore, they are not nearly as ready to pull the trigger on dishing the money out as a time like the Yankees are.

You are also mistaken about the game coming back.  It has a national presence now.  And the game nationally has never been as un-popular as it is today.  Unless certain things change, I do not see it coming back anytime soon.  And no, losing teams will not help.  It will make the game less popular.  Fewer people will watch.  And the all important national TV contracts will drop.  Meaning less money for the remaining teams.

What baseball needs to regain its former popularity is a few things... 

MLB needs to show they are doing something to address the existing competitive imbalance.  Something that will actually work.  Not this luxury tax nonsense.  Anyone with a brain knew that would do nothing.
MLB needs to bring the pennant races back.  (They became extinct when they created the 'welfare' card)
MLB needs to make the World Series and All Star Game (Their 'Jewell' events') unique and special again.  (ie: Interleague play must go)

If those three things are addressed, MLB will return to its former glory.

PS...  Why did you post the payroll list?  I have seen it before.  It doesn't seem to serve your post any.

11/10/09   |   ML31   |   3675 respect

But if you want a real competition, then you have to eliminate all teams who can't compete with the "big boys" or in this case, the "top dog".  The Yankees.  Which means that all teams not at their level should go.  This is not my thinking.   It is your reasoning. 
The Twins play in traditionally the weakest division i the Majors.  They have one team in the top ten of player salaries.  And that is a more recent phenomena.  They also are bucking the odds doing what they are doing.  Which can happen in this system.  People still win in Vegas as well.  Even though the deck is totally stacked in favor of the casino.  The Rox only make it because the playoffs expanded.  That is hardly a good example to use.  The Rays sucked for 10 years.  Then caught lightning in a bottle once.  The next season, back to mediocrity.  Without Yankee money, they simply cannot compete.  Padres, Pirates, Royals and DC are all teams who don't compete not because they are inept.  They don't compete because they don't have the money to.  Period.  If the Yankees didn't have the money they do, THEY would be grouped with those four.

You speak of the clippers, but just having a cap will not turn inept teams into winners.  You STILL have to know what you are doing.  Maybe if there was a cap, the four teams you mentioned would still suck.  But until then, the only conclusion we can draw is they suck because of a lack of money.  I'd like to find out for sure.  I'd also like to find out if the Yankees win because they have a strong front office, or do they win because they just outspend everyone?  No way to know under the current format.

Not even the Yankees can be in the top bid for players year after year only 25 people on the roster at a time

Actually, they can.  And it has happened.  In the old days, the Yankees would buy Browns and Senators starters just to sit on their bench.  And those teams would take the money just so they could meet payroll!  Not much has changed in MLB in the last 50 years it seems.

MLB is also dropping in popularity as it is.  How will it be good for the League to have even LESS a national presence?  That will create even more fans to NOT care about baseball.  You need to take those Yankee blinders off and see what is good for the game...  Not just what is good for the Yankees.

11/10/09   |   ML31   |   3675 respect

Dude, I need to call you out on something I normally never do.  You have GOT to read what you write.  Your writing is damn confusing.  I kinda get what you are saying but the reader should not have to interpret what you mean.  This has been going on the entire thread.  I mean, you have got to know what the difference between "composition" and "competition" is, right?  You capitalized "Eaton".  That was the final word of the sentence and the word I think you meant to use was "eaten".  I think you mean "heartbreaking" when you say "heart braking".  I'm not the world's greatest speller either.  But my God man...  You really need to check your work.

If MLB did what you suggest, contract all teams that can't spend like the Yankees, you would be left with one team.  How can a league grow with one team?  I guess they can be like the Globetrotters....

So when you say, "if for some reason a chain isn't working you get rid of it" I guess you mean that MLB ought to go out of business.  Because on the field, there is no fair competition.  It's not working so we should just get rid of it.  Remember, MLB is the chain and the club teams are franchises of the business chain.

Sure, making the playoffs at one time had a little luck involved.  Especially if the race came down to two or three teams at a similar skill level.  But the best teams still more often than not came out on top.  And, since the playoff field has been doubled, that luck factor has been shifted from the regular season to an even larger role in the post season.  But that is another subject all together.

11/10/09   |   ML31   |   3675 respect

Making the playoffs in the '80's wasn't about luck.  It was about being good.  So don't go there.  That's ignorant even for you.

