While commissioner Bud Selig will point to five different World Series Champions over the last five years as proof of parity in the league, you won't find anybody in Tampa Bay, Kansas City, or Pittsburgh willing to agree. Upon closer inspection, it would be difficult for a fan in any city to see it Selig's way. The same core group of teams seems to make the playoffs each season, with a couple of surprises here and there being the exception. The New York Yankees, Boston Red Sox, Atlanta Braves, and St. Louis Cardinals seem to be there every year. Others like the Anaheim Angels, Chicago White Sox, Oakland A's, and Houston Astros are annually among the top two teams in their respective divisions. The way things are looking, it's safe to predict it will remain that way for years to come. It has just happened to work out in recent history that the random exceptions got lucky and won the whole thing. That doesn't mean that there is parity. "Parity in baseball" would indicate to me that every single season and in every single division, all teams have some kind of a chance to advance to the postseason. Throughout the course of a 162-game schedule, the best team is assured of October baseball; unlike the NFL where playing only 16 games it is not uncommon for a team to get lucky for a stretch. The team with the highest payroll, the Yankees, has five players making more money than the entire Florida Marlins team, who of course posses the stingiest payroll in the league. New York also has three of the top seven highest paid players. The Tampa Bay Devil Rays have the second lowest team payroll in baseball and they play in the same division as the two biggest spenders-New York and Boston. The Devil Rays will NEVER (recent history tells me it's okay to use the word "never" here and in several other places in the coming paragraphs) win the A.L. East because they can't afford to keep their budding young players under contract long enough for them to progress into superstars, nor do they have enough money to replace those young players with other team's superstars. The Kansas City Royals, Pittsburgh Pirates, Colorado Rockies, and Washington Nationals will never make the playoffs under the current system, where Major League Baseball shares revenues with all teams. More needs to be done. I hate to say it, but baseball needs a salary cap. The Player's Association would never agree to it, which is why it will probably never happen. Just like fans in Kansas City will never know what it's like to face the Yankees in the ALDS. For that matter, the fans in New York will never know what it's like for a baseball season to end in late September.

The lengths at which a professional sports owner will go to turn a profit are getting out of hand. Stadiums built as recently as the mid-70's are now considered out of date and the owners of these stadiums are demanding their own customers-the taxpayers-pay for the upgrade. Part of being an entrepreneur is assuming your own risks. That's why owners are billionaires; they take the most risk, they make the most money. An owner should make more than a player, for players don't set forth on a business plan, buy the property, or hire a staff. But taxpayers pay for the stadium. If part of my taxes goes towards building a new stadium in my local town, I can't help but feel like I'm a part owner. I feel like I should get a piece of the profits, or at least get a 35% discount on tickets and concessions. I've never heard of Kerasotes threatening to move their movie theatre across the country if the city doesn't plan on paying for the construction of a brand new 36-screen building with luxury seating and valet parking. I don't understand what makes a sports owner think they are any different.

Rumor sprung this week that the Indianapolis Colts and Chicago Bears were talking about a trade that would send RB Thomas Jones to Indy for a couple of draft picks. Meanwhile, in Kansas City, Chiefs' GM Carl Peterson says he expects the team's all-time rushing leader, Priest Holmes, back in training camp and at full speed in 2006. Holmes, who has hinted in the past at retiring young, likely will make one last hurrah in the Chief's backfield this year. The 33-year old has played only 15 games the last two seasons but has averaged 4.2 yards per carry and scored 20 touchdowns. After losing Edgerrin James to the Cardinals in free agency, its no wonder the Colts would be interested in an upgrade at the running back position. Last year's backup, Dominic Rhodes, had a 1000-yard season in 2001 when James missed 10 games with a knee injury, but it is no doubt "Super Bowl or Bust" for the Colts this year, and pinning their hopes on Rhodes would be a huge mistake. The Colts MUST find a way to replace James' 1506 yards and Rhodes is not the answer. The problem is, neither is Jones. The Jones-to-Indianapolis trade does not make sense for either team. Jones and Rhodes would, at best, form a slightly above average Running Back-by-Committee. Neither back is going to provide the kind of receiving threat that Peyton Manning needs out of the backfield, and neither are threatening enough to adequately setup Manning's playaction passes. Trading away Jones means the Bears, a playoff team in 2005, would rely on untested sophomore Cedric Benson and Adrian Peterson. The poor passing attack of the Bears will rely on a good running game to move the chains in 2006, and putting that much pressure on two guys with 190 combined career carries would be absurd. That brings us back to Holmes and the Chiefs. Indianapolis could trade a third round draft choice to Kansas City and add Holmes' experience, leadership, and phenomenal rushing skills to its sickening offense. With Holmes, the Colts are easily the favorites in the AFC; with Rhodes, they are underdogs to the defending champion Steelers. They get one season from him, possibly win a Super Bowl, then try to convince him to play one more year. The Chiefs can afford to lose Holmes for a number of reasons. First, Larry Johnson may be the best all-around back in the NFL. He is perfectly capable of handling the ball 25 times per game without breaking down, so the strength of his backup needn't be important. They could use the pick to draft Mississippi State's Jerious Norwood or Jerome Harrison from Washington State. Even more importantly, they free up about $5 million of salary cap space which they could use to sign CB Ty Law. Priest Holmes to the Colts? It's only idle speculation, but it makes sense around the board.

