The MLBPA has been the strongest pro sports players union and won its players major advantages over the years that allows its better players to score with big guaranteed contracts and has kept team payrolls escalating from year to year so everybody is getting paid more. I doubt they're going to agree to any concessions at this point.

I'll say it again, that I think the biggest problem with parity in the league are the franchises at the bottom not spending enough to be competitive, it's not teams up at the top spending too much.

The fact is, the Giants had the 4th highest payroll in the NL last season, will again this season, maybe 3rd, so we're hardly in a beggar man's position to be claiming about being out-spent by our competitors. Some of the AL clubs spend more, but only one of them can get to the World Series, wherein anything can happen in a single series and money becomes less important than other factors.

And, then, there's this:

WS Winners

2011: Cardinals
2010: Giants
2009: Yankees
2008: Phillies
2007: Red Sox
2006: Cardinals
2005: White Sox
2004: Red Sox
2003: Marlins
2002: Angels
2001: Diamondbacks

Sure looks like parity at the top.

The Cardinals are a classic example that as long as you're in the top half of spending and you're very well run ball club, you've got a great shot at titles.

The rich teams are already paying "income tax" to support smaller income teams. They know they must still spend wisely.

Face it, one or two Zito contracts (and there have been plenty others) completely wipes out any budgetary advantage. Having both Zito and Rowand is what made the Giants' 2010 win so remarkable. The ring was basically won by a $70M payroll.

"Yes the top half of spending, meaning half of the teams have absolutely no chance whatsoever over a 162 game season to compete."

Tell that to FLA, COL, and AZ.

I look at it a little differently.

I think change needs to happen, but I think the need for a salary floor is much more important than a salary cap. If a teams owner cannot afford to meet the salary floor, then they cannot afford to own the team. If a market is not able to support a major league team, then they do not have a team.

If the salary floor was somewhere between $75-$80 million dollars there would be no owners pocketing millions of dollars after a horrid season. I also think there would be more parody in the league. I don't think salary would increase for players, I just think there would be more options for quality players.

Also, I don't think that would make other teams spend more money. The Yankees will still be the Yankees. I would keep the revenue sharing in place and just make the top 25% market teams pay a percentage to the bottom 25% market teams.

I don't care what anyone says, the Giants are a big market team. If the ownership wanted to have a $150 million dollar payroll, they could afford it. They just don't want to.

There are probably 10-12 MLB teams that have a legit shot at the World Series title each season.

That's more than the NFL and definitely more than the NBA.

Yes, there are a group of MLB franchises that simply do not compete. They should be moved, eliminated, or sold off to owners who will compete.

I would argue that there's more parity in the MLB than in the NFL or NBA. In the last decade every single division in baseball has had a team win the World Series, with five wins coming from the NL and 5 from the AL.

How many franchises in baseball can you think of who haven't had a shot at a World Series in the last ten years? Off the top of my head I can think of like six teams. That's pretty good parity. Sure, not every team is going to be competitive every year, but I think that if the vast majority of the teams have a chance to win it all pretty often, then that's good for everyone.

Yes. For the most part, you see that money=success. In the NFL you can go from worst to first in a matter of years. You can be a star in the sport and help your team for a very decent salary and can live the rest of your life quite nicely.

yes it does....the current system is a joke that allows the yankees and red sox to spend wildly and pillage other teams stars at will...

" He was saying the reason MLB has fallen so far behind the NFL and will most likely never get close in popularity is because of the salary system and lack of parity it creates."

There's "parity" in the NFL?

Over the last ten years, you've had the Pats win three, the Steelers win two and the Giants win two. During that same span, only the Red Sox and Cardinals have won more than one.

There is only more "parity" because there are more playoff spots. Baseball will see the same thing this year. More small market teams will make it to the postseason and have a chance to win it all.

The NFL is more popular because it's easier to follow. You get six days to read about what happened and what will happen next week. It's a sport that feeds perfectly into American's lack of attention span and their need to be spoon-fed interesting stories.

-chef

Agree 100% on Zito's signing making a difference for all negotiations...ESPECIALLY Cain's and Lincecum's.

And not from a not having enough cash to negotiate...or from being hesitant to commit that much money again to a pitcher..but from a comparable standpoint.

If I were Cain or Lincecum...I would not sign for less than what Zito got...which is the reason that I think one or both will walk away.