CBA and Uncapped 2010 Season
 

[url]http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2009/writers/don_banks/03/23/nfl.meetings/index.html?eref=T1[/url]

It appears more likely the 2010 season will be uncapped, but it will not be a crazy spend fest as some might think....work stoppage possible in 2011.



"a growing sense that the league's impending labor showdown will all but assure a season with no salary cap in 2010, with a decent bet for a subsequent work stoppage in 2011......Said another club's general manager: "I don't think it's a long shot any more in regards to an uncapped season. It's probably going to happen. It's just the reality now and everyone's dealing with it.....A third general manager (Vinny?)told me that his team's every move this year has been made amid the backdrop of no salary cap next year at this time, and then the strong possibility of a work stoppage in 2011.....Once upon a time, conventional wisdom held that NFL owners wanted no part of an uncapped year because they were fearful that a few rich and aggressive owners (read Jerry Jones and Daniel Snyder) would go all George Steinbrenner on them and snap up a boatload of free agents.....But in reality, there were so many new parameters built into the CBA's rules for an uncapped season that owners will have anything but free rein to make a killing for their teams in free agency. ...For starters, once the salary cap disappears, [B]players can't be free agents until they've completed six NFL seasons, rather than four.[/B] That means there will be fewer quality young players in the 2010 free-agent pool, and less talent for any spend-happy teams to accumulate.....in addition, teams in 2010 would own [B]an extra transition tag[/B], meaning a franchise could use both a franchise tag and a transition tag on two of its own free agents (or two transition tags) in the same season, as opposed to the one..."

There will be alot less young FA on the market.

re: CBA and Uncapped 2010 Season
 

less player turnover wouldnt be a bad thing imo.

re: CBA and Uncapped 2010 Season
 

[quote=Big C;539365]less player turnover wouldnt be a bad thing imo.[/quote]

I agree. I'm tired of buying jerseys and then having the player leave and play somewhere else. I'm tired of getting attached to a player only to see him leave after we've developed him, and play for a rival after he starts playing well to get his big payday. I'm tired of not seeing young drafted guys develop because we signed a FA who we think is better at the moment and take away the young guys chance to play. But that's just me.

re: CBA and Uncapped 2010 Season
 

There are so many ways to circumvent the salary cap these days that for most teams in the NFL, cash is actually the bigger constraint than the cap is. In many ways the cap already has limited impact on the way a number of teams operate.

Baseball does not have a salary cap, but they have had tremendous success recently just by having a revenue sharing agreement in place. They've shown you can generate enough parity in the league, giving small market teams enough of a chance, by controlling the flow of cash on the revenue side without limiting it on the expense side.

In many ways I think a capless league can be good for the NFL. I won't go as far as to say the league will be better without one, but baseball sure has shown that small market teams can compete and win titles without a cap in place. I don't think the NFL will get worse at all, it will still be the same product we've come to love.

re: CBA and Uncapped 2010 Season
 

[quote=Schneed10;539379]There are so many ways to circumvent the salary cap these days that for most teams in the NFL, cash is actually the bigger constraint than the cap is. In many ways the cap already has limited impact on the way a number of teams operate.

Baseball does not have a salary cap, but they have had tremendous success recently just by having a revenue sharing agreement in place. They've shown you can generate enough parity in the league, giving small market teams enough of a chance, by controlling the flow of cash on the revenue side without limiting it on the expense side.

In many ways I think a capless league can be good for the NFL. I won't go as far as to say the league will be better without one, but baseball sure has shown that small market teams can compete and win titles without a cap in place. [B]I don't think the NFL will get worse at all, it will still be the same product we've come to love[/B].[/quote]

I agree. I know I liked things better before the cap. This crap of letting players go just to get under the cap has got to go! You still have a 53 man limit. You should be able to keep your best players no matter what the cost is. Some teams don't even reach the cap limit and that is their perogative. Which is why it was raised even more this year. But for teams that WANT to have the best 53 guys on their roster, they should be allowed to do so.

re: CBA and Uncapped 2010 Season
 

I grew up watching and counting on most of the same guys to be in b&g from year to year, so less player movement would be good for me, and a lot of fans.

