White Sox Won’t Be In On Pujols

If Cardinals slugger Albert Pujols hits free agency after the 2011 season, most of the major market teams are expected to jump into the fray for his services.  However, White Sox GM Kenny Williams says that his club won't be one of them, writes Chuck Garfien of CSNChicago.com.

If [Jerry Reinsdorf] gave me $30MM dollars right now, I’m not going to spend it on one guy. Sorry White Sox fans,” the GM said. “But I tell you what, I’m going to take that $30 million and I’m going to distribute it around. My team is going to be better as a whole than it is with one player who might get hurt. Then you’re done. Sorry, that’s just me. And that’s no disrespect to a future Hall of Famer, first ballot, one of the greatest players in history.

Even though the White Sox currently have a $125MM payroll, Williams says that he and Reinsdorf agree that there should be a salary cap in baseball in order to level out the field.  The GM says that a contract that would give one player $30MM per season would be bad for baseball, to the point where he'd be okay with the game being "shut down" in order to correct the issue.  After getting all of this off of his chest, Williams immediately tried to downplay his comments:

Wait a minute, didn’t I say I wanted it quiet, I wanted peace? Let me shut the hell up already. I was hoping no one would ask me that this entire spring training.


Leave a Reply

297 Comments on "White Sox Won’t Be In On Pujols"


Member
baseballdude
4 years 4 months ago

That is good the white sox would have been al central champs and maybe even world series champions

Member
nats2012
4 years 4 months ago

I think thats a ploy and the White Sox would be one of the first teams to throw money at Pujols. The owner loves Pujols.

Guest
4 years 4 months ago

saying that owners love pujols is like saying priests like the bible. I mean really? Its all about the $$$ any team would take him for a decent price.

Member
MadmanTX
4 years 4 months ago

Then why weren’t they?

Member
alxn
4 years 4 months ago

I think having Adam Dunn trotting around in LF would probably negate most of the value Pujols would bring anyways.

Member
Palehose
4 years 4 months ago

It’s too bad that Adam Dunn is going to be the DH for the White Sox and not the LF’er….. Better luck next time.

Member
alxn
4 years 4 months ago

And where would he play if they signed Pujols? Use your brain

Member
Palehose
4 years 4 months ago

If Kenny had any intention in signing Pujols, he never would have re-signed Konerko. That’s the knowledge my brain is supplying, sir. The possibility that Konerko, Dunn, and Pujols would be in the same lineup is so improbable that it isn’t even worth hypothetically speculating.

Member
Redsoxn8tion
4 years 4 months ago

He wants to stay in St Louis so the Cardinals will likely be outbidding themselves until he gets the amount he’s looking for from them

Member
The_Silver_Stacker
4 years 4 months ago

outbidding? Going by last week, St Louis was and most likely still low ball Pujols

Member
Redsoxn8tion
4 years 4 months ago

St Louis low balled him? Please, these guys play a childs game

Member
Redsoxn8tion
4 years 4 months ago

St Louis low balled him? Please, these guys play a childs game. The fact that any player thinks they are worth 20 million a year is a slap in the face to ever person that posts on this site

Member
OrangeCards
4 years 4 months ago

Econ 101 …

Guest
4 years 4 months ago

It’s called supply and demand. Sure a teacher or a firefighter might do more good for society, but there’s a lot more qualified teachers then there are guys who are the greatest hitters of their generation. And that’s aside from the fact that a guy like Pujols would become an instant cottage industry in whatever city he ends up playing. Successful sports franchises create all sorts of jobs in the communities they reside in.

But more to the point, he’s worth what someone with the money to spend is willing to pay him. You can’t blame a player for taking the best offer available to him just like “every person that posts on this site” would.

Member
Redsoxn8tion
4 years 4 months ago

I’m not blaming anyone. If a team is stupid enough to pay a guy $30 million a year, obviously he’s going to take it. I’m sure everyone would. I’m just making the point that these guys already get paid a rediculous amount of money per year.

What ever happened to players that meant it when they say “I want to finish my career with this team”. What they really mean is I want to finish my career here but only if they pay me TOP DOLLAR.

Guest
4 years 4 months ago

Free agency happened and guys have a choice now. Before that, changing teams meant that you got traded to a place that you had no control over, often because you weren’t as good as your reputation any more and your team wanted to move on.

