Originally posted by Steven Gallanter View Post
I disagree. As mentioned some teams are made for profit and others are made to win. The Red
Sox until this off season tried to do both. To wit: Spending enough to have a competitive team without spending so much as to be unprofitable. The Sox now seem to have abandoned this practice. The Angels were following the same course as the Sox but now seem to be more concerned with profits.

The incentive for teams in a time without arbitration and 1 year free agency would be to develop more bodies so as to have an inexhaustible stream of talent some of which could be sold/traded for specific needs. 1-3 year players would not be low-balled and would get something very close to their market value. Thus the morally justifiable aspect of free agency would be preserved. Clubs would benefit by being able to forecast costs accurately.

We have only had the 99 and 00 Yanks winning back-to-back World Series winners in the 21st. Century so the "parity" issue is overstated. Indeed, the 40's, 50's, 60's 70's and 90's all had back-to-backs.

Long term contracts would wind up being offered to players with 2-5 years behind them rather than to 28 year olds who are at the peak of their games and only stagnate and decline due to age/injuries/wear and tear.

As far as revenue sharing goes the intent of MLB is to have teams make some profit and keep franchises from moving and losing geographic markets.