Re: ANGELS/DODGERS = YANKS/SOX minus all those rings?
posted at 12/13/2012 9:48 PM EST
In response to BostonTrollSpanker's comment:
"I dont think its bad for baseball. "
It's absolutely bad for baseball. One of the main reasons the NFL is more popular is because it has a much harder cap and franchises can compete much better for free agents. Meantime baseball ratings continue to go down. It's a serious issue.
Every team is owned by a billionaire.
Doesn't mean they are all willing to lose money on their baseball operations. Some have lucrative major metro TV revenues and some smal market teams do not. Some, like Henry, are having a lot of financial issues outside of baseball holdings. Yes, some owners are cheap but the idea that all of baseball's problems come down to cheapskate owners is foolhardy. All pro sports have shown that you need a salary cap to get owners in line and to some extent save them from themselves. There should also be a "salary floor" that forces cheap owners to spend.
"Either blame the owners who dont spend to remain competitive or push for a salary cap."
Selig has pushed for it, but the union is too powerful. The union would have to be broken which would require a mulit-year work stoppage baseball can't afford.
"But dont blame owners who are willing to invest their own personal resources in an uncapped sport. They are the ones spending their own money to compete."
I don't blame those owners but if you think this kind of thing is good for baseball you are out of your mind. All the TV ratings data is on my side of the argument.
Stop guaranteed contracts in MLB and you will see this nonsense come to a screeching halt. Thats why it works better in the NFL, the nature of the sport prevents guaranteed contracts, but baseball would be better off without them too IMO. Good luck getting it past the mlbpa.