Work stoppage in 2011? Let's party like it's 1982! or 87!

re: CBA and Uncapped 2010 Season
 

Schneed, on one hand I agree with you. On the other hand... what about the possibility of a work stoppage. That's the part of this scenario that scares me.

re: CBA and Uncapped 2010 Season
 

[quote=Daseal;539430]Schneed, on one hand I agree with you. On the other hand... what about the possibility of a work stoppage. That's the part of this scenario that scares me.[/quote]

Yeah that truly sucks. But that's a seemingly inevitable by-product of the struggle between players and owners rather than a philosophical debate between cap & no cap. In other words, what can ya do.

re: CBA and Uncapped 2010 Season
 

I don't want to go into september one year & only have college football, but it may be the best way to bring real change. It could get really crazy from a PR standpoint. Things are so much different now than in previous strike years. Fans, like some here, know so much about the cap & the bureaucracy of the nfl.

I don't know who would win in the court of public opinion.

re: CBA and Uncapped 2010 Season
 

[quote=Schneed10;539379]There are so many ways to circumvent the salary cap these days that for most teams in the NFL, cash is actually the bigger constraint than the cap is. In many ways the cap already has limited impact on the way a number of teams operate.

Baseball does not have a salary cap, but they have had tremendous success recently just by having a revenue sharing agreement in place. They've shown you can generate enough parity in the league, giving small market teams enough of a chance, by controlling the flow of cash on the revenue side without limiting it on the expense side.

In many ways I think a capless league can be good for the NFL. I won't go as far as to say the league will be better without one, but baseball sure has shown that small market teams can compete and win titles without a cap in place. I don't think the NFL will get worse at all, it will still be the same product we've come to love.[/quote]


if there IS a CBA Extension AND a salary cap in 2009, then we have some problems:

1. Haynesworth's cap number is something like 23M, if i remember correctly.

2. Rogers and Campbell both become free agents. Assuming we wanted to keep one or both of them, what could we do? If we had the cap space, we could extend one and franchise the other... but considering the franchise tag for either of them would be north of 12M, and the cap figure in a contract for the other one of them would be 6-8M, then what could we do? Would we be forced to let them both walk for nothing?

re: CBA and Uncapped 2010 Season
 

[quote=BigHairedAristocrat;539451]if there IS a CBA Extension AND a salary cap in 2009, then we have some problems:

1. Haynesworth's cap number is something like 23M, if i remember correctly.

2. Rogers and Campbell both become free agents. Assuming we wanted to keep one or both of them, what could we do? If we had the cap space, we could extend one and franchise the other... but considering the franchise tag for either of them would be north of 12M, and the cap figure in a contract for the other one of them would be 6-8M, then what could we do? Would we be forced to let them both walk for nothing?[/quote]

Good God.

1) Hayneworth's cap number this year is $7.0. Next year it's $8.8. Not sure where the hell you got the $23.

2) In 2010 the team has $114 million in cap fees on the books. This year the cap limit is $127 million, and if there's a cap next year it will go up by $5-8 million and end up between $132 and $135 million. The 'Skins can easily keep Rogers and Campbell next year if they choose to do so, and that's without restructuring any of that existing $114 million.

3) The chances of there being a cap next year are becoming so small that it's almost not even worth discussing points 1 and 2 above.

re: CBA and Uncapped 2010 Season
 

[quote=Schneed10;539463]Good God.

1) Hayneworth's cap number this year is $7.0. Next year it's $8.8. Not sure where the hell you got the $23.

2) In 2010 the team has $114 million in cap fees on the books. This year the cap limit is $127 million, and if there's a cap next year it will go up by $5-8 million and end up between $132 and $135 million. The 'Skins can easily keep Rogers and Campbell next year if they choose to do so, and that's without restructuring any of that existing $114 million.

3) The chances of there being a cap next year are becoming so small that it's almost not even worth discussing points 1 and 2 above.[/quote]

Thanks for the info. I remember something about a huge roster bonus or something being paid in 2010... knowing his cap figure will only be 8.8M is wonderful... pretty much makes my other questions/concerns moot...

also, i know we started this offseason something like 10M over the projected cap (which has since risen), and we had to restructure and cut alot of guys to get under the cap. What youre saying is that - even with the new contracts of Haynesworth, Dockery, and Hall... and "dead weight" like Thomas and Jansen on the roster- we are still about 20M [I]under[/I] the 2010 cap?

If true, thats incredible. In fact, we might be better of WITH a salary cap, because we would have plenty of room to extend some of our own guys (definitely Rogers, Montgommery and Golston, possibly Campbell) and have plenty of space to sign quality free agents who would actually be hitting the market instead of staying with thier 2009 teams because they didnt have the mandatory 6 years of league service.

re: CBA and Uncapped 2010 Season
 

The main benefit every team wants from an uncapped year is to get rid of dead weight contracts. But there was a very good quote from a GM (#3 in the article) that basically said - if teams are not writing contracts with one eye on an uncapped year they are being stupid. Every contract the Skins have written so far seems to include language specifically designed to protect the team either way.

re: CBA and Uncapped 2010 Season
 

[quote=Schneed10;539463]Good God.

