BBWAA vote on MLB.com

[Thanks for comin' out]

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?

 

[spnited]

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

 

[Smasher_Sloan]

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.

What are you talking about?

 

[andykent]

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).

 

[andykent]

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.

I think baseball, as a sport, is simply more hostile to perceived outsiders.

You've obviously never stepped foot in an NFL press box. :

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.

Oh. Now I figured it out I think.

 

[Mighty_Wingman]

Michael Bamberger had a great story in SI a few years ago that really made him look like a whining *****.

Fixed.

 

[spnited]

Good edit, winger

 

[Mighty_Wingman]

Always a pleasure.

 

[Smasher_Sloan]

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).

BBWAA membership doesn't have anything to do with how someone is treated by others. That's up to you. Jack Lang was Mr. BBWAA and I always thought he was a prototypical horse's ass.

 

[Smasher_Sloan]

Besides voting for awards and the Hall of Fame (which MLB.com writers probably shouldn't be a part of), what does the BBWAA do?

Would it make sense to create some sort of associate membership for them?

I think there's something like that, isn't there? I've seen at least one MLB.com writer wearing a gold card.

Unless you've covered baseball, you have no idea how big of a golden ticket having that card hanging around your neck is. Players seriously decide whether to talk to you based on whether you have a BBWAA card or just a wimpy team-issued credential around your neck. It matters.

I've been around forever and have NEVER found this to be true.

 

[slappy4428]

How do you tell MLB.com writers yes, but other non-card carrying members from other outlets like AOL, Yahoo, ESPN, and others, no?

 

[Smasher_Sloan]

The difference is, no matter how you try to pretend mlb.com is independent from MLB (and therefore the team), it isn't.

It's like giving BBWAA membership to the guy who would have edited the team newsletter/paper in the pre-Internet era.

 

[andykent]

Smasher,

I'm glad we seem to be on the same page on this.

 

[casty33]

Like Michael Gee, I am a gold card member and know many other members. And we're not just talking about Noble and Sullivan here, there are many who have been ousted -- or left -- the dying newspaper world for MLB.com. Off the top of my head, there's Jack O'Connell, a national officer; also Barry Bloom, Lyle Spencer, Ken Gurnick, Tom Singer. To the best of my knowledge, they can't vote for the BBWAA awards (MVP, Cy Young, Rookie or Manager of the Year) but can still vote for Hall of Fame. And I don't see why they shouldn't be allowed to maintain that. I see no conflict of interest with a HOF vote whereas there could be a perceived conflict with one of the other votes.

Dan Castellano

 

[Evil Bastard (aka Chris_L)]

i know and respect many of people who work for mlb.com... but if you get your paycheck from the people you cover, you're in public relations, not journalism

also, heard our chapter's vote is pretty representative of the entire vote

Just as an aside - the Boston Globe parent company owns 17% of the Red Sox and the Red Sox are the only thing turning a profit in the NYT family of companies. So to a degree - the money to pay for the sports reporters covering the Red Sox - well part of that money comes from the Red Sox. Should all Globe reporters be banned as well because of potential conflict of interest? How about Chicago Tribune writers who cover the Cubs? They still allowed to vote?

I love the MLB.com coverage. I think its the best baseball coverage going by a mile.

The ethics angle to this argument seem hollow when a guy like Dan Shaughnessy gets his daughter a job with Tom Werner's company in Hollywood and not only still covers the team but also retains his BWAA voting privileges.

 

[SnoopCoog]

I don't think players care about which credential is around your neck and base on that on whether they want to talk to you. If they see you regularly, especially if they're on a team you cover, that's when you perhaps get them to talk to you and not others.
I would be against MLB.com writers voting on awards because they are an extension of the club. Want tickets to the Rangers? Go to THEIR web site where you will also see T.R. Sullivan stories. I believe MLB.com beat writers get tickets for games, too. There's just too much conflict of interest.

 

[KnuteRockne]

I don't think players care about which credential is around your neck and base on that on whether they want to talk to you. If they see you regularly, especially if they're on a team you cover, that's when you perhaps get them to talk to you and not others.
I would be against MLB.com writers voting on awards because they are an extension of the club. Want tickets to the Rangers? Go to THEIR web site where you will also see T.R. Sullivan stories. I believe MLB.com beat writers get tickets for games, too. There's just too much conflict of interest.

Let me clarify. I'm talking mostly visiting clubhouses, which most beat writers venture into (though not MLB.com writers). The players that MLB.com writers cover obviously understand their situation and that they do know the team and the game. And I'm sure that the opposing team would recognize the MLB.com credential, as well.

 

[Thanks for comin' out]

I don't think players care about which credential is around your neck and base on that on whether they want to talk to you. If they see you regularly, especially if they're on a team you cover, that's when you perhaps get them to talk to you and not others.
I would be against MLB.com writers voting on awards because they are an extension of the club. Want tickets to the Rangers? Go to THEIR web site where you will also see T.R. Sullivan stories. I believe MLB.com beat writers get tickets for games, too. There's just too much conflict of interest.

Writers getting tickets is absolutely untrue, I know for a fact. They are no different than Joe Beatwriter asking the PR guy for free tickets every once in a while.
Secondly, many sites - like ESPN.com - offer links to purchase tickets to a third party, I know it's splitting hairs, but that isn't much different than buying tickets from MLB.com.

Maybe the Trib is selling the Cubs so they can be more 'unbiased' in their sports coverage....

 

[Mighty_Wingman]

Just as an aside - the Boston Globe parent company owns 17% of the Red Sox and the Red Sox are the only thing turning a profit in the NYT family of companies. So to a degree - the money to pay for the sports reporters covering the Red Sox - well part of that money comes from the Red Sox. Should all Globe reporters be banned as well because of potential conflict of interest? How about Chicago Tribune writers who cover the Cubs? They still allowed to vote?

This is a very good argument, especially absent the Shaughnessy consipiracy theory. Everyone "knows" that MLB.com is no different than a team newsletter...so what's the exception for the Globe or the Trib?

 

[leo1]

Just as an aside - the Boston Globe parent company owns 17% of the Red Sox and the Red Sox are the only thing turning a profit in the NYT family of companies. So to a degree - the money to pay for the sports reporters covering the Red Sox - well part of that money comes from the Red Sox. Should all Globe reporters be banned as well because of potential conflict of interest? How about Chicago Tribune writers who cover the Cubs? They still allowed to vote?

This is a very good argument, especially absent the Shaughnessy consipiracy theory. Everyone "knows" that MLB.com is no different than a team newsletter...so what's the exception for the Globe or the Trib?

i agree that it smells bad for globe or trib writers.

but the difference i see is that MLB's business is all baseball all the time and the mlb.com writers are writing about baseball. the tribune corporation is not all about baseball all the time; i assume it's more about the newspaper business than baseball. so the parallel to an mlb.com writer would be to a trib co writer covering the newspaper business.

maybe that's too fine a distinction. i don't know.