Well, it's time for another week of Average Joe columnists, and I think this one may actually be my least favorite so far. The editors who made comments harped on his factual errors, but . . . the writing. Oh, the writing.

Oy. "Relent to a cap"? And an association is an "it," and I would capitalize "players association," and it's just an ugly-ass sentence. Furthermore, his entire argument that the size of the market has nothing to do with the income of the team seems absurd to me. I'm not necessarily pro-salary-cap, but you can't blow off the size of the market like that.

On the other hand, the association between payroll and performance isn't as powerful as they're calling it anyway. It's powerful, but it's not the entire story.

The good news is that that guy's opponent, Anna, actually did a pretty good job with her entry this week, aside from the fact that she's done a little bit too much of the "on the one hand; on the other hand" alternating. Her piece isn't well-organized, but she can write English without a lot of obvious errors (aside from the painful "it/they" confusion in the first paragraph noted by the editor). It's a little overwritten in places -- I think "money-stuffed bats" isn't quite right. It's not that the bats are stuffed with money; it's that the bats were purchased with money -- at least that's what she's trying to say.

Anyway, thanks to Anna, I'm not in agonizing pain this week to quite the extent I was last week. But the other guy? Yeah. Don't give up that day job.