MAILBAG Tom Verducci will answer select questions from SI.com users in his Baseball Mailbag. Your name: Your e-mail address: Your home town: Enter your question:

I can see any number of teams winning it all this year, but you are selling the Red Sox very short. I am not saying that they will win but they have less question marks then New York or Detroit. Both of those teams' starters are very questionable, are they not? Can you explain better why Boston could go backwards when there is not one starter on the Yankees that doesn't have questions marks due to age (young or old)?
--Dennis, Narragansett, RI

The biggest potential minefields are whether Josh Beckett is the same difference-maker he was last year, given the seven-month load he carried, and whether Clay Buchholz and Jon Lester can be October forces after pitching their first full big league seasons. (You can say likewise about Joba Chamberlain, Phil Hughes and Ian Kennedy.) But don't get me wrong: I like Boston's depth and the offensive approach they take. They've sacrificed power for better plate discipline in the past few years and they're better for it.

Who would you compare Clay Buchholz and Ian Kennedy to?
--Billy Gonzalez, Lynn, Mass.

Buchholz reminds me a little of Jim Palmer, though not necessarily with his mechanics, and Kennedy is like a Mike Boddicker.

Your reason for why Miguel Cabrera will win the MVP shows exactly what is wrong with this award. I don't think you can find someone who thinks Cabrera will actually be a better hitter than he was last year, when he put together a .320/.401/.565 line, yet because he now hits in a loaded lineup he can get an extra 30 RBIs and five-to-10 more homers. If he still puts up the same rate stats as last year when he finished 15th in the voting will he be that much more valuable?
--Drew, Holmdel, NJ

Yes he will, because last year he played on a team that did not play a single meaningful game. I'm assuming the Tigers will be a contender. If the award was all about the best player or most outstanding player, I would agree with you. But this is Major League Baseball. The goal for every team and every player is to win the World Series, not to have a good statistical season. So if you play great for the Marlins, that's wonderful, but it's not why we're playing the games. So yes, the award discriminates against guys on losing teams (generally) and rewards those that play on winners. I believe in applying context to the MVP. It is not purely an individual award; there are other awards that take care of that (Hank Aaron Award, Silver Slugger, Players' Choice, etc.).

How will players who played in the "Steroid Era" but didn't put up gaudy numbers be considered when it comes to the Hall of Fame? Specifically, I am thinking of Barry Larkin, an MVP, World Series winner and great all-around shortstop. How do you distinguish players from that time? If Larkin had played in the '70's, his offensive numbers as a SS would have been unheard of. How does it all sort out?
--Jeremy, Cincinnati

It's a very good question, but you try to judge the players against others in his generation and then consider that generation's place in history. The hard part is guessing whether Larkin would in fact have the same numbers in the '70s if he played then. (I tend to doubt it, given the depressed offensive numbers then relative to the '90s). Larkin will be a very interesting case because his numbers aren't overwhelming, in part because of games lost to injuries, lockouts and strikes. But I found something worth considering just on first glance. Larkin ranks eighth among shortstops in OPS+ (116), slightly ahead of Robin Yount, and behind all Hall of Famers or future Hall of Famers. But I think the biggest question on Larkin is this: Did he have enough big seasons? Only four times did he play 140 games with an OPS+ much better than the league average.

What do the Brewers need to do to finally make the playoffs?
--Steve, Westfield, Ind.

Two things: Make sure Ben Sheets is healthy enough to make 32 starts, and define their bullpen. I didn't like the Eric Gagne signing; too many Mitchell Report guys have proved to be worse than their former selves. So with a lot of new guys in that 'pen, it's going to take some time to shake out. Maybe Derek Turnbow or David Riske turns out to be the closer. They have time; look what Colorado did last year when it transitioned from Brian Fuentes to Manuel Corpas. But it will be something to watch over the first couple of months.