Funny that the last three WS champions are not in your list of six teams. Just like all sports, some teams have to rebuild. Some do a good job (the A's, Twins, Cards) and some don't (Dodgers, Orioles, Rangers). I still think your expanded playoffs just dilutes a great regular season. Last season, we had 5 or 6 teams come down the wire for 2 spots in the NL. Would Cubs and Marlins fans have felt as good about their seasons if they were just fighting for playoff position rather than fighting to get in? Except for maybe the Yankees, if your team gets into the playoffs, you know it was a great year. Sure, it may have been unfair for the teams that didn't make it, but this is what baseball is about: heartbreak at the end of the season leads to hope in spring training.
I don't agree that it is just those six teams and then everyone else, but the revenue disparity does cause problems. The Rangers and the Rockies are closer to the "haves" than the "have nots". I guarantee Cubs and Marlin fans would've been just as excited if there were two more teams in each League making the post-season. Making the playoffs is always a big deal, even when it's easier to make them. If the Rockets hold on and make the playoffs this season, you won't hear a whole lot of "Well, it's cheap because we didn't win the MidWest division. We shouldn't have been in". Was that second Rockets championship tainted because the team didn't win the MidWest? Did they not really earn it? Do those AFC Championship games the Oilers played in feel wrong? Were we not excited? Were they cheap because the Oilers didn't win their division? Would we have felt better about the Oilers at the time if they'd have simply missed the playoffs? By your logic, the Cubs shouldn't have been excited because they would not have made the playoffs under the pre-1994 set-up. They got in under an expanded playoff system that many baseball fans consider to be bad for the game, as did the Red Sox. So all that great post-season we had shouldn't have happened. The Marlin should've played the Braves and the Yankees should've played the A's. No Cubs. No Red Sox. And none of that great baseball that people liked watching. It dilluted the regular season. And why do the Twins get the "good job" rebuilding title? It took them over a decade to rebuild. The Rangers could be good in a decade for all we know. Maybe they're good at rebuilding, too, we just won't know for several more years, if the Twins are the standard.
A cap would be worthless for many teams. What good does it do Kansas City if baseball puts in an $80 million salary cap? Think of it this way. The NFL spends roughly 63% of its total revenues on player salaries and does great. Major League Baseball spends roughly 64% of its total revenues on player salaries. So the problem isn't the salaries in and of themselves. The problem is that some teams have so much more money coming in than other teams. The Yankees bring in nearly $100 million more than the Chicago Cubs, more than $50 million more than the New York Mets and Boston Red Sox. And the Red Sox bring in roughly $45 million more than the Astros. And the Astros bring in nearly $40 million more than the Twins do. You can't have a successful sport when the top revenue team brings in nearly FOUR TIMES the revenue of the smallest revenue team AND brings in nearly 30% more than even the next highest team.
Damn, the Rangers lost their team captain. *edit I just realized the one positive in this mess, the Sports Guy, Bill Simmons, who ripped our city mercilessly, has got something else to cry about. Eat it you whiny a-hole!.
Nice, Pimp, in that you use the word "pimping" in your post. What can I say? Sons of Sam Horn is a great website (even if they are a little elitist), second only to this place!
