Here was the primary challenge I faced when trying to write this story: defining "thin." I decided to come up with 3 measures of the thinness or thickness of a market: 1. How many $20+ M contracts are signed - these are rare and clearly a sign that a team is investing in a significant pitcher. Over the last 6 years, here is how many have signed those deals: 3, 2, 2, 3, 1, 9. 2. How many $10+M contracts are signed - these are either solid guys or very good guys that are getting a one-year deal. Over the last 6 years, here is how many have signed those deals (beyond the $20+ M) : 4, 3, 4, 2, 1, 6. 3. How many get at least a major league deal. I don't have the exact numbers for these handy, but most years it has been 12-18. By those 3 measurements, this year's free agent market is going to be better than any of the last five classes in all three categories. I think if you go through the class, that becomes apparent. So when you say you think the market is "thin" I would be interested in your definition. I'll admit - I struggled to find mine. It might not be right. My definition of a non-thin market is one that has several number 1 pitchers in a championship team as free agents. This market has a guy who is maybe a number 2 (Greinke) and the rest are lower. Again, I am talking about a championship team, not the Royals of this world. Hamels' extension hurt the market. I just do not see any number ones out there in this market. Now, as far as $ goes, teams spend. They will spend and they will overspend. If Greinke gets a number 1 type of contract this does not mean that he is an ace...