Guest
4 years 4 months ago

Are you his agent? Were you there at the private negotiations?

Rumor has it the cardinals offered 350 mil and busch stadium, pujols wants 400 mil and stake in busch beer. So ive heard anyways from drew rosenhaus.

Guest
4 years 4 months ago

Are you his agent? Were you there at the private negotiations?

Rumor has it the cardinals offered 350 mil and busch stadium, pujols wants 400 mil and stake in busch beer. So ive heard anyways from drew rosenhaus.

Guest
4 years 4 months ago

Exactly like they did with Holliday

Guest
4 years 4 months ago

kenny williams is a smart man. there should be a salary cap in baseball, indeed!

Guest
4 years 4 months ago

No there shouldn’t!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Guest
4 years 4 months ago

spoken like a real yankee fan.

Guest
4 years 4 months ago

Even as a fan of a smaller payroll team, I think a salary cap is a bad idea

Member
FriedCalamari
4 years 4 months ago

why? just wondering what some arguments are for it

Guest
4 years 4 months ago

Where do you set it? 200 mil? 100 mil? oh by making the salary cap 100 mil that will cause the pirates to spend 100 mil. Hell no. The owners spend whatever they want based on their market, tampa doesnt get a lot of fans so they sustain a lower payroll its how it is in baseball. Also teams dont buy championships look at the mets/dodgers/cubs and the giants who had a payroll of 100 mil but 20 mil of that(zito) wasnt even on their ws roster.

So in conclusion the owners are going to spend what they want to spend, unless you make the salary cap 60 mil you wont see all the teams spend the same amount.

I like it the way it is, the offseason is entertaining as hell and by far the best offseason in sports and I dont think it would be that way with the cap, also I like seeing small market teams build up a group of young guys then add a few free agents and go with that and teams like the rockies/brewers locking up good young talent for awhile.

Member
OrangeCards
4 years 4 months ago

A cap doesn’t have to be one in which all teams struggle to be under it. It could simply be one that prevents one team from spending multiple times what other teams could afford to spend.

Guest
4 years 4 months ago

Please read my post, I feel like I addressed this.

Whats the difference if you set the cap at 150, when the rays can only sustain a 50 mil one? Oh dang now the red sox can only spend 3 times as much as the rays instead of 3.2 or whatever.

Member
OrangeCards
4 years 4 months ago

Well the difference comes as you adjust that number lower and closer to what an average or above market can feasibly afford. Cutting the Red Sox down to 150 million may not change the competitive balance for the Rays all that much, but these are only two teams with a very arbitrary cap number.

What might a 140 million cap do for teams like Baltimore and Toronto? We’ll it’d increase their chances of being competitive. If they’re competitive, perhaps they could afford to spend closer to that of the large market teams.

Member
Cards_Fanboy
4 years 4 months ago

maybe I’m missing the point of having a salary cap in baseball, but I’m pretty sure the Rays won the AL East last year… with the lowest salaries in the AL East… so doesn’t that mean a salary cap wouldn’t even the playing field as much as some think it would?

Member
top_prospect_aw
4 years 4 months ago

Let’s see how the Rays do this year with half their players walking to the big names and their big name player signings who are 5 years removed from their prime. The only way for teams like the Rays to compete is to be patient with their farm system, then put their eggs in a basket for a couple years and hope they catch lightning in a bottle – which they did for three years. Now back to the rebuild…

Guest
4 years 4 months ago

Lets see how the yankees do this year with the highest payroll and no sp. I think the yankees would kill for the rays starters.

Member
PujolsHollidayWestbrook
4 years 4 months ago

Just because a particular team is good at “playing the game” in the current system (Look at Tampa, Minnesota, Florida’s 2 WS, Oakland in the early 2000’s etc.), doesn’t mean the system isn’t flawed. There are a whole bunch of teams that are the rule, and not the exception to it.

That being said, a salary cap doesn’t necessarily fix these issues. Look at the NBA. Players have max salaries, teams have salary caps, but things like endorsements, taxable income, marketing, etc., still has players grouping together in large markets, allowing a select few to have the ability to win a championship.

The truth is that there is no correct answer, at least not a clear cut one.

Honestly, until the fans quit attending games, paying for over-priced beer, watching their teams on TV, and buying jerseys, the large-markets in any system will have a higher chance to compete…oh that reminds me, I need to buy my season tickets!

