Quote:
Originally posted by Tim C
A few thoughts:
1) The "high strike" had nothing to do with the umpire issues of 1999. Questec and the strike zone issues did not surface until 2001.
2) The "high strike" had everything to do with the umpire issues of 1999 if you call their resignations a "High Strike".
3) Eric Gregg had little to do with anything involved in the reason for the work action. While it is true that the "illegal work stoppage" did affect Eric, he was not an important issue.
4) It is very difficult to take sides on the 1999 situation. We had a group of union members that had always dictated to their employer -- I really have no idea "why" baseball had always caved in -- it is not important that I understand that at all.
It is also important to understand that Richie Phillips has been criticized by legal experts for his advice (or lack thereof) to employees under contract.
5) MLB should also be embarrassed. They saw an opportunity to regin in a group that was viewed as "maverricks" in the entire picture of the game. As we have seen since that time Sandy has used the new found power to demand several things from MLB umpires -- it should also be noted that the umpires have, in turn, increased their earning capacity and their retirement benefits greatly.
6) We sould consider the postion of the "new" umpires that were given the opportunity to move into replacement positions as this work stoppage occured. We know now thtey were given the edict "move up or be released" -- while some of the originally 22 still hold emotions against the guys moved up most have that has moved to "past tense" . . .
7) I doubt if any umpire would argue "for" Ericc Greggs strike zone as shown during the playoffs of 1998 -- we also need to rmember that all of us that worked "big boy" ball had lowered our strike zone and shifted it to an area off the plate outside -- let's not get into changing what things were really like at the time in games played by players that shave AND professional leagues.
8) We should also recognized that the "high strike" is still a moving object. I see pitches called strikes that are nearly chin high and I see pitches called strikes that are ankle high -- that is not by direction of MLB but rather an indiciation of the new "strike zone" . . .
9) It overly simplifies things to say the issue was the high strike zone, Eric Gregg's outside corner, or Joe Brinkman setting up 15' behind the catcher to call balls and strikes -- it is also to simple to say that it was a time in MLB history when the owners decided to control people that they pay to work.
Guys, this was a very complicated issue. Since it is still in the courts five years later we can see that . . .
The issues were emotional -- some people that we had met (been taught by, drank with, etc.) lost their jobs when they were in their prime . . . some have been taken back, some not.
We go from the ones that say, "screw'em . . . they got what they deserve" to Dave Davis (who is a personal friend with many MLB umpires) who even defends Richie Phillips.
While it is great to have our own personal view of any issue (this one included) it seems rather silly to call names and pout when we are considered wrong.
Just my view from the outside.
Tee
|
Very good points Tee.
I also noted that the umpires suit against MLB with reference to Questec was also kind of settled. I think in reading that the umpires who were ranked badly will now have their games reviewed by a review group of umpires etc., before action is taken.
I tried to find the link but couldn't find it today.
Thanks
David