3 MLB Umps Rehired...

[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

[Jurassic Referee]

There's a revealing interview in today's online edition of the NY Times with Bob Davidson, who is being re-hired.

I tried to link the article, but for some reason, I couldn't. If you check in at http://www.nytimes.com and hit sports, you'll find the article by Murray Chass halfway down on the right. You may have to register, but that's free and they never spam you.

[Lawrence_Dorsey]

Tee is correct. I think most of us only know a small percentage of what went on from now back to 1999 and before that. It had little to do with mechanics and balls and strikes and a lot to do with egos and legalities. I don't claim to know much about MLB umpiring but the little I do know suggests the job is as much about the business side of the game is it is about the on-field things.

We can all agree or disagree with what MLB and the umpires did. Truth is, unless we are on one of the sides, all we can do is comment. Both parties and the courts have finally hashed out an end to this thing.

Lawrence

[David B]

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

[mrm21711]

Does anybody have any info on the "attractive retirement package" offered to the 15 umpires?

[brian1974]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by mrm21711
[B][QUOTE]Originally posted by MrUmpire
[B]

Originally posted by gordon30307


If the umps legally should have received the back pay, ect...they deserve it. If not, then they do not. Although MLB is being made out to be the "bad guy," the umpires resigned themselves. There is no shame in rescinding a regination when you realize what the alternative is. The Tim McClellands, Mark Hirschbecks, Derryl Cousins, and Tim Welkes should be commended for not resigning. Lets look at this situation logically. The umpires had become bigger than the game. Anybody watching the 1995 playoffs cannot argue that Eric Gregg in the Florida/Atlanta series and Brinkman in the World Series were a joke.

First,
I believe Tim McClelland and Tim Welke both did submit a letter of resignation. Their resignations were not accepted by MLB. Derryl Cousins was not a member of the union at the time and thus he was not represented by Richie Phillips.

Second, there is no doubt that their strategy of resigning was disasterous. These men suffered the consequences many times over. I am pleased that MLB has finally settled and that Bob Davidson, Tom Hallion, and Ed Hickox will soon be returning to the major leagues. In addition, I believe that those that returned in 2002 have done a good job upon their return to the major leagues. Two of them, Joe West and Gary Darling are crew chiefs, jobs that are now assigned based on merit.

And finally, as to the comments regarding Eric Gregg and Joe Brinkman, it is true that they both went through a period of substandard umpiring. But, I believe, that if you watched Brinkman last season (2004), he was at the top of his game. He no longer sets up 3 feet behind the catcher and he no longer makes delayed, lackadaisical calls behind the plate or on the bases.

[mrm21711]

I agree. Brinkman was excellent last year.

[Jay Scott]

Those who are so positive about the wisdom of resigning or not should remember all the advances that occured after the umpire strikes that began in 1978 (or so-it's late any my momory is not what it should be). My first check for a month in pro ball was $185. Out of which came hotel, gas, uniform, food. Take a wild guess how much I made.

Phillips did a great deal for the umpires leading them on strike the first times that they went out. Each time, it became obvious that college/minor league umps could not fill in, and they were brought back. This last time, the strategy backfired. IMO, baseball put out the word that foul-ups would be tolerated, to save money.

The debate about the high strike zone is another topic.

Jay Scott

[brian1974]

Originally posted by Jay Scott
Those who are so positive about the wisdom of resigning or not should remember all the advances that occured after the umpire strikes that began in 1978 (or so-it's late any my momory is not what it should be). My first check for a month in pro ball was $185. Out of which came hotel, gas, uniform, food. Take a wild guess how much I made.

Phillips did a great deal for the umpires leading them on strike the first times that they went out. Each time, it became obvious that college/minor league umps could not fill in, and they were brought back. This last time, the strategy backfired. IMO, baseball put out the word that foul-ups would be tolerated, to save money.

The debate about the high strike zone is another topic.

Jay Scott

While it is true that Richie Phillips did a lot for mlb umpires it should have been obvious that by 1999 the general feeling towards umpires had shifted. At this time umpires were under heavy criticism for their supposed aggressive and arrogant behavior on the field. This was not the time for such a foolish negotiating strategy. The umpires were blinded by Phillips previous successes and could not clearly see that they were heading for disaster. Many good umpires lost their jobs and I am happy to see that 11 of them have since regained their jobs.

[jicecone]

Originally posted by Leecedar
I am somebody who was formerly a contractor. In my business, I was subject to the arrogance of the union. In my personal life, my friend was a union member, and I got some good insight into the "union" way of things.

I believe that unionization is one of the things that has stifled the American economy, by making people equal, regardless of ability. Seniority should have NO bearing on remuneration for services. Performance should be the only foundation upon which it is laid. In a pure market economy, Darwin's theory of natural selection works perfectly. If an owner of ANY business doesn't do the right thing, his employees will go elsewhere. In turn, he will get less productive employees, devaluing his business. There's a good reason socialism hasn't worked anywhere... it's a system that reduces individual motivation. Unionism is just another form of socialism and should be abolished.

Lee

Lee, you need to go back to school and take American History 101. Just because things get taking to the extreme, it does'nt mean it was for the worse. Child Labor laws , decent working hours and conditions were NOT the result of the UNOIN. It was the unions existence that brought about change to the arrogant dictorial big business attitude that could care less about everything except their profits.

I know you don't believe this but the Biblical order of creation was heaven, earth , man. Not Big Business, a Stock Market and then a labor force. Sorry, don't know that much about Monkey Theory, then again mabey I don't want to.

[Edited by jicecone on Jan 31st, 2005 at 12:35 PM]

[ASA/NYSSOBLUE]

Lets have a hand here for Bruce Froemming, Brinkman and Ed Montague,who,if they work this year, will be entering their 36th,32nd and 30th years of umpiring MLB....only Bill Klem himself has worked longer in baseball history. Froemming is second only to Klem in longevity (and according to all accounts the NL babied Klem his last few years...)..obviously Brinkman and Montague are still quality umps,as Brinkman was a LDS crew chief and Montague was the WS crew chief last year...and Froemming...well..maybe he IS retiring/retired..and just doesnt know it yet...

[NJumpire9]

personaly, you have to feel sorry for guys like Matt Hollowell who was released from MLB after 3 years of being a fill in from AAA & didn't get a job because they had to bring back these guys.

[Rich]

Originally posted by NJumpire9
personaly, you have to feel sorry for guys like Matt Hollowell who was released from MLB after 3 years of being a fill in from AAA & didn't get a job because they had to bring back these guys.

If they thought he was worthy of a job, they wouldn't have released him this season. They would've found a spot for him.

[brian1974]

Originally posted by Rich Fronheiser

If they thought he was worthy of a job, they wouldn't have released him this season. They would've found a spot for him.

Agreed. Matt Hollowell would not have been released if it was thought that he would one day be a quality major league umpire. The three who are being brought back deserve the opportunity to resume their careers. I look forward to watching them umpire again.

[Sal Giaco]

It is easy for you guys to say "If he was worthy of a job, then they would have found a spot for him"

The bottom line is the guy spent 10+ years of hard work, making no money to chase a dream and now it's gone. Where does he go? Even if he has a college degree, he has no real "business" experience and at thirty something years old - it won't be easy starting a career in the "real" world

That's why I feel for the guy.