This is probably just a conspiracy theory from the addled brain of a dad whose five-month-old is having trouble sleeping, but might the players have become the victims in a scenario in which they weren't the targets? While there have been a few smaller market owners who have just pocketed revenue sharing checks (as the larger markets are prone to point out) a lot of the excess spending room now seems to be with the larger markets not spending as they once did. Might their thought process be not so much focused on avoiding the luxury tax as much as avoiding showing the luxury tax to not be an effective means of reducing the game's economic disparity thereby increasing calls for more substantive revenue sharing? Either way they would likely end up with a similar competitive advantage, but this way they are the ones reaping the profits. Personally, I'd go for a system with full-non-stadium-generated revenue sharing, a salary floor, and an extra year of arbitration placed at the beginning (so same total number of years of control) and make the final year essentially a one-year deal at 110% of market value. It will absolutely never happen, and I'll be the first to tell you I have only a cursory knowledge of baseball economics, but it seems on paper at least like this, while perhaps precluding a return to the headline-generating record contracts of the past, would increase the total percentage of the revenue going to the players.