Major League Baseball commissioner Bud Selig was at Chicago’s Wrigley Field on Friday. The 76-year-old appeared on several radio and television broadcasts, fielding the normal softball questions about his legacy. That allowed Selig to brag about his accomplishments such as the wild card, as well as future wishes including international play.

What no one posed were the questions that would have actually told us something. Here are six examples of what I would have liked to ask:

1) You take credit for instituting the wild card and now say you would like to expand the playoffs. Do you plan to do anything to give a greater advantage to division winners in the future? If so, what and when?

2) We’ve seen instant replay used for disputed home run calls. Isn’t it time to consider expansion of the capability to a greater level of use as in many other sports?

3) With the recent leaking of financial statements of the Florida Marlins and Pittsburgh Pirates, were you aware they have not been deploying their revenue sharing funds to improve their on-field product as was supposedly required? What are you going to do about it? What is your message to those teams’ fans?

4) It has been rumored that Bob DuPuy, MLB president, is being forced out of his job. Does it have anything to do with the above? Does eliminating your most obvious successor mean you may be planning to stay longer than the two more years you have remaining on your term, which will have run 20 years?

5) Will you ever standardize the use of the designated hitter or abolish it entirely? Don’t you see that it causes a built-in inequity in interleague play, the All-Star Game and the World Series?

6) You said the wild card was instituted for the fans, increasing their interest in more teams deeper into the season. If you want more fans to follow games, why can’t you get the archaic and confusing television blackout rules fixed as you said you would at least four years ago?

Follow me on Twitter.
Follow The Cardinal Nation Blog on Facebook.

Just like his hairdo, Major League Baseball commissioner-for-life or until he actually retires Bud Selig comes up with some really ugly visions from time to time. The most recent concept – one he has convinced himself that “everybody” wants – is more playoff teams.

Selig was interviewed on-air by ESPN’s Dan Schulman during Monday night’s home opener for the Minnesota Twins in their new Target Field home. Here is how the exchange went, courtesy of Larry Brown Sports:

Schulman: “Do you see any change in the playoff format? Do you ever see another Wild Card team?”

Selig: “Well, I remember all the abuse I took about the Wild Card to begin with and now everybody wants more. I would like to see more. You know we only have eight out of 30 — the least number of any sport — we have the most direct playoff system. It’s something we’re going to consider. In some ways I like it, in some ways I don’t. It’s very attractive.”

In summary, “everybody” wants it and Bud sees it as “very attractive.”

I can’t help but wonder…

• As he was prattling on, did Selig consider the weather conditions under which mid-to-late November night games might take place at Target Field?
• Is the commish thinking of this as another possible solution to his American League East death penalty problem for the Tampa Bay Rays short of realignment? In this scenario, could three (or more?) teams from one division play their way into October (and November)?
• Is this concept in scope for Tony La Russa, John Schuerholz and their “special committee for on-field matters?” And if so, are they bringing this idea forward, with Selig pre-testing it out on the public?
• Could a shortened regular season, back to 154 games, for example, be a part of an expanded playoff format? What would this do to records set since the schedule increased to 162 back in 1962? Would perennial also-rans be willing to give up four guaranteed regular-season home dates with only a slightly-increased hope of reaching the post-season?
• Is there any chance that the current system is changed substantially to give division winners more credit for finishing in first place over 162 games? Today, giving the best teams over six months of play a one-game first-round benefit is about as stupid as awarding home-field advantage in the World Series based on an exhibition game in which no one really wants to play.
• One element of an expanded playoff format could be the addition of first-round byes. In contrast with football, where a full week off expands to two with a bye, would the idea of taking off ten days or more really offer an advantage? Baseball players aren’t used to sitting that long.

Finally, here is the short list of issues I believe are more pressing for MLB to tackle and resolve. Of course, ideas like more post-season games have a pronounced cash-register appeal that tackling most of these problems lack: Fixing revenue sharing, instituting blood testing, cleaning up television blackout rules and solving the international problems, perhaps via a draft.

While I have no confidence any of the above will get done anytime soon, neither do I have any expectations about Selig’s new project. After all, this is the man that brought us the concept of contraction and so many other not-ready-for-prime time ideas.

Follow me on Twitter.
Follow The Cardinal Nation Blog on Facebook.

