Where's Tim Raines' name? Note the key word in the question, "returning." Final cuts from this list were (alphabetically: Harold Baines, Dave Concepcion, Tommy John and Dave Parker.

For me, tossup among Blyleven, Mattingly, Morris and Trammelll. But I went with Trammell. He didn't get some of the longevity milestones Yount got (3000 hits, etc.) but he didn't move to the OF either. Arguably the greatest all-around shortstop of my lifetime. Didn't have Ozzie's glove or Cal's bat, but more than his share of each.

Tommy John I'd rank far above Mattingly for deserving of HOF notice.  Above Smith, Rice, Murphy, Morris, and maybe Dawson as well.  I do give a bit of credit to the fact we all think of him when talking about the surgery, but also to the just shy of 300 wins bit.  There were a fair number who came close back then, and some would compare it to the outfield crowd we have now in Murphy, Dawson, Rice, Parker but those 4 weren't as close to 3000 hits or 500 HR as the pitching crew was to 300 wins (the criteria most view as locks unless something odd occurs).

Blyleven, Gossage (how anyone voted for Sutter over Goose is beyond me), McGwire (depending how hard you are on steroids), and Trammell should've all been in awhile ago.  Making McGwire wait is fine by me, but Gossage and Blyleven should've been in years ago while Trammell should've made it with sweet Lou if the *#&! voters just kept Lou on, but now the two will go in via Vets someday and end up being viewed as getting in cheaply when they were worthy (in a 250 member HOF way vs a 100 member HOF).

The cult of WINS keeping Bert out of the Hall again is a pretty damn good case for firing every member of the BBWAA and starting from scratch.

I think Blyleven will get in.  Writers are coming around on him. 

I had to come around on him myself, even though his resume is simply excellent.  It took several arguments for me to realize that my case against Bert couldn't stand.  But as Mick has noted several times on this site, when a guy isn't really a top dog -- real or perceived -- at his position, the likelihood increases that he'll go underappreciated.

In the '80s, Jack Morris was a pitcher I would pay to watch and hate to see my team face.  Not so with Blyleven.  Most of my contemporary fans would agree with this for a variety of reasons that go beyond the supposed collective incompetence of sportswriters.  Blyleven was traded five times and played in just two All-Star Games.  He has no win titles, no ERA titles and one strikeout title (the pitching metrics of his time).   He never seriously challenged for the Cy Young, and probably never deserved it.  Before I seriously looked into Bert's career (which was around the time I started to seriously look into baseball analysis), I would have described him as "No. 2-calibre starter" (false), "great curveball" (true), and "homer-prone" (true late in his career, but not as bad as I thought earlier).

There will be a lot written over the next little while about Bert, including at least 5 online articles to the effect of Stupid, Evil, Win-Crazed Sportswriters [Deny/Finally Admit] Blyleven.  My point is just that there's more to the Blyleven story than a simplistic pro-wins bias.

I voted Trammell because he would seem to be one of the best players at his position when he played - ie, something to separate him from the rest of the pack, so to speak. 

As someone who saw the Jays play more games at Tiger Stadium than the Ex/Skydome (whem it was such named) I want to vote for Tram, but his record is so spotty and weird.  He seemed to alternate between an elite-hitting SS and a medicore one every couple of years.  Anyone who was older then know why?

Is it ok to secretly go for the Tigers now that they're cached away in the AL Central and as remote as the LA Dodgers or Philadephia Phillies?