Originally posted by jetman67+Oct 17 2003, 10:05 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (jetman67 @ Oct 17 2003, 10:05 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--CanadaSteve@Oct 17 2003, 09:38 AM
Would everyone's opinion about this topic be different if it was the Red Sox winning all the time?
Doesn't anyone agree that the NFL is in a better state because they have a salary cap? The salaries do not skyrocket, it keeps an even playing field, the contracts are not guaranteed. It's not about the "Yankees" per say.
The system the NFL has in place is one of the reasons why they are such a strong organization. But saying that the high rollers in the sport don't have an advantage over the small market franchise is like saying Bill Gates doesn't have an advantage over most of his competition. The ability to spend more does affect the sport. Do the Yankees spend their money wisely, Y-E-S! Did the Orioles spend their millions wisely years ago? N-O! But to say that things are all well in MLB-land when the Yankees, Braves and Red Sox have payrolls over 100,000,000 and the Expos have a payroll of 30,000? Come on.
The problem is baseball cant have a salary cap. The players would strike. Another strike would destroy baseball. [/b][/quote]
J-Man-My hope was for the strike last year. One that would have been a scorched earth effect on baseball, and required it to start from scratch in about 5 or 6 years.
This coming from a guy who would watch EVERY inning possible growing up,because I loved the game so much.
Base ball CAN have a slary cap type, but it ius unable to agree on basically anything. The divide between owners and players and the mistrust there may never be narrowed.