Antonen: O's have the brightest future in the AL East

[Can_of_corn]

Who says that's the way it's supposed to be done? And to what degree?

You okay with the NY writers voting for Girardi even if they felt he was third, at best?

To carry it to it's silliest extreme, there should be a 14 way tie (or whatever the number is) every year. I guess that's loyalt carried to the absurd extreme. How about having the guts (I don't know Antonen's reasoning) to vote your conscience and thake the heat from the locals?

I say it is the way it has always been done.

To all degrees when there is any question.

I read a few days ago that part of the reason that Gonzo won the MVP over Arod and Griffey was that the Seattle sport writers didn't want to tick Griffey off by voting Arod first.

[weams]

I don't know if that's true. It doesn't make it right. And it doesn't make it wrong if Antonen truly felt that Melvin deserved it and didn't have any personal bias. Voting the Baltimore way because you have the Baltimore vote (substitute any ML city) doesn't strike me as right. Now, I can see voting for the local guy in a close one (and this qualified) but that doesn't make that right either. If Antonen is a standup guy and voted what he felt in his heart, then I just don't get the outrage. Apparently, Mel went with his conscience over what he "was supposed to do".

I am a traditionalist. I believe that just because something has always been done a certain way, for the most part, it should continue to be. Because if were really wrong, it would not have always been that way. For the most part.

I said that if it even close, and this was a squeaker, that you better vote the local guy. Especially if that guy's team is paying your salary. Or 78% of it.

[wildcard]

I don't know if that's true. It doesn't make it right. And it doesn't make it wrong if Antonen truly felt that Melvin deserved it and didn't have any personal bias. Voting the Baltimore way because you have the Baltimore vote (substitute any ML city) doesn't strike me as right. Now, I can see voting for the local guy in a close one (and this qualified) but that doesn't make that right either. If Antonen is a standup guy and voted what he felt in his heart, then I just don't get the outrage. Apparently, Mel went with his conscience over what he "was supposed to do".

Antonen has the right to vote for whoever he wants. But his vote may be his Defining Moment in his ever shortening Baltimore career.

[Frobby]

I could not disagree more with the idea that Antonen was somehow obligated to vote for his home town guy, or was "disloyal" for voting for the guy he thought deserved the award. These awards are unreliable enough without superimposing an obligation to be biased in favor of the team you cover. Journalists are supposed to avoid being biased, anyway, though of course they can't help but have some bias when offering opinions as opposed to reporting facts.

In 1967, Carl Yastrzemski won the Triple Crown and led his team to the pennant by beating the Twins on the final two days of the season to win by one game. he was denied a unanimous MVP because some moron from the Minneapolis Star voted for Cesar Tovar of the Twins. Is that behavior we want to encourage?

[TradeAngelos]

Well, that's pleasant to read but also insane.

Well what else do you expect from a MASN employee? Him saying the future isn't bright?

[TradeAngelos]

I could not disagree more with the idea that Antonen was somehow obligated to vote for his home town guy, or was "disloyal" for voting for the guy he thought deserved the award. These awards are unreliable enough without superimposing an obligation to be biased in favor of the team you cover. Journalists are supposed to avoid being biased, anyway, though of course they can't help but have some bias when offering opinions as opposed to reporting facts.

In 1967, Carl Yastrzemski won the Triple Crown and led his team to the pennant by beating the Twins on the final two days of the season to win by one game. he was denied a unanimous MVP because some moron from the Minneapolis Star voted for Cesar Tovar of the Twins. Is that behavior we want to encourage?

He was on radio the other day and gave some very valid reasons for his choice. I was skeptical like most of the fans, but after I heard him he made a lot of sense in his line of thinking.

I don't fault him for that for one second, even though I might disagree.

[weams]

I could not disagree more with the idea that Antonen was somehow obligated to vote for his home town guy, or was "disloyal" for voting for the guy he thought deserved the award. These awards are unreliable enough without superimposing an obligation to be biased in favor of the team you cover. Journalists are supposed to avoid being biased, anyway, though of course they can't help but have some bias when offering opinions as opposed to reporting facts.

In 1967, Carl Yastrzemski won the Triple Crown and led his team to the pennant by beating the Twins on the final two days of the season to win by one game. he was denied a unanimous MVP because some moron from the Minneapolis Star voted for Cesar Tovar of the Twins. Is that behavior we want to encourage?

I was kinda hoping for that, yeah. I think that it is hard enough for someone from the Orioles to win a national award. I wish Mel had not made it easier for Melvin to win.