Guest
4 years 4 months ago

exactly.

Guest
4 years 4 months ago

Right, when only what 7 teams in baseball have a cap of over 140 and most teams have self imposed caps(like the white sox at 125).

If the blue jays and orioles need incentive to run a successful organization they need to get the hell out of baseball, the incentive should be to the fans. Furthermore the giants/rangers both had payrolls at around 100 mil right? Giants number is inflated because zito didnt even pitch for them in the ws so you can take out 20 mil. Poinnt is these lower market teams can compete just as much and teams can field a competitive team for around 100 mil, or hell even less as with the rays. You just have to do good scouting. Name 1 100 million dollar free agent pitcher that has panned out successfully, you cant. Point is the top spenders go out and get a few good years or just a complete bust out of free agents because they are older when they hit free agency.

If I ran an orginzation I would more or less ignore the big market free agents and just focus on my group and get some filler veterans and sign my players to extensions(reds/rockies)

Member
OrangeCards
4 years 4 months ago

It’s funny that you keep mentioning Zito’s payroll doesn’t count.

Many, many other teams wouldn’t be able to afford such an albatross contract and still field a competitive team. Score another point for the large market teams.

Guest
4 years 4 months ago

Many other teams? Alot of the teams with 100 mil could support it and win the ws. I actually think thats proof more for the mid market teams that ok you can screw up and sitll succeed.

Member
MrSativa
4 years 4 months ago

OK – here’s how baseball executes a ‘fair’ salary cap. Revenues are tabbed the year before for MLB – expenses and profit margin are tabbed for each team. Each team is assigned a players salary number that’s based solely on MLB profit margin.

No player can sign for more than 2 years. Rookies can only sign for a max of 1M. Teams only have player control for 2 years. Minimum salary for players will be 500K.

No ticket will cost more than 500.

Each team will have it’s own TV network.

Players can earn extra money based on incentives which are standard across the board.

OK – I have to go – time to ride this bomb.

Dr.Strangelove

Member
Jaime Pearson
4 years 4 months ago

In my mind the reason you do it is then teams can’t go out and spend a ton of money on one guy, and when he fails just spend more. It’s more or less to even out the playing field with the Yankees. No other team in baseball, except maybe Boston can afford to make the mistake of signing a high priced player. Also not all the teams have the money from the YES network either like the Yankees do, they make more money a year on that than many teams spend a year.

Guest
4 years 4 months ago

Giants and Zito? Dodgers/mets/cubs/phillies all can as well, although the mets/cubs just hand out a lot of bad contracts.

So what you are saying is we should punish teams for signing players that dont pan out and make them pay twice as much for their mistake and make the fans suffer? Yea!

Member
jb226
4 years 4 months ago

A cap is a top-limit; there doesn’t necessarily need to be a bottom limit to go with it.

The problem in baseball is that there are a couple teams simply running away from the pack. When the top teams have something like a $60MM/yr advantage over the OTHER high payroll teams, you know you have an issue. Everybody doesn’t need to spend exactly the same, but there comes a point where there is TOO much disparity.

Some of the owners on the bottom need to step it up. That’s for sure. But some of the owners on the top need to dial it back too. They need to compete on the field, not in the accounting books, and they need to have tough decisions and consequences just like every other team in baseball does.

A successful cap is one that most teams don’t need to worry about, and yet one that most teams also have a chance of attaining. A $200MM cap is worthless because even the teams it would affect, it affects only slightly. $100MM is low enough that it affects too many teams in baseball. In my opinion, if a cap affects more than 20% of teams it’s far too low. It’s not about punishing all teams in healthy markets for their success, it’s about capping the advantage we think that should confer them.

Where would I put the cap? I’d be comfortable around $130MM, and of course adjusting slightly for inflation in the same way that league minimum salaries do. $130MM would clip the wings on about 6 teams (based on projection payrolls from baseball reference), which is on my high end but it does get in. It should be noted that of those six, it would affect two by less than $5MM and one more by less than $10MM — in other words, this is a level even the Top 20% of big spenders tends only to hover around, which I think is exactly what a cap should be. It’s also a figure that is immediately obtainable (within $10MM) by two teams with another three or so hovering about $10MM behind that.

