2009 MLB Umpire Crews

[tballump]

Originally Posted by jwwashburn

Paying MILB umpires more money makes no sense for the owners because they don't have to pay them more money. People are willing to work for what they are paying.

And amateur umpires are willing to cross the line when they strike for better pay and benefits rather than go to the school and become MiLB themselves.

"The owners have no need or desire to give them more money. Business owners want to have less expenses, not more."

They want to put more money in their own pockets, not less.

This is simple economics.

[mbyron]

Nobody ever got rich owning and operating a MiLB franchise. With a good team, the gate and concessions might cover your loan interest.

Also: why should the umpires make more than the players? Last I heard, MiLB players made around $3K/month, about the same as the umpires.

Finally: the players and umpires do it for the same reason: it's the only way to get to the show. And the chance of winning that particular lottery is itself a form of compensation.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by biggravy

Noticed in the Cubs game there are guys from three different crews and Todd Tichenor who seems to be a AAA guy that is a regular fill in. Kerwin Danley is the crew chief which is a promotion for him. Was there a big shake up in crews or is this normal?

Someone go ahead and post the jocksniffer picture.

Shuffling the crews is common late in the season. Plus, you can find fill-ins on several crews almost any time (and on any given crew for many weeks throughout the season).

[MrUmpire]

Originally Posted by mbyron

Nobody ever got rich owning and operating a MiLB franchise. With a good team, the gate and concessions might cover your loan interest.

Also: why should the umpires make more than the players? Last I heard, MiLB players made around $3K/month, about the same as the umpires.

Finally: the players and umpires do it for the same reason: it's the only way to get to the show. And the chance of winning that particular lottery is itself a form of compensation.

Mike, you need to re-evaluate your sources.

Many people get richer owning MiLB teams. (You need to be fairly rich to buy one.) MiLB is doing very well. Owners earn a much higher rate of return on investment than most ML owners. 2008 was a record years for income for most MiLB clubs and MiLB overall.

Players receive a signing bonus off which many live for several years in addition to their salary. Umpires receive no signing bonus and they don't make $3,000 a month until AAA, around year 7 of umpiring for most. They still start out at about $1,900 a month.

[zm1283]

Originally Posted by MrUmpire

Mike, you need to re-evaluate your sources.

Many people get richer owning MiLB teams. (You need to be fairly rich to buy one.) MiLB is doing very well. Owners earn a much higher rate of return on investment than most ML owners. 2008 was a record years for income for most MiLB clubs and MiLB overall.

Players receive a signing bonus off which many live for several years in addition to their salary. Umpires receive no signing bonus and they don't make $3,000 a month until AAA, around year 7 of umpiring for most. They still start out at about $1,900 a month.

Plus several MLB teams own some of their MiLB affiliates.

[HokieUmp]

Originally Posted by jwwashburn

Paying MILB umpires more money makes no sense for the owners because they don't have to pay them more money. People are willing to work for what they are paying.
The owners have no need or desire to give them more money. Business owners want to have less expenses, not more.

This is simple economics.

Thanks for that quick snapshot of Econ 101. I get the idea that lower expenses are A Good Thing to owners; perhaps our differences, then, are the semantics of your statement. To wit:

Originally Posted by jwwashburn

They are paid what the market will bear.

Yes, in a simple reading, MiLB umpires getting paid what they are is what the market will bear because a) owners won't pay more and b) umpires have no real leverage.

But to me, the market could and should 'bear' more for the service provided. Not least of which because baseball (meaning: MLB and its owners) could certainly swing the costs of a living wage. Also, given they a) expect perfection in each game and every call, and b) have told umpires "you have to take all kinds of %^&$% from every yahoo player and coach that wouldn't know the rules if they were introduced, and you can't give it back" ... then they should pay for that level of service.

I realize my take on it is perhaps more a philosophical point versus simple economics, but if you want quality, you should pay more for it - and I think that's also simple economics.

[MrUmpire]

Originally Posted by jwwashburn

That is a strawman wrapped in a red herring.

Paying MILB umpires more money makes no sense for the owners because they don't have to pay them more money. People are willing to work for what they are paying.

The owners have no need or desire to give them more money. Business owners want to have less expenses, not more.

This is simple economics.

With apologies to congress, nothing is simple in economics. Outside of th classroom there are always a number of considerations, including unintended consequences, in addition to supply and demand.

I find it amazing that some of the posters who b!tch the most about the quality of umpiring this year, particularly that of call-ups, are the most vocal about not increasing MiLB umpires' wages.

Consider:

Since the wages, per diem and benefits (or lack thereof) become well know during and after the MiLB umpire strike, the quality of umpires making it to PBUC, according to some proschool instructors and two PBUC evaluators, has steadily declined. This in spite of increasing numbers at both proschools.

