BBWAA vote on MLB.com

Spnited,
I believe that this won't have any effect on guys like Noble who are 10 year members. I believe they are lifetime members at that point. It is geared toward people who are starting out there or make the jump before they're 10 years in. I'm not 100 percent certain about this, but I'm pretty sure.

 

I think there's a little bit of it in every sport. When I covered prep track, I'd get all snobbish when some stringer from a competitor would show up.

Obviously little societies form on beats.

It would actually make a good HBO show.

 

buckweaver,

Amen

And I can already think of a gew potential candidates for the Tony Soprano-like role.

 

Michael Bamberger had a great story in SI a few years ago that really showed what it's like to walk into the BBWAA lion's den.

 

They aren't lifetime members. Guys like Sullivan and Noble can't vote for HOF, can't do any of that stuff. They may be 'involved' informally, but they are just as involved in the BBWAA as I am, and I cover football.

 

I'm a gold card member. This is a tough call. Everyone I've met in MLB.com was a complete pro. Their coverage isn't much different from that of other outlets performing wire service functions. But, they do work for Bud, and that's an issue. I'd vote to let them in, but then, I don't have a job to protect anymore, do I?

 

Noble has been covering baseball since the '70s and is surely a lifetime BBWAA member with Hall of Fame voting privileges.

 

Sorry Knute, that Soprano line was in response to your HBO show line.

It's funny, and actually kind of a shame, that this happens, not only in the BBWAA but elsewhere. For the most part, all of us have climbed the same ladder to get to where we are, some faster than others and some skipping certain steps.

But I can't imagine there are any writers on any major beats who didn't have to cover something else at SOME point in their careers. So to take an elitist attitude and treat another writer who might be making his or her first appearance in the clubhouse or locker room differently or with disdain is just plain wrong, at least in my book.

 

How would getting a paycheck from Major League Baseball affect the way you vote on Hall of Famers? I mean, as discussed above, isn't that the main responsibility of the BBWAA? If there are other facets that would become a conflict of interest, why don't you just let the MLB.com'ers be HOF voting members, and that's it?
At least give some of these more-than-deserving voters their vote back...

Side-note: Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't ALL electronic media prohibited from membership in the BBWAA?

 

I think Baba Booey is correct and sorry, Thanks, but I know for a fact Noble still has a Hall of Fame vote.

 

What are you talking about?

 

Smasher,

Try reading all of the posts above mine. Then you won't have to ask to that question. (Hint: Start with buckweaver's post at 10:35 p.m. SOrry, haven't yet figured out how to include the previous quote blocks).