I've been meaning to get this off my chest for a long time. The way quarterbacks are over hyped in today's NFL really grinds my gears. It seems like any team that goes on a run, makes the playoffs, and God forbid if they win the Super Bowl, people talk about that team's QB as if he were the only human being responsible for the team's success. Every time I hear "Ben Roethlisberger led the Steelers to a 15-1 record as a rookie" I cringe. If somebody says "Trent Dilfer took the Ravens to a Super Bowl" I get sick to my stomach. And the next time I hear "Kyle Orton won 9 games for the Bears in 2005" I think I'm just going to throw up. Those are the verbs some folks use: So-and-so "led" or "took" the team; or he "won" that number of games. If you're going to make that kind of statement, please, at least be sure that the QB in question played more of a role in his team's success than just handing off the ball to the running back and letting the defense do all the dirty work. That's exactly what happened to the 2004 Steelers, the 2000 Ravens, and the 2005 Bears. Actually, Tom Brady LED the Patriots to 3 Super Bowl wins, Peyton Manning TOOK the Colts to the AFC title game in 2004, and I'd even so far as to say Randall Cunningham WON 15 games for the Vikings in 1998. Roethlisberger, Dilfer, and Orton combined to average 12.7 touchdown passes, 11.7 interceptions, and a 59% completion percentage in 2004, 2000, and 2005 respectively. In 2004, 2004, and 1998, Brady, Manning and Cunningham collectively averaged 37 tosses for touchdowns, 11.3 interceptions, and a 63% completion percentage. Oh yeah, and I should mention that the former group of players played on teams whose offenses averaged out to rank #17 in the NFL, while all three were backed by the #1 ranked defense.. The latter collection of elite QBs "led" their offenses to an average ranking of #2 while their team's defense ranked #9. No player can lead a team anywhere unless he at least figures into the Pro Bowl voting, or garners a mention for the MVP. At the bare minimum, he cannot surrender his starting job the next season (as Dilfer was replaced by Elvis Grbac in 2001) or worse, at halftime in week 15 (ala Rex Grossman inserted for Orton against the Falcons in 2005). So, let me be the first person in Earth's history to come out and say that Joey Porter and Troy Polamalu led the Steelers to a 15-1 record. Ray Lewis and Peter Boulware took the Ravens to the Super Bowl. And, Brian Urlacher and Lance Briggs won 9 (actually 11) games for the Bears. Ah, the truth FINALLY comes out. I know what you're thinking, and I'm already one step ahead. "But Blogger Jim, Roethlisberger, Dilfer and Orton didn't lose any games for their teams. They were young players without big expectations and played fundamentally sound to keep their team in it." This is where the double standard comes in. Do NFL head coaches tell their young linebackers to just get a hand on the ball carrier to slow him down and let somebody else make the tackle? Do they tell wide receivers to only catch the balls thrown right at them, and don't worry about anything over the middle? When is the last time a young strong safety was told to just arm tackle a running back hitting the corner, as opposed to lowering the shoulders and lighting him up? It doesn't happen. So why do they do it for quarterbacks? I want my QB to make the play himself just like every other position player. Don't "not lose" me the game. WIN the darn thing!