BeerHere

Agreed, but it is a tempting argument.

This is exactly what I was hoping for. I sincerely hope that the Cubs, Marlins, RSox, Yanks drive up the price and he ends up sticking with the Cards but killing their payroll flexibility. Sounds more and more like he'll go to the Marlins. I may be in the minority here but I still think he ends up with the Cards, and all of this is posturing/gamesmanship by his agent. I could be wrong but either way this ends up being a lose-lose for the Cards. He either accepts their offer and kills their future payroll, or he leaves and a huge hole opens up in their lineup. Regardless of where he ends up, this has to be a win for the Cubs. The Cardinals screwed the pooch by not signing him to an extension a couple years ago IMO.

This is exactly what I was hoping for. I sincerely hope that the Cubs, Marlins, RSox, Yanks drive up the price and he ends up sticking with the Cards but killing their payroll flexibility.

That is perfect.

Seconded but that is in a perfect world. I still don't see the Cards losing Pujols and I suspect the Cubs involvement is just to drive the price up for a division rival (ala the Yanks and Crawford last year).

Cubs made an offer to Pujols? http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/baseball/cubs/chi-report-cubs-submit-bid-for-pujols-20111206,0,22774.story

Yu Darvish is going through a divorce and his wife may be waiting to see if he signs an MLB contract to max her take. ...they are the root of all evil http://hardballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/11/28/yu-darvishs-posting-may-be-delayed-by-his-divorce/

Because he was a very borderline case, he wasn't particularly well-liked by peers and the media of his time, and HOF voters get off on being withholding. Also, the pool of voters changed over time. The people who voted him in this time aren't necessarily the same people who voted him out last time, are they? Members of the "Golden Era Committee" are still members of the hall, right? I know this was recently restructured but honestly don't know the details.

Does anyone have any thoughts on why it took so long? It may be the whole screwed up process, but it seems odd that he makes it *after* he died. I'm not saying this is accurate, but it almost makes me feel like the people that vote didn't like Ronny "campaigning" or something, but knew he was hall-worthy, so they voted him in after he died. I don't know......I'm happy he's finally in but I do agree with some of the posts in this thread -- that this feels somewhat hollow for me. Does anyone have any ideas on why he wasn't voted in on past opportunities?

WTF? Are pediphiles rampant in east coast athletics?

I would give any of my worldly possessions to hear Pat and Ron in the booth calling a Cubs World Series game. Seconded

Care to elaborate on Fergie?

I didn't realize that he was in the radio booth for 21 years. Most of my life.

Congrats Ron. Certainly bittersweet for his family, I wish he could be around for the induction.

DeJesus is hardly the type of player you trade away your top prospect to make room for. Agreed, I hope Jackson stays around, but if he ends up being traded for some good, young pitching it would be a win IMO.

This move would seem to indicate that Colvin is gone and possibly one of Byrd/Soriano. BJackson seems like a Epstein type of guy (good patience, good fielder etc) so I'd think he has a spot. edit: or I suppose, Jackson could be trade bait.

just saying nothing. This isn't Miami. The Cubs don't struggle to sell tickets because of weather problems. April/May tickets were available at the ticket booth for many games this year and years prior. Sellouts occur durng the warm months, rarely before. when the cubs aren't awful, sellouts (or very close to it) happen plenty in April and May. http://www.baseball-reference.com/teams/CHC/2008-schedule-scores.shtml The April attendance in that year (2008) averaged ~38,100, a full 2,000 tickets short of a sellout and I included the attendance figures that were over the listed capacity (assumed SRO and a sellout). Are you really debating that people don't go to games in April/May in Chicago due to weather? The first few games of every season usually sell out but the rain/cold weather keep people away.

just saying nothing. This isn't Miami. The Cubs don't struggle to sell tickets because of weather problems. April/May tickets were available at the ticket booth for many games this year and years prior. Sellouts occur durng the warm months, rarely before.

I don't think you are paying attention to the political environment if you think small towns are lining up to pay for a stadium. The state has no incentive to contribute, which is what they did with the white sox. You either threaten to leave the state or it's worthless. There is motivation for the city to play ball here. They aren't going to be paying half a billion or anything, but that isn't necessary. I didn't say that towns are lining up to pay. I am paying very close attention to the political environment which is why I'm saying this. The only thing working in the Cubs favor is that there is new administration in Chicago (Rahm). The previous mayor and city council saw no motivation on their part and immediately dismissed the initial request by the Cubs without even a single review. I think the initial quote from Bernie was something like "Laughed it away..." or something like that. The city doesn't have any motivation because of the statements saying that the Cubs would never leave Wrigley Field made by current and previous ownership. I'll I'm saying is - think about it. There are other and better options.

A retractable roof would eliminate the rainouts/delays. Spring games would sell out more frequently. Just sayin......

I was less than 4K over. The point stands however -- a slightly larger ballpark could generate more revenue. A different location could allow the Cubs to increase advertising revenue etc. I realize that this is an unpopular position around here and that any differing opinions are usually met with insults and arguments over minutia. edited It's going to cost a hell of a lot of money to build a new structure, so who knows how long before the increased revenue actually goes back into the team. The scarcity of tickets at Wrigley plays into the higher demand for those tickets, thus, higher prices and more revenue. Creating some mall in the suburbs may increase the potential for top line revenues, but there is significant risk involved as well. Also, who the hell cares about amenities for kiddies? Those things are useless. Unfortunately the scarcity of tickets adds more to the secondary markets that to the Cubs revenue -- this is the reason they started the "Season ticket exchange". There is a practical limit to ticket prices. A new stadium would cost a lot, but there are municipalities that are willing to share some of that cost with the Cubs - at least more willing to talk about it than the City of Chicago. Yes, there is risk but it should at least be an option. Laying all your cards on the table and saying publicly that moving the team out of Wrigley is not an option is shooting yourself in the foot. Where is the motivation from the CoC to chip in anything? The Sox got their new park only after they threatened to leave.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wrigley_Field http://chicago.cubs.mlb.com/chc/ballpark/information/index.jsp?content=history I was less than 4K over. The point stands however -- a slightly larger ballpark could generate more revenue. A different location could allow the Cubs to increase advertising revenue etc. I realize that this is an unpopular position around here and that any differing opinions are usually met with insults and arguments over minutia. edited

I think Cubs fans compare Wrigley to other parks (Miller Park, USCellular for example) add see what they've been missing. I agree that improvements can be made (must be made at a minimum). I'm not at all enamored with Wrigley (peeling paint and rust everywhere, nets to catch falling concrete, terrible food, no or expensive parking, no amenities for young kids, bad sight lines, terrible scoreboard etc etc). The improvements made to the bleachers were well done but the rest of the park is a dump. You may think that a suburban stadium is a non-starter, but I doubt the city administration does much to help the Cubs without at least the option being out there for the team. Personally, I would love to see it but I agree that it most likely won't happen. Wrigley has a max capacity of something like 45K. If a new stadium could be built with a capacity of 55K that additional revenue could go a long way toward a higher payroll (assuming sellouts continue which I'll admit is not certain).

Kenney doesn't bother me. I do disagree with the comments Ricketts made about not tearing down Wrigley to rebuild the grandstands. "Fans want Wrigley plus a few improvements..." or whatever he said. Those improvements better be to improve the grandstands, scoreboard, jumbotron etc. I couldn't care less about the historical significance and "The Wrigley Experience". The ballpark is extremely old and needs to be rebuilt. Period. (hopefully in the suburbs)

Well said, I couldn't agree more. I could easily see them going after Rasmus and using Broxton as part of that deal.