Had Sotomayor ruled differently, I figure that the MLBPA would have decertified and challenged the antitrust exemption in court again -- and the whole time we would have been subjected to replacement players.

Sotomayor may have well saved baseball -- although, of course, any good judge should have made the same ruling.

We all know about Kerry Lightenberg and Rick Reed and Millar and all of those guys, but wasn't Pedro Borbon -- the elder -- a replacement player too? Anyone else recall if any washed up, as opposed to the merely young and hungry -- who were slated to be replacements?

Anyone else recall if any washed up, as opposed to the merely young and hungry -- who were slated to be replacements?

I thought Oil Can Boyd was another one, and he's linked to a Wikipedia page listing replacement players. Borbon's not on there, but I remember him being mentioned as a possible replacement. Of course the Wikipedia page includes the phrase "Couzin jack whooo."

he introduced Judge Sonia Sotomayor on Tuesday as his nominee for the Supreme Court

So can we add this to the list of things that wouldn't have happened if baseball had had a salary cap?

There is a listing of A's 1995 replacement team here. The article also mentions some guys who were replacement players for other teams, who ended up playing for the A's at later dates:

C Damian Miller, RHP Mike Warren, RHP Joe Slusarski, LHP Ron Mahay, OF Billy McMillan, RHP Cory Lidle, 2B Frankie Menechino, INF Barabo Garbey and current Sacramento Rivercat INF Lou Merloni.

I thought that Lenny Dykstra said that he would play.

Greg Swindell also was going to play

Anyone else recall if any washed up, as opposed to the merely young and hungry -- who were slated to be replacements?

I remember Lenny Randle was on the roster for the Angels. I may not find much else to agree with Sonia on, but she saved me from having to watch that, and I'm grateful. She'd get the vote of this right winger.

I'm only just reading John Helyar's <u>Lords of the Realm</u>, and I'm near the end with the strike about to happen. What a great book. But that 1994 strike was a truly pointless exercise. I think 'the Lords' have done a bit better in recent negotiations because they're doing what Marvin Miller did in the first place - incremental steps looking for short-term advantages.

I thought that Lenny Dykstra said that he would play.

Whitey Herzog would have managed if the Kansas City Royals called.

Frank Eufemia went to camp with the Yankees
Brad Komminsk went to camp with the Twins
Greg Jelks went to camp with the Twins
Mike Loynd went to camp with the Twins
Ken Oberkfell went to camp with the Phillies
Jeff Stone went to camp with the Phillies
Ken Dixon went to camp with the Phillies
Marty Bystrom went to camp with the Phillies
Darryl Motley went to camp with the Royals
Steve Crawford went to camp with the Royals

The players I do have serious issues with for being scabs are those like Boyd, who had already benefited greatly from the efforts of MLBPA members.

I remember thinking that it might be kind of interesting to watch the scabs try to play.

I think that Boyd just likes to play. He was in the Can-Am league not that long ago, IIRC, and he still barnstorms.

Borbon, age 48, did go to Reds camp.

AP - April 8, 1995:

Team managers _ the equivalent of head coaches _ had a tough time hiding their disgust.

When 48-year-old, big-bellied pitcher Pedro Borbon, back in baseball after a 15-year absence, fell during a workout, he asked Cincinnati Reds manager Davey Johnson, 'What do they do with old horses, shoot them?''

Here is the opening day lineup the Royals were planning on going with in 1995 (was it much worse than the real players?)

CF Lonnie Maclin
LF Mike Loggins
C Jeff Grotewold
1B Jim Wilson
DH Dave Hengel
RF Jeff Schulz
RF Jamie Nelson
3B Eddie Jurak
SS Gary Green

P Greg Mathews

I think that Boyd just likes to play. He was in the Can-Am league not that long ago, IIRC, and he still barnstorms.

True, but it still undermines the players, whatever the reason.

The MLBPA is a same-sex union.

I remember Lenny Randle was on the roster for the Angels. I may not find much else to agree with Sonia on, but she saved me from having to watch that, and I'm grateful. She'd get the vote of this right winger.

Similarly, I thought Sotomayor's decision barring college football players from early entry into the NFL was--regardless of how appropriate from a legal standpoint--a really good thing for this die-hard Buckeye fan.

I remember Lenny Randle was on the roster for the Angels. I may not find much else to agree with Sonia on, but she saved me from having to watch that, and I'm grateful. She'd get the vote of this right winger.

Could he have beaten up Marcel Lachemann?

Similarly, I thought Sotomayor's decision barring college football players from early entry into the NFL was--regardless of how appropriate from a legal standpoint--a really good thing for this die-hard Buckeye fan.

I don't believe it bars entry, just allows the NFL to do so through collective bargaining with the NFLPA. Which would be the correct legal decision.

