You've proposed this before, Philli, and I think it's a bit of a reach. How would this really work? To slip out of the ten yet not lose too much to be quickly recouped at lesser events, she'd still need to make the final or semi-final at AO. Thus the "plan" involves no lesser effort than playing to win.
That said, I don't dismiss such notions on principle. Given that the WTA and tournament bosses engage in dark intrigues involving scheduling, seeding, draws, etc (elements of the 2009 "roadmap" very suggestive of corporate & political hanky-panky), why wouldn't top players respond in kind? Personally, I'd prefer a more up-front reply--a union willing to strike. But short of that, integrity doesn't get you much when the business of the game grows more corrupt every year. If I were a top girl's business agent, I'd explore all options.
Question: Is any player actually "committed" to play a given Grand Slam? The Associations have no binding authority there. I thought they most always played Slams for the same reason as the YEC--the magnitude of the possible rewards.
Observation: Unless playing back-to-back tournaments (which I hope Masha continues to avoid), I don't think byes are that good a thing. Just as often, the late start may result in losing a day off she might have had later.