I dont see how fielding a competitive team nearly every year is not good for any market.
**************
A payroll floor sounds good on paper, but additional revenue sharing that theoretically finances it...if it comes from savings at the top end, via a lowering the tax level... is merely shuffling money around, and not increasing the players share. In the end, it probably lowers the players share.
While the players may like the idea of a payroll floor, they won't if they are paying for it.
MLB is moving towards a more socialistic structure, which is needed to keep the industry strong...or at least viable long term. On the other hand, the MLBPA has no interest in the same type of structure for player salaries. It really has no interest in benefitting younger players at all, unless it is a tool that in reality makes the veteran players richer at the expense of the owners.
If they had real interest in aiding the youngsters, the MLBPA could institute a tax similar to what ownership has done...a tax on a portion of the highest annual salaries, to be distributed among younger and lesser paid players.
Of course, that ain't gonna happen...nor am I suggesting it should. But when the PA says that it is interested in benefitting the younger players, understand what it really means.
Both sides will present proposals and couch them in altruistic terms. Just skip the self described hype, and get to the real, underlying meanings.