It’s also a big enough payroll to make mistakes but survive them–the 2010 Giants, for example, had Barry Zito basically warming the bench for $20MM in the playoffs and still won, and nobody in the world is going to suggest their franchise is horribly crippled by it. At the same time, more than one or two bad contracts DOES hurt quite a bit, as Cubs fans can tell you watching Soriano and Zambrano hurt the teams’ competitiveness for at least the past two years. (Okay, okay — Soriano wasn’t THAT bad last year but his salary was still a big reason they didn’t spend more to improve.)

If the top payroll teams want to complain that the $90 million dollar advantage they have over the bottom payroll teams isn’t fair to them, well, then can do that but it will fall on deaf ears, at least for me. What I definitely don’t think is competitive or good for the game is to have a $90MM difference between the bottom teams and the high payroll teams and then another $70MM difference between the high payroll teams and the “lulz” teams.

Guest
4 years 4 months ago

So, I feel as if I already answered your points.

So the red sox who are at what 170 will cut 40 mil and instead of spending 130 mill mor then the pirates will only spend 100 mill more? Yay?

Also the pirates wont spend more and the only thing you will accomplish successfully is to cut players salaries and keep the competitive balance the same.

Member
OrangeCards
4 years 4 months ago

It’s this simple:

Do larger market teams have a competitive advantage because of their finanical resources?
– Yes, of course they do. If spending big didn’t offer a huge advantage, NY wouldn’t spend 200 million a year.
Would placing a high cap help other teams?
– Yes, it would. Removing, or limiting, the competitive advantage the Yankees currently enjoy would give other teams a more reasonable shot.

Guest
4 years 4 months ago

You say that but please tell me where the pirates/rays/padres have said “oh well if it wasnt for the yankees we would spend way more and be up there at 100 mil”.

Again, is the competitive balance that would be gained from the red sox payroll being 130 mill more to 100 mill more really do anything else except for cut players salaries? I doubt it. Also mid market teams win the ws all the time. And you can say the yankees buy championships but look at their dynasty in the late 90s, mostly homegrown players! Same wiht the red sox this time around, home grown and a few key free agents.

Member
OrangeCards
4 years 4 months ago

Why are you against a salary cap? Does your team have a significant advantage that you don’t want to give up?

Guest
4 years 4 months ago

Again, please prove to me where the pirates and lower market teams said if it was 100 mil they would spend 100 mil and decrease the competitive imbalance. Please do. And I am a fan of the tigers, a few years ago we were one of the highest salaried teams in baseball but have now dropped a lot of payroll but can absorb some contracts.

The fans give their teams the advantage, how many rays fans would show up if htey charged yankees prices? yankees fans PAY for a 200 mill team rays fans umm dont.

Member
OrangeCards
4 years 4 months ago

Are you really this dense?

If the Yankees can’t spend 200 million anymore, they lose some of their competitive advantage.

If the Yankees lose some of their immense advantage, it will be easier for teams like the Orioles, Rays and Jay to compete with them.

I’ve never once said a cap would encourage teams to spend 100 million … I don’t know where you’re getting that or what that has to do with my point.

Again, why are you against a top cap of some sort? What is wrong with a more level playing field?

Guest
4 years 4 months ago

And again I will say, what is the difference between the red sox spending 100 million more then the pirates as opposed to 130 million more? THAT 30 MILLION HOLY POOP THE PIRATES COULD SIGN A TOP FREE AGENT THEN! Ya no, again it would only cut down player salaries and hurt teams when they try to sign young talent long term.

But ok, its that extra 30 millino that will make it a level playing field, you are absolutely right. lol really dude.

Member
OrangeCards
4 years 4 months ago

Well, for the Pirates, cutting the Redsox payroll by 30 million likely wouldn’t mean much. You’ll be surprised to learn that they play in a different division and an entirely different league. They’ll play each other a handful of times over the next 5 years, if that. So, I have no clue why you keep bring these two teams up …

However, if the Redsox only had 130 million to spend, instead of the 170 million they’ll spend this year, it would make a huge difference for the teams in their division like the Rays, Jays and Orioles. That difference in spending would mean no Carl Crawford and no Adrian Gonzalez.

And stop pretending teams couldn’t keep their own talent with a 130 million dollar cap … It’s just stupid.

