From ESPN, with the interesting part bolded:

MIAMI – The perennially frugal Florida Marlins have reached an agreement with the players’ union to increase spending in the wake of complaints the team payroll has been so small as to violate baseball’s revenue sharing provisions.

The deal was announced Tuesday in a joint statement by the Marlins, the union and Major League Baseball. The parties did not comment beyond the statement, and it was unclear how much the Marlins’ payroll might increase.

The agreement runs through 2012, when the Marlins’ new ballpark is scheduled to open.”In response to our concerns that revenue sharing proceeds have not been used as required, the Marlins have assured the union and the commissioner’s office that they plan to use such proceeds to increase player payroll annually as they move toward the opening of their new ballpark,” said Michael Weiner, executive director of the players’ association.

The agreement calls for arbitration if further disagreements arise, Weiner said.

Baseball’s basic agreement calls for each club to use its revenue sharing receipts in an effort to improve the team. In recent years, the union has complained the requirement was not met by some teams, including the Marlins.

Plagued by poor attendance in their current home, the Marlins have had the lowest payroll in the majors three of the past four seasons.

But the franchise has gotten considerable bang for its buck. Last year, for example, the Marlins finished six games out of first place in the NL East with a payroll of $37 million, while the division rival Mets finished 17 games behind Florida despite a payroll of $136 million.

“The Marlins have consistently made every effort to put the best product on the field, and our record supports the fact that we have been successful in that regard,” team president David Samson said. “Throughout the discussions, the Marlins maintained that there had been no violation of the basic agreement at any time.”

Citing confidentiality provisions, the joint statement said there would be no comment by any of the parties on further specifics of the agreement. As a result, it’s unclear what impact a spending increase will have on the Marlins’ 2010 season.

They might now be less inclined to trade second baseman Dan Uggla, who is eligible for arbitration and due a hefty raise. And increased spending improves the chance of an agreement with ace Josh Johnson on a multiyear contract.

Okay, so, now I pretend to know what I’m talking about and divulge my thoughts.

First of all, while the Marlins are not the only baseball team that seems to have a phobia of spending money, they certainly seem to be the most egregious example.  The team story–building teams to win World Series in 1997 and 2003 and then blowing them up afterwards–is certainly well known.  The Yankees, the Marlins are not.

However, one has to wonder if this agreement is a one-off deal–because the situation in Florida is so precarious, or if the MLBPA, et al, plan to go after other low-spending teams, such as the Rays and Athletics, as well.

Keep in mind, it would be one thing here if the Marlins were a perenially awful (I’m not talking general meh-ness and wasted talent like Toronto or Cincinnati, but rather downright awful like Pittsburgh or Washington or Dayton Moore’s Kansas City team), but finishing just six games from first in the NL East is no bad thing.  In fact, it’s pretty darn competitive.

The Marlins’ 87 wins, so you get an idea, were the same number of wins the Wild Card-winning Minnesota Twins had–and the Marlins had one less loss.

In fact, while seasons of futility may be remembered more often than seasons of success, the Marlins have won more World Series since 1997 than any team not named “Yankees” or “Red Sox”.  Seriously.

So while one can argue that the Marlins are not paying their players enough (and not be completely in the wrong, either), the argument that it’s costing the Marlins wins is not necessarily true, either.  There are other teams who spend little and win less (I’m looking at you, Pittsburgh), but popular perception often overrules reality.

What am I getting at here?

MLB is clearly a business, but one should consider this:  MLB is, theoretically, the most successful when the greatest number of teams are competitive and have a chance to win (is this not the fan-friendly reason for revenue sharing in the first place?).  If a team has found a way to be competitive on a low payroll, what then?

Of course, the Marlins’ problems have a lot to do with their awful attendance numbers, and thus the perception of being a perennially-losing ballclub even when this is not necessarily the case.

There’s certainly an issue there, and an issue with the loss of gate receipts that come from low attendance.  Trust me–I’m a (NJ) Devils fan, I have heard the attendance arguments–but one has to wonder if increasing player salaries is the best way of raising attendance.  If a competitive team that has an actual history of winning once in a while can’t do it, then there are probably issues with the market itself that need to be addressed.

As it is, this whole thing is unlikely to affect the Yankees, who pay their players plenty, draw plenty and win plenty.  So why bring it up?

If this is not just a one-off, hey-it’s-the-Marlins, type scenario, then it sets a precedent that could change the entire offseason market, making teams less likely to trade some players and more likely to trade others.

There are also the larger issues as to how much control teams should be able to have over how they are constructed, but that’s a task I’m not quite ready to undertake.