No, I think the opposite - the point is that, to quote an infamous poster in other threads, "you don't spend your nickels on gumballs when you think you can get a candy bar". You don't sign the lower tier guys if you think you have a decent shot at a Darvish, JD Martinez, Hosmer, etc. For example - just throwing names out there, don't judge the names or $ amounts - why would you sign Jose Bautista for a hope-he-bounces-back 1-year $6M deal when you have an offer out for JD Martinez? Those guys play the same position, so you can't sign Bautista until you know you can't get Martinez. Why would you sign a Mike Napoli or Mark Reynolds on a one-year deal if you have a legitimate offer on Eric Hosmer? Why would you sign a Jaime Garcia on a one-year bounce-back deal when you have offers out on Arrietta or Lynn? You don't, until you those guys make a decision. Also, to quote Doug Melvin, "Free agents know where they want to play." There are like 3 teams in baseball that are seriously considering JD Martinez or Eric Hosmer. This argument makes no sense to me. I guess it will be interesting to see if things move now that Darvish has signed. This is a bunk argument. MLB and the MLBPA have collectively bargained these terms. This isn't a one-sided negotiation like teachers here in AZ, this is fairly bargained. It's the most fair and prosperous free agency model in all of sports as well. European soccer, the NFL, the NBA, and the NHL...sorry, their free agency models are nowhere near as generous as MLB. There's nothing "fair" about it when one side in the transaction operates a legally sanctioned monopoly. The MLBPA has done a great job getting players paid, I don't disagree, but to act like the teams do not have 95% of the leverage is to deny reality. And yes, the MLB free agency model is generous to compensate for the 7-year-team-control model. Which is why the union and the agents are so angry at their perception that owners are deliberately trying to restrain the free agency model!