Yes an no. There are a few things I think people point to that are false signs of parity and I do believe that baseball with its current rule structure has effectively ended parity. I also think it will slowly kill itself in small markets where stars are developed and leave.
9 winners in the last 10 years is not a sign of parity when considering payroll. It is when considering there are 30 teams. But that's a false equivalency.
The argument that teams spend and don't win is also a terrible argument. Did you know, remarkably, that 9 of the top 10 payrolls in the game don't win each year. Astounding!
Flip it around. In the last 10 years only 2 teams outside of the top 10 in payroll have won. 15 years...add one more.
The last 5 years (OD Payroll): 4th, 8th, 10th, 1st, 4th...
And that's not accounting for in season trades like adding scherzer to last year's Rangers.
So there are a bunch of bad arguments that there is parity, but a single team spending...not a big deal. They are right about that.
It is NECESSARY to spend to win the World Series, however it is not SUFFICIENT to spend to win the world series.
The first part is what I dont like, that said, at this point I think my qualm is more with the billionaire owners who don't spend than it is the system.
The second part is why I don't really care about the Dodgers spending a billion dollars. It doesn't mean they will win, it's just means they have a better shot at it. 9 out of 10 top payrolls don't win.
I will say this as relates to the Orioles....only 1 team outside of the top 15 payrolls has won the WS since 1995. So...
It's time to spend some F-ing money. And that doesn't have to be on bad FA contracts. Sign your own guys.