Edgy MD wrote: I don't think anything needs to be re-defined. There's an upside to locking up players before free agency whether you are the wealthiest or the least wealthy owner Sure, and a downside too. The difference is the downside (paying a fortune for someone who suffers a career-ending injury) affects the least wealthy owner's plans sharply, and the wealthiest owner hardly at all. However much the Mets screw up, Cohen gets to go "Man! What rotten luck! OK, let's move on with the program from here" and never gets to bitch that he's spent his limit because he doesn't have a limit. No. These are insurable risks. And the less wealthier teams have as much access to the insurance markets as Cohen's Mets do. Initially, you wrote a bad post and now you pretend to ignore me because you can't come up with a convincing response to my earlier post about insurance. I say "pretend" because you couldn't ignore my posts if your life depended on it. So when I diss your Doc Medich joke, for example, you run to Edgy and have the audacity to demand that my perfectly fair post be red-lit. Sadly, he complies. Maybe an old geezer like Justin Verlander isnt insurable but a young pre-free agency superstud like Pete Alonso sure is. And insuring these players is standard operating baseball practice, not some esoteric 3D chess move than only gazillionaires like Cohen can afford.