REVENUE SHARING MAY BE THE ONLY WAY.

Byline: JOE HAAKENSON

KANSAS CITY, Mo. - Jones, Guzman, Lawton, Coomer, Cummings, Buchanan, Ortiz, LeCroy and Canizaro.

Any idea who they are?

That was the batting order for the Minnesota Twins in their series opener against the Angels earlier this week. Not exactly the 1927 Yankees, or even the 2000 Devil Rays.

The Twins did have a Mays in their lineup - pitcher Joe Mays (no relation to Willie).

With a payroll of $15.65 million - $60,000 less than the 2000 salary of the Dodgers' Kevin Brown - the Twins make do with what they have. While the Twins have the smallest payroll in the majors, they are not alone.

A number of teams are faced with financial restrictions that make it almost impossible to have a legitimate shot at contending for the playoffs. The challenge for these teams is not only to compete as deep into the season as possible, but to convince their fans they have a product worth paying for.

As of now, the Montreal Expos (No. 24 in payroll at $33.5 million) are doing the best of the small-market teams. The Royals are hovering around .500. The Marlins started fast but have since fallen a bit.

The ultimate problem, however, goes beyond whether or not teams will compete and whether or not fans will show, according to Angels general manager Bill Stoneman, who worked in the Expos' front office for 16 years.

Stoneman worked for the Expos in 1994, when they went 74-40 before the strike ended the season. Stoneman said the problem the Expos would have faced would have come the following season.

``That was a unique club,'' Stoneman said. ``It was a reasonably priced club, yet a very, very talented club. Had it not been for the strike, it probably would have sustained itself over the course of the season and into postseason play.

``But even if that happened, it would have been very unlikely to do it again the following year because player cost would have dramatically increased. It goes beyond the question of can a club sustain itself over the course of a season. The question is, if it does, then what happens the next year?''

It happened with the Pirates in the early 1990s. After winning a couple of division titles, the Pirates could not afford to keep Barry Bonds and Bobby Bonilla, among others.

``Look what happened to Wayne Huizenga (former Marlins owner),'' Stoneman said. ``He ends up winning the World Series and it cost him for his efforts. He lost something like $30 million. Everybody blames him for what he did (dismantling the team), but how many out there can sustain those losses?''

So what's the solution? What can be done before one of these teams is forced to move or, even worse, go out of business?

'`You talk about revenue sharing, I don't think there's any way to avoid it,'' Stoneman said. ``It's really a question of what you want the game to look like in the future.

``The group that's been silent is the players' group. They've been silent but are a powerful group. At some point they have to realize it's in their best interest to have more clubs competitive than there are now.''

Stoneman, though, admits that even the ownership side is not in agreement.

``I think all the owners recognize what the problem is, and each club has a vested interest,'' he said. ``But the richer clubs are reluctant to share the wealth because it means they'll have greater competition from clubs below them.''

In the meantime, teams like the Twins and Royals simply market their teams as ``young and exciting'' and hope for the best.

``What you do is you use wits to put together the best team you can,'' Stoneman said. ``If you do it right, it becomes a catch-22 because you have to spend money to hold the team together. But can the market generate the money to do that? Normally the answer is no. Then it becomes a question of staying in business, how to operate a club to keep it in business. It's a serious problem baseball has to address.''