|
Let's be fair! If managements positive comments about replacements are going to be disregarded because of their financial motives, then let's be sure to disregard the on-field managers remarks because he certainly has a vested interest in making nice to the regulars.
I don't know if I agree with that. HOWEVER, I DO (even though I'm pro-AMLU) disregard most (not all) of the union members' comments in the media, just as I disregard the management's position. I laughed, for instance, when a certain AMLU member suggested that the whole situation with Mr. Young could have been avoided if an AMLU member was umpiring the game. I disregard most comments by the AMLU guys and most of the comments by management.
As to the "vested interest"...yes he does. But let's not forget a lot of successful pro managers have a strong dislike for umpires, period. And during normal times, many of them can give a horses' behind what the umpires think of them, and many of them don't try to hide their feelings. For these individuals to be saying we need the regulars back does mean something. (I have no idea what the manager in this particular story is normally like...I never worked a game he managed.)
When I make a call on a banger I predictably have half the players, coaches and spectators thinking I'm a great umpire (for the moment anyway) and half think I blew the call...
...This is exactly what's happening in this debate. Those with a vested interest in the regulars succeeding in their strike are going to interpret all action on the field as bad umpiring by the replacements. Management on the other hand certainly will tend to view things slightly different. Those without a dog in the hunt may be able to be a bit more objective.
To a large extent you are absolutely right. I hope, however, that the word "slightly" was used in a sarcastic manner. I'll add, however, that the closest we'll get to having someone be "objective" AND having some sort of say in this labor dispute are the managers, coaches, players and farm directors. What I mean is, they're not management and they're not AMLU members, but they are in minor league baseball. I personally think both sides would love to have members of this "objective" group giving quotes supporting them.
Note: I did not say managers, coaches and players ARE objective...I'm saying that of all the groups who may have an actual affect on the resolution of this dispute, they're the group who is probably most "objective". Another possibility is the media.
Supply and demand is an economic reality, not a theory that can be easily discarded.
Absolutely true. And to a large extent, this will come down to how large a supply of umpires there are to work these games. This, in my opinion, will also be determined by what management decides is acceptable standards in a replacement (little league umpire? high school? college...DIII, DII, DI only? must have pro experience?) I mean the size of the available pool of replacements is dependent on what criteria management says a replacement must meet. I'm not saying they have, but if management says registered little league umps can work their games...then they'd have a much larger pool than if they say only D.1 umps can work.
Of course, conversely, management's large pool of replacements could (I did not say "will") be narrowed if on-field personnel and others (farm directors) complain that a certain set of criteria must be met in order to umpire these games. It goes without saying that AMLU is hoping that enough of these people will state (either directly, or by implication by stating that none of the replacements are getting the job done) that only pro-school and PBUC graduates (AMLU members) meet the criteria to work these games.
|