Business as usual...

[MrB]

This from a team that is winning.

http://www.lasvegassun.com/sunbin/st...566615277.html

I guess it plays into their feelings about the situation.

[lawump]

Originally Posted by MrB

I guess it plays into their feelings about the situation.

Exactly...the team's front office official (i.e. the team's President in the that story) says, "everything's going great. The replacements are doing just as good a job." (to paraphrase). Of course he would say that, he's clearly on the managment side of the MiLB/AMLU debate. His immediate boss, and the person he represents, is the team owner(s) who will have to pay the umps more. I haven't seen one team or league President (or team owner) say anything different.

However, in the same story, his own on-the-field manager says, (to paraphrase again) "No one should worry about the replacements, but we need the regulars back." Of course, he won't say anything bad about the replacements ...he's worried they'll read what he says because he still has to deal with them every day. But, there's no hiding that he clearly states that he wants the regulars back.

Seems to be that's another story of an on-field manager, coach or farm director saying we need the regulars back, despite what the person who signs their paycheck thinks.

[NIump50]

Originally Posted by lawump

Exactly...the team's front office official (i.e. the team's President in the that story) says, "everything's going great. The replacements are doing just as good a job." (to paraphrase). Of course he would say that, he's clearly on the managment side of the MiLB/AMLU debate. His immediate boss, and the person he represents, is the team owner(s) who will have to pay the umps more. I haven't seen one team or league President (or team owner) say anything different.

However, in the same story, his own on-the-field manager says, (to paraphrase again) "No one should worry about the replacements, but we need the regulars back." Of course, he won't say anything bad about the replacements ...he's worried they'll read what he says because he still has to deal with them every day. But, there's no hiding that he clearly states that he wants the regulars back.

Seems to be that's another story of an on-field manager, coach or farm director saying we need the regulars back, despite what the person who signs their paycheck thinks.

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. No manager wants to be on the wrong side of the regulars when they finally come back.
Once you start justifying a position based on cynicism and conspiratorial thinking remember it goes both ways.

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. I really believe that most on either side of the call truly believe they're right. They saw the action and interpreted it for the outcome they desired. A runner can be out by 8 inches and the offensive team will truly believe he was safe.
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.
I certainly hope for the best for the regulars. Unfortunately, if their success depends on the failure of the replacements I'm afraid they won't be too happy with the results. I'm with Justme on this one, there are many more than 220 capable umpires out here willing to work at the current scale. Supply and demand is an economic reality, not a theory that can be easily discarded.

[lawump]

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.

[NIump50]

Originally Posted by lawump

Exactly...the team's front office official (i.e. the team's President in the that story) says, "everything's going great. The replacements are doing just as good a job." (to paraphrase). Of course he would say that, he's clearly on the managment side of the MiLB/AMLU debate. His immediate boss, and the person he represents, is the team owner(s) who will have to pay the umps more. I haven't seen one team or league President (or team owner) say anything different.

However, in the same story, his own on-the-field manager says, (to paraphrase again) "No one should worry about the replacements, but we need the regulars back." Of course, he won't say anything bad about the replacements ...he's worried they'll read what he says because he still has to deal with them every day. But, there's no hiding that he clearly states that he wants the regulars back.

Seems to be that's another story of an on-field manager, coach or farm director saying we need the regulars back, despite what the person who signs their paycheck thinks.

We're apparently not disagreeing about much here, but if the managers don't care what the regulars think then why would they care what the replacements think?
And yes I was being slightly sarcastic.

[WhatWuzThatBlue]

What umpire actually cares what a player or skipper thinks about his call?

All of this handwringing over a few skippers saying that the umpires are awful - good Lord, that's been going on for 100 years! George Steinbrenner just chastised an MLB umpire and said that his team deserves better! The LL trvelling coach at the rec field thinks he deserves a WUA crew too.

Listening to what players and skippers say about umpiring...you guys make me laugh.

[lawump]

Originally Posted by WhatWuzThatBlue

Listening to what players and skippers say about umpiring...you guys make me laugh.

Yeah, but if enough of them complain (fairly or not) to management...then management may listen...which may resolve the dispute in AMLU's favor...

Perception is everything. For instance, if everyone had thought that the Young incident happened because the umpire was a replacement then that would have been good for AMLU. (I'm not saying everyone did think that...as I said above I for one don't). But if enough "clueless" players and managers think the replacements are to blame for various things (right or wrong) AND more and more complain to management that is good for AMLU's position.

The other thing that would be good for AMLU's position, of course, is if various media has stories stating that the replacements are causing various problems. This also puts pressure on management.

I believe this behavior on the major league level helped bring about desirable results in past MLB umpires strikes.

[SAump]

Originally Posted by lawump

Yeah, but if enough of them complain (fairly or not) to management...then management may listen...which may resolve the dispute in AMLU's favor...

Perception is everything. For instance, if everyone had thought that the Young incident happened because the umpire was a replacement then that would have been good for AMLU. (I'm not saying everyone did think that...as I said above I for one don't). But if enough "clueless" players and managers think the replacements are to blame for various things (right or wrong) AND more and more complain to management that is good for AMLU's position.

The other thing that would be good for AMLU's position, of course, is if various media has stories stating that the replacements are causing various problems. This also puts pressure on management.

I believe this behavior on the major league level helped bring about desirable results in past MLB umpires strikes.

The US media should not be used for self-serving purposes. The AMLU should report the facts. A 20% payraise and $40 per diem doesn't sound like the moon and the stars. Baseball has generated record REVENUES over the last 5 years and umpires have not seen a DIME over the last 10 years. The question remains should single A umpires bring home $12,000 per year, AA umps $18,000 per year and AAA umps $24,000 per year? I find that baseball can put UP the money. It just doesn't want too.

[WhatWuzThatBlue]

Originally Posted by SAUmp

The US media should not be used for self-serving purposes. The AMLU should report the facts. A 20% payraise and $40 per diem doesn't sound like the moon and the stars. Baseball has generated record REVENUES over the last 5 years and umpires have not seen a DIME over the last 10 years. The question remains should single A umpires bring home $12,000 per year, AA umps $18,000 per year and AAA umps $24,000 per year? I find that baseball can put UP the money. It just doesn't want too.

The fact that a company is profitable means little too this equation. MiLB pays the umpires what they think is fair and compensatory. The boss dictates what the employee gets paid. If the employee doesn't want to work for those wages, they can leave. If their field of expertise is very limited, that choice is painful.

Please don't keep referring to their salaries as 'annual'. The average PBUC season is 3-5 months. It is a seasonal job, like a fruit picker or snowplower. Those who perpetuate the myth that MiLB umpiring is a career are lying. Unless there is a MLB opening, PBUC will get rid of you in 7-10 years even if you are very good. That is a far cry from a career.

It's been over a month and we keep hearing the same stories. This is getting old.