Guest
4 years 4 months ago

Fine, red sox and rays. Really, can the orioles/blue jays afford a 130 mil cap? Oh no Carl crawford or adrian gonzalez? Really? How about they just wouldnt have picked up ortiz’s option and this year they are only paying 6.5 mil for agon. All it would have meant is cc would have signed for less money.

I didnt say they couldnt keep them, I said it would effect extensions because they would have to take it into account.

You are just crying because yoru team doesnt spend as much money so instead of paying higher ticket prices(like sox/yankees do) you want to cry foul and cut players salaries to try and “level” the compeition but I dont know if you realized this but teams with the highest salaries dont always win, home grown players etc wait I feel as if I said this before. Sorry, if your orioles were better with their farm system and spent their money better maybe they would be in the running like the rangers/giants and other teams with half the payroll of the yankees.

IF a team has the committed fan base to spend 200 mil let em.

Member
OrangeCards
4 years 4 months ago

The Orioles, Jays, Rays don’t spend 200 million because they can’t. There are media markets, a city of 8 million people, etc that other teams can’t create over night.

You still can’t debate that taking away some of the Yankees spending capacity wouldn’t help level the playing field in the division … because it would and you keep ducking the question….

I think you’d be on my side of the argument (although doing it poorly) if the Tigers were at the bottom of the spending and had NY and Boston in their division.

Guest
4 years 4 months ago

Yep, just as I thought you are just complaining because your team doesnt have the fan base to support it. Quit crying your division is tough get over it.

And actually I wouldnt, I would want the tigers to develop prospects better then they are beat them that way(as the rays have proven) and sign some guys to long extensions who perform

I am not ducking the question. Moving on. Ok that was a joke. But really, the blue jays have a payroll of 60 mil. Salary cap at 130 mil means the red sox will spend less, however the players will start want top dollar, so would hte blue jays really want to papy for crawford or stick with what they are doing and keep doing it with young players andsign people to extensions. The players will still demand high salaries because someone will eventually give them the contract. Oh now you are just happy “then the red sox wouldnt get him” The red sox would have offered craword the same as the angles and been able to sign him.

If a teams fans are willing to pay that much for tckets and show up more power to the team for utilizing that resource, but making a salary cap wont have that much of an effect on anything other then cutting player salaries.

So answer my question, whats the difference betweent eh red sox payroll being 100 mill more then the blue jays instead of 70 million more? Does it really make THAT big of a deal? That is drew/dice k/cameron fine take em.

Keep crying, I didnt cry foul when the twins farm system was and still is 1000 times better then ours I didnt say “WE NEED MORE OF A SCOUTING CAP ITS UNFAIR YOU SEE THAT TALENT” Each team uses the resources at their disposal, I am sorry your orioles just suck at both.

Member
OrangeCards
4 years 4 months ago

I’ll reply to this with a new comment at bottom on the page. On my computer, all of these conversations are difficult to read with this many replies …

Member
OrangeCards
4 years 4 months ago

Key difference for the Rangers and Giants … They don’t play 89 games against the AL east.

Member
top_prospect_aw
4 years 4 months ago

Paul, I agree with you that under the current business-revenue model, a flat limit on payrolls wouldn’t quite work for baseball. The reason why it works in other sports like the NFL is because of shared TV revenue. Ultimately, the Rays aren’t penalized by the number of fans they attract at their games as much as the city they happen to be located and the revenue their market brings in; even if they Rays sold out every game, they still wouldn’t be able to compete with the larger market teams. In addition, it’s also not fair that even when there is a nationally televised game, it usually includes the Yankees or Red Sox, or both.
With that being said, there has to be a way to give the smaller market teams a better advantage and I think it starts with sharing the big ticket items (merchandise, advertising and TV) like the NFL. If they were to accomplish this, I think the Yankees would spend less and the Rays would spend more. I think it’s also more feasible because the player’s union would be more receptive because the amount of total money spent would be the same, just distributed differently. But the Yankees and Red Sox have just amount as much influence as the big time oil tycoons and fat cats on wall street toward government initiatives. :)

Guest
4 years 4 months ago

I would be for sharing revenue more from merchandise because that would help give the smaller market teams more money to play with, although the pirates have been accused of holding onto revenue sharing money and not spending it.

But I would like it to be tied more to the nfl when it comes to revenue sharing.

I dont think the yankees/red sox woudl spend less, I think they would just raise ticket prices and still sell out personally 😛 But it wouldl help out hte rays.