[scOtt]

I don't think a writer should blindly vote hometown but I agree with Tony. I think Melvin and Buck were close enough that homerism should have been the deciding factor.

[weams]

I think this was his "mea culpa" article after dissing Showalter in the MOY vote. Honestly, I won't read him after embarrassing Showalter by not voting for him even though he was one of Baltimore's votes. If I were Buck, I wouldn't give the guy the time of day again. No one in the local media wanted to call him out because he's one of them, but I'm not and I don't care. His vote was an embarrassment. Knowing that his vote would be published and still voting against Buck was a slap in the face.

I really felt that Buck has earned all of our loyalty. I know Mel thinks he is a National name, but he might as well have been Jen Royle with what he did there. It was too close for that stuff. Plus, Buck losing made my wife sad.

[weams]

I could go back in history and list a myriad of terrible things that were done because "that's the way it's always been". Traditions are great. Doing something because that's the way it's always been done isn't usually. I don't get your logic but then again, I don't really think you're using very much. He should have voted for Showalter because 1) it's tradition to vote for your guy whether he deserves it or not and 2) he's on the payroll and we are essentially buying his vote. Somehow, those don't sit right with me.

And 3. It was close to a tossup anyway and you should vote for your guy. Just like political candidates vote for themselves. They don't vote for their opponent out of honor. Regarding great historical wrongs of tradition, I did mention "for the most part." and things that are great wrongs do tend to be corrected in time. Some of those bad things were not always done badly, but were changes from traditional "good" ways. So there is that as well.

[Dr. Unk]

Translation-I'm tired of people jumping on my case after the MOY award.

[Prayin4Reign]

Yes. It is the way is is supposed to be done. Especially when you work for the team. Well 78% of the team.

The way it is OR the way it is supposed to be done? Please don't say both, cause I don't buy that. Call it something else then, most popular manager of the year. Because the way you're defining it and the reasoning behind Tony's post smacks of homerism.

A writer should be able to vote objectively and use their own judgment in making a decision and not make one based on popularity or geography. Personally I don't find that concept hard to understand or respect.

[Tony-OH]

You really think writers should vote for their local guy instead of who they truly believe deserves the award?

When they are the local writer and the choice was as close as it was, absolutely. We're not talking like Antonen had to make a leap to pick Showalter (even though I clearly think he was the better choice).

[Tony-OH]

I don't know if that's true. It doesn't make it right. And it doesn't make it wrong if Antonen truly felt that Melvin deserved it and didn't have any personal bias. Voting the Baltimore way because you have the Baltimore vote (substitute any ML city) doesn't strike me as right. Now, I can see voting for the local guy in a close one (and this qualified) but that doesn't make that right either. If Antonen is a standup guy and voted what he felt in his heart, then I just don't get the outrage. Apparently, Mel went with his conscience over what he "was supposed to do".

Well, I disagree. First off, the choice should have been Showalter, so any other choice was just wrong, but regardless of that fact, there is no way anyone should have thought it wasn't close. If it's close, you go with the local guy. It's not like we're talking about voting for Chen over Trout for rookie of the year. We're talking about the manager of the year which is pretty subjective and clearly Showalter had a great case over Melvin who won all of one more game than Showalter despite playing in a weaker division.

[Tony-OH]

I could not disagree more with the idea that Antonen was somehow obligated to vote for his home town guy, or was "disloyal" for voting for the guy he thought deserved the award. These awards are unreliable enough without superimposing an obligation to be biased in favor of the team you cover. Journalists are supposed to avoid being biased, anyway, though of course they can't help but have some bias when offering opinions as opposed to reporting facts.

In 1967, Carl Yastrzemski won the Triple Crown and led his team to the pennant by beating the Twins on the final two days of the season to win by one game. he was denied a unanimous MVP because some moron from the Minneapolis Star voted for Cesar Tovar of the Twins. Is that behavior we want to encourage?

Sorry Frobby, you are dead wrong on this one. Antonen was given one of Baltimore's votes. Manager of the year may be a subjective vote, but clearly it should have been neck and neck. If it's neck and neck, you go with the local guy. By not voting for Showalter, he disrespected Buck. Now, this is partly because Antonen is really a DC guy, not a Baltimore guy. The Sun should take pert of the blame here because they should allow their senior writers to vote. Thankfully Jim Henneman understand this and voted the way he should. Henneman is a class act unlike.