Philadelphia Phillies v Atlanta Braves

MLB is not entitled to instantaneous benefit of the doubt on the replay challenge system

37 Comments

My ire at the challenge system announced yesterday is not based on the presumption that it will be an utter failure. I must, and hereby do, acknowledge that, yes, some calls that were bad will be fixed as a result of a challenge system. And I will grant that that’s better than nothing.

Nor do I think that my preferred system would be perfect. No system will be. So let us dispose with the notion that I’m yelling about the perfect being the enemy of the good here. I’m not doing that at all. My issue, as I explained yesterday, is partially philosophical and partially practical.

The philosophical: making a challenge system is an abdication of baseball’s responsibility to get calls right by putting the onus on a manager to challenge or not. Taking what should be a given in baseball — the right calls being made at maximal levels — and turning it into a choice. Adding a strategic element to it. Saying — as some definitely will when it inevitably happens — that it was the manager’s fault a bad call wasn’t overturned rather than the ump’s. Once you make that choice you’ve changed the conversation about bad calls, and I find that troubling.

Practically I have problems in that, while MLB and its surrogates have argued that other systems weren’t practical and that a challenge system is the best, they’ve not explained why the challenge system isn’t subject to the same problems as others or why it’s better in any actual way.

Jeff Passan’s column today is in that vein. It basically says “a challenge system isn’t perfect, but it’s good and good is better than nothing and don’t think that the people who came up with it haven’t thought of everything first.”

To sit there and blame those at MLB for this is wrong-headed. The game itself is to blame. It is not altogether receptive to replay … Of course Tony La Russa, John Schuerholz and Joe Torre, the influential members of the league’s Executive Council who helped shape the final plan, would like broader replay in a vacuum. Even Bud Selig, a longtime replay opponent, wants more than this. Anybody who thinks a group of smart men is sitting in a room and conspiring to come up with ways not to get calls right should check out the window, because those black helicopters are mighty close.

Well, of course they thought of things. They are smart people. But if they have reasoned this out so well, why did the announcement yesterday not explain these pros and cons? Instead of explaining why a fifth umpire scenario is unworkable, why were we condescended to with “it’ll be unique and charming” and “this will empower managers” when (a) it won’t be unique and charming; and (b) managers hate it. Why was there no explanation as to how a challenge system will present shorter delays and stoppages in play than an alternative? As it is now, the one thing that stops a game dead cold in its tracks is a manager walking on to the field, for any reason. This system demands that that happen, as often as eight more times a game if managers use all of their challenges.

Which isn’t to say the assumption is wrong. It’s to say that the men who brought us “this time it counts” to the All-Star Game should not, as a matter of course, get the benefit of the doubt when changes are brought to the game. They should not be allowed to simply pat us on the head and say our concerns aren’t warranted because smart men like Tony La Russa — who came up with over-specialized bullpens and loudly promoted the “unwritten rules” —  thought everything through.

La Russa is a genius and a Hall of Fame manager. Bud Selig has a track record of bringing in change that many opposed but which ended up working just fine.  But neither of them are infallible.  They should be required to explain to us why alternatives — including some which are used in other sports leagues — aren’t ideal. Explain to us why this system — which is more radical in nature than those alternatives in terms of whose responsibility it now is to get calls right — is the best.

Until it can do that and can do it satisfactorily, I don’t think accusing those of us unhappy with the system as proposed as conspiracy theorists and hysterics is all that reasonable.

Report: Indians acquire catcher Jonathan Lucroy from the Brewers

MILWAUKEE, WI - MAY 31:  Jonathan Lucroy #20 of the Milwaukee Brewers rounds the bases after hitting a home run in the second inning against the St. Louis Cardinals at Miller Park on May 31, 2016 in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. (Photo by Dylan Buell/Getty Images)
Dylan Buell/Getty Images
1 Comment

The Indians have acquired catcher Jonathan Lucroy from the Brewers, Ken Rosenthal of FOX Sports reports. Lucroy still has to waive his limited no-trade clause, and the two teams are reviewing medicals before the deal is finalized.

The Brewers are reportedly receiving four players in the deal, three of which are currently known: catcher Francisco Mejia, shortstop Yu-Cheng Chang, and outfielder Greg Allen. The fourth as yet unknown player is a “lesser prospect,” per Rosenthal.

Lucroy, 30, leaves the Brewers having hit .300/.360/.484 with 13 home runs and 50 RBI in 375 plate appearances. He earned his second All-Star nomination, representing the National League at Petco Park nearly three weeks ago. Lucroy represents a huge upgrade behind the dish for the Indians, who have gotten a major league-worst .501 OPS from their catchers this season. Lucroy is owed the remainder of his $4 million salary for this season and the Indians will have a $5.25 million club option for 2017 with a $250,000 buyout.

Mejia, 20, was regarded as the Indians’ sixth-best prospect by MLB Pipeline. He spent most of the season with Single-A Lake County, batting .347/.384/.531 in 259 plate appearances. That led to a promotion to High-A Lynchburg near the end of June. Mejia, a switch-hitter, is currently on an impressive 42-game hitting streak in the minors.

Chang, 20, hit .273/.347/.493 with 12 home runs and 69 RBI in 419 PA with Lynchburg. He has experience playing third base as well as shortstop, but because he doesn’t have a strong arm, he projects better at shortstop going forward. MLB Pipeline rated him as the Indians’ 12th-best prospect.

Allen, 23, was considered the Indians’ 22nd-best prospect by MLB Pipeline. A switch-hitter, he batted .298/.424/.402 with 24 extra-base hits, 31 RBI, 93 runs scored, and 38 stolen bases in 432 PA for Lynchburg before being promoted to Double-A Akron last week.

Report: Padres trade Matt Kemp to the Braves for Hector Olivera

SAN DIEGO, CA - JUNE 06:  Matt Kemp #27 of the San Diego Padres talks in the dugout prior to the start of the game against the Atlanta Braves at PETCO Park on June 6, 2016 in San Diego, California.  (Photo by Kent Horner/Getty Images)
Kent Horner/Getty Images
24 Comments

Update (7:01 PM EDT): David O’Brien of the Atlanta Journal-Constitution reports the deal has been completed.

*

ESPN’s Keith Law reported on Saturday evening that a bad contract swap involving the Braves’ Hector Olivera and the Padres’ Matt Kemp was “getting close.” Olivera has been pulled off the field, per Bob Nightengale of USA TODAY. Joel Sherman of the New York Post reports that only a last-second medical would kill the deal at this point, and that the Padres will be sending money to the Braves.

Kemp, 31, will have $64.5 million remaining on his contract through 2019 after this season, but the Dodgers will pay $3.5 million annually over those remaining three years, so the $64.5 million is really $54 million. The veteran has compiled a .262/.285/.489 triple-slash line with 23 home runs and 69 RBI in 431 plate appearances for the Padres this season.

Olivera, 31, will have $28.5 million remaining on his contract through 2020 after this season. The outfielder was handed an 82-game suspension, beginning on May 26, for his involvement in a domestic dispute on April 13. The suspension is up on August 2. He has a .501 OPS in 21 major league at-bats this season and a .278 OPS in 37 PA at Triple-A.

Dennis Lin of the San Diego Union-Tribune reports that the Padres will consider designating Olivera for assignment. The trade is all about the salary dump for the Padres, as they’d rather give outfield playing time to prospects Hunter Renfroe and Manuel Margot.