Devil Rays prospect throws bat at plate umpire

[ToGreySt]

Originally Posted by SanDiegoSteve

I don't care what the situation, but that would be the last time that player ever thought of throwing a bat at another umpire if he ever tried that with me. He'd be one sorry SOB.!

I agree with steve, he would make a mistake by throwing a bat at me, because now I'd have a bat!

but seriously, scab or not, under trained or not, bad call or not, there is NO excuse for what Young did.

I hope they hang him out to dry,

Joe

[Peruvian]

Well, looks like the D-Rays have suspended him already.

http://mlb.mlb.com/NASApp/mlb/news/p...t=.jsp&c_id=tb

[FlyerAve]

Young was totally out-of-line. Any suspension is too light of penalty.

At the same time, I have NO sympathy for the SCAB umpire! The umpire should be repremanded for becoming a replacement umpire.

[Kaliix]

Your union workers were given a contract which they didn't like so they didn't show up for work. You call it a strike, I say they quit because they don't have a contract. The semantics don't matter because the result is the same, they had a job and didn't show up for work.

The union doesn't give a crap about anyone but themselves. You want to strike/quit for better pay, fine. But everyone else has a right to earn as much money as they can to pay their bills, and feed and cloth their families. Who are you or anyone in the union to tell anyone where they can or can't work. If the work is available, it is because the union members aren't there to do the job.

Baseball wasn't going to stop being played because the union didn't show up for work. You want other umpires to support your cause but if baseball wasn't being played, what about all the other people you would be screwing out of a days pay. The ticket takers, concession stand workers, grounds crew and everyone else associated with the game would be out of work if the games didn't go on. What about them? Would you care that those people who likely live paycheck to paycheck couldn't make rent or buy food. What about their spouses and children? Do you care about them?

The answer is a big fat NO! If AMLU cared about any of them, their asses would be on the field making the calls. Don't give me rhetoric, show me by your actions. Talk means nothing when people aren't getting paid.

You call the replacement umpires scabs. I say they are filling a need that AMLU left open so everyone associated with minor league baseball can keep their job and get paid.

AMLU has a right to strike and try and get better pay and wages. AMLU has a right to work and make a living but so does everyone else. For the union to expect other workers, their families and children to suffer so you the union can make more money is just plain wrong. Get over yourselves!

Originally Posted by PWL

I wouldn't have gotten a bat thrown at me because you couldn't pay me enough to cross the AMLU picket line. Money isn't a motivation for me, morals are. I respect the working man and what they have to deal with, especially unreasonable management. They are a recognized union by the NLRB which is their right, too. I didn't know it was a constitutional right to "scab".

I am not condoning the action of the player, just the morals of the umpire who felt he needed to be there.

Until these "scabs" accept the same conditions and pay PBUC was offering the AMLU umpires, then their not really fulfilling the role. Quit your other job or take a leave of absence and drive all over the country, eat crappy food, sleep in a Motel 6, and do your own laundry. Oh yeah, in your spare time go umpire a ball game. Don't sit at home living the good life.

[PanamaCityBrian]

KALIIX, you said what i couldnt say earlier, i am just not as good with saying how i am feeling about a subject i couldnt agree more.... Unions just dont think about anything but themselves. Thank you for saying it so well

[PanamaCityBrian]

hmmm well i can tell you what i do and since i agree with him i guess you think the same about me!!! well i drive big rigs for a reasonable sized company maybe you have heard of it Pepsico, more employess than Milb combined including all entitees and all though there are some unions within the franchise partners of the company.... for the most part we are not unionized i get a 2-4% pay increase every year.... i make in the top 5 % of my job nationwide and have good benefits, yet you with a union have to strike and i can get this without all the drama, i also have job security but that why you need a union to talk for you instead of doing it yourself. ya know again just my two cents bash away

[lawump]

My various thoughts:

1) I see in this thread a post from 9:00 a.m. this morning attributed to Chris Hubler. Chris and I started our pro careers in the same PBUC class and were in extended spring training together. This is not a quote I would expect him to make. So, I went to the AMLU website this afternoon and could not find this quote. I allow for the possibility that he did say this, and I just can't find the quote. Could you please post a link to the quote? (I'm not accusing a poster of making up a quote, I just want to see it on amlu.org, before I believe it. Or if they have taken it down on that website, can anyone else here say that they saw it on amlu.org earlier today?)