The dollar value of the team is irrelevant for this discussion.  So stop wasting your time with that one.

We are not talking about cars of electronics.  We are talking about a sports league.  The product is ALL the teams.  Not just one.  A restaurant chain does not allow one franchise to suck up all the good chefs leaving all the other ones to barely get by.  Such a practice does not allow the chain, or business, to grow and make even more money.  

It depends on what you mean by "worked".  Seems to me it worked 12 of the last 16 seasons.   You speak of the players they brought up themselves.  That's fine.  But a lot of teams have brought up good players themselves.  The difference?  The Yankees can afford to keep them around.  Most teams can't.  And those that can usually have to pick and choose which one they can afford.  That's the difference. 

Think about it...  How much should a Royals fan back his team when he KNOWS before one pitch is ever thrown, that his team has a 1% chance of actually competing?  And if they do find lightning in a bottle, they KNOW it will NEVER last.  Why?  Because the team just can't afford it.  People aren't hating the Yankees so much as the failed economic system MLB has.  The Yankees are just the physical manifestation of it.  You can boo the Yankees at a game.  There is nowhere you can go to boo the terrible structure of MLB.

I tell you what...  Let's see how valuable the Yankees are when they are the one and only team in Major League Baseball.  They can declare themselves winners every year til the end of time.  I wonder how many people will come out to watch the Yankees play with themselves?

11/9/09   |   ML31   |   3675 respect

You see...  What you just did about the decade thing is called "nit-picking".  My point is still valid even with your nit picking.

No if there were a welfare card in the 80's it would not make the Yankees look better.  Assuming the schedule would be the same, they would still finish just as I showed.  

No, everyone DOESN'T hate winners.  Everyone hates winners who have unfair edges over other participants.  People tend to LOVE Tiger Woods.  And he wins more often than top golfers.  People loved Jordan too.  Guess what his teams did a lot of...  That's right.  WIN.

Your Yankee colored glasses really warp your view of the world.

11/9/09   |   ML31   |   3675 respect

Of course YOU would prefer this years over last year's.  And it has nothing to do with the quality of the teams involved.  The Yankees are YOUR team.  You are hardly in a position to make an unbiased determination on the quality of the match up.  

I agree that this year the two best teams did play.  So it had that going for it.  But... That was pretty predicable from the day spring training started.  Last year's was more interesting and exciting because it had a first time Series participant.  A team that almost literally came out of nowhere to surprise everyone.  A team that spends a fraction of what the Yankees do.  Last year's Rays, while perhaps not as good, was infinately more interesting than this year's Yankees.  And then you had the Phils.  Who, yes, are a spendy team, but not nearly as spendy as the Yankees.  Plus the Phils have had a recent history of blowing it in the post season.  

Compare that to the yawn Yankees (again!) playing in the Series against a Philly team who was a tad more interesting as they were trying to be the first NL team to go back to back in 20 years..  And I think we know where the unbiased vote goes.

Now let's check out the Yankees in the '80's.

1980: 1st.
1981: 4th
1982: 5th
1983: 3rd
1984: 3rd
1985: 2nd
1986: 2nd
1987: 4th
1988: 5th
1989: 5th
And lets include 1990..
1990: Last.

Baseball's most prosperous decade to date had the Yankees finishing in 1st place once.

You so look at the world through Yankee colored glasses.

11/9/09   |   BluDevil   |   618 respect

ML31 wrote:
You don't need to explain to me the mechanics of the ratings drops.  I know it.  Baseball's have still dropped more than any other sport.  Period.

I am actually not a Yankee hater.  I am a hater of the economic system MLB has in place.  I don't like ANY team that overspends.  Those teams are part of the problem with MLB.  Not part of the solution.  Trust me, the Yankees being on TV does not cause me to watch.  I was far more interested in last year's series than this year's.  Last year's was a far more intriguing and interesting match up.  And as I said before, the last time MLB had a great decade, the Yankees sucked for almost all of it.  Thus proving that the Yankees need MLB far more than MLB needs the Yankees.  But, I don't expect you to understand that.  The Yankee kool ade prevents you from seeing the world as it is.  

Not more than the NHL. It's not even on TV anymore, so I don't see how it's ratings could be better than MLB.

11/9/09   |   ML31   |   3675 respect

You don't need to explain to me the mechanics of the ratings drops.  I know it.  Baseball's have still dropped more than any other sport.  Period.

