I got tons of reaction—over 100 e-mails—to my salary cap argument. Here's the best of the best.
How about doing some further analysis and showing the rank of the team's salary for each of the winners. Then you could really draw conclusions -- the argument given is weak.
No problem, Dan. The Yankees had the No. 1 payroll when they last won in 2000, but since then, the team that won the World Series had an average payroll rank of 10.6, not even in the top third of league payrolls. Thanks for helping me prove my point even more.
2008 Phillies (Ranked No. 13)
2007 Red Sox (Ranked No. 2)
2006 Cardinals (Ranked No. 11)
2005 White Sox (Ranked No. 13)
2004 Red Sox (Ranked No. 2)
2003 Marlins (Ranked No. 20)
2002 Angels (Ranked No. 16)
2001 Diamondbacks (Ranked No. 8)
From GS: Had Mr. Rovell actually taken the time at all to do some research -- which apparently is not part of his job description as one qualified to opine without regard for the facts -- he would have noted that since 1994, 15 seasons ago and the year of MLB expansion, the Yankees have won 28.5 percent of the World Series held. Thus, the highest payrolled team in baseball won a disproportionate number of World Series: that would seem an interesting correlations between money and competition.
If you are going to write something like this, don't be a coward and actually attach your name to it. Here's my retort to you. The Yankees have had the highest payroll for years and haven't won for the last eight. My point was, why are we talking about a salary cap now to "save baseball" if they haven't won in so long? If you want some research, please refer to my math above about average payroll position of champions over the last eight seasons.
From M. Larson: Your analysis is silly. If money didn't matter, then the number of World Series winning teams would be evenly split between those with the top 50 percent of payrolls and those in the bottom 50 percent of payrolls....do you really think Pittsburgh and Kansas City have an equal chance to compete with the Yankees. Get serious.
I never said that they have an equal chance of competing. I said that I didn't think that quoting the Yankees payroll was a good reason for a salary cap. Here's another point I failed to make that I should have and thanks for bringing this up. The Pirates and the Royals shouldn't have an equal chance as the Yankees. They don't bring in the revenues that the Yankees do and because they are in smaller markets, trust me, it's worse for the league if they had an equal chance.
From Dan Lim: As I viewed the different number of champions in each of the four respective sports over the past 15 years, even in the sports with salary caps, the teams where more players take the field, makes it easier to have parity. This is likely due to the fact in large team sports like football and baseball, that even with a few dominant players, you can't overcome the deficiencies at other positions as you can in basketball or hockey.
Dan, I like your thinking here.
And from William Arrington: You have to make the case for the fact that when the Yanks are in town, seats get sold that otherwise would not. Kansas City Royals, case in point. Who wants to watch the Royals even if you live in KC. But hell, I'll go watch the Yanks pound them for three days.
Come to think about it, maybe Mr. Attanasio is just regretting that he's not charging extra for games against the Yankees in 2009.
Questions? Comments? SportsBiz@cnbc.com