2) Strike vs. quit is not a matter of semantics, not in any legal sense. If you think its semantics ask Eric Gregg. That statement is way, way off-base. A person on strike has certain legal protections ("rights") etc. A person who quits, generally does not. Go do an internet search about the 1999 MLB umpire fiasco and you'll find a good Federal Court of Appeals opinion that will show you the difference between a person on strike and a person who quits.

3) There are a lot of posters on many different boards who keep making the assertion that these MiLB umpires are going down the same road as the MLB umpires in 1999...and that it is all going to blow up in the face of the MiLB umpires.

First, as I alluded to above, this is a completely different situation. MiLB has the legal right to strike. MLB umpires had contracted away their right to strike during the summer of 1999 and tried to get around it by "quitting".

But ask yourself why did the MLB umpires attempt this tactic when any lawyer (even a non-labor relations lawyer) could have seen that it was a seriously flawed tactic? The Answer: Because the MLB Umpires Union had beaten MLB around at the bargaining table for the previous 20 years. Richie Phillips had so many successes going up against MLB that his ego got so big (IMHO) that he thought he could never loose. He was wrong.

So, many posters are quick to remember the failure of the union in 1999...but very few have brought up ALL THE SUCCESSFUL STRIKES THEY HAD starting in 1979.

I mean, damn gentlemen, MLB umpires went from making less than $30,000 in 1978 with no vacation time and able to be fired at any time for any or no reason, to being paid more than a quarter of a million dollars (veterans), with tenure, with guaranteed playoff games after being in MLB for a certain number of years, and with in-season vacation.

I'd call that 20 years of pretty damn successful labor negotiations...including successful strikes. Yes, Richie blew it in 1999....but he was pretty damn good for 20 years.

So, ask yourself is this MiLB strike more like 1999 or 1979. Oh, back in 1979 they had to stay on strike for 8 weeks. And, yes, MLB issued edicts to the players and managers to "have patience". And, yes, umps had to picket at stadiums. And, yes, umps had to try to generate media interest when the media didn't care.

But after eight weeks, their strike was successful. The media starting paying attention. The media agreed that they were woefully underpaid. The media agreed that six-months without any vacation was a joke. And yes, the players and managers starting complaining about the replacements.

It was a slow process, but the umps eventually won. They got pay raises. They got vacation. The only thing they consented on was allowing some of the replacements to become permanent members of the staff...most of whom, except three (or so), were fired in 1981.

Today, the vast majority of media editorials have been pro-AMLU. (For example read the New York Times article from a day or two ago.) Slowly but surely, more and more complaints from players and managers are creeping into the media.

I say the historical evidence points that this strike is more like 1979 and not like 1999. It will take time, but eventually AMLU will be back on the field with some hard-earned consessions gained at the bargainning table.

That is just my opinion. Time, of course, could prove me wrong.

[wsttxump]

Originally Posted by lawump

My various thoughts:

1) I see in this thread a post from 9:00 a.m. this morning attributed to Chris Hubler. Chris and I started our pro careers in the same PBUC class and were in extended spring training together. This is not a quote I would expect him to make. So, I went to the AMLU website this afternoon and could not find this quote. I allow for the possibility that he did say this, and I just can't find the quote. Could you please post a link to the quote? (I'm not accusing a poster of making up a quote, I just want to see it on amlu.org, before I believe it. Or if they have taken it down on that website, can anyone else here say that they saw it on amlu.org earlier today?)

2) Strike vs. quit is not a matter of semantics, not in any legal sense. If you think its semantics ask Eric Gregg. That statement is way, way off-base. A person on strike has certain legal protections ("rights") etc. A person who quits, generally does not. Go do an internet search about the 1999 MLB umpire fiasco and you'll find a good Federal Court of Appeals opinion that will show you the difference between a person on strike and a person who quits.

