[quote name='dmaul1114']Yeah, as I said before, a salary cap on it's own isn't good enough.
There has to be a team salary minimum too, and hopefully lead to contracting some teams that can't spend enough to be competitive. Another part of the problem is talent is spread to thin, compounded by most top athletes in the US opting for football or basketball instead of baseball, unlike in the past when baseball was really America's sport.[/QUOTE]
Well, I cannot argue with you there. Baseball has definitely been impacted by the rise of other sports. Compact that with constant expansion, and yes, the talent pool is certainly not deep. I would be all for contraction. I was all for it back when they wanted to contract the Expos and Twins. Of course, the Twins went on to become a perennial playoff contender, but at the time, they were not.
I don't necessarily disagree that a lot could be done to make baseball more competitive, but I just don't see it happening. The union will fight a salary cap until the bitter end, and a lot of teams will balk at the idea of a salary minimum. As much flack as Selig gets, especially for being so pig-headed on replay, I do think he has done everything he can (wild card, expanded revenue sharing, luxury tax, etc.) to make the game as about as competitive it will get for a very long time.
Like I said, I do think contraction would help a bit, especially in terms of pitching. You have plenty of guys sitting out in big league bullpens who simply do not belong. And honestly, that is where teams like the Yankees get their gaudy offensive numbers during the regular season. You play a bad team in the middle of July. They work the starter hard and chase him by like the 6th, and now you got some guy who barely skated by in AAA pitching to A-Rod and Cano.
Of course, the problem with contraction is who do you contract and are they going to go quietly. I think you all remember Pohlad wanting waaaaay more than market value for the Twins.