On the first point, we are in agreement. If people don't want to come in and rebuild a club once some measures have been taken to improve competitive balance, then you're right, we don't need them. While I think they are other contributing factors to PB's struggles, such as the economy, fixing competitive balance would be a step in the right direction.

As for the second point, it doesn't surprise me that you are a Yankees fan. I don't mean that as a slap, you just have different prespective on the game than I do. To me, the fact that the Yankees have won 4 championships in the recent past is the symptom, not the problem. The fact is that they have more resources than any other team in the league. They are playing under a different set of rules than every other team. I believe the Yankees would still be very good even with equal payrolls for every club because they have a great GM and manager.
To me, the point about Rice leaving SF after the Niner dynasty is what is right with football. If teams can buy whoever they want with no restrictions, then of course Rice doesn't leave SF and teams like the Pats and Bucs are rarely serious competitors. The Bucs in the football and the Angels in baseball make sports interesting. Don't forget, the Angels are exception not the rule as to whether the payroll influences who wins the championship each year in baseball.
Brian, I get the feeling you know both sides of the labor debate and we simply don't agree. That's ok, but I think Royals fans and Twins fans and Giants fans (like myself) see a game that needs work and like the way the NFL does things.

Your point about competitive balance issues not being the only thing wrong with the game is well taken.
Marshall