A cap is the only way that it can be fair. Why is good enough for other sports but not baseball?
Money isn't the only way to win, you are right but when you spend that much in baseball, you almost guarantee you will at least get a legit shot at it. Look at Florida in 97. Baseball is the only sport where it's less team, than individual. Sure there is teamwork but when you are on the mound, if you are dominant, you are willing. If you are locked in at the plate, you are hitting. In ever other major sport you are reliant on someone else to make the pass, or catch the pass or what not.
Oh and the number 2 team has been almost 100 million behind in salary so it's not a legit number 2. This year might be different. As I wrote in the other post, I don't like the Sox spending like this. But Im thinking that they believe their top young guys are in their prime and in the AL East, this is the only way to go for it. However, they only signed ONE major free agent. Not THREE. Big different.
Let me also add (and I am not including you in this as I can tell you are a baseball fan first), that part of this has to do with NYY fans, that I know. In no other other sport, does a team's fan go out of their way to talk about how many titles they have. I mean Lakers fans are snobby but they don't count then out for you, Celts too, in hockey, the Canadiens have far more than other teams,
The fact that there is no cap is the real issue, not the Yankees. They are in the biggest media market and have their own TV station.. If they didn't have the biggest payroll in sports I'd be pissed. The real crime is teams like the Pirates, who have ownership which is content to be profitable at the expense of success. The richest owner in baseball owns the Twins. The Yankees take the money they make and put it back into their product. If the system were to install a cap, there would need to be a salary floor as well. I would say minimum you spend $75m, max at $150m. None of these owners are poor, none. If a team isn't drawing(unless it's the Rays or Marlins, florida is terrible for sports), it's because they are fielding a shit team. If the owners spent money to improve the team, and the teams were in turn competitive, they may start off at a loss, but over time, attendance would spike and the money would be made up.
I live outside Detroit now, the Tigers are the best example I can think of for this. They went .500 this year, and were out of it by the beginning of September, but they were competitive in the division all the way up to that point, and injuries got the best of them. I went to a September game against the Twins after the Twins had already clinched the division, and they drew 35,000. 35k in one of the most financially depressed markets in america for a meaningless game. What's the Royals excuse for being awful? If the Royals were competitive, they'd draw 35k... but they'd have to spend money right? Oh well, spend money, and make it back later. The owners for the most part aren't interested in that, they would rather collect that luxury tax money and draw more fans when real teams like the Yanks or Sox come to town.
As for the Sox not being a legit #2, yes they are a legit #2. I think the biggest gap between the Yanks and Sox in salary has been $60m.. which is a lot I'll grant you, but come on... Not to mention, being #2 in salary means you're still paying more money to your players than 30 other teams in the league, not to mention more than every other AL team besides the Yankees.
