Come on, you knew this post was coming. Adrian Gonzalez, through not being able to be re-signed next year by our San Diego Padres, has now been traded to the Red Sox. We knew it was going to happen. We, even supposing that Moorad could finish buying the team tomorrow, could never afford the type of salary that Gonzalez was looking for if we were going to attempt to field a solid team.
Jason Werth is the MLB's Ilya Kovalchuk, so we don't even need to comment on that contract fiasco.
Back on topic.....unlike baseball, which works through more nostalgia than current product, the NFL prides itself upon being a "league of parity". And in most regards, it is. There are salary caps, all teams must follow the same rules, and the rules are enforced for all players (unless you are Tom Brady and they make rules for your benefit). Competition is usually pretty even between teams...except in cases of mismanagement or Matt Millen, any team could beat pretty much any team on any given Sunday.
Baseball is not like that. There are the winners and the losers. The Indians could not sweep the Yankees. Conceivably if baseball wants to style itself upon being competitive and having these very interesting division races (between more than just two or so teams), there are two options: lowering the luxury tax threshold, or instituting a payroll cap. Both essentially work the same, just that one is a "fine" and the other is a "penalty" when one goes over. Either way though, the lowered ceiling would lower contracts for players and most likely spread out the talent more evenly, thereby making superstars affordable for even the most meager of team payrolls (ahem). By giving a grace period of current expensive contracts to expire, I think that either way this new system would work out better for the league as a whole.
But would owners go for it? I actually think so. Most teams in the mid-range and lower tiers of payroll would enjoy not at the very least not fretting over automatically losing their franchise player whenever they are available for free agency because they could not afford it. Those votes should be able to take down the high-payroll elite teams. Obviously the Red Sox and Yankees would only follow the other teams' lead kicking and screaming.
Would players go for it? Probably not. They are employees who want to make a lot of money, as I think everyone else does as well. However if some sort of added benefits were added somewhere, that would be a plus. Worst-case scenario is that the owners must have a lockout to get the players and union to accede to their demands. As terrible as that sounds for the sport in the short-term, this would be necessary to establish future competition that would give an even greater rejuvenation to the game in the future.
The big losers? Agents. But they make a lot of money anyway. They can afford to lose. Tell Boras I said that, haha.