I certainly vote 'no' for the reasons noted here. Other thoughts:
Given how these things go, baseball is unique in that not having the league / union dictate salary caps or floors, This means that the financial situation of each team is dependent on how the owner sees a path to profitably. Some owners are content to not really compete because the TV revenue sharing and a low payroll is a way to provide a good margin of profitability. Even way back when, Connie Mack knew that fielding a team that had a low payroll 'but not last place' was typically the most profitable years he could have as an owner and liked to sell off players after a winning stretch.
Being 'competitive' is such a tough thing to predict at many different points. This year the Padres, Cardinals and Giants are pretty good examples of things you might have expected at the beginning of the year not being true at the end of the year. It seems to be the case that teams catch lightning in a bottle with teams that they might not have considered to be at the peak of a 'competitive window'. It's a different scenario now with expanded playoffs - but the '87 and '91 Twins were a pretty good example of decent teams getting hot at the right time.
Who wants to watch your team get pounded year in and year out in the hope that a development pipeline bears fruit? As successful as Tampa has been at selling off players for prospects, it sure doesn't seem that they're building a strong and loyal fan base.