Comments on: Joe Posnanski, Still Awesome

By: Todd S.

Todd S. — Tue, 20 Nov 2007 23:57:20 +0000

I’m with Evan on this one. I don’t really see any downside to trying something different. I’m willing to risk the small chance that it will be worse.

By: Evan

Evan — Tue, 20 Nov 2007 22:55:42 +0000

And given the NL MVP results today, the awards are increasingly dumb.

I hope more players get clauses like Schilling’s.

By: BigB

BigB — Tue, 20 Nov 2007 08:04:27 +0000

So why wouldn’t a New York reporter vote for Schilling just to see the Sox lose out on a million?

By: Evan

Evan — Tue, 20 Nov 2007 01:29:10 +0000

The BBWAA already vote for idiotic reasons. If this makes the general public finally reach that opinion, what’s wrong with that?

By: Paul B

Paul B — Mon, 19 Nov 2007 23:12:11 +0000

The incentives cancel each other out.

Although it only takes one time… (”I’ll give you a cut if you vote for me.”)

By: Evan

Evan — Mon, 19 Nov 2007 20:33:25 +0000

Posnanski is generally great, but I can’t say I agree with this piece. Yes, the BBWAA are the folks who make the awards relevant, because they write about them a lot. Go figure. They both vote on and publicise the awards.

I see no reason to stop Schilling from having this sort of clause in his contract. Just as you would be handing Curt Schilling $1 million by voting for him, you’d also be stealing $1 million from the team. The incentives cancel each other out.

By: lailaihei

lailaihei — Mon, 19 Nov 2007 12:09:54 +0000

That article was great, I’m definitely going to check out more of this guy’s blogs.

By: katal

katal — Mon, 19 Nov 2007 07:46:56 +0000

I haven’t heard of Joe Posnanski before, but I’m reading over his blog archives right now. Great stuff. Thanks for the link.

By: msb

msb — Mon, 19 Nov 2007 07:23:52 +0000

close enough

By: bedir

bedir — Mon, 19 Nov 2007 07:20:52 +0000

msb, ARod’s bonuses are for FINISHING in those spots, not for receiving a single vote.