3) There are a lot of posters on many different boards who keep making the assertion that these MiLB umpires are going down the same road as the MLB umpires in 1999...and that it is all going to blow up in the face of the MiLB umpires.

First, as I alluded to above, this is a completely different situation. MiLB has the legal right to strike. MLB umpires had contracted away their right to strike during the summer of 1999 and tried to get around it by "quitting".

But ask yourself why did the MLB umpires attempt this tactic when any lawyer (even a non-labor relations lawyer) could have seen that it was a seriously flawed tactic? The Answer: Because the MLB Umpires Union had beaten MLB around at the bargaining table for the previous 20 years. Richie Phillips had so many successes going up against MLB that his ego got so big (IMHO) that he thought he could never loose. He was wrong.

So, many posters are quick to remember the failure of the union in 1999...but very few have brought up ALL THE SUCCESSFUL STRIKES THEY HAD starting in 1979.

I mean, damn gentlemen, MLB umpires went from making less than $30,000 in 1978 with no vacation time and able to be fired at any time for any or no reason, to being paid more than a quarter of a million dollars (veterans), with tenure, with guaranteed playoff games after being in MLB for a certain number of years, and with in-season vacation.

I'd call that 20 years of pretty damn successful labor negotiations...including successful strikes. Yes, Richie blew it in 1999....but he was pretty damn good for 20 years.

So, ask yourself is this MiLB strike more like 1999 or 1979. Oh, back in 1979 they had to stay on strike for 8 weeks. And, yes, MLB issued edicts to the players and managers to "have patience". And, yes, umps had to picket at stadiums. And, yes, umps had to try to generate media interest when the media didn't care.

But after eight weeks, their strike was successful. The media starting paying attention. The media agreed that they were woefully underpaid. The media agreed that six-months without any vacation was a joke. And yes, the players and managers starting complaining about the replacements.

It was a slow process, but the umps eventually won. They got pay raises. They got vacation. The only thing they consented on was allowing some of the replacements to become permanent members of the staff...most of whom, except three (or so), were fired in 1981.

Today, the vast majority of media editorials have been pro-AMLU. (For example read the New York Times article from a day or two ago.) Slowly but surely, more and more complaints from players and managers are creeping into the media.

I say the historical evidence points that this strike is more like 1979 and not like 1999. It will take time, but eventually AMLU will be back on the field with some hard-earned consessions gained at the bargainning table.

That is just my opinion. Time, of course, could prove me wrong.

The quote was on the AMLU website this morning, at the top above the first picture. Guess they figured out how stupid this quote sounded and removed it.

[SanDiegoSteve]

PWL,

How did you get to become so bitter? You never seem to have a nice thing to say about anything in life. Just asking.

[Texas Aggie]

Sorry to disagree with you. He threw the bat at a scab who has disrespected our brothers in blue.

This is such BS, its hard to know where to begin. What if we all decided that we didn't like you and felt you disrespected us? I'm not talking about strike issues, it just came to our joint conclusion that you didn't deserve respect so when you got assaulted, we didn't care. Even if our reasons were irrational, tell me exactly how you would feel in that situation.

You pro-union guys need to get it through your thick head that many (if not most) of us don't agree with hard line union tactics. We don't view replacement umpires as crossing a picket line, only doing the job that you decided you won't do. We think the word scab is used by you as a defamatory term. If you feel your reasons are justified, fine. But just because you don't like what someone did doesn't mean what they did was objectively wrong. Here's a clue: some people have differences of opinion and to assert that anyone deserves an assault simply (or one should be ignored) because YOU have a problem with how they got their assignment is reprehensible.

If you truly feel this way, you don't and won't ever have my respect as an official. If you have so much hatred that you can't put a difference of opinion aside for an issue that affects all officials, then I seriously question your ability to be on any field.

[Kaliix]

What I do for a living is of no consequence. Currently I belong to a union and I was also a Teamster for three years. I am just not a blind union supporter like some people are. For all the good things that unions do, there are also many downsides to belonging to a union, some of which I personally have had to deal with.

