Can it really be true? Can "parity" be included in current discussions of baseball? Is the disparity between the big-money spenders and the small-market teams really that far apart? First, let's take a look at 3 "small-market" clubs that have endured many poor seasons in a row. While I only have first-hand knowledge about Pittsburgh, it could be argued that Pittsburgh is the true poster boy for small market teams. But there is a deeper reason than just plain old money that has doomed the Pirates franchise to 13 successive losing seasons - their management just plain sucks. In an era where the Yankees and Red Sox get headlines for investing $200 million in their current payroll, what goes unnoticed is how much is spent on the minor leagues. When the Yankees dominated baseball in the late 1990s, they did so because they played perfectly sound fundamental baseball...and they had a stellar minor league system. Bernie Williams and Derek Jeter are two examples of players that came up through the Yankees system. Now those are two pretty good players. One team that chased the Yankees in that era was the Oakland A's, a small-market team by baseball standards. Yet, their team had Barry Zito, Jason Giambi and Tim Hudson. All three were developed in the Oakland minor league system. Minnesota has fielded competitive teams because they have a good farm system. See the trend here? Teams that are successful generally are so because they have a pipeline of talent - strong, baseball-ready, all-star potential talent in their system. Now, look at the Pirates. I challenge you name one (ONE!!!) high-profile player that left Pittsburgh for more money that other teams were willing to take. Give up? Me, too. Now, I can name a couple of pitchers and one position player that have had nice - not great, but not terrible - careers thus far that the Pirates let go either due to money or to bad decisions - Kris Benson, Esteban Loizia and Aramis Ramierez. Current Washington Nationals OF Jose Guillen got his start in Pittsburgh as well. But that's it - no major names. Not a one. Not a player that a team like New York (either one), Boston or Los Angeles would go ga-ga over if they landed them to a free agent contract. See the trend here? The Pirates have sucked because they have bad players - and that is a direct result of the team's administration. So, the Pirates haven't just been terrible because they have no money - they've been terrible b/c they can't get their heads out of their asses long enough to make a smart baseball decision. Now, things are finally looking up. No one outside of Pittsburgh knows this, but OF Jason Bay has been in the top 5 of many offensive categories for the past two years. SS Jack Wilson is slick with the glove, and a solid high .200s contact hitter with occasional power. 2B Jose Castillo forms a wicked defensive combination with Wilson - the Pirates were 2nd in the NL last year in double plays turned. But what does that have to do with the Pirates being a small-market team? ABSOLUTELY NOTHING. Now, with teams like the Pirates and Milwaukee having young talent in place, and evidently a plan to actually get better instead of just more empty promises, baseball is bordering on the dreaded "P" word. When every team has a theoretical chance to go from worst to first in any given year, true parity will exist. But for the majority of teams in the majors, parity *does* exist right now. The Yankees might be able to buy & bash their way into the post-season, but when they hit a fundamentall solid team with exceptional pitching and defense, the Bronx Bombers bomb again, and get booted from the playoffs. Teams like the White Sox focus on pitching, defense and playing fundamental baseball (read: National League-style small ball) and can grind out a run here and there even in the pressure of the playoffs. And before you know it, you've just lost the post-season series to a team that doesn't overwhelm you anywhere...except everywhere. Baseball does have some financial problems to fix. Frankly, I like the idea of a salary cap, but not necessarily a hard one like is in place in the NFL or NHL. Teams should not be permitted to spend above a certain amount on payroll in any one given year. If they do, the luxury tax should be so imposing that no team is willing to get deeply into that "red zone" territory. The players union won't like it, because it will put a working cap into place rather than an actually defined one, but if the money is spread around, they'll still have their chance to make millions to play a simple game. What baseball must eliminate is teams having no choice but to lose a player because they know they cannot sign him to a long-term deal. That must go. Now, if a team is stupid enough to allow a player to go...well, that's a different story. No, baseball needs to ensure that all teams have the financial wherewithal to sign the players they want. When that happens, baseball will be a more stable sport overall, and a more enjoyable one for all fans, and not just those in cities with winning teams. This year, with stricter drug abuse rules, more teams capable of signing their players, and more teams with some version of a competitive team, you'll see a tigher overall year in baseball. Someone will still lose between 90 and 100 games - that's a given. One team will probably eke out a 100 wins. But the majority of teams in the post-season will have wins between 90-100, and I can easily foresee many tight races for the playoffs come September. It will be fun, and it will be exactly what baseball wants and needs - keep interest in more cities, and more fans will go to the games. Teams will make more money, and will be able to spend that money on the players. Everyone wins - fans, players and owners. That's why parity and some measure of financial balance is needed. This year I hope we'll see the first year in a long trend of exactly that.