More good thoughts, Redneck, with the idea that it's better for owners who have the means to put together as good a team as possible to do so, instead of just pocketing the bucks. As a Red Sox fan, I can say that there seemed to be a lot of people in the Boston area (myself included) who had the impression that the last ownership group was happy to keep a team that had a winning record almost every year, snagged the occasional wild card spot, etc., without taking the final step of fielding a serious contender, as long as a non-contending good solid team was good enough to fill the stands. It has been refreshing to see that the current owners have made a serious commitment to putting their resources into building the best team possible.
The real problem here seems to be the lack of a salary cap. Does anyone here know details about the revenue sharing arrangement? Specifically, is there enough revenue being shared to give smaller-market teams a serious shot? If so, that could be a solution, though it may take more time to begin seeing results. If the revenue being shared is more a token amount, that's an issue that needs to be addressed. A salary cap would probably be the best answer, but unfortunately that's not a realistic goal as long as the players won't, um, play ball.