Granted, there remains sufficient bodies willing to work for $1900 a month during the season to fill the vacancies at the lowest of levels. But there is evidence that as time goes on, and vacancies occur at higher levels, those spots will eventually be filled by less qualified umpires.

The "what the market will bear" philosophy in regards to umpirig applies only to bodies, not quality.

Even in the minors, players are rewarded for performance. Umpires are not. Granted, the primary incentive is a shot at the "show", but that incentive, more and more, is not compensating for the poor pay and dismal treatment.

Umpires who release themselves used to do so solely because they realized that they were not going to make it. Typically, an umpire who received a year-end rating that guaranteed him a third year at long A or a fifth year at AA saw the handwriting on the wall and quit.

Now, more and more umpires who have shown the potential to continue moving up are also releasing. The lure of potential big bucks no longer compensates for a lack of ability to support a family or even oneself in the off season. Add in a total lack of compassion that some experience during an in-season family tragedy, as, as I understand it, one of our posters here experienced, and even those being groomed for higher levels drop out. And remember, each time an experienced, talented umpire quits during the season, one of the lower level school grads, one who initially was rated as not good enough by PBUC, and at times one who didn't even make it to PBUC, gets the call when the vacancy filters down.

Members of a Triple crew told me that the poster here who released after incredibly shabby treatment from both his league and PBUC was seen at the time as a sure bet to make it at least to Triple A- call up.

Regardless of altruistic beginnings, money does matter and it matters more to the proficient than it does to the incompetent.

So, if you enjoy b!tching about the quality of today's call-ups, keep justifying the sh!tty pay and disgusting treatment of the youngsters being groomed for the future and you'll be able to double the pleasure you get from b!tching in no time.

[socalblue1]

The MLB team pays most, if not all the players & coaches salaries, NOT the MiLB team. That's the major reason why they can make a profit - little to know expense outside running the facility & office staff.

The MiLB umpires have been screwed over for decades. It's better after AMLU in the 'soft' areas but the pay scale is essentially the same at 10+ years ago. MiLB views them as a necessary expense & has no desire to do anything else. It's never going to change unless MLB takes back umpire development.

[MrUmpire]

Originally Posted by socalblue1

The MLB team pays most, if not all the players & coaches salaries, NOT the MiLB team. That's the major reason why they can make a profit - little to know expense outside running the facility & office staff.

The MiLB umpires have been screwed over for decades. It's better after AMLU in the 'soft' areas but the pay scale is essentially the same at 10+ years ago. MiLB views them as a necessary expense & has no desire to do anything else. It's never going to change unless MLB takes back umpire development.

The wages could be fitting and liveable if MLB, who is the final beneficiary of the system, covered half the wages and left the other half, per diem, travel and lodging to the MiLB clubs.

[jwwashburn]

Originally Posted by HokieUmp

Thanks for that quick snapshot of Econ 101. I get the idea that lower expenses are A Good Thing to owners; perhaps our differences, then, are the semantics of your statement. To wit:

Yes, in a simple reading, MiLB umpires getting paid what they are is what the market will bear because a) owners won't pay more and b) umpires have no real leverage.

Exactly! They have no real leverage.

Originally Posted by HokieUmp

But to me, the market could and should 'bear' more for the service provided. Not least of which because baseball (meaning: MLB and its owners) could certainly swing the costs of a living wage. Also, given they a) expect perfection in each game and every call, and b) have told umpires "you have to take all kinds of %^&$% from every yahoo player and coach that wouldn't know the rules if they were introduced, and you can't give it back" ... then they should pay for that level of service.

Whether they 'should' or not is an interesting discussion. The MILB umpires are trying to get to the MLB. They are willing to work for peanuts for the chance. You think the owners 'should' pay higher wages because you think that the owners have too much money. How about the ticket takers, ball girls, beer guys, grounds crew, souvenir shop cashier, etc? 'Should' they make more, also? And who 'should' decide how much? 'Should' the owner have any say so in how he spends his money? After all, for now, the government is not running baseball...yet.

Originally Posted by HokieUmp

I realize my take on it is perhaps more a philosophical point versus simple economics, but if you want quality, you should pay more for it - and I think that's also simple economics.

The umpiring at the Minor League level is good enough for the owners to not want to pay any more.

[MrUmpire]

Originally Posted by jwwashburn

The umpiring at the Minor League level is good enough for the owners to not want to pay any more.

No one will argue that owners and rats believe this. The problem is that this short-sighted thinking has already cost MiLB some of their more promising umpires and, over the years, may well contribute to a lowering of excellence in MLB.

