All the sighing over Cheek not winning the award is unwarranted. Jon Miller is basically the voice of baseball to anyone in the USA under the age of 30, having grown up with him on nationally broadcast Sunday Night Baseball, calling the World Series on radio, and many other national ESPN games sprinkled throughout any given week. Miller is a more-than-deserving candidate, and I would hate Cheek to waltz in on a sympathetic notion that he died of cancer so we should posthumously award him. And yes, I recognize he called every game for the Jays for a very long period of time and was the voice of baseball in Canada, but Miller's resume is even more impressive, so I can't see why Cheek would be more deserving than Miller unless sentiment is involved. Tom's time will come.

Overall I have no problem with Miller getting in EXCEPT that it is much like voting in A-Rod right now.  For broadcasters being in your 50's seems to be a core part of your career.  Vote them in once they retire or are so old you fear they will pass on before getting honoured. 

As mentioned, there are other worthy choices who are past 65 or retired or passed away.  Put those guys in first, then go to guys who are both active and in their broadcasting prime.  Jacques Doucet is the one I feel most sorry for as he was the French voice of baseball for a long time and is 69.  He probably has many years left, but why put in a guy who is in his 50's and still broadcasting first?

but why put in a guy who is in his 50's and still broadcasting first?

Because we are judging merit, not trying to play "God" and figure out a person's life expectancy and hand out awards accordingly. Kalas was announced the winner of the FFA when he was 65, but he was nowhere near retirement and continued calling every game until he died suddenly in the freaking press box. His partner Richie Ashburn died unexpectedly one night on a road trip after a game. Bob Uecker, who was awarded the year after Kalas, is still alive and well at 75 and working full-time. i just don't get this concept of wanting to award someone while they're alive, but at the same time coming up with a baseline age at which point you can now award them for fear of their impending death. Comparing Miller to A-Rod, who exists in a system in which the person needs to be retired 5 years to be inducted (and which you apparently wouldn't want because you seem to want people to be honoured while they live), is clearly ridiculous.

Because we are judging merit

I don't agree with John's contention that the Frick should go to broadcasters over a certain age or to retirees near death, but I still feel like Tom Cheek is overdue for this award.

Judging the merit of broadcasters is difficult, IMO, beyond general statements and preliminary categorization. Vin Scully is fantastic. Warren Sawkiw wasn't. I was a huge fan of Tom's (and am a big fan of Jerry and Alan's), but I'm not going to argue he was better (or worse) than Harry Kalas or Dave Niehaus.

Nevertheless, in 2008 the Ford Frick Award has honoured Niehaus (the original play-by-play man of the Mariners). He was very comparable to Tom in terms of longevity, impact on an expansion team and 'new' baseball market, etc... and one of them should have followed the other, IMO. Nevertheless, in the past 12 years the Award has honoured Felo Ramirez (the Spanish language voice of the Marlins), Jimmy Dudley (who spent 19 years calling the Indians), Bob Wolff (13 years for the Senators and 1 year for the Twins, plus a few odd gigs on national radio - he's still broadcasting at 90, which is impressive), Arch McDonald (who did 22 years for the Senators) and Marty Brennaman (who was honoured after 25 years, several controversial incidents and a not fantastic reputation while broadcasting the Reds).

If you want the FFA to be based on merit, however you characterize that, that's fine, but I don't see how Tom wouldn't have merited it ahead of any of those selections. And I'm not sure how you can differentiate between Cheek and Niehaus.

If you want the FFA to be based on merit, however you characterize that, that's fine, but I don't see how Tom wouldn't have merited it ahead of any of those selections.

I never compared Cheek's career to those picked ahead of him, because I was merely responding to John's whimper over Miller's selection and his desire for the winners to be either retired or his standard of old. Cheek belonging to be there over many numerous people taken before him shouldn't be the issue here today; it's a separate, fair and valid point.

Judging the merit of broadcasters is difficult, IMO, beyond general statements and preliminary categorization.

It isn't difficult when the guy is the national voice of baseball - I'm not sure how better to personify "major contributions to baseball" from the booth.

First I love listening to Jon Miller, he is  great broadcaster.

I wonder if the committee likes to give the award to a living broadcaster to either increase the publicity for the award or to be able to absorb the thanks from someone in the game who they see on a regular basis.  If Tom Cheek gets the award it will be publicised when it is awarded and on hall of fame weekend.  With Miller getting the award it will probably be mentioned at every baseball broadcast Miller does between now and July as well as Miller will be trotted out to do publicity interviews over the next six months.  Don't discount these personal factors and publicity for the hall of fame in awards of this type.  Andre Dawson is the only regular inductee this year and he might not bring in a big crowd to Cooperstown.

Finally baseball doesn't have a scheduling problem it has an AL East problem.  Schoenfeld's suggestion is reasonable and one that gets some way to solve the problem.  I don't think the timing would work but you could do it a year in advance which would also give teams time to decide whether to build a team for the Central or East divisions.

I'm guessing 92-93 would like to see managers inducted while managing - so lets put Bobby Cox and Tony LaRussa in as they are dead on locks for the HOF.

Oh wait, they have a 65 year old rule for managers or 5 years retired (whichever comes first iirc).

That is where I was coming from. It makes no sense to be inducting guys who are in what could be argued is the prime of their careers. What is the point of an award for lifetime achievement (which is what the Frick is for) when a guy likely is only at the mid-point of that career?

If we are going to do that then lets put Jeter and Pujols and Rivera and various other players in now, plus Cox and LaRussa and the like. Lets induct a batch of broadcasters as well since I'm sure there are many who are qualified (such as Joe Nuxhall who broadcast for 38 years for the Reds in addition to the Canadian content listed before).

I'm in favour of clear rules and guidelines as it seems obvious to me that Miller shouldn't qualify at this time by any reasonable standard for a career award (outside of 'how best to hype the award'). Do I feel Miller is worthy of the honour? Yes, but not yet just like Jeter/Pujols/Rivera/Cox/LaRussa aren't in yet.

Not to pick nits, but the winner of the Ford C. Frick Award is not inducted into the Hall of Fame.  They do, if alive, give a speech on the weekend, but they are not, technically, Hall of Famers.  Whether you like it or not, the rules are different because the award is different (perhaps not because the award is different, but I digress).  The Ford C. Frick Award simply demands that the winner has granted major contributions to the game of baseball via their broadcasting.  The tantamount manager/umpire/player honours give different qualifications and different processes for a different election.  To some degree the Frick Award is more pure, in that the fans have some control over the process and do not leave the decision up to fools like Marty York who can leave their ballot blank, minus two words, "Pete" and "Rose."

I absolutely think that Tom Cheek has made a major contribution to the game of baseball and do hope that he wins the Ford C. Frick Award in my lifetime (I am just 21, so if he does not win in my lifetime, he never will), but I simply cannot get upset or distraught over another name being chosen