Hardly. For some odd reason you want to believe that MLB is competitively balanced and the lack of a salary cap/true revenue sharing, combined with a wide disparity in financial capability between teams, is not a serious problem. Further, you want to believe that this has nothing to do with the Fidelityinvestmentsyankees and Bankofamericasox -- the sport's two highest-bankrolled teams -- combining for relative dominance over a 15-year span. You need to look at WHY this happens (money) and WHY teams in other sports with cap/revenue sharing dominate (superior organization, talent development and coaching). In MLB, you can have the best front office, best coaching and best talent development system, and you're going to be left wanting if you can't afford to retain and hire the best free agents. Conversely, you can be mediocre as an organization and literally BUY a championship-caliber team in the free-agent market if you have the dough to do it.
Certainly, the good organizations will field a winner occasionally and knock off the rich teams. But there is absolutely no way you can tell me that the two teams used in this example would be as competitive as they have been without the ability to out-spend everyone else in free agency. That's BUYING your way to a shot at the World Series vs. EARNING it through smarts and organization on a level playing field. The NFL is the antithesis of MLB for that very reason. What's not to understand here?
