The top 2 players dont have offers from 27 plus clubs. You dont see evidence Just because the top 2 players don't have offers from 27 plus clubs does not equate to collusion. While I definitely appreciate Josh's viewpoint on the subject and his insight into free agency that most, if not all, of us do not have, I think Nate's point is spot on. Why the top 2 players don't have offers from 27 teams, has nothing to do with collusion. It has everything to do with working inside the framework of a system that is fundamentally flawed and gives significant advantages to the largest of markets. Imagine the Brewers, Reds, Pirates, Marlins, Padres, Royals, Twins, Indians, A's or Rays signing Jason Heyward to the contract he signed. His relative non-performance compared to his contract would have crippled that team's efforts to remain competitive. The Cubs however can endure and still sign Darvish and Hamels to $20+ million contracts. Heyward's deal is a cautionary tale that small markets have learned a long time ago (*cough* Suppan *cough*) and big markets are finally learning the same lesson. Going a step further, why should the Yankees sign Manny Machado to a $35m a year contract when his 162 game average for his career is .282, 31 HR, 90 RBI and Miguel Andujar gave you .297, 27 HR, 92 RBI for the league minimum? Should the Nationals be thanking Harper for turning $30m per year down when his 162 game average is .279, 32 HR, 91 RBI and Juan Soto just gave you .292, 22 HR, 70 RBI at age 19 and for the league minimum? Front offices have gotten smarter. If the players decide to strike in a few years, well then good luck to you. You didn't learn your lessons from 1994. Fans will side with ownership. Maybe you don't care. But maybe you should look at the NFL's popularity, even with a dynasty in place, where a team whose home city has 100,000 is on equal financial ground with New York, Los Angeles and Chicago.