Member
$1519287
4 years 4 months ago

all merchandise sales are already shared by the teams, the yanks sell the most but get an equal share in the end.

Guest
4 years 4 months ago

Ah ok I thought there was some revenue sharing with merchandise already but wasnt 100% sure and he posted that so I was like oh alright. Do they share TV revnue and whatnot though? I dont think they do, which would really help. I could be wrong though.

Member
OrangeCards
4 years 4 months ago

No, they don’t and the YES is a cash cow for the Yankees as if they didn’t get enough through the gates.

Guest
4 years 4 months ago

Well that would fix it better then the worthless salary cap.

Member
OrangeCards
4 years 4 months ago

It’s hard to have a conversation about the economics of the league when you aren’t familiar with the basics …

Guest
4 years 4 months ago

lol dude it was brought up by someone else and I wasnt 100% sure, I meant to say tv deals and whatnot which I was pretty sure wasnt shared.

Still, its hard to argue with someone that thinks the red sox spending 140 million and the pirates still spending 30 million will help make them more competitive. Do you really think the pirates would be all GIMME FREE AGENTS. hell naw.

Member
OrangeCards
4 years 4 months ago

It’s hard (or impossible) to have an intelligent discussion with you when:

1. You don’t under the basics of the MLB economic system. If you didn’t know merchandise sales were shared, and weren’t sure how the TV deals worked, what do you really know?

2. You ignore everything I say and keep repeating an ignorant statement about the Red Sox and Pirates as though their relationship applies to the entire league.

Guest
4 years 4 months ago

1. I fail to see how that applies to any argument about the cap, quit nit picking I know luxury tax is shared and merchandise I was pretty sure on, and tv deals I didnt think were. So um yea…

2. ITS ABOUT LEVELING THE PLAYING FIELD!!! how much would it level it, please answer it. 100 mill more instead of 120 mil more.

Member
OrangeCards
4 years 4 months ago

Because if you don’t under the basics, what business do you have discussing a cap system?

You weren’t sure what happens to merchandise sales (as you suggest sharing would be a good idea) and you had to ask someone else how the TV deals work.

You just don’t know what you’re talking about when it comes to MLB economics.

Guest
4 years 4 months ago

I wanted to make sure I was right? Cap is a cap, revenue sharing is revenue sharinng, and again continue to talk about something while avoiding my main question.

I can pick you apart as well,t he red sox payroll is 160 not 170, how can I talk to you when you dont even nkow baseball payrolls!!!!@#@#@

See? quit dodging.

Member
OrangeCards
4 years 4 months ago

“I would be for sharing revenue more from merchandise because that would help give the smaller market teams more money to play with, although the pirates have been accused of holding onto revenue sharing money and not spending it.”

That tells me you don’t have a clue, not just weren’t sure.

And if you want to nit-pick, the Red Sox’s payroll was at 168 million last year and currently sits at 162.5 million plus the salaries of a few pre arbitration players who will likely make the team but aren’t included yet.

Google “Cot’s baseball contracts” if you need more information.

What am I dodging?

Member
OrangeCards
4 years 4 months ago

Yeah, but judging by your name, you’re clearly one of the delusional small market fans …

Member
Redsoxn8tion
4 years 4 months ago

Yes there should!!!!!

Member
Joey Doughnuts
4 years 4 months ago

It’s great to see an exec of a large market team say that even HE thinks it’s unfair that he can spend more money than other teams.

Member
The_Silver_Stacker
4 years 4 months ago

So we can have mediocrity just like the nfl and nhl?

Member
Taskmaster75
4 years 4 months ago

If you haven’t noticed, NFL is getting MORE money from ESPN to air it, whereas MLB is projected to get LESS money. I don’t think anyone cares about mediocrity, but they do care about other teams having an advantage over others.

Member
Encarnacion's Parrot
4 years 4 months ago

The NHL has really taken off too. If I’m not mistaken, the NBA has a salary cap also.

Member
vonhayesdays
4 years 4 months ago

their should be a salary minimum(florida Marlins) and if their is to be a max id put it pretty high(New York Yankees)

Member
bomberj11
4 years 4 months ago

If anything there needs to be a salary floor.

Guest
4 years 4 months ago

A bunch of swear words comes to mind, that shouldn’t been said on these threads.