I am actually not a Yankee hater.  I am a hater of the economic system MLB has in place.  I don't like ANY team that overspends.  Those teams are part of the problem with MLB.  Not part of the solution.  Trust me, the Yankees being on TV does not cause me to watch.  I was far more interested in last year's series than this year's.  Last year's was a far more intriguing and interesting match up.  And as I said before, the last time MLB had a great decade, the Yankees sucked for almost all of it.  Thus proving that the Yankees need MLB far more than MLB needs the Yankees.  But, I don't expect you to understand that.  The Yankee kool ade prevents you from seeing the world as it is.  

11/9/09   |   ML31   |   3675 respect

Yeah...  Let's get rid of one of the most storied franchises in all of Major League baseball.  The team with the winningest manager ever.  A team that has won 9 World Series.  Surpassed only by the Cardinals and Yankees.  And you want to get rid of them because they haven't done anything lately?   You're deranged.  But I expect nothing less from someone addicted to the Yankee Kool-ade.

And since you seem incapable of accurately looking at my profile...   I'll just tell you right off I support the Giants.  The A's are merely my American League team.

11/9/09   |   ML31   |   3675 respect

wrote:
20 years ago would have been... the A's-Giants earthquake series... coincidence? I think it was probably already going downhill by that point. Of course, the simple fact is that there's just so much more on TV now, with hundreds of channels, plus the Web... so many more ways of dividing America's attention, that I doubt even the mighty NFL draws the kind of ratings it did in the 1970s and 80s. Outside of the Super Bowl, championship series just aren't the draw they used to be. The Stanley Cup Finals weren't even fully televised on network television last year (I believe Versus broadcast the first two games before it switched to NBC). The Super Bowl can have that appeal because it's a single, all-or-nothing game. If you could get a Yankees-Dodgers or, God forbid, Yankees-Cubs Game 7, then I think you would see big ratings, but nothing else will garner that level.

The A's were the model small-market team in the first half of this decade during the Billy Beane "Moneyball" era. He's still there but the model doesn't seem to be as successful anymore. The Matt Holliday trade did not pan out well for them, although since it ended up becoming two trades in one year I guess they gained some prospects out of it. Carlos Gonzalez and Huston Street were huge for the Rockies, but I digress.
I'm also thinking Dragon is confusing you with me when he calls you a Rox fan. If you see my other poll today, Rox are currently 20 to 1 odds of winning the 2010 World Series. Giants are a few slots down from there, and the A's are over 100:1.

The TV decline started in the early '90's.  Baseball was really in it's heyday in the '80's.  Ironically, an era where the Yankees sucked.  So the idea that MLB needs the Yankees to be good for success is 100% hogwash. 

I know that all TV ratings are down.  But baseball's seem to have dropped more than everyone else.

I don't consider the A's a "Small Market" team.  If they are, then so are the Giants as both teams are in the same market.  That market happens to be the smallest two team market, however.  I prefer the term "low revenue" team.  Moneyball would work very well if they had just 1/2 of the money the Yankees have.  Again, money has kept the era of great A's teams from lasting.

11/9/09   |   ML31   |   3675 respect

The 2009 World Series averaged an 11.7 rating.  The highest in 5 years. 

The Yankees being in it may have had a slight effect, but I think more telling is the new World Series schedule.  The jury-rigging by FOX to get more weekday games seems to have paid off some and more importantly (I think) starting the games 40 minutes earlier is the main reason for the ratings bump.

However, 11.7 is still less than 1/2 of what was normal for a World Series only 20 years ago.

11/9/09   |   ms_hippie_queen   |   30115 respect

not that hard to believe...many more folks are going to watch the defending champs and of course the yankees than would watch say a houston/rays series

11/9/09   |   ML31   |   3675 respect

If your perverse views of MLB economics aren't enough, your Yankee kool-ade addiction is also causing you to think I am a fan of the Rox.  Yet another mistake.  Your friends need to stage an intervention for your own good.

11/8/09   |   ML31   |   3675 respect

wrote:
But I think the NFL does share non-TV revenue such as merchandise sales, etc. Not sure about that.

MLB does that too....  But not in a simplistic way.  Their merchandise thing is complicated.  Internet sales are evenly split...  Sales at games are split between teams (if the item is connected to the teams playing), sales at stores have a percentage going to the team who is on the item with the rest split....  Or something like that.  I read it once years ago and I'm sure some particulars of changed.  But it was overly complex I remember.