Writers all over the internet are overreacting to word having leaked out that Bud Selig’s 14-member task force, the “special committee for on-field matters,” has reportedly discussed the idea of “floating realignment” across Major League Baseball. The committee is co-chaired by St. Louis Cardinals manager Tony La Russa and Atlanta Braves president John Schuerholz.

The concept is intended to improve baseball’s competitive balance by having teams change divisions annually, based on geography, payroll and perceived opportunity to contend.

Others have already pointed out the many holes in such an idea. That means I don’t have to, though I will at least list a few of them.

• Loss of natural rivalries and division records
• End of interleague play (drawback or benefit?)
• Aggravates the designated hitter inequity

And of course, the biggest problem: the fact that the best from a division of non-competitive teams would still have little chance of winning the World Series. In other words, the cutest from among a collection of the runts from different litters isn’t going to win a best of show award.

While I rarely miss the opportunity to bash Selig, the people attacking him for this odd proposal just plain didn’t do their homework. Selig isn’t even part of the committee, having empowered them to consider whatever recommendations they feel appropriate to improve the game on the field.

At this point, the commissioner has not publicly backed this or any other idea being tossed around by the committee and what he has done privately is unclear. The original source of the news, Sports Illustrated’s Tom Verducci, has said, “The concept gained strong support among committee members.”

Therein lies the rub, as La Russa, who was in the room that Verducci was not, has completely waved off the idea.

In all fairness, after getting everyone all riled up, at the end of his piece, Verducci added the following, a major disclaimer. Apparently, most who reacted angrily over the subject missed this part.

“The floating realignment idea is nothing more than a concept at this point, part of the brainstorming sessions that have occurred in the committee’s one in-person meeting and occasional conference calls,” Verducci wrote.

The committee met again in person on Thursday in Jupiter following the Cardinals game. At least La Russa, Schuerholz, Rob Manfred and a couple of others from the MLB office and perhaps Cardinals chairman Bill DeWitt Jr. were scheduled to be in attendance.

The specific purpose of Thursday’s meeting was to run the near-term ideas past the players, represented by MLBPA head Michael Weiner, a man La Russa said prior to the session that he had yet to meet. After all, nothing can happen before or as a part of the next collective bargaining agreement unless the players agree.

In a move for which Selig can be fairly criticized, he excluded player representation from the committee, keeping the union on the outside and adding extra steps and complexity to the process.

Prior to the meeting, La Russa made it very clear that the group’s focus is on items that can provide immediate help.

“There were some topics discussed that were more urgent, where we could get something done this season. Floating realignment was not one of them,” the manager said.

La Russa acknowledged that many ideas were served up as the baton was passed around the room in the committee’s initial meeting.

“We’ve talked about a whole range of issues and the commissioner was exactly right,” La Russa explained. “To his word, there were no sacred cows. Guys could bring up… We went around the table in the first meeting and anyone could bring up anything they wanted to talk about.

“There were a lot of repeated subjects and a few that were unique to a guy or two. And we discussed every one of them. In some cases, it is planning and other parties involved and in others we think it is possible to initiate changes in 2010,” the manager said.

I brought floating realignment up for clarification on Sunday and this time, La Russa was even more definitive.

“I don’t even know what it means,” he said flatly.

When I defined the term for him, he denied it had been discussed.

“I don’t know where that came from,” La Russa concluded.

As a result, all the reaction and overreaction over floating realignment seems totally unnecessary.

Follow me on Twitter.

On Monday afternoon, the official St. Louis Cardinals twitter account posted the following:

“La Russa has been selected by commish Bud Selig to serve on a panel to discuss ways to improve game”

My immediate retort: “Is a new commish out of scope?”

Putting the humor aside, something appeared to be amiss when the tweet was removed by the Cardinals shortly after its posting. But by then, it had been re-tweeted by others, including MLB, and viewed by who knows how many.

Later in the afternoon, Maury Brown of bizofbaseball.com asked if anyone knew the reason for a noon Eastern time Tuesday conference call to be hosted by Selig. Brown said Selig “will make an announcement regarding on-field matters.” The MLB release goes on to say that other participants will be announced prior to Tuesday’s conference call.

I put two and two together, suggesting to Brown and the Twitterverse that the errant tweet and the announcement may be related.

