Originally Posted by scott91575
I don't buy this argument at all. Those contracts are all about franchises willing to spend big money. Two of the NL big time spenders are in rebuild mode (NY Mets and Chicago Cubs). The Dodgers just went on a spending spree. The Phillies already blew all their money, and that includes position players like Utley and Howard. The Marlins had a fire sale after spending a ton on long term contracts.
NL teams know they can sign guys to big contracts, and if they become a defensive liability they still have a dumping ground for those types of players called the AL. On top of all of that, baseball is becoming like the NFL. The importance of draft picks is becoming huge while only the high end clubs are spending big money on free agents (even some of them have stopped, including the Yankees vs. what they used to do). Like I stated, the NL is still winning the most important interleague games and attendance is good. If a team really wants those guys they will pay them, and deal with the ramifications later. Yet the vast majority of the teams are making offers based on their bottom line (or lack thereof for the major market teams). The DH does nothing but hurt the bottom line for the majority of NL teams, so it does nothing for them since paying a DH would take away from what they can pay the rest of their players.
I am sorry, that argument makes little sense to me. The big market clubs are going to spend no matter what, and the DH would hurt the mid to lower level teams, not help them. In fact, most AL owners would desperately love to get rid of the DH but the MLBPA won't let it happen.
The problem with that line of thinking is with many of these big contracts, players sign no trade clauses. Teams can't dump older players to the AL without cutting the player.
You can think it's silly if you want but it is an absolute truth that there is an imbalance here. Teams like the Cardinals and Brewers would have been able to sign their superstars to long term deals if the DH was in the NL. Fielder wouldn't have gone anywhere and the Cardinals would have been able to keep Pujols. You're right that big spending clubs will still be spending money but even they aren't willing to take some of the risk that comes with older players. You mentioned the Dodgers as an example. You're right to say that they added a lot of money however a good chunk of those players were traded, in the middle of their prime, and still relatively young.
Also, can we please stop with these slippery slope arguments? People act as if the DH will bring cats and dogs living together and the lake of fire will open up in the middle of Iowa. It's been in the league for 40+ years and every baseball league in the world has it. It hasn't destroyed the game or brought unsavory elements into it.