11/7/09   |   ML31   |   3675 respect

wrote:
Generally, I think that's true. In the NFL, the Broncos are a surprise this year, and there may be a couple of others. The Dolphins were definitely a surprise last year after having one only one game (I think) the year before, but now they've returned to mediocrity. But there isn't really the vaunted parity in the NFL either. The Patriots have been great for a decade and will continue to be. The Lions, Rams, Jaguars, Raiders, et. al. have no hope of being competitive in the forseeable future. Granted, much of that may be due to bad management. The NFL has many measures in place to guarantee more competitive balance, beyond just the salary cap: sharing of the network TV contracts, overall revenue sharing, etc. This is because at the time of the merger back in the 1960s, the owners got together and decided that they wanted to do all they could to actually make the league succeed, not just themselves as individuals. Even since Harry Frazee sold Babe Ruth to the Yankees for practically nothing in 1920, baseball owners have, as a group, always been selfish, greedy, and distrustful of each other. They (with notable exceptions) always put their own interests ahead of the game. Conversely, the players have always been distrustful of ownership and it's no surprise at all that since the union has gained leverage, the players have had every decision go their way. Ownership had such a corrupt reputation that when they actually tried to control runaway free-agent spending, they were accused and convicted of collusion. Then they once again became so power-hungry that they voted out the Commissioner and replaced him with one of their own, Bud Selig, their official lackey. If they can't force a salary cap, they have to at least appoint a real Commissioner with real power again, if anything is ever going to change.

The MLBPA needs to give some power back.  I'm kind of with you in that if I'm in the PA, I wouldn't give anything back unless there was a REAL Commissioner once again.  One who did not only answer to the owners, but one who took everyone's best interest to heart.  By everyone, I mean the players, owners, the game and fans.

But I'm not so high that I think that will ever happen.

PS...  MLB shares all national cable and network contracts, just like the NFL does.  The big difference is in the NFL there are no local TV deals.  The NFL has no revenue sharing because there are no local deals for individual teams to share.

11/7/09   |   ms_hippie_queen   |   30115 respect

Heyhey1970 wrote:
The only big difference I see between MLB and the NFL (for example), is that the 10 worst teams in baseball are likely to be the 10 worst next year.  In the NFL, you seem to be guaranteed a few surprises each year. 

dang, dude - never heard it put so simply and have it make all the sense in the world. well said!

11/7/09   |   ML31   |   3675 respect

There might be a surprise in MLB as well.  Like the '08 Rays.  But those teams don't last.   The system makes it VERY hard for them to do so.

Plus, the main difference is the NFL has no local TV money going to individual teams.  It's all netowrk.  That is the real difference and why some teams can spend way more than others.

11/7/09   |   Heyhey1970   |   194 respect

The only big difference I see between MLB and the NFL (for example), is that the 10 worst teams in baseball are likely to be the 10 worst next year.  In the NFL, you seem to be guaranteed a few surprises each year. 

11/6/09   |   ataqwx   |   39 respect

Okay, well the Mets don't, what can I do? Plus, the yankees make more money to spend to put back in their team, I don't think many teams make what the Yankees spend.

11/6/09   |   ataqwx   |   39 respect

Bad spending, but the yankees still outspent everyone. All I'm saying is that the yankees have a huge advantage with their money, and they have a couple players who made more than an entire team.

11/6/09   |   ML31   |   3675 respect

Who are you talking to?

I'm no Mets fan.

BTW...  The Mets may have the highest payroll in the NL, but they are STILL more than $50 million behind the Yankee$.

11/6/09   |   ML31   |   3675 respect

Alert! Alert!

We have identified another drinker of the poisons Yankee Kool-ade....

11/6/09   |   BluDevil   |   618 respect

The NBA throws off the comparison, because everyone repeats in the NBA, for the most part. It's been that way for decades.

11/6/09   |   ataqwx   |   39 respect

(Edited by ataqwx)

Is it really that fair? You have a team with a payroll of $150 million+ and another with just over $20 million. Weather the teams wins or not is based on how you spent the money, but the yankees are just taking talent, lets see them operate with $20 million. A-rod makes that much in a year. There are other teams that spend a lot, but not like the yankees, not even close.