The Post-Dispatch’s Joe Strauss subsequently confirmed my suspicions. The official announcement of the new initiative will be on Tuesday.

Who knows Selig’s motives for selecting the Cardinals long-time manager? Perhaps he is helping La Russa ease into his post-managing desire to somehow be involved “upstairs”. How about starting a campaign to have La Russa named to replace Bob Watson as MLB’s chief disciplinarian (officially vice president of rules and on-field operations) post-retirement? Think of the possibilities.

We don’t have to wait for Tuesday’s announcement. Let’s get started with a list we can forward on to La Russa with the things we would most like to see implemented to improve the game.

The only ground rules are that we need to stick to matters that have to do with the game as played between the lines. As a result, some of my pet peeves like the television blackouts and international draft are off limits, but others like instant reply and the designated hitter would seem to be ok.

So, Cardinal Nation, what do you think?

In other news:

FOX Sports’ Ken Rosenthal believes the Boston Red Sox and free agent outfielder Mike Cameron are in serious discussions regarding a two-year contract.

Rosenthal states he is unsure whether Cameron would play in left field or center. Given Jacoby Ellsbury seems set in center and J.D. Drew is in right (when not dealing with owies), it seems this could be a ploy to either get Jason Bay back in house or to move on with a new left fielder. The Sox also recently picked up outfielder Jeremy Hermida from Florida and David Ortiz is locked in as the designated hitter.

Where would that leave Scott Boras and Matt Holliday?

Other Monday rumors have the Cardinals among teams interested in three non-tenders, starting pitcher Chien-Ming Wang (Yankees), reliever Matt Capps (Pirates) and second baseman Kelly Johnson (Braves).

ESPN’s Jorge Arangure tweeted Thursday evening that Major League Baseball’s owners are in favor of an international draft and the new director of the players union has already gone on record saying they would not oppose it.

If true, the sides need to get together today to begin tackling what will surely be some very complex issues. The current collective bargaining agreement has two more years to run, so there is still ample time if the parties are truly serious.

The union, formally known as the Major League Baseball Players Association (MLBPA), has a brand new head man in Michael Weiner. Well, not entirely new. OK, not new at all. The executive director had been the group’s general counsel and has been employed by the MLBPA for over 20 years.  As such, Weiner is expected to continue the policies of his predecessor, Donald Fehr, who had led the union for the last 26 years.

In a Thursday LA Times story, Weiner affirmed the MLBPA would support an international draft. In reality, the union’s position has not changed. Back in 2006, while the current collective bargaining agreement (CBA) was being negotiated, the MLBPA was reportedly willing to discuss an international draft, but the owners declined.

Like any new idea, in instituting an international draft, the devil will be in the details.

Past management objections to the concept included increased staffing and related expense, the difficulty of aligning processes with varying country laws including testing and dealing with increased temptation to falsify player ages and names – all meaty issues. Yet those same challenges exist today without the structure of a draft.

The countries themselves may provide the greatest opposition. In fact, as recently as 2007, Puerto Rican government officials formally requested the island’s players be removed from the First-Year Player Draft pool because the related restrictions put their prospects on uneven ground compared to their neighbors. Of course, that went nowhere.

Those developing the new international draft guidelines would need to devise some strong penalties for nations that either directly try to opt out or indirectly scuttle the process by building unreasonably high fences. In other words, the draft must be administered equally across all nations or it will fail as circumvention methods would surely be identified and exploited.

One obvious reason the owners may be changing their tune from their indifference in 2006 and prior and come down in favor of subjecting international players to the draft is, you guessed it, money. They are likely interested in gaining control over the rapid and unchecked escalation in bonuses for top amateur players we have seen in recent years.

Yet gaining control in one area could lead to loss of control in another. A management objection to the draft in the past was driven by a fear that bonuses for mid-tier players might actually increase, as the draft formally establishes a player’s position in the rigidly-defined financial pecking order.

The primary way ownership might try to head this off is by attempting to institute a slotting system like is in place today for the players drafted from the United States, Canada and Puerto Rico.

Weiner and the MLBPA may agree with the idea of a draft, but are dead set against slotting, which seems to be collusion by its very definition. The new director labeled it “a salary cap for entry-level players”. Of course, the words “salary cap” are a lightning rod if there ever was one.

