[krunchybox]

In the Nov. 9 issue of Sports Illustrated, there is an article entitled "Postseason On the Brink" in which the writer made this interesting but sad observation about something that happened in game four of the world series:

Originally Posted by Sports Illustrated - "Postseason On the Brink"

In Game 4...the Yankees started the highest-paid pitcher in baseball (C.C. Sabathia), ended it with the highest-paid closer (Rivera), jumped in front with a run by the highest-paid shortstop (Jeter) and salted the game away in the ninth when the highest-paid catcher (Posada) drove in the highest-paid first baseman (Mark Teixeira) and baseball's highest-paid player (Rodriguez).

Let's get some thoughts on this.

While I understand that it's not just the Yankees who are spending ridiculous amounts of money to, in a sense, buy the World Series like the '97 Marlins, is this fair to the smaller market clubs?

I understand that the Yankees haven't been to the W.S. since '03 and won since '00 even they were doing back then what they are doing now. Perhaps that is why so many rejoice when small market teams like the D'backs and Marlins are able to topple them, but is it fair?

New York has two baseball teams that spend enormous amounts of money, Boston follows suit as well, and so do a few other teams, but these same two cities (New York and Boston) also have football franchises by the same number, 2 and 1 respectively, where two of the three teams have won their respective sport's top prize with a salary cap, which does what it is supposed to do, infringe upon a wealthier team's ability to "buy" their championship.

So without total Yankee/Red Sox bashing, because other teams are also just as guilty, should there be a salary cap in baseball, and why or why not?

[mpack47]

There would have to be lockout, the MLBPA will not accept a cap, obviously.
There would have to be a minimum cap, which a lot of owners that don't spend money will refuse. (The same owners that complain they can't complete and would also lose "luxury tax" revenue sharing from financially stronger teams.)
Teams that generate the revenue also generally generate the best TV ratings, which benefits all owners.

So to summarize there is no benefit to the players or the owners to institute a salary cap.

My personal opinion is a cap is fine, but even if the cap is anywhere $100mil or $200mil, the teams at the lower salary end (and especially their fans) will still bit*h and moan that they can't compete.

Also the term "small market" is bs as well. Using the NFL example, The Pittsburgh Steelers salary this year is $128,520,061, the Pirates $25,197,000. The Minnesota Vikings $133,354,045, the Twins $67,634,766. The Oakland Raiders $152,389,371, The A's 56,089,250. Granted the NFL roster sizes are slightly more than double, money is still money and the Pirates and A's (along with many others) just aren't paying their roster players to keep their teams competitive.

I added Minnesota in the comparison as they are always considered a "small market", but they make wise decisions on the players they decide to keep and not to keep.

Here's the data from the comparisions i use if anyone want's to research as well:

2009 MLB Roster Salaries:
http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/teams/salaries?team=nyy

2009 NFL Roster Salaries:
http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/team/pi...teelers/salary