And they say they don't try to buy championships

[The Brain]

I hope you at least agree with me on the fact that the sport of baseball is no longer about sport, but more about the almighty dollar as proven by Steinbrenner's spending habits. So much for the Great American Pasttime, huh.

In a era where even the Little League World Series is broadcast on primetime ESPN, with little 11-and 12-year olds mugging for the cameras, and the big boys are negotiating $4 <b>b</b>illion contracts with that network and ABC to televise their games, then no, I would have to say that the "sport" of baseball has been non-existent for a long time. But this would occur with or without Steinbrenner's presence in the game.

Look, prior to Curt Flood (shame on you for not knowing who he was), ballplayers were little more than indentured servants, barely making an honest wage while owners kept pocketing money at their expense. Now we've flown to the other extreme, but at least in the free agent era, a player can at least get a slice of that incredibly large pie of money that the owners have been hogging for decades.

Originally posted by Flock of Moosen
This is why I strongly believe a salary cap is needed in baseball. It would allow other teams who, no matter what anyone says, can't fully compete monetarily to have a chance each year. If the same team(s) still keeps winning when the salaries are evened out, then there would be no room for argument.

Make no mistake, I agree. It's not that I don't believe for one second these guys are vastly overpaid (they are), but I understand that in a multi-billion dollar entertainment business, the people who put the most fans in the seats will reap the most benefits.

I would take your idea one step further. The luxury tax exists as a <i>flexible</i> salary ceiling; teams can go over a set amount (roughly $125 million), but they get progressively more and more penalized the higher they go. But I want to see a "salary floor", a standard minimum by which all teams must be willing to spend every year to put a competitve product on the field. The notion of the Kansas City Royals thinking they can continue to compete on a $45 million payroll is absurd.

If all teams were forced to pay within a $75-125 million dollar range, with those going above or below those numbers paying luxury taxes to compensate, you would see more parity throughout the league.

But now I'll pose this to you: would such a parity really be all that desirable? A great deal has been made about the parity taking over the NFL, and how it has begun to breed mediocrity. Do we really want all the baseball teams hovering no more than 20 games above or below .500, with neither clear cut favorites nor also-rans? You can argue that it keeps everyone in contention for the playoffs, but what good is that if the teams are interchangeably mediocre?

Then the truly better team does deserve to win, but as far as I'm concerned the Yankees could win the next 10 World Series', but it means nothing since those titles will have been bought, not earned.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the players still have to go out and actually <i>play</i>. There are no sure guarantees in life other than death and taxes. You could field the 1927 "Murderer's Row" Yankees, and there is still always the chance that some team will simply come out and play better than them that day. Or some young pup of a pitcher will pitch lights-out, and shut them down. That's why they actually play the game, not just look at sheets of paper and deduce that <i>x</i> or <i>y</i> will just naturally occur.