While relations between the Lords of Baseball and the union have generally been amicable in recent years, the current undertow of potential collusion charges due to the depressed free agent market could scuttle progress on this and many other issues between now and the end-of-year 2011 conclusion of the current CBA.

An international draft won’t happen without some uncharacteristic proactivity and leadership from an MLB administration that is more known for its inability to resolve far less complex problems within the game.

Yet there is still room for optimism.

Here’s hoping the final years of the Bud Selig regime can be remembered for accomplishing something extremely important for the future of the game – the institution of an international draft.

Don’t hold your breath, though.

Well, perhaps you aren’t of that generation, but I was. Here in baseball’s off-season (unless you live in New York or Philadelphia), there is still a good quantity of interesting and quality writing that pops up on the traditional day of rest.

Here are a few articles of interest to me as a St. Louis Cardinals watcher.

TLR unsure on passing McGraw

With Tony La Russa home in California for the winter, the local scribes have better access and as such, are writing about him. John Shea of the San Francisco Chronicle deals softly with the manager and the Mark McGwire issue, exploring it from a risk perspective taken by La Russa as his career nears its close.

Shea suggests 2010 will be the manager’s last season in that role and asked him point blank about the importance of overtaking John McGraw for the second-most managerial wins of all time.

“La Russa is open to a front-office gig after he’s done managing. He said moving up the wins leaderboard isn’t a priority. With 2,552 wins, he needs to manage into the 2012 season to catch John McGraw (a 211-win difference). He’s nearly 1,200 behind leader Connie Mack.

“’Passing John McGraw is not everything,’ La Russa said. ‘You want to assess that fire in the gut, because it takes that fire to do the job properly. I’ve seen players skate for their final couple of years. You could see them losing the competitive edge, and they took the money because they’re going on their past. There’s a line of integrity there. I don’t want to do that.’”

What’s ahead on the labor front

The Boston Globe’s Nick Cafardo is one writer I often check out. His pieces typically indicate a greater depth of thought and seem less rushed than the many deadline-driven snippets that seem so common in today’s click-driven world.

In his Sunday column, Cafardo reviews the current status in the ongoing standoff between the Players Union and ownership. New Players Association executive director Michael Weiner, who is replacing outgoing Don Fehr next month, discusses the current concerns over contract collusion.

Further, Cafardo considers several factors that may be on the table during the next collective bargaining period. They include the length of the schedule, off days and travel days, draft pick compensation, international draft and small-market payroll subsidies.

A number of these issues need to be addressed. Here is hoping the new Weiner regime is able to work with the owners to make progress in these and other areas.

Team of the decade

Another writer whose work I care for much less is the Chicago Tribune’s Phil Rogers and it is not just because he covers the Cubs. Yet, there are times he deserves a nod. Today is one of those days.

Rogers puts forward a compact, but compelling case for the Cardinals to be labeled as MLB’s “Team of the Decade”, noting their payroll efficiency as a differentiating factor.

Bud welcoming Bonds?

William C. Rhoden of the New York Times is one of the many scribes concerned by Bud Selig’s different stance taken over McGwire compared to other accused steroids users of his era, including Barry Bonds.

“Asked about Bonds’s future in baseball if he is acquitted on perjury charges, Selig said that if a club wanted to hire him as a player or a coach, ‘I don’t think there will be an issue.’”

Bud seemed to down a healthy serving of Sunday breakfast waffles when he qualified his statement.

“’Every case is different,’ Selig said. ‘But as we move forward in the future, every case is different, that’s all I’ll say.’”

Rhoden raises what I think is a good question when he wonders why those from the steroids era aren’t dealt with in a consistent manner, welcomed back to the game. By potentially playing favorites and establishing a “double standard”, Selig risks undermining his credibility and that of Major League Baseball.

McGwire/La Russa/Selig hardliner

Boston Globe columnist Bob Ryan is representative of the many critical of the Cardinals’ hiring, coming down hard on the returning slugger/hitting coach, the manager and the commissioner.

“Tony La Russa is a sad enabler, a steroid denier whose legacy is entwined with that of a cheater. At least we can understand his motivation in bringing Mark McGwire back to baseball. But Bud Selig should say no, not happening, until we hear from the man who deceived us to such an astonishing degree.

“Mark McGwire owes an explanation to the (Roger) Maris family, if no one else.”

