Note:  Hugo - Promoted from Fanposts.  Great fanpost, Boo.

In the game thread last night someone (think it was Craig) tossed out why instant replay is used so sparingly in baseball. Yes I'm a young whippersnapper but I want to present my argument for what I think is the best system baseball could implement to use instant replay right.

My ideal system would be extremely similar to the NFL's. Each manager has two (or one, can't decide which would be better) challenge "flags". A call must be challenged before the start of the next pitch, and the manager can only challenge plays culminating in an out or base advancement (eg - a base stealer was safe/out, should have been the other), except in the case of foul balls (as happened in the Red Sox game - an incorrect foul ball would probably have to result in a ground rule double). Basically, you cannot challenge a ball or strike call. As well, if a manager is correct on both flags he receives an additional challenge, like in the NFL. Also like the NFL, if the call is deemed inconclusive, the call on the field stands. My issue with my current system is it doesn't punish managers for getting calls wrong (in the NFL, an incorrect/inconclusive challenge results in the loss of a timeout). A possible workaround is that an incorrect challenge could count as a coach's mound visit for that inning or the upcoming inning (if the challenging team is hitting). I'm not really crazy about this part of the system, let me know what you think.

The only real issue I see with this is that baseball games are pretty damn long as it is. I think the argument for keeping the "human element" is absurd - umpires were hired because they were the best thing available to enforce the rules of the game. More umpires were employed per game (there used to be one umpire per game - batters would sometimes go straight home from second base if the umpire wasn't looking, at least according to urban legend) to better enforce the rules, and now we have a way to check the accuracy of the enforcement reliably. The only way I can think of to speed up the game any measurable amount is to cut down on player meetings on the mound. Of course, coach meetings are restricted to one before the pitcher is pulled, but catcher meetings can be reduced to either of: one meeting allowed per batter, or two meetings per inning (again, before the pitcher must be pulled). This is the part I've thought about the least, so I'd like to hear feedback on that part for sure.

SI released the list of Baseball America's Top 100 Prospects today, and lo and behold, the three players we got in the Doc deal are on it. Kyle Drabek is at 25 (with prospect rating 70 on a 20-80 scale), Brett Wallace right behind him at 27 (also 70) and Travis D'Arnaud is at 81 (rated 60). I was hoping to see Zach Stewart on it but no such luck. Looks like the front office did a pretty darn good job on that trade.

Other prospects of note:

Michael Taylor is rated below Wallace at 29 and a rating of 65.

Aroldis Chapman is number 22 with an 80 rating.

Link

It's getting really hard. I'm a huge homer (am for all my teams) and so I pretty much at every opportunity defend the team, but the Rios thing (he was my favourite player since his rookie year) is just making it a lot tougher.

You can defend the Vernon deal by saying it was a move to prevent alienation of the fan base. You can defend the Rios deal by saying he was a 2-time All-Star. The Thomas deal... I guess we needed a DH? I guess we needed a closer and signed BJ for way more than even a good BJ should ever cost?

Anyway this is mostly motivated by TSN's recent comments that while JP is certainly good at some things - he has an uncanny ability to make something from nothing (Scoot, Accardo, even Richmond to an extent though that was a signing) and he's maneuvered quite well through smaller contracts (the Hill deal jumps out) but he has yet to sign a good big contract. Likely that's a lot of fan criticism which makes a large contract harder to defend (yeah he's good, but is he worth $___?). Anyway, I just need some evidence one way or another. Should I just stop defending him? Get some pleasure out of anger towards someone else? Or is there something I'm missing here...

Please help!