Most teams fall into the Astros model. Can be big spenders but will need to re-set once their window closes. Few teams fall into the Yanks/Cubs/Sox/Dodgers category where they have the resources (although clearly not the regular willingness) to outspend their competition on a yearly basis and stay competitive. Then there are the teams at the bottom. The Rays and A's found a way to compete by beating the system per se, but it has led to zero titles. The Royals had a flash in the pan that got them a title and another WS appearance, yet it took them 30 years to build and a year to tear it all down. The DBacks who have spent in the past but seem to be trending towards the Pirates as cashless bottom dwellers. Pirates built something that led to two playoff berths before resuming their time as doormats of the NL Central. The Marlins have won two titles when they spent then decided to blow it all up. They have recently made the POs. The Orioles have been a pile of s*** for 6 years running now and might be one of the worst teams in the history of baseball.
The moral of the story is that teams like KC, TB, Oakland, Pitt, ARI, BAL, MIN, CLE, MIA, and CIN make up 1/3 of the voting block. Their model of contention will be demolished if years of service get trimmed. If a salary floor was instituted, TB and Oakland would need to be contracted. The big dogs are entirely happy with shorter control. This means they get a shot at premium talent earlier. The guys in the middle are ambivalent since they can spend if need be and would be rewarded with more prime years. But there is no prayer of meeting the players halfway when 1/3 of the owners will essentially vote no to anything that involves shortening player control