I actually feel sorry for Barry Bonds.

Bonds has been a resident of MLB’s doghouse for some time, having been placed there when news of his involvement in the BALCO case first came to light.

Like McGwire, Bonds’ defenders point out that he has never failed a test for steroids. His primary problems are in a legal area McGwire carefully chose to avoid, perjury.

Following Bonds’ record-breaking 2007 season, his contract with the San Francisco Giants expired. He made known his interest in playing the next season, yet reportedly did not receive a single contract offer.

Cardinals manager Tony La Russa is one of the few baseball officials to make public remarks in defense of Bonds the player. Though La Russa expressed interest in the outfielder joining his club for the 2008 season, nothing happened with St. Louis – or anywhere else, for that matter.

Though not proven, it was accused by some that Bonds has been blackballed from the game. Commissioner Bud Selig’s long-standing coolness toward Bonds has been well-documented.

Bonds had already broken McGwire’s single-season home run record in 2001 and in the summer of 2007 was approaching Hank Aaron’s revered top career home run total of 755. The baseball world seemed obsessed with how Selig would note the occasion.

One very strong opinion was expressed by another player once linked with steroids himself, Gary Sheffield.

“Bud Selig wants to talk about the integrity of the game? To him, the integrity of the game is how much money they make. That’s how far their integrity goes. I hope Barry not only breaks the record, but shatters it. The more homers Barry hits, the better, because that’ll really piss Bud Selig off,” Sheffield said in 2007.

Though Selig did follow the Giants for a time, he was not with the team on August 7, 2007 when Bonds hit number 756. Selig issued a statement labeling Bonds’ record “noteworthy and remarkable” and called Bonds to offer his congratulations. It was reportedly the first time the commissioner and the player still viewed by many at the time as one of the best in the game had spoken in several years. Two months later, the new career home run champ was out of work.

Ironically, Bonds broke Aaron’s record against Washington. That club’s home was the location of the infamous March, 2005 congressional hearing.

Was the real issue that day the use of steroids by individual players or the bigger picture – that the game had not moved nearly quickly or decisively enough to stop the use of PEDs during a heady time of record revenue, attendance and likely, profits?

Selig was among those in the room when McGwire personally took the highly-public and painful fall for the game of baseball’s years of inattention to a problem that was both widespread and well-known by that time.

Had McGwire talked, he could have opened a gaping wound that may have further exposed and embarrassed Selig’s grand old game. Instead, Mac took a bullet for the team.

Could gratitude over protection of his golden goose and perhaps some personal guilt over McGwire’s humiliation be guiding Selig’s very different reaction toward McGwire compared to Bonds?

If not that, what is it? Thanks for the rejuvenating effect the 1998 home run chase gave his game? All the invisible work McGwire has done for steroids awareness and prevention since his 2005 pledge to do so?

How about an even more contemporary example, baseball’s highest-paid player, Alex Rodriguez? As the world knows, this spring A-Rod was forced to admit past use of PEDs and did so, stating he used them for several years starting in 2001. Coincidentally that was Bonds’ 73-home run year and McGwire’s final season as a player.

Eight months ago, Selig said the following in reaction.

“While Alex deserves credit for publicly confronting the issue, there is no valid excuse for using such substances, and those who use them have shamed the game.”

Contrast that with Selig’s remarks this week regarding McGwire’s return.

“I have no misgivings about this at all,” Selig said. “Mark McGwire is a very, very fine man and the Cardinals are to be applauded. I give Tony La Russa a lot of credit and (Cardinals chairman) Bill DeWitt a lot of credit for making this happen. I was—and am—very supportive of their decision.”

What are the key differences?

• A-Rod was caught and admitted guilt. McGwire was not caught and admitted nothing.

• The first shamed the game while the second is welcomed back with no reservations.

Maybe Gary Sheffield and those who see the world like him aren’t crackpots at all.

Putting this all together, I am becoming less and less convinced that McGwire will say anything of substance (no pun intended) when he does talk. Apparently what he has done to date is just right for Selig, and that counts for an awful lot.

With a short bench, starting pitcher Todd Wellemeyer made a pinch-hit appearance in a bunting situation on Sunday, following fellow rotation member Adam Wainwright in being called upon to hit on a day off this season.

