Why's the A's weren't targeted by the union like the Marlins were

[Providence A's]

A very interesting read IMHO.

Low-budget A's stay off union's list

How did they get excused? After all, they were last in American League attendance last year.

"That's because we have the lowest revenues," general manager Billy Beane said. "Our payroll's low because our revenues are low."

and

As to why the A's didn't make the union's hit list, Beane said, "It's never been an issue with us. We spend what we have. That's why you never see our name mentioned."

The A's were aggressive with certain free agents. Before signing Sheets, they made runs at infielders Marco Scutaro and Adrian Beltre, both of whom preferred Boston, and Cuban pitcher Aroldis Chapman, who signed with the Reds.

"We've invested in other areas, too," said Beane, referring to the draft, farm system and international pursuits (Michael Ynoa, for instance), though the union is concerned only about its big-league membership.

It makes sense. The union can't complain if the A's are spending what they have unlike others that are pocketing money. The article also states that at this point the 2010 payroll is actually slightly lower than last year's season-opening payroll even after the Sheets signing.

[HollywoodLeo]

I'm curious if the Padres would have been targeted before the Moores divorce proceedings.

They spent more before then but still pinched pennies (at least in the eyes of the public) so I'm curious if they were spending to their revenues then or not.

They obviously are not anymore.