1) Hayneworth's cap number this year is $7.0. Next year it's $8.8. Not sure where the hell you got the $23.

2) In 2010 the team has $114 million in cap fees on the books. This year the cap limit is $127 million, and if there's a cap next year it will go up by $5-8 million and end up between $132 and $135 million. The 'Skins can easily keep Rogers and Campbell next year if they choose to do so, and that's without restructuring any of that existing $114 million.

3) The chances of there being a cap next year are becoming so small that it's almost not even worth discussing points 1 and 2 above.[/quote]Haynesworth's contract does contain a $23m OB next year. It's fully guaranteed. Obviously, if there's a cap next year, it's going to be pro-rated. And obviously, if there's no cap, might as well just leave it as a 2010 option bonus. In which case, his real cap number would be in the ballpark of 30 million. And it wouldn't matter one bit.

I wouldn't say that having a cap next year is unlikely. I would say that no agreement and no cap essentially guarantees some sort of labor lockout in 2011.

re: CBA and Uncapped 2010 Season
 

[quote=CRedskinsRule;539497]The main benefit every team wants from an uncapped year is to get rid of dead weight contracts. But there was a very good quote from a GM (#3 in the article) that basically said - if teams are not writing contracts with one eye on an uncapped year they are being stupid. Every contract the Skins have written so far seems to include language specifically designed to protect the team either way.[/quote]

Good, we can get rid off players who are just taking up space.

re: CBA and Uncapped 2010 Season
 

Is it possible to move future dead cap money into the uncapped year? There must be some way the Redskins can use it to get well.

re: CBA and Uncapped 2010 Season
 

[quote=GTripp0012;539502]Haynesworth's contract does contain a $23m OB next year. It's fully guaranteed. Obviously, if there's a cap next year, it's going to be pro-rated. And obviously, if there's no cap, might as well just leave it as a 2010 option bonus. In which case, his real cap number would be in the ballpark of 30 million. And it wouldn't matter one bit.

[B]I wouldn't say that having a cap next year is unlikely. I would say that no agreement and no cap essentially guarantees some sort of labor lockout in 2011.[/B][/quote]


Sorry Im way out of the loop this year with the NFL, Why is it that their will be a labor lock out in 2011 as a result of no cap in 2010?

re: CBA and Uncapped 2010 Season
 

[quote=WillH;539577]Sorry Im way out of the loop this year with the NFL, Why is it that their will be a labor lock out in 2011 as a result of no cap in 2010?[/quote]The owners want a cap. The players are more towards hoping for an uncapped league, but still getting a new deal. IF we reach free agency next year without a cap, the players union has confirmed that they will not go back to having a cap.

Since some owners would just spend, spend, spend in 2010 once they weren't restricted to do so, and others would cut, cut, cut all of their overpayed talent that is currently protected by cap constraints, the most common scenario would be a simple stalemate where it's no longer the interests of the owners to give into the demands of the union. Since the union would have effectively lost their credible threat (the salary cap), there is no harm left for the owners, particularly the small market owners, to lockout the players.

The teams and stadiums are still asset for the owners. The players are expenses. With no CBA in place, it's incredibly profitable for the owners to not have players on payroll. Therefore, it's a lockout because the owners would have the leverage, abscent a CBA.

The best solution would be to come to an agreement to extend the cap before this time next year. Problem is, the players union doesn't feel that they should give up any of the benefits that they won back in 2006, and the Owners thought that deal was totally ridiculous and that Tags caved. The ONLY leverage the players union has to keep the gains they made in 2006 is that 85% of the owners want to prevent an uncapped year at all costs.

Dan Snyder is probably not in that 85%.