In any event, I noticed that you had nothing to say about the substance of my post? I wonder why??? Things that make you go hummmm.....

Originally Posted by PWL

Don't know what you do for living. However, I can see you would be first in line to have your job outsourced, phased out, or take a cut in pay. Would the answer be a big fat YES?

[tmp44]

I can't believe this is even an issue, and, in all honesty it makes me sick that some of you are actually of the opinion that this umpire deserved to have a bat thrown at him merely because he is a replacement umpire. That's bull. Regardless of what your stance is on the MiLB issue, he's a fellow OFFICIAL, not just a blue, that got assaulted. Just because he chose to umpire a AAA game in the place of a striking umpire should have no consequence to any of us. As it was said in an earlier thread, someone has to umpire the game and someone will umpire the games. Just because they choose to do so, whether or not that decision is the popular, politically correct, or ethical one, does not give Young the privilege of throwing his bat at a replacement umpire, nor does it mean that a replacement umpire deserves to be assaulted in such a manner.

Am I saying that this situation could have been avoided if regular AAA umpires were working the game? That's possible. But it still does not give Young the right to throw the bat or for any of us to condone the action because of anyone's status as a scab. Just my .02.

[BloggingRefGuy]

LawUmp:

In response to your earlier question, Baseball America is now quoting Hubler saying what the 9:00 AM poster said he did.

http://www.baseballamerica.com/today...ws/261152.html

[DIV2ump]

Originally Posted by BloggingRefGuy

LawUmp:

In response to your earlier question, Baseball America is now quoting Hubler saying what the 9:00 AM poster said he did.

http://www.baseballamerica.com/today...ws/261152.html

Another Baseball America article said Young threw a bat last year and it landed 20 feet from an ump. That game and the bumping game I assume were being done by union guys, so I don't understand the stupid quote. I don't know this Triple-A umpire and he may be great, but the way they are celebrating a fellow umpire getting hit with a bat is just wrong.

[WhatWuzThatBlue]

Originally Posted by bobbybanaduck

I sincerely hope that Young is allowed to give his side of the story in the media. While I do not and never would condone his actions, I am fully expecting to find out that the umpire said something that got the bat thrown at him. I reiterate, I DO NOT AGREE with Young's actions, but bats don't get thrown at you for no reason.

The guy that worked the plate, while remaining anonymous to most of the world, is not anonymous to me. I know him, have worked with him, and saw first hand his "handling" of a situation. I have very little doubt that Young's actions, as awful as they were, were in reaction to this guy popping off. Does that make it OK? No. Did it shed a little light on the situation when I found out who worked the gane? You're damn right it did.

I've enjoyed this thread, as much for the nostaligia as the drama. Lest I be cast as the protagonist, I'm quoting this piece but could have used others.

What difference does it make if the umpire said something to him? If the replacement umpire had said, "Sit down, you dumb (insert the racial epithet of your choice) - that was strike three." It doesn't permit this pinhead's actions.

Bruce Froemming wouldn't explain an eight inning balk against a Cub's pitcher the other day. When the pitcher inquired what he had done to cause the balk, Froemming (36 years) told him to "get back on the f***ing mound". Three players heard him say it and yet, the pitcher didn't launch the ball at Bruce's chest.

Don't excuse the actions of an idiot athlete with those of a replacement umpire. SInce the umpire's name has not been released, we do not know his resume. Would the player's actions be more defensible if he was a LL umpire of a former Minor League umpire called back to work? Once you step on the field wearing the uniform, you are afforded respect while being marked a target. It is a shame that Dmitri's little brother can't control himself and needs to throw things when he doesn't get his way.

BTW, the league said he is suspended indefinetly. The fact that he is a golden child will probably shift the penalty his way. Remember, the union complained of horse**** penalties and abuse when they were out there. Balls were thrown, bats flung and umpires pushed - all when the 'real' umpires were in charge. This dimwit didn't care who was out there and his agent will spin it that way.