Moreover, from 1987-1992, larger payrolls have not led to greater success. Finally, many studies have indicated that since the advent of free agency, baseball has actually gotten more competitive overall.

All these results strongly suggest that, contrary to the owners' contentions, small market teams have not been decisively impaired by the current free-agent system.

These results seem to square with many people's sense of the game recently. Baseball did not have a repeat champion after 1977 until 1993, and last year's best team (the Montreal Expos) had one of the smallest payrolls.

Perhaps one of the reasons that no baseball player made that 1989 cover of Sports Illustrated was that no team dominated the 1980s as the Lakers, 49ers, or Oilers did in their respective sports. Parity was the rule on the diamond.

This is not to say that baseball isn't flawed in many ways. It does suggest, however, that while the players seem to be in the weaker negotiating position, the gains that they have made should not be repealed in the name of competitive balance and rising salaries. While having players play their whole careers with one team seems ideal, this type of realty should not be imposed.

I am not arguing that small-market teams that are bound to lose money under the current system should not be given relief. But what I am saying is that the owners have overstated the problem, and because of the unequal footing in negotiations, they will be able to force an inequitable solution.

And while any end to this strike would be welcome, we still should realize that the millionaire players are more in the right than the multimillionaire owners.