ManCrushOnNomar

The second one that says "100 Seasons" kind of bothers me... the Cubs didn't play there until 1916, so it's actually only 98 seasons. How is that a finalist with an error like that?

First time in a long time we can actually just take the best available player without having to address a major need.

No problem. You like the Hughes pick? Yeah, not bad. Dude looks like an NFL nose tackle, if he can get his head straight he could be pretty good. Too bad Mathieu got scooped up a few picks earlier, was hoping he'd fall.

Sorry for missing my pick, I was out of town without interwebs. Was hoping my pick would come up before I left, but nope!

Don't we have Packer fans on this board. Where are they? Anyways Eifert seems like the logical pick here. Eddie Lacy would be a smart pick too.

Colts select DE Datone Jones from UCLA.

That's what I'm saying. Of course it would reduce my commute from an hour in traffic to 20 minutes, so I'm more than a little biased.

Thank you.

In short it doesn't matter. If you live and work in the burbs you drive everywhere anyway. There are much more people and many more people with money inside the city and those are the people that baseball teams depend on to sell seats. You need the office worker with the $100 ticket to be able to hop off the train and enter the stadium right after work. Suburban parks don't work in areas that rely upon city centers and public transportation. There is a reason every new stadium that popped up were built in cities, and not in the exurbs. That's fine for a place like LA, where everybody drives everywhere, but it would not work in Chicago. It doesn't matter if it helps out a portion of the fan base that would now have a shorter drive to games. It would alienate a much larger portion of the fan base. I just google mapped public transportation from the loop to Wrigley as 26 minutes. The NCS Metra from Union Station to the O'hare transfer in Rosemont is 32 minutes. That six minutes can't be a deal breaker for the downtown office worker (read: me for the last 5 years).

I see an awful lot of "it takes so long to get there" as arguments against a Rosemont stadium. What about the huge number of fans who live in the suburbs? It's easier to get to Rosemont from the suburbs than Wrigley. I know you city folk like to pretend you're the only ones that matter, but an awful lot of people live in the surrounding area that would benefit from a move out west.

I'll take the Colts.

I'm down again.

Is that Vince McMahon? Kind of looks like a blurry shot of Joe Namath I think it's Bud Selig.

This is what I was trying to point out earlier when Rose came out; what does the latter have to do with the former? If we're going to argue "everyone was doing it" and "it was kinda banned but not enforced" and all that stuff (which I agree with), what does that have to do with Rose? Rose was consciously breaking rules at the time that had basically been baseball's original sin for decades. It's not like it's something he can plead ignorance on, or point to a pervasive culture at the time that he got swept up in. That said, I have no problem with Rose in the HoF; the thing that should stand (and seemingly bugs him even more than being left out of the Hall) is his lifetime ban from MLB (no coaching, managing, announcing, etc.). The Hall is a separate entity and should put him in if people vote him in. You're right in that they're two totally different cases, but I don't see why either is a huge deal. I guess I should have separated the two thoughts and really only focused on the roiders. I just don't think the Hall is some sacred thing that only the pure of heart are allowed to grace.

Maybe it's the meatball in me, but I really don't care if these guys did roids before it was uncouth. The whole "that was the game back then" argument is honestly a good one. Of course, I also think Pete Rose should be in the Hall. It's just where the best players of every generation should be honored, regardless of the aftermath. Just my opinion. It's probably wrong.