Historically, when a small market team does well, they do wel for one year. After that, with their players market value up, they either unload their players (Florida Marlins) or refuse to invest the money in their team to retain their players (like Minnesota wil do this year).
This point helps to make my case for a salary cap. A properly worded and enforced salary cap that is equal across the board, such as the NFLís would prevent this. Teams should not be able to sell off their players following a championship, or even a championship run.
I would also be in favor of a salary minimum for each team, properly enforced and worded.
No, not necessarily. If you look over the long haul, the most successful teams have been primarily larger markets. Granted, years of having Bud Selig run the Brewers may have soured me some, but if there is no money to spend, it canít be spent.
ALL large market teams would be in first place and all small market teams would be in last? Look at the Chisox, two years after winning the WS, they suck as bad as a team can suck.
The NHL and the NBA both have terrible track records, and teams move almost yearly. The Arena Football League almost has more security and consistency than both.
The NY Islanders (Potvin sucks). A terribe team in a large market-low crowds. The NY Knicks. A terrible team-low crowds.
This is the first season in 25 years that they have been in the race, although that may have ended now that they are 2.5 games back. It is still a race at this point, though. They are also on pace to have their first winning season since 1992.
Then look at your own Brewers. Small market team in a pennant race.
Up until this point in time, any quality players have always been at risk for being signed to somewhere else.
The other big notable change with them though, is that they are now owned by a Ďdeep-pocketsí owner, who by all appearances so far will be willing to spend some money.
Jeff Suppan was actually a so-called marquee free-agent they actually signed, granted he is no A-Rod, but you have to start somewhere.
The last example I can cite first hand is from 2005. I can tell you with all honesty that the series was well attended, but nothing close to sold out. I managed to get to all 3 games here, and walked up to the box office an hour before the first pitch. That is one of the things I miss about when the Brewers were in the A.L,
When the Yankees come to Milwaukee, how easy is it to get a seat?
This year is the exception, success does bring people out to the park.
That was a mistake on my part. I was talking about several things the NFL has done to increase popularity with the league, and included the revenue sharing.
Baseball HAS revenue sharing. In 2006, the Yankees paid about $77 million in revenue sharing and uxury tax.
You wonít get that from me, because the Yankees donít suck. They are baseballís most successful franchise. I will admit that Iím a bit jealous, and greatly admire their success and tradition, how can anyone not?
I've had this argument with others on here whose starting point for the argument is "the Yankees suck"!
Iíve just been trying to think of how baseball cold be made better. There isnít a lot that is wrong with baseball, but it could still be better.
All other things aside, I think the world series winner comes out of the Yankees-Red Sox race. I think both clubs are a full head taller than anything the National League has to offer this year.