Bottom line is that a cap needs be instated like the NFL. I really hope this happens in NHL this year and the owners dont cave. Think about it. The NFL is one of the hardest leagues to predict a teams outcome. Baseball? We all know basically which 5-6 teams will be there every year. Yanks, Sox, Braves, A's.
It's obvious that you know nothing about the economics of baseball. Let me start with this caveat: I am a Yankees fan for as long as I've watched baseball, and that's since the '70's. The Yanks should've sealed the deal in Game 4 and they didn't. HOWEVER, by the same right, I've noticed more than a fair share of obnoxious Red Sox fans rubbing things in. Get some class people, and also realize that you haven't won the World Series yet.
As for the economics of baseball and a potential salary cap, you have no grasp of the situation. The NFL system works because of several things: coordinated television contracts, extensive revenue sharing, fewer games and more demand for NFL tickets compared to baseball.
The NFL has coordinated television contracts. That means that the league as a whole has negotiated the television rights for the entire league. They've made it so that Fox is the home of the NFC, and CBS is the home of the AFC. Then there are the Sunday and Monday night games which belong to ESPN and ABC. All of the money from those deals is distributed evenly among all 32 teams. And believe me, it's a TON of money!
The difference between this system and the way MLB television rights are handled is staggering. Each team in the MLB negotiates their own TV deal, meaning that there are disparaties between what the Dodgers will get in Los Angeles and what the Royals will get from the Kansas City TV market. This is just reality. So will MLB come to it's senses and centralize this? Probably not, because the owners won't go for it. Especially since the owners are now following the YES/NESN business model of owning their own regional sports networks to make even more money.
This problem only gets worse because of the MLB schedule. You've got 162 games per team in MLB as opposed to 16 per team in the NFL. Since the supply of games is higher in MLB, it means that demand for the product (games on TV) is lower. Have you noticed just how few games were carried on Fox over the course of the summer? Those are only window dressing and rehearsals for the Fox TV talent to get ready for the post season. Seriously, I don't think they even started airing baseball on Fox until June this past summer.
The same glut of games is what brings down demand for MLB tickets. Too many games means that people will only go to games when it suits them unless the team is doing really well. It's even happened with the Yankees. Witness the 80's. Yankee stadium was pretty empty many a night in the 80's when the Yanks were stinking up the Bronx. Why? Everyone was crosstown at Shea watching the Mets win.
Now, as for the teams you've cited, I can't believe you mentioned the A's. The A's have one of the lowest payrolls of any team that's been competitive over the past several years. Run the numbers and you'll see. It's Billy Beane that has made that team the success they are on a tight budget. The Braves have gotten kind of cheap too. And the Twins are run by a tightwad as well. In fact, the guy is the richest owner is baseball.
The only thing that is going to change the way Major League Baseball is run economically is what is happening in the NHL right now. That would be devastating to baseball from a PR standpoint, but it's possibly one of the few things that would remedy the situation.