However, as plans seem to be moving forward, members of the Pittsburgh club seemed to fear what minimal instant replay would eventually progress into.
"I don't think it does belong," Adam LaRoche said. "If you do [use instant replay], you get robot umpires. It will start with [boundary calls], and then all of a sudden we'll be throwing flags. I think it's gotten along pretty good for 100 years without it, so why bring it in now?"
Jason Bay shared the same sentiments, in addition to bringing up instant replay's contradiction to MLB's new initiative to speed up the pace of games.
"If you do it for home run calls, then all of a sudden it's going to creep its way into other areas," he said. "Mistakes are part of the game. They are trying to do all these things to speed things up and that seems like it would be kind of counterproductive."
Keeping instant replay out of judgment calls (balls and strikes, calls at the plate) was unanimous, though there were some players who said they wouldn't be opposed to seeing how instant replay could benefit in other areas.
"I think if there's a limit to what it might be able to help, like for home run calls, then it could be OK," Xavier Nady said.
Players brought up other legitimate concerns as well, including how the system would be implemented, what its limits would be and who would be put in charge of viewing the replay.
And while each of the other three major U.S. professional sports -- basketball, football and hockey -- use replay, in baseball there seem to still be concerns about it tainting the tradition of the game.
"Before you can say yes or no, you have to say how," manager John Russell said. "The game of baseball has been played for so long without it, I don't know."