A number of fans have been critical of carrying the extra pitcher, with some in favor of simply shifting the roster balance back from pitching to hitting, dumping a pitcher such as Brad Thompson (pictured) in the process. Others with a more radical and longer-term view want to see MLB rosters expanded beyond 25.

While the Players Association would likely be all for such an idea, ownership would surely be just as against bearing the additional costs inherent in adding another 30, 60 or 90 major leaguers in perpetuity.

Putting money aside, I am apparently in the minority, but I kind of like the fact the current roster size forces managers to make creative tradeoffs late in games. Others seem to enjoy what I feel are more robotic moves common in the American League due to the long-time deployment of the designated hitter.

For those who want to see change, a way to perhaps negotiate expanded roster sizes would be in dealing with the DH disconnect once and for all. While I obviously have a personal bias in one direction, I am even stronger in my opinion that the two leagues should have a uniform rule.

Show me another major sport anywhere that has such an important difference in basic rules between leagues. It is nutty – a three-year trial that never ended. Either adopt it universally or dump it.

I see this issue as the poster child of the reign of Bud Selig – the master of indecision and inaction.

Then again, if you would argue in favor of replacing this problem with inconsistent and self-governed umpiring, rampant unchecked use of performance enhancing drugs, inexplicable television broadcast territories that arbitrarily restrict fans from seeing their team’s games or any number of other broken parts of America’s Pastime, I couldn’t disagree.

Speaking to USAToday, Selig was asked about the rekindled steroids furor.

“This is breaking my heart, I don’t mind telling you that,” the commissioner said.

Asked if he would consider reinstating Hank Aaron as the all-time home run king and adding an asterisk or some other notation to the statistics of Barry Bonds, Rodriguez and others involved in baseball’s steroid controversy, Selig offered faint hope.

“Once you start tinkering, you can create more problems. But I’m not dismissing it. I’m concerned. I’d like to get some more evidence,” Selig said.

That suggestion caused a furor all over the game as foxholes were dug even deeper over the wide-ranging potential impact of re-writing the record books. Among the reactions was from Aaron himself. Secure in his legacy and always graceful even as there is turmoil all around, Hammerin’ Hank simply said that Bonds can keep his record.

Selig was also asked what he might do about A-Rod.

“It was against the law, so I would have to think about that,” Selig said of possible action against Rodriguez. “It’s very hard. I’ve got to think about all that kind of stuff.”

Of course, there seems no chance A-Rod will be punished any more than any of the other players named in previous steroid cases did. Selig knows any action would be akin to declaring war against the Players Union, something that just isn’t going to happen.

He knows that. We all know that. So why not be open and honest about it?

Instead, the master of the “I’ll have to study this” continues to feed his personal brand of pablum to the hungry masses. I, for one, am not eating it up.

Selig has a long and consistent history in terms of dealing with controversial matters, using time-tested techniques of conflict avoidance.

Step one: Express deep-felt personal concern.

Step two: Make vague comments suggesting the matter might be resolved.

Step three: Vow to study the issue.

Step four: If at all possible, avoid ever discussing it again.

Step five: If pressed, state progress is being made.

Step six: Repeat steps one through five as necessary.

Step seven: Finally take action only if absolutely forced to do so, preferably by appointing a study committee. Rinse and repeat.

Without going anywhere near the Mitchell Report or any further into other steroids-related subjects, here is a look at some key topics in recent times and Selig’s responses.

May 2006 – Fans nationwide are outraged over complicated and illogical MLB television blackout rules.

“I don’t understand (blackouts) myself,” Selig said at a luncheon with the Baseball Writers Association of America. “I get blacked out from some games.”

“Right now,” he said, “I don’t know what to do about it. We’ll figure it out.”

“I hear more about people who can’t get the game,” Selig said, “and, yes, I’ve already told our people we have to do something about it.”

Almost three years later, despite being “spurred on by thousands of letters from angry fans”, according to Yahoo Sports, the blackout policy has been tabled in multiple ownership meetings over the last several years and is not on track to be resolved for 2009.

Result: No resolution

November 2007 – GMs endorse instant replay by 25-5 vote.

For years an outspoken opponent of instant replay in any form, Selig was seemingly finally outgunned by the clubs when in November 2007, general managers voted 25-5 in favor of exploring the use of instant replay on a limited basis.

