Your understanding of the issue is a bit superficial. 1) MLB has been increasingly profitable for 10+ years now. Economically, there is nothing wrong with the

Your understanding of the issue is a bit superficial. 1) MLB has been increasingly profitable for 10+ years now. Economically, there is nothing wrong with the game. 2) The Dodgers are 4th in club value, and 4th in revenue. Not sure where your numbers are from. http://www.forbes.com/lists/2010/33/baseball-valuations-10_The-Business-Of-Baseball_Revenue.html http://www.forbes.com/lists/2010/33/baseball-valuations-10_T... Now that we've dismissed the economic concerns, let's look at the other stuff. Parity: baseball has much more parity than any of the other major sports in the USA. From a Peter Gammons article in 2009: "In those 30 years, 20 different teams have won World Series titles, and it would likely be 21 without the 1994 strike that cost the sport’s best team -- the Montreal Expos -- a chance to win it all. In those 30 years, 14 different teams have won the Super Bowl, 13 have won the Stanley Cup, nine have won the NBA championship." Yes, the Yankees recent dominance is tiresome to everyone who doesn't worship satan. But the Mets aren't exactly doing well, even with #2 revenue numbers. Finally, you simply state that baseball should implement a salary cap, like it's easy to do. The MLB players association is one of the strongest unions in the world. There's no way they could implement a cap. And, as a rabid consumer of advanced baseball analysis, I don't think the evidence suggests that they should. I'm sorry if my reply seems harsh -- I'm not venting at you. Rather, I'm venting at ESPN and nearly every sportscaster that seems to have 3 very incorrect presumptions: 1) baseball is in decline because 2) there's no parity and 3) no salary cap. All three are dead wrong.