Wasn't there some discussion that the MLBPA had voted to allow Cal Ripken to play if he chose so he could keep his streak intact?

I don't believe it bars entry, just allows the NFL to do so through collective bargaining with the NFLPA. Which would be the correct legal decision.

I'm not a lawyer, nor do I care to even pretend to be, so take this question with the appropriate level of ignorance in mind:

The law allows for collective bargaining agreements to supercede employment non-discrimination (i.e. age, gender, etc) law?

Wasn't there some discussion that the MLBPA had voted to allow Cal Ripken to play if he chose so he could keep his streak intact?

I don't know about that, but I do know that Ripken said he would not cross picket lines, even metaphorically, to keep his streak intact.

The law allows for collective bargaining agreements to supercede employment non-discrimination (i.e. age, gender, etc) law?


This question is not at all ignorant, and aspects of it have been subject to recent SC decision. The direct answer to your question is now, a union cannot act as a waiver of a substantive right given by statute; however, the forum for the resolution of those rights is subject to collective bargaining.

Consequently, you can agree to have an arbitrator hear discrimination claims, but you cannot say we agree that hereafter, we will hire only white males younger than 45.

I'm not a lawyer, nor do I care to even pretend to be, so take this question with the appropriate level of ignorance in mind:

The law allows for collective bargaining agreements to supercede employment non-discrimination (i.e. age, gender, etc) law?

Excellent question. first off, it can be challenged, but the collective bargaining process is to determine how those challenges are heard.
edit: Cokes for Backlasher.

Further "where age is a bona fide occupational qualification reasonably necessary to the normal operation of the particular business." (or something like that, can't recall the exact statute). IIRC that is the one statutory exception for allowing age-discrimination, there may be others, but I don't remember them.

I'm sure most of the owners still around mlb are secretly grateful that Sotomayor saved them from themselves.

Sadly, the battles that resulted from the owners' ridiculous negotiating strategy was partially directly responsibility for the inability of mlb to deal with its ped issues. After collusion, the cancellation of the WS, and the replacement players fiasco, the players union reflexively assumed that whatever the owners proposed was wrong. If the owners had proposed an agreement stating that baseball should use bats and balls mlb players and their union would have opposed it, and the idea of letting owners testing the players for anything must have looked like a devious plot.

Plus, of course, these events led to the decline in attendance that led to mlb and the press being willing to avert their eyes to what was happening in the late nineties.

George Will Takes Issue

"The president is a gentleman and a scholar and a great ornament to our society, but he's not a great baseball historian," Will told us.

"He says that when she ended the baseball impasse that was interrupting play in 1994 and 1995, she saved baseball," Will says. "Far from it. What she did was overturn in a sense, the essence, the underlies, the essential theory of American labor relations, which is the parties should slug it out because they know best and whoever wins, wins."

Will says that "in fact, what she did was take sides, took union's side against the management, and in so-doing, wasted 262 days of negotiations. That, far from saving baseball, consigned baseball to seven more years of an unreformed economic system, which happened to be the seven worst years in terms of competitive balance."

Sotomayor, Will says, "delayed the restructuring of baseball. So I would say that far from her saving baseball, as the president says, that in fact, baseball thrives now because we got over the damage that her judicial activism did in that strike."

I wrote a large part of this list on Wikipedia. It's incomplete, but the last time I checked, everybody on the list had at least one citation supporting their inclusion.

Further "where age is a bona fide occupational qualification reasonably necessary to the normal operation of the particular business." (or something like that, can't recall the exact statute). IIRC that is the one statutory exception for allowing age-discrimination, there may be others, but I don't remember them.

So moving from the theory to the practice, when the 19 year old guy from Louisville gets drafted because he happened to finish HS when he was 16, doesn't the whole thing fall apart?

the essential theory of American labor relations, which is the parties should slug it out because they know best and whoever wins, wins.

What the ####. Seriously.

I'm not a lawyer, nor do I care to even pretend to be, so take this question with the appropriate level of ignorance in mind:

The law allows for collective bargaining agreements to supercede employment non-discrimination (i.e. age, gender, etc) law?

In addition to Backlasher's correct response, let me add that there is no relevant employment non-discrimination law. The ADEA only protects those who are 40+.

It's one of two non-discrimination laws (the Americans with Disabilities Act is the other) of which I'm aware that isn't symmetric -- that is, sex discrimination laws protect men and women, race discrimination laws protect blacks and whites (and everyone else), etc. But age discrimination laws protect only the old, not the young.

Whatever one thinks of Will's claim philosophically, he's utterly wrong as a matter of law. Sotomayor's ruling was not "activist." It was mandated by law, and wasn't even controversial, legally speaking. She couldn't have issued any other ruling. (Which is perhaps why said ruling was upheld unanimously on appeal.)


