The only solution that would satisfy this line of reasoning is a team spending more on payroll. Organizations can use the revenue sharing money for anything, right? Like improving facilities, scouting, etc. Who is anyone to say, from the outside looking in, how a club should spend their revenue sharing dollars? The selective revenue sharing idea would punish any team that goes into a full-on rebuild, which is a completely legit & viable team-building strategy. Why should the rules be changed to punish small markets even more? There's one club in MLB that imo you can actually argue was/is gaming the revenue sharing system (Miami). And I think Miami could make a pretty compelling argument that they used accrued revenue sharing income to help finance their pricey offseason last year. The idea that someone should get to pick & choose which teams are allowed to get revenue sharing dollars -- or if their draft picks are protected? Are you kidding? -- really burns me up. The richest clubs in baseball aren't losing money, they're making it at a greater rate than ever before. They're hardly even missing the small percentage that they have to pay into the revenue sharing system. If the Astros (or any rebuilding team) want to keep their roster cheap while they try to rebuild from scratch, more power to them. That's sound business, in my book. In closing, I realize you're simply laying out Gammons's stance, splitter. My vent is not intended to be aimed at you.