and there's not a lot going on, but come one, King. I've come to expect more from you than cheap, imitation populism along the lines of: "boy, those 'guys' sure do make a lot of money. Not to begrudge anyone, wink wink".

I know that Mr. Kaufman did not come up with this idea of viewing professional athletes paychecks as being entirely for the games themselves, but he has long since demonstrated that he is smart enough to avoid it.

There is pre-season/exhibition season. There are practices during the season on non-game days. In the NBA there are shoot arounds earlier in the day on game days.

There's warming up before a game. There's a strategy meeting before a game. There are are the minutes during a game that the clock is not running. There's halftime. There's post-game press stuff. There's the time spent traveling from city to city.

And then there's all the working out, both during the season and during the offseason. Running, lifting, conditioning, working on skills.

Professional athletes make crazy enough money that that math can be done more honestly without losing that point. They work few enough hours a week that that math still comes out outrageous.

Assuming that he is a a W-2 employee, but Mr. Kaufman is not paid merely for the words that are posted on Salon. He is also paid to think and plan. He is paid to delete words and paragraphs that are not working. He is paid to research and learn so that he actually has something to write about.

Just like teachers are paid to plan lessons, grade papers, meet with students, go to meetings and all that stuff that stuff, even when they are not actually teaching a class.

Just like firefighters are paid not just for the time they spent actually fighting fires, but also the time they are preparing to fight fires and the time they are there waiting to respond to a fire.

So, assume instead that Baron Davis works an average of 20 hours/week over the course of a year. "That's $12,500/hour. And even $10,000/48 minutes. $8125 for the the 39 minutes he averages every game, and another $23125 for the other 111 minutes in a two and a half hour telecast that he is not playing. $31,250 for each game telecast that he isn't playing."

Aren't those numbers crazy enough to make the point? Even if you cut them in half, so he actually works 40 hours a week: "If he worked 40 hours a week (between practice, shoot arounds, working out, travel, games, talking to the press and everything else, he might during the season) and he did that 50 weeks a year (which we know he does not), that's $6500 and hour, game time or not. $5200/48 minutes. $4225 for the the 39 minutes he averages every game, and another $12025 for the other 111 minutes in a two and a half hour telecast that he is not playing. $16250 for each game telecast that he isn't playing. If he worked six days a week, that's $43,000 each day, in a country where the median family of four makes less than that $50,000 in a year."

If you can make the point honestly, why bother to make the point dishonestly. And if you can't make the point honestly, why bother to make the point at all.

I kinda disagree with the guy above, King. You should get up on your soapbox all you want, use that wit, parse these guys' salaries. There's also enuf meddlesome owners, bottom-feeding agents and babbling bobbleheads in our 24-hour sports media to keep you busy all year long. They all make more in a day than most sports fans make all year at their crappy jobs.

I know that to your average sports fanatic it's considered profane and sacrilegious to be so critical of the jock world, especially while you make your living in it. But hell, this is aint ESPN, it's the Salon blog, with all these dotty lefty bloggers swarming around all over the place.

So go for it. You know how to keep your wits about you so you won't get puritanical or self-righteous. We got your back here and many of us are cheering you on.

With a couple of exceptional exceptions, NHL players are not paid anywhere near the same league as the American Sports triumvirate.

You used "NHL" in your headline to draw us unsuspecting (and in my case forgetful, because if I had thought about it, I would have remembered that you would not be writing about actual NHL stuff) and I was correct!

Are you a sports writer? If that is the title you use to describe your profession, add an *, and on the bottom of the page write, "*except for the NHL".

And then move on. Let the NHL and your obvious dislike for it go.

tangosharkus Why the NHL reference in your headline?

It's NHL free-agent season too. Two of the three figures in the lead were NHL contracts. Ha!

Are you a sports writer?

I'll bite. I guess so?

If that is the title you use to describe your profession,

It isn't.

add an *, and on the bottom of the page write, "*except for the NHL".

And then move on. Let the NHL and your obvious dislike for it go.

That's such a deliciously bizarre request, I'll do it!

...Your article mentions nothing about the NHL.

So, try to refrain from using them as a draw to get NHL fans to read your article, when it contains next-to-nil about the NHL.

So, try to refrain from using them as a draw to get NHL fans to read your article, when it contains next-to-nil about the NHL.

OK, I'll try, but I think if I can get you to reply one more time, you will have spent a solid five times as much time complaining about how much time you wasted reading the piece than you spent reading the piece. My goal is 10 times, so we'll be halfway there!

Was that "next-to-nil" thing like a little soccer joke? Don't change the subject, please.