(Will, of course, is an owner, and just might not be quite unbiased.)

Whatever one thinks of Will's claim philosophically, he's utterly wrong as a matter of law

booshit--he's a partisan hack and always has been--he HAD to write something negative about her because she is perceived to be a liberal---if Joseph Alito had been the one to make that ruling in 1995, Will would be very carefully explaining how brilliant it was and that it saved baseball

That, far from saving baseball, consigned baseball to seven more years of an unreformed economic system, which happened to be the seven worst years in terms of competitive balance."

2000 was one of the best years ever for competitive balance, with no team in either league finishing over .600 or under .400. The most wins in the majors was 97, by the Giants; the fewest was 65 by the Phillies and Cubs.

I think Will's measure of competitive balance is "Did the Yankees win the World Series?" Even by that standard, though, 1995 to 2001 was hardly the worst seven years in history.

Gorman Thomaswas supposed to be a replacement player too.

Then there's Gorman Thomas, the 44-year-old former Brewer who will attempt a comeback after a nine-year layoff.

"I talked with Gorman and he still thinks he can play," said Garner. "I don't know."

"Did the Yankees win the World Series?"

Well, but remember that Sotomayor did order the Yankees to sign Roger Clemens.

And then she got Joycelyn Elders to write him a prescription for steroids.

Edit: Hey, I only know what I hear on the radio.

Age Discrimination, including Title 29 Chapter 14 section 623 which outlines permissible instances of age discrimination. Sorry too lazy to check if this has been amended/superceded, etc.

So moving from the theory to the practice, when the 19 year old guy from Louisville gets drafted because he happened to finish HS when he was 16, doesn't the whole thing fall apart?

I presume you are talking about the NFL. If so, the rule is 3 years after HS; its not crafted subject to the age of the participant. As Nieporent mentioned, the young are generally SOL as their is not a statutory protection to be waived.

As weird as it may sound from a pragmatic standpoint, that would be allowed. If the NFL said Katie Hnida couldn't be drafted because she's a girl, you would definately have a problem. If MLB didn't allow Jim Abbott to change the glove on his hand after pitching, you would also likely have a problem.

As weird as it may sound from a pragmatic standpoint, that would be allowed. If the NFL said Katie Hnida couldn't be drafted because she's a girl, you would definately have a problem. If MLB didn't allow Jim Abbott to change the glove on his hand after pitching, you would also likely have a problem.

I would rather SCOTUS never take a case remotely similar to the Casey Martin case ever again.

What the ####. Seriously.

He completely ignore the requirement that both sides negotiate in good faith. MLB transparently negotiated with the purpose of reaching an impasse, so they could try to exploit a loophole allowing them to impose a salary cap.

booshit--he's a partisan hack and always has been--he HAD to write something negative about her because she is perceived to be a liberal---if Joseph Alito had been the one to make that ruling in 1995, Will would be very carefully explaining how brilliant it was and that it saved baseball

Will's rabid support of McCain is evidence of this.

Whatever one thinks of Will's claim philosophically, he's utterly wrong as a matter of law.

and on the facts

I particularly like,

"in fact, what she did was take sides, took union's side against the management, and in so-doing, wasted 262 days of negotiations. That, far from saving baseball, consigned baseball to seven more years of an unreformed economic system, which happened to be the seven worst years in terms of competitive balance."

well there were 262 wasted days of negotiation because one side was clearly not negotiating in good faith, but rather had every intent of declaring an impasse so they could impose their own one sided set of rules.

1995-2002 was the 7 worst years in terms of competitive balance? By what measure?

Does anyone remember the George Will (don't remember who played him) baseball skit on SNL? Will was hosting a game/quiz show n baseball, Tommy Lasorda (Jon Lovitz?) was one of the contestants- after being unable to answer any of Will's arcane literary references to baseball, Lasorda asked Will if he ever played the game, Will began hemming and hawwing, Lasorda produced a baseball and demanded that Will throw it, Will didn't want to, Lasorda and the audience began chanting, "throw the ball, throw the ball"

if Joseph Alito had been the one to make that ruling in 1995, Will would be very carefully explaining how brilliant it was and that it saved baseball

Who?

1995-2002 was the 7 worst years in terms of competitive balance? By what measure?

By the measure of the Yankees winning four championships. That was the start and end of the debate for some people.

Does anyone remember the George Will (don't remember who played him) baseball skit on SNL? Will was hosting a game/quiz show n baseball, Tommy Lasorda (Jon Lovitz?) was one of the contestants- after being unable to answer any of Will's arcane literary references to baseball, Lasorda asked Will if he ever played the game, Will began hemming and hawwing, Lasorda produced a baseball and demanded that Will throw it, Will didn't want to, Lasorda and the audience began chanting, "throw the ball, throw the ball"

A seriously underrated sketch

Joe, Sam , what's in a name?

