Yes, that would be the definition of collusion. And how does having one of the league's most marketable stars sitting on the sidelines because of a "wink, nod" agreement benefit the game? I get the argument that the players are making a lot of money, but should the players make peanuts while owners rake in millions upon millions in revenue every year, while justifying raising the costs of tickets, concessions and merchandise by blaming rising player salaries? I wasn't going in that direction. IF rumors are true, and you ask teams for their final offers and you get them, make a decision or run the risk of everyone souring on the games you're playing. Agents want to scream collusion, I see a climate shift. Agents are mad that teams no longer want to pay 100 million dollars for 34 year old players. If I'm a judge I don't call that collusion, I call it common sense. Just because teams were stupid yesterday, doesn't mean they are obligated to stay stupid today. There are only so many big market teams and they have monster payrolls already. Small market teams can't play at the high stakes table. Sooner or later, something has to give. As far as Darvish being a marketable asset, that's crap. Baseball survived long before him and will survive long after him. I don't have financials in front of me for players and owners, but I'm guessing Darvish isn't eating government cheese anytime soon. And I also understand that the insurance for his Ferrari isn't cheap, nor is the gas for his boat. And those property taxes on his castle must be a killer. My heart goes out to him. I could ramble on but I need to call my lawyer. McDonalds will not get away with serving hot coffee at the drive thru