Anyway, if you understand the concept of backwards induction, the owners didn't opt out of the CBA two years early just so they could get grabbed by the balls by the Union for an even more ridiculous deal. If they didn't think they could push the players off their 2006 gains by just a little bit, the owners would never have opted out. So, at the very basis, this becomes "how far are the players willing to go in order to ensure work into the future?"

re: CBA and Uncapped 2010 Season
 

I just hope they resolve this. I remember back in 82 and there was no football for like 7-8 weeks. It was just awful and no one wins when there is no football. Then in 87 the owners bought in the scabs. Anyone out there remember the band aid football games?? Ed Rubbert throwing to some guy (forgot his name) that broke all the Redskin single game receiving records. It was just awful. But I'll never ever ever forget that Mon night game against Dallas when Dallas had a bunch of guys cross the picket line and play and they still lost. Gibbs had Tony Robinson running the wishbone, and the defense held Dallas, Tony Dorsett and Danny White to 7 points ( I think), one of the greatest coaching jobs ever by Gibbs and Pettibone.

Re: CBA and Uncapped 2010 Season
 

[quote=skinsfan69;539649]I just hope they resolve this. I remember back in 82 and there was no football for like 7-8 weeks. It was just awful and no one wins when there is no football. Then in 87 the owners bought in the scabs. Anyone out there remember the band aid football games?? Ed Rubbert throwing to some guy (forgot his name) that broke all the Redskin single game receiving records. It was just awful. But I'll never ever ever forget that Mon night game against Dallas when Dallas had a bunch of guys cross the picket line and play and they still lost. Gibbs had Tony Robinson running the wishbone, and the defense held Dallas, Tony Dorsett and Danny White to 7 points ( I think), one of the greatest coaching jobs ever by Gibbs and Pettibone.[/quote]

I remember those games. The movie "The Replacements" is actually based on the Skins scab team of 87. I think the wr's name was Allen.

Hey, don't hope too much for a non-strike year, remember we've won 2 super bowls in strike years!

Re: CBA and Uncapped 2010 Season
 

Here is my issues....It seems there is way too much trun over like others have said. It seems fans get mad at the players when they want to renegotiate a contract prior to time or get mad when a player says I want out(Arrington for one, Cutler, Bolden, CJ, etc) but if a team decides to let a player go prior to the end of his contract simply to meet the CAP no one complains. All parties should be held equally to the contract. The fact that a player can't get out of a contract if he wanted to but any team can cut a player simply at a whim whether they take a penalty for it or not monitary wise is not fair.

I also have issues with paying Rookies millions of dollars when no one knows if they will even work out. I would like to see Rookies start out at perhaps the vet min. for like a 2 or 3 yr stint and perhaps then get the 6 yr deal in the millions.

Another pet peave is that since the CAP started there seems to be no actual team guys. I can remember players playing their whole career with one team. Now your lucky if they resign.

Re: CBA and Uncapped 2010 Season
 

Why can't the owners look at all the other team sports and build an agreement based of of what has worked out best in each of the other sports. My example would be baseball where if an owner goes over his CAP then he is punished monitarily no draft pick. Will it cause other teams to do the same probably but the penalty money can go to the league to be given to the lesser markets.

Set a standardized amount each Rookie can make in his Rookie contract.

The CAP was set up to keep parity in the league. but it's not an issue of whether teams can afford it now. I mean look at some of the teams that had 30 or 40 mill under the CAP and we signed Haynesworth to his deal while just being 14 mill under. Heck we signed AH, Hall, and Dockery. Where were all the other teams who had millions they could have spent....where was Tampa? Cinci? Buffalo? no one stepped up to out bid us on AH. So basically the CAP is BS and it's more about what the owner is willing to spend. but penalizes teams that are willing to spend.

I guess that was their idea of trying to keep the cost down for players each year and not trying to let it get out of hand like the AH contract.

Re: CBA and Uncapped 2010 Season
 

I wish Rookie Pay was better controlled. Draft day would be far more interesting, as teams jockeyed for higher pick trades. as it is now, no one is trading into the number 1 - 5 spots, unless they are in that ball park already.

Re: CBA and Uncapped 2010 Season
 

[quote=CRedskinsRule;539688]I wish Rookie Pay was better controlled. Draft day would be far more interesting, as teams jockeyed for higher pick trades. as it is now, no one is trading into the number 1 - 5 spots, unless they are in that ball park already.[/quote]
I agree. Getting a top 5 pick is not as attractive as it used to be because of the money. I can understand vets having a problem with this also.

Re: CBA and Uncapped 2010 Season
 

I also agree that there should be a rookie cap. It works well in the NBA.
Now let me ask you this because I wasn't sure if I understood it correctly. We can cut aging players with high salaries during the uncapped year or if there's a lockout and there wont be any hit?

