Is It Time For Replay In Baseball?

There haven't been any big trades made this week at the GM meetings in Orlando, but that doesn't mean there hasn't been any news to come out of the Hyatt Regency hotel lately.

Yesterday, the 30 general managers held a vote to recommend using instant replay in baseball. The vote passed with a 25-5 vote. As of now the proposal only calls for a replay of contested home run calls. Whether the ball cleared the fence before bouncing back in, or whether it was fair or foul.

Keep in mind though, this is only a proposal. Bud Selig still has to give it the final approval, and Bud's long been opposed to the idea of using replay in baseball. Selig wasn't available for comment yesterday, but MLB's executive vice president for baseball operations ( he gets Bud's coffee every morning) said that Selig has "softened" on his stance.

Still, even if Bud does approve of reviewing home run calls, the new rule probably won't be implemented in time for the 2008 season. There could be some limited use in a couple of games, and maybe even the playoffs, but I wouldn't expect it to really take effect until 2009.

Is it a good idea though?

On the surface, it would seem so. I mean, it only makes sense that if we have a chance to get a call right, then we should take that chance. Every other major sport utilizes replay, why shouldn't baseball?

Can you honestly tell me that instant replay has made football worse? Basketball? Hockey? None of these sports have been hurt by replay, and in fact, most have been helped. The problem with baseball is the purists feel replay takes out the human element of the game.

Well, in all the other sports the players still seem human to me. And when you think about it, officials in the NFL utilize replay on about 2% of the calls they make.

It's not exactly a hostile takeover by technology.

The key with baseball is to make sure that replay is only used in specific situations. As long as it's never used to help call balls and strikes, I don't see the big deal. Home runs should definitely be reviewable because umpires generally aren't in a good enough position to be able to make the right call 100% of the time.

So they should have some help. In everything else, the umpires will still reign. Ball or strike, out or safe, fair or foul, it will still be up to the umpires.

As Kenny Williams, who voted in favor of replay, points out, replay probably won't slow the game down either.

"All anybody is interested in is getting it right," Williams said. "It will be a lot easier and [take] less time to get it right than some of the arguments that ensure when a call is disputed."

Sure, watching Laz Diaz stick his head in a box for a minute won't be nearly as fun as watching Lou Piniella throw bases around for five minutes, but it will be more effective.

Baseball has always been behind the times compared to every other sport. Be it not allowing black players, trying to put an end to steroids, or now with instant replay, baseball is a slow evolving sport.

Bud Selig needs to allow instant replay in baseball. He can come up with all the reasons in the world not to do it if he wants, but the simple fact is, there is nothing wrong with getting a call right. What more do you want than that?

It seems so blatantly obvious it's the right decision to make, which is exactly why I don't know if Bud will make it.

Foul Balls

Miguel Cabrera, anybody? - Sticking with baseball for a second, another day at the GM meetings means another day of wild unsubstantiated rumors. The latest one involving the White Sox is about the possibility of acquiring Miguel Cabrera from the Florida Marlins.

One of the names that has been at the center of the Sox' talks, according to sources, is Florida Marlins third baseman Miguel Cabrera. The buzz on Day 2 of the meetings was the message the Marlins have sent to interested parties: They will entertain offers for Cabrera and left-hander Dontrelle Willis.

As is always the case, Kenny Williams isn't afraid to make a big trade like landing Cabrera.

''Oh, I don't know,'' Williams said, glancing around the lobby. ''If one of these guys comes up and sits down and says the right deal, hell ...

''We will not act spontaneously because we have all sat around and discussed our targets for months and months. In some cases, some guys have been on our target lists for years. So if the right proposal comes our way, yeah, we're ready for it. But we're not going to act without rhyme or reason.''

Obviously bringing Cabrera would symbolize the end of the Joe Crede era in Chicago. It might also lead to Josh Fields departure, as he could then be used as a valuable commodity in another trade.

While losing Crede will suck, I'm resigned to the fact it's going to happen, and Miguel Cabrera would be a nice way to soften the blow. Cabrera is only 24 and hit .320 last season with 34 homers and 119 RBI. He's also never driven in less than 112 runs in his four Major League seasons. Now you take Cabrera and put him in US Cellular, and those numbers probably go up to the 40/130 range.

I'll take it.

Cabrera is also very close to Ozzie Guillen, as the two Venezuelans became close while Ozzie was the third base coach with the Marlins.

Another Change In Bears Schedule - Yesterday the Bears fell victim to the NFL's flex scheduling when their Week 11 matchup with the Seahawks was moved from Sunday night to Sunday afternoon.

Today the Bears have had another change to their schedule, though this one makes less sense.

For the second day in a row, the league announced a time change for the Bears as part of flex scheduling, with the Nov. 25 home game against the Broncos moving from noon to 3:15 p.m. on WBBM-Ch. 2.

It's an odd change, because part of the flex scheduling is also putting premier games at the 3:15PM central start times. How exactly are the Bears and Broncos a premier game? The Bears are 3-5, and the Broncos just got blown out 44-7 by the Lions.

The 84 World Series Would Have Been At Comiskey - This is an odd bit of news. Remember that one time the Cubs choked in the playoffs? Maybe I should be more specific. Remember that one time back in 1984 when the Cubs watched their World Series hopes roll between Leon Durham's legs?

Well, had they not choked against the Padres in that series, and gone on to the World Series, Wrigley Field still would not have seen any World Series action. That's because the Cubs would have been forced to play at Comiskey Park.

If the 1984 Cubs had defeated the San Diego Padres to capture the National League pennant, the World Series would have been played at -- gasp -- Comiskey Park.

That shocking piece of history -- and Chicago baseball sacrilege -- comes courtesy of Peter Ueberroth, the former baseball commissioner-turned-United States Olympic Committee Chairman.

''Umpires were on strike. The Cubs were in postseason play. And we were under contract to have the World Series at night or we'd lose millions and millions of dollars. Plus, we would have violated our contract,'' Ueberroth recalled.

''If they had won, I had made the decision privately that we'd move to Comiskey Park. People in Chicago would not have been really happy with that. But, as it turned out, Steve Garvey [brought the Padres back from a two-games-to-none hole], and the rest is history and I didn't have the problem. It went away.''

I think we're all better off with this never happening.