i dont really agree with any of this.
1) i disagree with the basic theory behind it, which appears to be that every team needs to be on an "equal playing field" or a "more equal playing field." i believe you should be rewarded for success and punished for failure, not the american sports way, which is to reward failure (the ability to get the best young talent at an extremely cheap price) and punish success (the more you spend on labor, the more you have to pay a penalty). so we will never agree because i value this more than you.
2) historically, teams that dont spend can also win. the royals won. the rays were in the world series. the brewers and cleveland won divisions. lower payroll teams can and DO compete. and win! the current system allows them to do so. it does a really good job of it, quite frankly.
i dont care that small payroll teams dont win every year, or every other year, or even once every five years, but they DO WIN. And they are in the playoffs every season, winning divisions over much higher payroll teams.
the yankees didnt win every year in the 80s, 90s, and 00s when they had the highest payroll and the dodgers likely wont win every single year either. and even if they did, i'd be fine with it, just like i'm fine woth baseball in the 1950s when the yankees DID almost win every year.
3) higher payroll teams can make up for mistakes easier. sure. they can sign big, fancy free agents like juan soto, alex bregman, aaron judge, gerrit cole, or xander bogaerts that supposedly guaranteed championships but turned out not to.
4) competing and not winning is ok. sport is fun because it's sport. and baseball is better when it has a villain to root against.