Re: CBA and Uncapped 2010 Season
 

Having no cap means getting rid of overpaid underachievers

Re: CBA and Uncapped 2010 Season
 

contract is still a contract. DS will be able to pay them and cut them and it won't effect the team other then in DS's pocket. Then "if" the CAP is put back we should be in good shape for the future. That is unless DS gets to mortgaging our future again. Plus the CAP by all accounts would most likely be pushed to a hire number knowing the players are commanding hire salaries now then when it was first put into place.

Re: CBA and Uncapped 2010 Season
 

So the Skins could restructure say, Randle El's contract so he makes the remainder of his deal in the uncapped year and then we could cut him without any penalty (other than to DS pocket but who cares about that)

Re: CBA and Uncapped 2010 Season
 

[quote=Daseal;539430]Schneed, on one hand I agree with you. On the other hand... what about the possibility of a work stoppage. That's the part of this scenario that scares me.[/quote]

As long as it doesn't cancel the Super Bowl. I've never forgiven baseball for not having a World Series. If all of those rich men (owners and players) take it that far, they've lost their minds completely.

Re: CBA and Uncapped 2010 Season
 

[quote=SBXVII;539685]Why can't the owners look at all the other team sports and build an agreement based of of what has worked out best in each of the other sports. My example would be baseball [/quote]


I stopped reading the moment I read Baseball.

The Baseball system is horrible if you don't live in a top ten market.

Parity is very very important.

It's the very reason why the NFL is so great and MLB sucks baseBALLS.

Re: CBA and Uncapped 2010 Season
 

Well I guess it shows how much Baseball knowledge I have. I was simply refering to taking the part about punishment for going over their salary cap. I like it better then the NFL's. However the teams making money would simply say who cares we will pay the fine and move on like the Yankees.

Re: CBA and Uncapped 2010 Season
 

[quote=wilsowilso;548152]I stopped reading the moment I read Baseball.

The Baseball system is horrible if you don't live in a top ten market.

Parity is very very important.

It's the very reason why the NFL is so great and MLB sucks baseBALLS.[/quote]

How are you defining top 10 market

Re: CBA and Uncapped 2010 Season
 

[quote=SmootSmack;548230]How are you defining top 10 market[/quote]

Top ten payroll's I guess. Most are obviously the biggest metropolitan areas in America, but some mid-sized cities with massive baseball traditions can afford to pay high end rosters.

Baseball's system works very very well for all the owners because even if you are a small market team and can't realistically compete you still get paid a massive portion of shared add revenues.

Also there have been seven different World Series champs in the last eight years, but one thing is for certain.

Teams in the bottom 1/3 in payroll have around a ten percent chance of making the postseason according to the stats in an article I read recently.

Re: CBA and Uncapped 2010 Season
 

[quote=wilsowilso;548253]Top ten payroll's I guess. Most are obviously the biggest metropolitan areas in America, but some mid-sized cities with massive baseball traditions can afford to pay high end rosters.

Baseball's system works very very well for all the owners because even if you are a small market team and can't realistically compete you still get paid a massive portion of shared add revenues.

Also there have been seven different World Series champs in the last eight years, but one thing is for certain.

Teams in the bottom 1/3 in payroll have around a ten percent chance of making the postseason according to the stats in an article I read recently.[/quote]

I see. I guess I just see all the different teams making it to and in some cases winning the World Series and I see teams like Minnesota, Colorado, Florida, San Diego, Tampa Bay having some post season success and I wasn't sure where you were coming from.

Re: CBA and Uncapped 2010 Season
 

[quote=53Fan;539708]I agree. Getting a top 5 pick is not as attractive as it used to be because of the money. I can understand vets having a problem with this also.[/quote]

the flip side to this was said by the late great gene upshaw. the vets dont want a rookie cap b/c these ridiculous contracts given out give them a very high ceiling to work with.

look at robert galery, got paid a ton of money as a rookie and has struggled to the point i think they moved him to guard, then when an elite tackle/guard comes to the table to negotiate a contract he says "gallery is getting paid 10 mil a year, im way better than him so you gotta pay me more."

so while vets should be alil mad/jealous at these unproven havent-taken-a-single-snap rookies getting paid more than them, they also realize the more money the rookies make the higher the ceiling gets for all players salaries.

go skins!!

Re: CBA and Uncapped 2010 Season
 

[quote=wilsowilso;548152]I stopped reading the moment I read Baseball.

The Baseball system is horrible if you don't live in a top ten market.

Parity is very very important.

