Do you think that there should be a salary cap? -

Because some teams just simply don t have money. I mean, the big name teams like the Red Sox and Yankees have huge bank accounts and thus lead to signing good players which means winning games, which means more fans come to their games and they earn big money. It s all a cycle of winning, earning, signing. I think the salary cap would level the playing field so that each team has an equal opportunity to win. What do you think? Why are you for it? Why are you against it?|::::|Yes. I think if there were not only a salary cap but also a salary minimum, we would see teams like the Pirates and Royals revitalized and teams like the Yankees and Red Sox have to manage sensibly. Also, since with a salary cap smaller market teams become more viable, then they will also attract more fans to baseball. This changes baseball from just being America s East Coast s Pastime, to being America s pastime again.|::::|I really wish they would. It would just make things more equal, and also it would lower the outragous contracts that some of these players are getting. Also, it would prevent teams like the yankees and bo sox from buying all the other teams young talent (rising stars). It seems like you have this young studs coming up in your system, they play for a year or so, just enough so you can see their potential, then here comes the Yankees, they don t want to go through the effort of having their own farm system so they just go around and buy everyone else s talent and its annoying as hell!! They still lose but it s annoying to see our young stars ending up on the Yankees every time.|::::|Yes. The fact that there is no salary cap presents some problems among small market teams.Take the Rays for example. They had a great year this year, raising their talent through the farm systems. However, in the future, they will fall to the cellar again, because it will remain tough for them to maintain the team. As the players are good, and the Rays not having a large amount of money, the players will ask for more, and the Rays will have to do without. Also, the Red Sox and Yankees have so much money that they just get big name players whenever they need one or just plain want one. This gives them the TV time because of the quot;starsquot; on the team. Also, it takes away the skill at general management for some teams. General management should have an impact on teh game for every team. The Yankees can just sign away and continue picking up free agents with the seemingly unending amount of money they have. The Royals, for example, have to have some of the best scouts in the game, and need to make great moves for their future. Unfortunately, a salary cap may have a toll. A season of baseball may be cancelled, but I think it would be for the best.|::::|No. But if the owners want to increase their revenue sharing, I say go for it. Other than some local cost-of-living adjustment, imagine how little complaint team spending would create if every team had, oh, $200M each year. (That s not too far off reality; MLB in 2007 pulled in $6.2 billion; divided 30 ways, that s $200M each team. Obviously the math wouldn t be THAT simple.) Teams would each be spending from roughly equivalent checking accounts, and fans wouldn t have cause to whine about salary caps. I cannot see any downsides here.|::::|No, the quot;small marketquot; teams chose not to spend the money they are givin with profit sharing. All those little teams choose to be little teams. They have the same ammount of money to spend as everybody else! The Yankees owners just dont insits on make $100 million dollars profit from there teams each year. The Yankees just put the best team they can out there.|::::|For it. The main thing is it s fair. Like you said-level the playing field. It would mix it up, it wouldn t be the Yankees and Red Sox on TV all the time-garanteed.|::::|I m for it because it creates parity.|::::|No, it will never happen.