Mixing the Todd reference in here is odd. Did Todd really cripple this team? I think its a very self-serving argument, because the Monforts are the ones who unilaterally say (or imply) Todd’s deal stops them from doing other things. Nobody outside of Colorado has enforced some rule that the Rox shall no longer invest in free agents because of Todd Helton. The Monforts/FO have made the choice.

I’ve yet to hear any compelling case to justify how the team would be better if Helton would not have been given this deal, likely leading to his departure in the early 2000s (when, of course, he was one of the 5 best players in the game). Maybe the savvy FO would have used that money to turn the squad into a perennial contender. Possibly we’d be a solid small market team like Minny. Based on the FO’s other moves, however, I suspect we’d be the Royals.

First, its been proven time and again recently that you don’t have to have a huge payroll in order to compete with the big money teams (See the Rockies, Rays, Twin’s, A’s, etc.). Yes, a high salary team may have a better chance at staying in the playoff hunt year after year but there are numerous examples of failed big spenders (See the Mariners, Orioles, Rangers.. etc)

Second, if they set a cap, they will also set a minimum (the Union will demand it). This minimum will most likely be higher than at least 25% of the teams are currently spending. This may actually hurt a small market team because they will have to spend a bigger portion of their revenues at the big league level leaving less to spend in scouting and development. The big market teams will then have a huge advantage that will be much more damaging than what is happening now. Right now, all teams have a fairly equal chance at developing players. Most scouts are paid the same whether or not they work for the Yankees or the Marlins. Most teams have a similar structure throughout the farm system. This will change big time if smaller revenue teams are forced to spend more at the big league level year after year. Revenue sharing will help this problem but only slightly. The NFL and the NBA don’t have this problem because they have no minor leagues. MLB lives and breathes through player development.

I also believe not having a salary cap will help keep TV revenues higher for all teams because the one thing that is shared is TV Network contracts. Face it, the reason why the Boston’s and the New York’s are on ESPN so much is because there are more of their fans watching Sports center. If a salary cap is implemented and league wide parity emerges, we may then have the privilege of watching the Rays and the Pirates of the world in the World Series. That is just not good. Big Salary teams are big city teams and thus bigger TV ratings which means more money for all teams. You can bet your last dime that the main quarrel behind the scenes in the NFL is the television networks fear of having a small market team in the Super Bowl. It hurts ratings and their overall revenues. Revenues that are placed back into the league through higher future television contracts.

Beyond all that is my belief that salary caps and revenue sharing is not really necessary in MLB because every team can develop or trade for a solid starting eight without spending huge dollars. Once that is in place, then any team, big or small, can pay market value for top pitchers and win fairly regularly.

for ranting. I do it a lot myself, and it does help one feel better after getting it off your chest.

I think there are too many apologists for the ownership, so ranting is a good balance. Fact is, too often the owners are excused from making impact player free agent signings, which the Monforts have NEVER done. The Hampton/Neagle signings and Helton extension occured when the team was under the control of Jerry McMorris. Since the Monforts bought out his stake, not a single high-priced free agent has been signed. Nor have we traded for any All Stars.

This is inexcusable. It seems that since since some use the hindsight of what lousy contracts Hampton/Neagle/Helton were, the owners are excused for never trying again. This is absurd. If you fall of the horse, and aren’t willing to get back on, then maybe you should stop riding horses. That is, maybe if ownership is institutionally incapable of making a long-term committment to an All Star player, even one of our homegrown stars, then maybe they aren’t cut out to own an MLB team.

We are nearly perrenial losers for a reason (nearly, since we had one miraculous month this decade). We don’t have owners who make consistent effort to contend each year. The three ordinary players we got for Holliday were and are replaceable with players on our own roster. They are just “depth”, not quality, for 2009. Thus, we could have waited until the July 2009 trade deadline to make a deal, and wouldn’t have been missing out on much. With Holliday playing in his contract year, he may have had his best year ever and led us into 1st place by the All Star break. Ahh, but THAT’s the conundrum, isn’t it? If we are in it at the deadline, ownership would be even more scewered for trading Holliday than they are now! Thus, they decide to absorb the arrows of fan derision when they think it’s least painful.

I’m hopeful other moves will be made to make 2009 a season to be hopeful about. But I ain’t holding my breath.

Rant over. And now I feel better. :)

the cap is not realistic for the reasons you mention, and because baseball has had a massive surge in popularity recently. Also, I frankly don’t think that baseball power brokers have any interest in improving competitive balance (I disagree with your assertion that just because they Yankees don’t win every year, that equals competitive balance) because baseball is such a regional sport. Unlike the NFL and to a large part NBA, most baseball fans care about their team, and to a much lesser extent their division, and that’s it. As such, only the true “national” teams draw eyes for the playoffs and WS. MLB/Fox is probably still crying over narrowly missing a Dodgers/Sox series. Anything that increases the possibility of a Rays/Rox series would be actively discouraged.