It's the very reason why the NFL is so great and MLB sucks baseBALLS.[/quote]

Wildly inaccurate. Horrendous post dude, especially considering this post preceded yours:

[URL]http://www.thewarpath.net/salary-cap-central/29016-cba-and-uncapped-2010-season.html#post539379[/URL]

Recent winners or runners-up in the World Series:
- Florida Marlins
- Colorado Rockies
- Tampa Bay Rays
- Detroit Tigers

Meanwhile the team with by far the most bloated payroll in baseball, the Yankees, hasn't made the series since 2003.

Re: CBA and Uncapped 2010 Season
 

[quote=Schneed10;548428]Wildly inaccurate. Horrendous post dude, especially considering this post preceded yours:

[URL]http://www.thewarpath.net/salary-cap-central/29016-cba-and-uncapped-2010-season.html#post539379[/URL]

Recent winners or runners-up in the World Series:
- Florida Marlins
- Colorado Rockies
- Tampa Bay Rays
- Detroit Tigers

Meanwhile the team with by far the most bloated payroll in baseball, the Yankees, hasn't made the series since 2003.[/quote]

Well a while ago I posted a comparison between baseball and football's championship games to see how many big market vs. small market teams had made to the championship game in each sport. While lately small market/low payroll teams in MLS have made it to the World Series, the NFL still has a larger number of small market/low payroll teams making it to the Superbowl over the past 20 years. I'll try to dig that up when I get home.

Re: CBA and Uncapped 2010 Season
 

[quote=Schneed10;548428]Wildly inaccurate. Horrendous post dude, especially considering this post preceded yours:

[URL]http://www.thewarpath.net/salary-cap-central/29016-cba-and-uncapped-2010-season.html#post539379[/URL]

Recent winners or runners-up in the World Series:
- Florida Marlins
- Colorado Rockies
- Tampa Bay Rays
- Detroit Tigers

Meanwhile the team with by far the most bloated payroll in baseball, the Yankees, hasn't made the series since 2003.[/quote]

Tell that to the fans of the three other teams in the AL East besides the Yankees and the Red Sox. Once in a decade the Rays finally put together a strong team because they were able to stockpile lots of young talent.

Yes some small market teams have had success recently in baseball, but it has been very short term success every time.

MLB is desperate for people to think that there is competitive balance, but there really isn't.

Just because the Yanks are run by idiots doesn't mean a team with a massive payroll doesn't have a huge advantage.

You argue that the Yanks prove that spending more doesn't translate.
Have a look at the Red Sox.

Maybe the baseball system is really starting to work because of the large percentage of revenue sharing, but I still think it's mostly a mirage.

It's not impossible for small market teams to compete for a short term, but they would have had to make all the right decisions for an extended period of building compared to the big spenders who can reload every single year and it's even harder for them to keep a team together because once they get good those young star players will more than likely end up in a bigger market.

Re: CBA and Uncapped 2010 Season
 

^ Ok, lets take a look at the Skins. Although the CAPs are different, I know, They are one of the top market teams. Has one of the highiest payrolls. Used to go all out every year and get top name top dollar free agents and it got us nowhere. Everyone was up in arms for the Skins to start building a team through the draft.....just like the small market teams have to do due to money constraints. It got us nowhere. Only the last few yrs have we picked in the draft and kept most of who we drafted. In the past we simply would let over half of the draft picks go or claimed it was piss poor picking.

Re: CBA and Uncapped 2010 Season
 

[quote=wilsowilso;548484]Tell that to the fans of the three other teams in the AL East besides the Yankees and the Red Sox. Once in a decade the Rays finally put together a strong team because they were able to stockpile lots of young talent.

Yes some small market teams have had success recently in baseball, but it has been very short term success every time.

MLB is desperate for people to think that there is competitive balance, but there really isn't.

Just because the Yanks are run by idiots doesn't mean a team with a massive payroll doesn't have a huge advantage.

You argue that the Yanks prove that spending more doesn't translate.
Have a look at the Red Sox.

Maybe the baseball system is really starting to work because of the large percentage of revenue sharing, but I still think it's mostly a mirage.

It's not impossible for small market teams to compete for a short term, but they would have had to make all the right decisions for an extended period of building compared to the big spenders who can reload every single year and it's even harder for them to keep a team together because once they get good those young star players will more than likely end up in a bigger market.[/quote]

And not so coincidentally, MLB's revenue sharing agreement and luxury tax system went into effect just as those small market teams started doing better.

I can't argue in favor of baseball's old system sans revenue sharing, but ever since they put that in place, it's been a tremendous equalizer.

You seem to have completely forgotten that not-so-little detail.