I agree with all of this answer, but #3 seems like it has a good chance of really cutting down on burnout from sifting through crappy questions. Instead of trying to actively "fix" every...single...bad question that comes in, just ignore them and if they're really that bad then bulk-close them after awhile. This will have 2 effects - 1. less burnout on high-rep users since they can just ignore bad questions, and 2. improve the experience for crappy posters, because they won't be hit with negative comments, immediate closure, think we are mean people, etc...They will just hear crickets.

@Zoredache - if they are a paying client, then I am their sysadmin already. Why would I tell them to hire someone else unless I disagreed with them on an ethical level? The situations of an in-person conversation with a paying client and a question on SF are vastly different. "Hire a sysadmin" cuts to the chase and prevents a long, drawn-out discussion on "why" they should hire one, in which SF is not the appropriate format to have that discussion anyway.

@MDMarra I think you misunderstood me. I am not advocating that a question be migrated simply because there is a specific site for the topic. I'm only saying that as more and more specific sites are brought up on SE, the more that is GOING to happen. I thought I made that clear if you read the rest of my comment...

I'm with Alex. The more specific SE sites there are, the more likely we are to say "This belongs on <specific SE site> rather than here". On the flipside of this I don't see that even being an issue since those issues that could be migrated to a specific SE site are not if they are sysadmin-related or if they could even translate into a sysadmin scenario. I've only seen us push the power-user type questions to the other sites.