I think they would sign someone just to avoid the grievance, like they did with Maton this past year.
I’m not sure that signing Maton had anything to do with a grievance. I kind of doubt it.
Here are the rules on the MLB Payroll Grievance:
To avoid a Major League Baseball Player’s Association (MLBPA) grievance, a team’s payroll must be at least 150% of its revenue-sharing take; otherwise, the burden of proof shifts to the team to show they are using the funds to improve on-field performance. While there’s no specific dollar amount, a payroll of around $105 million has been cited as a benchmark for teams receiving a significant revenue-sharing amount.
MLB’s Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) requires that teams receiving revenue sharing use those funds to “improve its performance on the field”. The CBA mandates that a team’s payroll be at least 150% of the revenue-sharing money they receive. If a team falls below this 150% threshold, the team must prove they are spending the revenue-sharing dollars correctly, rather than the MLBPA having to prove the team is not. Failing to meet the 150% benchmark doesn’t automatically trigger a penalty, but it significantly increases a team’s risk of facing a grievance from the MLBPA, according to Front Office Sports and The New York Times.
I have no idea how much revenue sharing the Cardinals receive. According to reports I have read the A’s and Marlins receive $70M per year which requires their CBT payroll to be $105M (150% or revenue). If the same applied to the Cardinals it would be easy for their CBT number to be $105 even if their 40 man number was under $100.