11/6/09   |   ML31   |   3675 respect

wrote:
im all against a salary cap against baseball. the Marlins are have the lowest payroll in the game and managed to win 87 games. the owner of the royals has more money than george stienbrener but refuses to spend any on his ballclub thefore for thats what you get for having a cheap owener.. the royals could be the yankees if they wanted to

It doesn't matter how much money an owner is worth.  What matters is how much is the team as a business making.  The Yankees spend that much because they make it.  The Marlins don't spend that much because they DON'T make it.  Sure, the owner could pump his own money in.  But if he did that, he wouldn't be worth anything after a while.

11/6/09   |   zballa07   |   44 respect

NO TO A SALLARY CAP YES TO STEROIDS

11/6/09   |   ML31   |   3675 respect

WBKsports wrote:
 Phenomenal article!

Being a Padres fan with our $42.8 Million Dollar payroll, it's hard to say that there is competitive balance in the MLB. I do know that the Marlins, Rays and Twins seem to find there ways to the playoffs and World Series, so it is possible. But year after year, teams in smaller markets cannot keep up with the $100 Million payrolls the big boys have. It sucks because the last time the MLB thought about putting in a Salary Cap, the World Series was cancelled....I don't know. Maybe a salary cap would cause more issues, but a $201 Million payroll is ridiculous. A team who spends that much cash better win the World Series. If not...What a waste of $$$$!!!

I think a  $201 million payroll is ridiculous when the next highest clocks in at $149 million and the median is at $80 million.  That gap is just too great.  If everyone could pay $201 million, then it wouldn't be an issue. 

The only way to go is a cap combined with the sharing of local media revenues.

11/6/09   |   WBKsports   |   366 respect

 Phenomenal article!

Being a Padres fan with our $42.8 Million Dollar payroll, it's hard to say that there is competitive balance in the MLB. I do know that the Marlins, Rays and Twins seem to find there ways to the playoffs and World Series, so it is possible. But year after year, teams in smaller markets cannot keep up with the $100 Million payrolls the big boys have. It sucks because the last time the MLB thought about putting in a Salary Cap, the World Series was cancelled....I don't know. Maybe a salary cap would cause more issues, but a $201 Million payroll is ridiculous. A team who spends that much cash better win the World Series. If not...What a waste of $$$$!!!

11/6/09   |   keppieboy   |   158 respect

mk_donley wrote:
I just dont see a salary cap in MLB in my lifetime. I'm sorry, but I just don't see it.

 The only way for a salary cap to work would to have revenue sharing. I don't see any of these big market teams willing to give some of there money away to other teams.

11/6/09   |   ms_hippie_queen   |   30115 respect

(Edited by ms_hippie_queen)

even with a salary cap - which i am all for - there will be teams in the lower echelon who can't even reach it, but there will be more of the 2008 rays and 2007 rockies to come, just as there will be more of the 2009 astros and mets (100 million payrolls finishing well below .500).

money doesn't necessarily lock in a winner but when your front office can go all jennifer-lopez-in-a-sachs-fifth-avenue during the offseason, that certainly gives a team a heavy upper hand over the tj maxx  shoppers. too girly? all well.

the way i see it is this: teams should have the cap averaging somewhere in the middle of the road between the marlins and yankees. i believe that being a gm should, like everything else in baseball, require strategy.

p.s. great article!

11/6/09   |   mk_donley   |   2554 respect

I just dont see a salary cap in MLB in my lifetime. I'm sorry, but I just don't see it.

11/6/09   |   ML31   |   3675 respect

A lot of good stuff there...  But I don't buy the "look at how many different teams win the Series" argument.  That is more a result of expanded playoffs rather than competitive balance.  The main point is how many times have the Yankees won their division?  You mentioned that in claiming that the Yankees have been in position to win the WS all but one year this decade.  And even more before that.  THAT is what their money buys.  Not the title itself.  

Also, I do not know what is so promising about the Rox using the "back door" to get in the post season.  Neither time have they won the West.  They came close once and had some faint signs of doing it this year (but never seemed too interested in actually winning the division) and haven't even sniffed it any other season.  When the Rox can actually compete for the division title more than once in a three year stretch, then you might say they have promise.

11/5/09   |   TheRoss   |   356 respect

Nice comparison. People act like the Yankees win every other year. But their "buying" of championships isn't really an accurate statement. But baseball would do well to implement the salary cap, but like with everything else, they are behind the times and slow to adapt to the needs of the game, and the wants of the fans.