I know many women who follow sports, almost as fanatically as their menfolk. But I am not one of them.
So I say this out of complete disinterest in the sport and utter ignorance of the mechanism that causes player salaries to hurdle into the stratosphere: Tell the team members who threw the game (Tom Glavine?) that next season they get to live on $50K a year LIKE THE FANS DO until they get it together and improve their performance. Hit 'em in the wallet, where it hurts!
I mean, these guys are getting the really big bucks because they're so talented the franchise is guaranteed the big wins? Apparently that thinking didn't work with the Mets.
Ding 'em.
Won't work, you say? Why? Because, unlike the fans, these guys aren't living paycheck to paycheck? This Tom Glavine fellow making $7.5 million a year can coast on his assets for awhile, no matter how badly he plays? Not fair to the lower-paid team members? Poor John Maine only made $390K last year.
In 2006 the annual median household income in the United states was $48.2K a year. All your fans are coughing up money they don't really have to show up and watch your sorry butts and buy their kids $7 hot dogs. Show some respect, losers.
Seems to me there are a lot of very talented, very hungry young men in the bush leagues, waiting to take their chance. Pay these guys a hundred grand to play ball and they'll think they've died and gone to doggie heaven. They'll play like their life depended on it.
Might make for a better ball-game, don't you think? Athletes who're astounded to be paid for playing a game they love. Beats watching a lot of celebrity divas who no longer have any common ground with the average fan.
Hey, maybe I can get fired up about sports.
Deere up on Q4 earnings performance
Reid Hoffman: LinkedIn will go public (at some point)
Retailers can't wait for Black Friday, open Thursday
