Quote:
Originally Posted by Nunyer
I wouldn't say it's a wash... and now that I re-read my post... I probably didn't word it quite correctly. Obviously superstar players can price themselves out of certain markets. But again, that has always happened to a degree. When you had 16 teams in the MLB, the small market teams were always feeders for the rich. You can dismiss all those owners as 'greedy', that's fine... but it was their necessity at the time. To maximize profit. It was the system, no different then today. "Player X might be worth more to the Yankees then he is to me... so I better sell high." Today, the shoe has been moved to the player's foot once he reaches free agency status... but it's still the same system... assets usually get maximized.
Proportionally speaking, I don't think the haves and have-nots are that much more out of whack when they were in the reserve clause days... where decades would pass with over a quarter of the league never being remotely competitive despite the ability to hold their guys forever.
|
It's not a question of parity.....parity is boring.....it's a question of fans feeling invested in their teams and (more importantly) vice versa........and you cannot argue that small market teams had the same problems 100 years ago, because there weren't any small market teams.....
But anyways, this has nothing to do with the OP......my point is that if you want to play high stakes poker with OOTP, you either have to set up some house rules to overcome the system's limitations, or learn to enjoy 120 win seasons with high roster turn over.....after a while winning loses its joy, when you realize there isn't really any chance of losing......and then you are left with a long team history populated with players and teams that you can't remember......