That's funny.... I remember somewhere along the line (back when I was still living in St. Louis, I think) hearing that we'd been guaranteed that we were going to host the All Star Game if we had a new stadium in place by 2006. I guess that's just what they wanted us to believe to get us cough up money for their stadium....

That All-Star Game promise was based on the passage of the full public funding for the stadium, which did not pan out. As soon as that bill failed, the hosting deal went to another city.

However, I don't know why we couldn't have gotten the 2007 ASG, unless they're setting up for a Bonds orgy (thinking that he'll pass Aaron that year).

This is a great point, but I don't see it as any reason to get all upset. After all, the All-Star game is such a sham these days anyway. Maybe they're putting off an STL All-Star game until they can get it fixed.

Speaking of which, home-field advantage in the World Series is not the way to go. Just give a hundred grand to each member of the winning team (maybe a little more to the manager?) and peanuts to the members of the losing team. That'll get 'em to fight for it real quick.

Now, I know you're thinking that if these guys are already making millions, what's an extra hundred grand? Well, first of all, many of them have bonuses of that size in their contracts for things like All-Star appearances and Gold Gloves, so obviously it means *something*.

Also, not all the players that make the All-Star team are making millions. Our own Albert Pujols made the team 2 times before hitting the million dollar per year mark. And the rich boys will want to play hard for the sake of the youngsters, because they remember the days back when they were scraping by on a few hundred grand a year.

Honestly, I'd rather we avoid hosting it in the new ballpark right away, due to the plan of construction; the beautiful view beyond the outfield for the first 2 years or so will be of the huge pile of rubble that was Busch Stadium, and the resulting cleanup and new construction of whatever they'll put there.

But still... it'd be nice to get to host the thing once in a span of 42 years -- considering there's only 30 teams in the league, I'd say we're more than overdue. And Busch certainly is/was deserving.

If not hosting the All-Star game is punishment for the Cardinals not soaking the public for all the money to build their stadium, that's fine with me. I'm impressed that the city and state didn't cough up, and I'm impressed that the Cardinals eventually more or less gave up asking and built the park themselves.

How 'bout best record gets home-field advantage? Sure, there are those that will complain about certain teams piling up huge win totals in weak divisions, but is that any less fair than having your team punished because of Roger Clemens having a bad day? Talk about arbitrary! At least this way, teams will keep fighting to win, and may hurt themselves by resting starters with a big lead at the expense of tacking on a few more Ws.

Well said, Salvo. I'd rather see a little more weight given to the regular season, especially with the apparent post-season impact wild card teams are having.

As far as I can tell, the only thing that governs all-star games is that the players want to show off a little for bragging rights, and no one wants to get embarrassed.

I think MLB has some sort of problem with giving the team with the best record home field in the WS, since (this is a guess) they've got to book hotels and stuff that it's easier to do if they know two possibilities as opposed to, say, three or four. Just MLB being lazy really, probably.

So if MLB insists on giving home-field to a league, why not give it to the winner of the interleague series for the year? That'd be pretty exciting, especially since one day could swing the standings 10 games or so, and rescheduled interleague rainouts towards the end of the season could be very pivotal. It'd be fun, and more than just a one-time thing, unlike the All Star Game.

I'm pretty sure that Busch could have hosted an ASG in the 80s or even early 90s but the owenrship group (AB) was for some reason not interested. That seems counter-intuitive, I know, seeing as how such an event could easily have been turned into a giant Bud commerical, but that's what I heard in my time working there. Remember, August Busch III could have cared less about baseball.

Good point about A-B, I didn't really think about it.

But I was thinking that we deserved to host more so in the past 10 years, when Busch was more baseball-friendly and we had a solid ownership group, good teams, McGwire, etc. Pittsburgh? Comiskey? Some of those are a little baffling. The only thing we didn't have during this period was a brand spanking new stadium.

I wonder how the NBA works out the whole hotel room/travel plan thing with their system, which yields an unknown finals site until after the conference finals.... If they can do it, why can't MLB? Then again, MLB seems to want everything scheduled ahead of time for their greatest convenience/profit, with TV times (and ridiculous off days!) that only make sense from a network perspective....

The hotel issue is a moot point in regard to MLB and their awarding of hoem field advantage. During the LCS' currently, MLB knows that the team with home field is going to be either the AL or NL teams, so they have it narrowed to 2.

If they did best record? They'd have it narrowed down to 3 cities (only the team with the worst record overall would have no shot.) What's the big deal in 1 less city?

Not to mention - remember the fiasco last year with the Cardinals and their hotel being an hour away from Fenway? That was with prior knowledge of the AL hosting. Of course, maybe if the Red Sox hadn't fallen behind 3 games to 0 in the ALCS more planning would have been done.

The Cards should have had home field last year, although it's doubtful it would have made a difference.

"The Cards should have had home field last year, although it's doubtful it would have made a difference."

I don't think I'd call it doubtful. Questionable sure, but not doubtful. Obviously, in retrospect Game 1 was pivotal, so any advantage would have been significant. And if the Cards were truly bothered by the hotel situation, that could have played a bit of a role.