2009 MLB Umpire Crews

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.