[Josh W]

First, to MG...

I gotta think that a 'purist' wouldn't insist on the MVP going to a player on a winning team. It would go to the player that is the most valuable.

The problem lies in what we mean by "value". If we mean who is worth the most, in terms on contract, then, well, Arod wins (not cuz he has the biggest contract, but because he's WORTH the biggest).

However, people don't realize that he's one of the biggest (if not the biggest) why the Rangers aren't better. Really.

If the Rangers had an average shortstop making 3 mil a year (or whatever the avg. shortstop makes), it's easy to see how the Rangers would be better. They'd be able to spend 20 mil a year on other players to improve their team.

I'm a huge seattle fan. And I'm tired of hearing people talk about how 'amazing' it was that the M's were suddenly better when they lost Arod, JR, and Randy. Please. They were able to then add a ton of good roleplayers to their team (Sele, Olerud, Ichiro, Boone, Cameron, Garcia, etc...). Baseball is the least super-star oriented of the major sports. It takes a team.

And having Arod and his contract makes it very very tough to have a complete team. Yeah, he's worth a huge contract, but if he wants to win, he'll have to ditch it.

And, as much as it pains me to say, I think I agree with Sooga. He had a very good year. But had there been any other clearcut MVP candidate, he woulda lost. The Yankees were very balanced, as were the RedSox (hence three of the top 7 candidates). No winning team had a single player that was definitely their most valuable (hence the fact that they were a winning team).

Josh