(you'd think I'd remember the first name of a fellow alumnus)

I'm not getting the idea that this ruling saves baseball. Without the ruling, don't replacements play for a few weeks and then the "union" collapses when players realize that the owners aren't going to cave? Much like the NFL situation. I suppose its possible that the players decide they don't want to play unless the owners fold again, but I don't get how that works practically.

The practical effect of the ruling is that it saved the MLBPA. That's not to raise any objection to the ruling itself- not my area- but I just don't get how it saves the league. I'm assuming the argument is that replacements damage the game so much that people stop watching- but I don't see that as particularly realistic- if people came back after a canceled World Series, I don't get how a bunch of AAA players, likely followed by a lot of "real" players, kills the game.

(you'd think I'd remember the first name of a fellow alumnus)

A couple more clues, and I can figure out who you are and where you teach.

Without the ruling, don't replacements play for a few weeks and then the "union" collapses when players realize that the owners aren't going to cave?

Because crowds of 50,000+ come out to watch Pedro Borbon pitch to Gorman Thomas? :)

Seriously, it's more likely the owners would have caved at that point, leading to the same results that prevailed anyway. So perhaps the ruling didn't deflect destiny very much ...

, Will began hemming and hawwing, Lasorda produced a baseball and demanded that Will throw it, Will didn't want to, Lasorda and the audience began chanting, "throw the ball, throw the ball"

Kevin Nealon as Sam Donaldson was the best part of that sketch.

Because crowds of 50,000+ come out to watch Pedro Borbon pitch to Gorman Thomas?

Aren't the owners prepared to have games played in front of zero people at that point. Sure the owners lose money- assuming they're not insured for that eventuality (which I wouldn't assume) but the players don't earn any money and there ability to earn the extraordinary sums they've been earning are being jeopardized for avoiding a salary cap. Really?

I realize this tends to be a contentious issue and I'm hardly neutral when it comes to labor issues so my innocent queries aren't really that innocent. That said, I'm just not sure that the MLBPA survives replacement players. Obviously there is no way to be sure- just interested in any opinions that might be out there.

Oh, I'm not really being contentious – even if the issue were still current, I wouldn't get too exercised over it, though I am certainly on the side of almost any union in almost any labor dispute. It's just that the players had already weathered the loss of much of the '94 season and all of the postseason. And the owners might have lost more money by fielding replacement teams than by letting the stadiums go dark. I wonder how the various regions of the country might have reacted to "replacements": in Texas there was a lot of human-interest in living the dream, and some down-home right-to-work rhetoric that might not have played as well in the Rust Belt. The owners were infatuated, I think, with the success that the NFL had had with replacements – a success due to factors (rooting for laundry, the importance of national TV revenues) that didn't so much apply in the case of baseball.

"Gorman Thomaswas supposed to be a replacement player too."

I don't know for sure in Gorman's case, but in general terms you need to be careful about counting pre-camp statements of intent as proof of participation. There are a fair number of old guys who talked about giving it one last go, but backed out when the time came (due to union pressure, general decrepitude, etc.).

The union supposedly compiled a full list of replacement players at the time. I wouldn't mind getting my hands on that.

RE: which side would've folded, I'm quite certain Peter Angelos was on record as saying the Orioles would not field replacement players; he was adamantly opposed to jeopardizing The Streak. Ripken's, not Ray Stevens'.

Aren't the owners prepared to have games played in front of zero people at that point. Sure the owners lose money- assuming they're not insured for that eventuality (which I wouldn't assume) but the players don't earn any money and there ability to earn the extraordinary sums they've been earning are being jeopardized for avoiding a salary cap. Really?

I realize this tends to be a contentious issue and I'm hardly neutral when it comes to labor issues so my innocent queries aren't really that innocent. That said, I'm just not sure that the MLBPA survives replacement players. Obviously there is no way to be sure- just interested in any opinions that might be out there.

By the point Sotomayor issued the injunction, the owners had already folded on the salary cap. At least according to this timeline
from Biz of baseball. They were still holding out for eliminating arb, eliminating anti collusion etc.

Will began hemming and hawwing, Lasorda produced a baseball and demanded that Will throw it, Will didn't want to, Lasorda and the audience began chanting, "throw the ball, throw the ball"

Found the hulu video for that sketch right here.

This may be of interest to the quorum:

National Labor Relations Board vs. Major League Baseball, 880 F. Supp. 246 (1995)

RE: which side would've folded, I'm quite certain Peter Angelos was on record as saying the Orioles would not field replacement players; he was adamantly opposed to jeopardizing The Streak. Ripken's, not Ray Stevens'.

He was also a union lawyer, which may have had something to do with it.

Found the hulu video for that sketch

I love this site.