Parity. The problem with MLB is the lack of parity. The rich get richer and the poor get poorer. The Yankees can go out and get whatever they need while the A's and Pirates are doomed to scrounge around the bottom because they can't afford payroll.

The above paragraph could have been the first paragraph forty years ago in The Sporting News. There has never been parity in MLB. There have always been teams that have consistently fed off the bottom of the standings. The only difference now is the amount of money involved.

But from my perspective, success is a cyclical thing. I can remember when the Cleveland Indians came in tenth place in a ten team American League every single year. This was after a cycle that led them to the great team of the 50's. Eventually, the cycle turned around in the 90's and now they are on the down side again.

The Twins have risen to the top and then a decade of failure and now they rise again. The A's of Catfish Hunter and Rollie Fingers rule the world until Charlie Finley crashed them. They had many, many years of bad times and now have won 300 games in three years. The Phillies have won world championships and have been trough sippers. The same goes for the Pirates.

Let's discuss the Yankees. They have the best market. Yes. They have the most money. Yes. But that does not guarantee success. In the sixties, CBS purchased the Yankees. At that time, how many media companies had more money than CBS? Instead, they ran the team into the ground and from 1965 to 1976, the Yankees were pathetic. During the Munson/Jackson/Billy Martin years, the team hit the top again. Once again, the team hits a long dry spell that lasts until the current five year run.

How would you improve parity in baseball? The draft? Talent means little until it is fulfilled in the major leagues. There are as many first round busts as there are success stories. In fact, there are more busts. Having a good draft is dependent on having good scouting. Scouting is only dependent on the riches of a team to a degree. The rest is dependent on the talent of your scouts. How do you measure that. Why is Oakland terrific at developing young players and Baltimore not? Baltimore has more money, right? It's not about money. It's about systems and personnel and luck.

You already have what results in a tax to the teams that have large payrolls. But do you ever see the payroll on the poorer teams improve any? No. The owners of those poorer teams do not put that money into their system and players. And payroll is no guarantee of success. Recent Mets, Devil Rays, Orioles and Red Sox teams have proven that.

The only true way to think about parity is to really consider who purchases teams. There should be a real emphasis on the viabiltiy of a company or person who wants to buy a team. But how do you do that without error? Four years ago, was there any indication that the juggernaut called AOL would hit such perilous times after (but not because) of buying the Atlanta Braves? You couldn't have predicted that. Who would have known that Enron was going to crash and burn before they put a name on Houston's stadium? Where would the Astros be if Enron had bought the team and not just the rights to the stadium's name?

Lack of parity has always been a part of the game. For every New York Yankees, there's always been a Boston Braves. The Tigers and Royals will rise again. Their cycle will come. There are George Bretts out there somewhere. Somewhere in America (or Japan or Korea or The Dominican Republic) is the next Mickey Lolich and Alan Trammell. The Yankees' down cycle is due as is the Braves'. A surprise team like the Angels isn't really a surprise. It's happened dozens of times in the history of this great national sport.