Yawn.   You engaged in exactly the kind of reasoning that Hillary has been using.  If the shoe fits, wear it.

Second of all, I never once invoked either "can't" or "won't".  They "don't" spend money.  Have you ever heard of a term called "minimum payroll"?  Do you know what that means, you troll?  So, pretty much the whole first part of your argument is invalidated.  

The problem is that the "teams are playing on a different playing field" doesn't mean anything if you don't explain the different playing field.  Is it "doesn't have the money to spend" or "has the money, but won't spend it".   if the former, yes, you might actually have a problem.  If the later, then its not a real problem.  Its a volitional choice not to compete using the same tools.

You completely misrrepresent my argument.  I NEVER ONCE said that it is not possible to make the playoffs without a high payroll.  But, for all your windbagging, you never disproved the claim that there is a correlation between high payroll and making the playoffs.  

And you haven't proven that it is the case.   What I have pointed out is that this claim that we no longer have competitive balance starts off with the false claim that we had competitive balance.   The simple fact is that in the 1940's, 1950's and 1960's we had far less competitive balance.   The goal is, after all to be in the World Series.  And, as noted above, if its a volitional choice....

You pointed out, correctly, that Min and Oak have made the playoffs as many or more times than Ana or Bos.  How does that disprove the argument that there is a correlation between high payroll and making the playoffs?  

Since Minnesota and Oakland have a lower payroll, and since if you take the three teams that have made the playoffs the most you find two of the three have lower payrolls, that suggests that there is not a correlation between high payroll and making the playoffs.

 You still had to include the Yankees in there to do that.

Yes.   And the Yankees are now making and winning the World Series at a far far lower rate than they did in the 1940's - 1960's -- even though they are far outspending all of the other teams.   Its not a payroll issue.  (And, by the way, if you put a hard payroll cap in place, you would see far less competition.  The Yankees would have a lot more money to spend on scouting, on the minor leagues, on paying young players (with low salaries) from the "poorer" teams in the league (ala the Yankee "farm team" in Kansas City in the early 1960's), on facilities and the like.)

Now, stick to the claim about the correlation between the playoffs and payroll.  Stick to the fact that in the last 8 years 13 teams have made the palyoffs once or not at all.  Stick to comparing, oh, the last decade or so.  

So, in the last 8 years more than half of the teams in baseball HAVE made the playoffs.   There are, over a ten year period 80 playoff spots (That's an expected random value of less than 3 playoff appearances in that ten year period.  So a team only making it "once" or even "never" is not that significant.)  
And of those thirteen, some of those teams have the ability to spend the money, but have not, and others have spent money and just been incompetent.    

And the way to judge competition is to look at the past.   What do you want to set as your standard for competition?  Every team to make the playoffs at least twice in a decade?  If so, you will leave 20 spots for teams to make the playoffs even one more time - and that, therefore, presupposes a system in which a team cannot build a team designed to compete for a number of years.  

Of course, its awfully hard to argue against anyone who doesn't actually provide a "standard".

Disprove that, you rancid piece of garbage.

Disproved.