Do you think that the other owners in baseball will see that a 200 million dollar payroll won't buy them a World Series. And do you think that would give some of those stars a chance to play on an actual team?

You make a good point, but think about this...the more the Yankees spend, the more $$$ that comes back to the other teams. Everytime the Yankees exceed $120, any amount over that, is given back to the other teams in baseball, starting with the team with the worst record. Because of the Yankees, teams like Detroit, Anaheim, Oakland, Minnesota, etc...have had more $$$ to spend on free agents.

Why put a cap on a team that is willing to spend, especially when they are not winning. If those stars wanted to play for someone else, they would have signed with them. Johnny Damon didn't come to the yankees for the money...he came to the Yankees because Boston would not match the price. A-Rod was traded, and Texas ate up about $67 million of the salary.

But the core of the Yankees, is all home grown...Jeter, Cano, Posada, Rivera, Wang, Bernie, Cabrera. They were not bought.

Rather than put a cap on baseball, why not force the owners of each team to spend some $$$. Do you really think someone who can afford to buy a franchise these days, really can't spend an extra 5 million? The Devil Rays owners, before the new group came aboard, used to pocket their extra cash...and just go with youth. Make those teams spend some money...cause you know they have it.

If the Yankees want to keep spending & not win, that is their choice. Just makes a lot of fans happy to see them loose.

what's feasible?

well none of the other teams have a high payroll like the yankees anyway so it doesn't matter to them.

thanx 4 2 points

The Union will never allow a cap. The MLB players union may be the strongest union in the world. No one goes to see scab baseball players and the players union is loaded and could stay out longer then some teams could without going bankrupt.

yes thanks to the yankees we do need a cap in baseball

Keep dreaming, Vinnie.

As long as there's a strong players' union in MLB, there will never be a salary cap. The owners have been talking about this for years, but they never stick to their guns enough to really force the union into anything. I can't see that changing, regardless of what happened this season.

I'd like to see some kind of cap, or at least an improvement on the current luxury tax and revenue sharing system, but I won't raise my hopes just yet.

nope baseball is ruined for good because of that free agency crap. The owners and players do not want a salary cap which further ruins the game. King Moron Bud Selig has lost all touch of reality by suing fantasy sites like yahoo because MLB players are on it. And 200 mil won't even get you A Rod for an overnight camping trip. I hope baseball locks out next year because this current system called a "luxry tax" needs to die a painful death.

Baseball must have a cap must consolidate four teams (at least) and that's for starters.

The two are really not related. The Red Sox had the #2 salary two years ago and were well over the soft cap that MLB has in place.

Trust me, an athlete making $10-15 million a year will not take a pay cut to less then $5 million just because he might be going to a team with potentially great chemistry. It just wont happen. Gary Sheffield will NOT be taking a 50% pay cut to play with the like of Cincinnati, San Diego or Minnesota next year.

While money doesn't guarantee championships, the Yanks have been to what, 10 or 11 straight playoffs? While Supreme Dictator in Chief Steinbrenner doesn't accept just making the playoffs, he has to realize that money can only take him so far.

That, and there haven't been a lot of great, young, free-agent pitchers in the past few years and the Yanks paid WAAAY too much for the likes of Jared Wright and Carl Povano and this postseason showed that as bright as day.

The Yankees' loss will discourage a salary cap.

Here is what happens if high-salary teams lose:
Teams realize that spending money is useless, so they voluntarily spend small amounts on their team. The teams that insist on having high salaries can keep their teams the way they are. After all, if it provides no advantage, why should the other teams care? Think about it, if a team with a $50,000,000 payroll is just as good as a team with a $200,000,000 payroll, teams would want the lower salaries, but would want their competition to have the higher salaries.

Here is what happens if teams with high salaries dominate:
Teams with small payrolls want to compete, so they encourage a salary cap that would force the teams that previously spent more to be more like the other teams.

As you can see, since the Yankees gained no advantage by paying 200 million dollars, that's a reason that the salary cap would be unnecessary.

No, it makes it less feasible. If they keep losing, who cares how much money they have to spend. If the Yankees start dominating every single year because of their payroll and fans in other cities lose interest then you might hear more discussion of a cap. Till then, the players union is too strong.