Still dragging his feet despite the clear mandate, as recently as a July 15 “Town Hall Meeting” on MLB.com, Selig was asked directly if he was going to institute instant replay in 2008.

“I am not,” Selig said flatly.

While acknowledging the matter was under study, his comments remained guarded and non-committal.

Selig finally caved after several embarrassing high-profile blown calls on home runs affected game outcomes. On September 3, instant replay was used for the first time in MLB history. Most ironically, the first call was to reaffirm an Alex Rodriguez home run in Tampa.

Result: Stall until being forced into action

July 2008 – 15 inning All-Star Game exposes rosters with too few players – again.

Stung by his embarrassing decision to have to declare the 2002 All-Star Game in his own Miller Park in Milwaukee a tie (remember the unfortunately timed “This time it really counts” marketing slogan?), Selig had a flashback this past summer, as both teams nearly ran out of pitchers during the 15-inning All-Star Game at Yankee Stadium.

Selig told the AP that he was considering expanding All-Star rosters by two pitchers to ensure that position players wouldn’t have to take the mound if the game again goes well into extra innings.

In a positive, the commissioner did rule out gimmicky alterations of the rules to conclude an extra-inning All-Star game more quickly such as the approach tested at the Beijing Olympics. There, each team’s at-bat starting in the 11th inning began with runners on first and second.

“It’s meant to be played to completion,” Selig said. “I thought we had forever solved the problem, and we had. Everything we did worked, but we may put an additional safeguard in.”

Result: No resolution

August 2008 – Manny Ramirez dogs his way out of Boston so he and agent Scott Boras can hit the free agent market.

The Boston Red Sox held club options at $20 million per season for the services of outfielder Manny Ramirez in both 2009 and 2010. His new agent Scott Boras would not receive commission on those options if exercised. Both agent and player likely saw the opportunity to make more on the open market.

Allegations included Boras telling the Sox that Manny would play hard for the rest of the 2008 season if they would agree to not to pick up the options, a claim Boras of course denied.

When the Sox were forced to trade Manny, a condition of the deal with the Dodgers was to decline the two option years. Ramirez and Boras are reportedly asking for $25 million per season over three years, but as of now, Manny is unsigned.

From the Boston Globe last August:

“…Bud Selig directed Major League Baseball executive vice president Rob Manfred to contact all parties for an explanation of how things unfolded around last week’s trading deadline.”

Result: No action

My final example epitomizes the “no-decision” reign of Selig.

January 1973 – Owners vote in the use of the designated hitter in the American League for a three-year trial.

Sort of like Gilligan and the Skipper on their seemingly-endless three-hour cruise, the issue of the designated hitter remains lost at sea after 36 years.

I am not here to debate the merits of or concerns about the DH, though I admit that I do have strong personal opinions. Instead, my point is that an entire generation of fans has grown up with a rule that is inconsistent across the two leagues, something that is clearly unique in sports.

There have been many resulting complications, including artificial interleague and post-season play advantages received as a result of the lack of standardization.

Instead of getting to the bottom of the inequity, in 2005, Selig made the ridiculous suggestion of using AL rules in NL parks during interleague play and vice-versa, as if that would solve anything. Needless to say, that generated little to no support from anyone.

In the same “Town Hall Meeting” this past July noted above, Selig re-affirmed the non-status status of the DH. He doesn’t even call this issue a back-burner one.

“(The DH) Hasn’t been debated for at least 25 to 30 years,” Selig concluded.

“So other than some catalytic event occurring, I think that’s the way it’s going to stay. I think, look, the game has grown like it never has. We’re going to set another attendance record. So I guess I have to say our fans accepted it pretty well.”

Result: No action planned

There you have it. Whether broken or not, the game has been making gobs of money, so that tells Selig and the owners that fans are accepting of pretty much everything.

I could go on, but you get the idea. These issues and many more that have been festering for months and in some cases, years, will soon be pushed back into the headlines as the 2009 season approaches.

For those currently worried that Selig will seriously try to change baseball records or discipline A-Rod. Forget it.

If the pressure gets really strong, expect a committee to nowhere to be assigned. Add in generous amounts of additional time to deal with owners or the Players Union or the umpires association or Congress or whoever else has an opinion.

In the meantime, be prepared for more concerned quotes being generated with precious little results to follow.