This is like this in literally EVERY sport... The big market teams will always win more than the small market teams regardless of a salary cap. If anything having no salary cap helps in baseball because if you can find the money to spend you can throw any amount of money at these big name guys to come play for you regardless of your city. Just look at the NBA, beside the Spurs who are an incredibly well run organization can you even name the last time a small market team won it all? And they have a capYou're fucking pathetic. What it GUARANTEES is that teams like the Pirates and Cubs are absolutely DOOMED. They have ZERO CHANCE to ever win the World Series because they are at such a remarkable disadvantage in terms of money because the MLB is retarded and won't use a salary cap to help balance things. Frankly, if I were them, I would fucking secede from the MLB until something is done about it. THE ST. LOUIS CARDINALS, THE TEAM WITH THE LOWEST PAYROLL STILL LEFT IN THE PLAYOFFS, STILL PAYS DOUBLE THE MONEY THAT THE LOWEST TEAM PAYS (The Padres). The sport is pathetic in it's current state. You're just defending it because you're privileged enough to be a fan of Detroit which HAS A LOT OF MONEY so they can spend out of their assholes to make their team better than everyone else while organizations like the Padres have to use fucking double A players because they simply don't have enough money to get players like Prince Fielder. Stop being an ignorant asshole.
and then you wonder why everyone of those sports has been locked out in the past 2 years...because of disputes over money, which leads us back to the point that salary caps primarily benefit owners.Yes matamato, I was joking, as jimbob said. You do have to wonder, though, why basically every other league has a salary cap yet baseball doesn't.
lockouts/strikes are kind of a big deal. also explain yourself.secondarily, if you ignore lockouts, salary caps benefit fans
baseball has parity. 9 different WS winners going back to 2001. 26/30 teams have made the playoffs in that time span (Seattle, Toronto, Pittsburgh and Kansas City did not) as well. you also have to remember, baseball's playoff system isn't like the NBA or NHL, where half the league gets in. it's tougher to make the playoffs in baseball.parity is good
to be fair, the Yankees bid against themselves massively for ARod in 2007 and for Sabathia's extension...but, i agree with you.The Yankees wouldn't be paying three players more than the entire roster of eight different teams pay theirs if it didn't give them a leg up.
i can't hear your argument over NFL =/= MLB. the TV rights for the teams are collective, i believe. which means that giant pot of gold is shared between everyone. not so much in MLB.i couldn't hear your media market argument over green bay winning the superbowl two years ago
Yankees from 1996-2000?there hasn't been a real dynasty in sports in like 50 years though
In the NHL, Islanders at the start of the 80s and the Oilers at the end of the 80s. You could make an argument for the Red Wings for the late 90s.there hasn't been a real dynasty in sports in like 50 years though
idk what your definition of dynasty is but everyone else definition is multiple championships over a short period of time. stronger dynasties get more championships over longer periods of time. if you're winning 4 championsips in 6 years or 4 straight years your a dynasty.regarding dynasty, my definition of dynasty is very strict. idk i never saw a 3 year rule of china called a dynasty
not exactly. NFL and MLB are fundamentally different because all NFL games are nationally broadcast -- hence the shared TV revenue. not so much for baseball, which is why you have regional sports networks (YES, SNY, NESN, et cetera). there are typically only 4 nationally broadcast games a week, sometimes less and sometimes featuring the same teams multiple times.congrats, you just explained why baseball needs better revenue sharing, which goes hand in hand with salary cap!
how nice and idealistic. i'm sure the owners would definitely agree to this. especially the ones in NY, Boston, et al who already pay into revenue sharing and watch the "poor" teams pocket that money.just because they aren't national broadcast games doesn't mean you can't share the revenue nationally
@cloverleaf: if that is everyone else's definition, everyone else is wrong like usual
and literally every game of every yankees/red sox seriesthere are typically only 4 nationally broadcast games a week, sometimes less and sometimes featuring the yankees multiple times.