For those who enjoy complaining about the quality of umpiring in MLB, this is just what the doctor ordered.

However, if MLB ever decides that quality is important, at some point what is best for the sport will need to be considered, just as many companies have had to consider what is good for the industry when they negotiate with workers.

Again, economics is rarely as simple as some state.

[jwwashburn]

Originally Posted by MrUmpire

No one will argue that owners and rats believe this.

I assume that by rats, you mean the players, coaches and managers. Is it your contention that they think that the umpiring is good enough? Really?

Originally Posted by MrUmpire

The problem is that this short-sighted thinking has already cost MiLB some of their more promising umpires and, over the years, may well contribute to a lowering of excellence in MLB.

You might be right about this. I was reacting to the "they should" argument. They 'should' do with their money whatever they feel like doing. If your premise is correct and the owners realize it and they care, then they will probably start paying more to MILB umpires.

Originally Posted by MrUmpire

However, if MLB ever decides that quality is important, at some point what is best for the sport will need to be considered, just as many companies have had to consider what is good for the industry when they negotiate with workers.

You are making two rather large assumptions here:

1) The MILB is actually losing significant numbers of umpires that would make meaningful contributions in the MLB

AND

2) They are not being replaced by others who would make similar contributions.

[HokieUmp]

Originally Posted by HokieUmp

But to me, the market could and should 'bear' more for the service provided. Not least of which because baseball (meaning: MLB and its owners) could certainly swing the costs of a living wage. Also, given they a) expect perfection in each game and every call, and b) have told umpires "you have to take all kinds of %^&$% from every yahoo player and coach that wouldn't know the rules if they were introduced, and you can't give it back" ... then they should pay for that level of service.

Originally Posted by jwwashburn

Whether they 'should' or not is an interesting discussion. The MILB umpires are trying to get to the MLB. They are willing to work for peanuts for the chance. You think the owners 'should' pay higher wages because you think that the owners have too much money. How about the ticket takers, ball girls, beer guys, grounds crew, souvenir shop cashier, etc? 'Should' they make more, also? And who 'should' decide how much? 'Should' the owner have any say so in how he spends his money? After all, for now, the government is not running baseball...yet.

Wow. So I say the word 'should,' and it somehow becomes a shot at 'the government running things.' You don't happen to watch Fox News, do you?

My use of 'should' in the original paragraph would be better interpreted as "should = if they want better quality umpiring, and thus better quality games." Not "should = some alleged Marxist scheme."

And...

1. I don't say 'should' simply because owners have too much money. (I mean, they likely do, but that's not the point.) See the above interpretation; being in the entertainment business, if they want a better product, then pay for it. Yeah, they might not make the same profit margin if they did; they'll likely survive.

2. No, the other "oppressed workers" aren't included in any of this. I don't know what games you go to, but I've yet to see a ticket taker, ball girl, etc, etc, get abused like umpires do. Maybe I haven't been to enough ballparks. And other than grounds crew, the other jobs you mention aren't exactly skilled labor, are they?

But maybe it's more simple than all this. "Should" also could imply they 'should' get what the market truly would bear. Since MLB is legally protected better than you or me by their exemption from anti-trust laws, I submit your assertion umpires are getting what the market will bear is neither true nor false, but better listed as "unknown under existing conditions."

But I'd still rather just say you're wrong and I'm not.

[MrUmpire]

Originally Posted by jwwashburn

I assume that by rats, you mean the players, coaches and managers. Is it your contention that they think that the umpiring is good enough? Really?

They think the pay is good enough, thus, they must accept what the pay provides.

You are making two rather large assumptions here:

1) The MILB is actually losing significant numbers of umpires that would make meaningful contributions in the MLB

AND

2) They are not being replaced by others who would make similar contributions.

Those are the opinions expressed by some who are closer to the situation than I, and I repeated them. I would, however, rephrase them thus:

1) The MILB, over the past few years, has begun to lose umpires that could have made meaningful contributions in the MLB and this trend seems to be increasing.

2) The vacancies they create, when filtered down, are often filled by grads preciously deemed not good enough by PBUC, and at times by grads who did not qualify to attend PBUC, thus increasing the number of lower choice and previously unchosen umpires in the system while decreasing the number of competent and experienced umpires in the system. Additionally, according to these AAA umpires, it is more often the case that "struggling" umpires are less likely to leave over the pay and benefits issues.

[johnnyg08]

In my area, the teams complain about the umpiring, yet are always hesitant or against a game fee increase or league dues to increase training revenue to pull our better umpires into our summer games. I think while they always want the best umpires, when it comes time to dig into the wallet, they've shown me that they're satisfied with good enough.