Rookie of the Year is not open to debate in either league. But everything else is open to discussion.
Predictions:
AL
MVP- Jim Thome
Cy- Clemens
Manager- Lou Pinella
NL
MVP- Bonds
Cy- Johnson
Manager- LaRussa (No one really deserves it)
American League
MVP - Jason Giambi, Oakland
CYY - Joe Mays, Minnesota
ROY - Ichiro Suzuki, Seattle
Manager - Lou Piniella, Seattle (116-46: My God)
National League
MVP - Barry Bonds, San Francisco
CYY - Randy Johnson, Arizona
ROY - Albert Pujols, St. Louis
Manager - Larry Bowa, Philadelphia, I guess
Er…I’ll go with you on the Ichiro being beyond debate.
However…if you can’t find a way to debate between Pujols and Roy Oswalt, there’s a problem. And if you think there can be debate about Bonds winning the NL MVP, there are REAL problems.
Anyway…
AL Cy Young - Freddy Garcia
MVP - Jason Giambi
Manager - Jimy Williams
NL Cy Young - Randy Johnson
Manager - Dusty Baker
Note: These are who I think SHOULD win, not my predictions for who WILL win…
AL-- MVP Giambi
CY–Garcia
ROY–Suzuki
Mgr–Piniella or Tom Kelly
NL-- MVP Bonds
CY–Johnson
ROY–Pujols
MGR–Bowa
Dyno, I don’t see the debate. Oswalt was very very good but started just 20 games; he was much less than full time. He fell twenty innings short of qualifying for the ERA title. Even if he was as good as Pujols, there’s no way a brilliant part timer should win over a brilliant full timer.
American League
MVP: Jason Giambi
Cy Young: Mike Mussina
ROY: Ichiro Suzuki
COY: Lou Piniella
National League
MVP: Roy Swoboda 
Cy Young: Randy Johnson
ROY: Albert Pujols
COY: I’ll be contrarian–Larry Dierker
NL:
MVP: Bonds
CY: Johnson, though a good case could be made for Schilling as well
ROY: Pujols
MOY: Larry Bowa
AL:
MVP: Giambi (mainly because the voters won’t forget what Bret Boone’s career has been like up to now)
CY: This one seems completely up in the air to me; I expect Clemens to win it, and I suppose he should, but you could make a case for a half-dozen other guys: Garcia, Mays, Hudson, Mulder, Zito, Mussina.
ROY: Suzuki
MOY: Pinella
I won’t hazard a guess as to who the NL MVP will be, but I will say it won’t be Bonds. As everyone here in St. Louis knows, it wasn’t McGuire in '98, nor was Roger Maris the '61 AL MVP. The sportswriters who pick these things show a strong bias toward a player who is on a team that goes into post-season play, possibly under the old “they could have lost without him” rule.
Not saying that’s right, mind you. That’s just how it is.
Ron Swoboda. Grrr.
Julius Henry: There’s always the exception, though–1987 Andre Dawson and 1991 Cal Ripken spring readily to mind.
The AL Cy Young is a hell of a hard thing to choose. 'Course, the voters will assuredly slice the Gordian knot and opt in droves for Clemens, who’s only been the fifth or sixth best pitcher in the league.
Bonds was on a team that was in contention for post-season until game 161.
And why is Dodger skipper Jim Tracy not getting any love here??? He did a fantastic job. The Dodgers were in the race right up till the end, in spite of Sheff demanding a trade before the season started, in spite of 3/5ths of starting rotation going on the DL(Dreiffort and Ashby out for the year), in spite of Karros, Grudzelanic, Sheff and Lo Duca spending time on the Dl. And it was his 1st year as a manager on a team with a recent history of underacheivment.
Lets give the man his due
But Bonds’ team was in playoff contention up until the very end of the season, unlike McGwire’s Cards in 1998. And Maris was the '61 AL MVP, according to the offical MLB site.
Moreover, Bond’s didn’t just set a new single-season HR record. He had what was, by some measures, the best or second-best offensive season ever. His Slugging Percentage (.863) was the highest ever. His OPS (On Base Percentage plus Slugging Percentage) of 1.378 was second only to Ruth’s 1.379 in 1920, his On-Base Percentage (.515) was the highest since Ted Williams’ .526 in 1957, and is the sixth-highest since 1900. This isn’t your average outstanding season we’re talking about here – it’s celestial.
rackensack, your presence is needed in GD. 
And, not to quibble too much with rackensack’s post, but…
Ruth’s OBP in 1920 was calculated under the rules where sac flies didn’t count as plate appearances…if you correct so that Bonds and Ruth have their OBPs calculated under the same rules, Bonds wins there, too.
Just so you know 
I’m not as much of a stats afficionado and all-around expert as many of the baseball fans on the SDMB, but it really ticks me off that Lou Piniella is going to win the AL Manager award for the same reasons that Mike Hargrove failed to win it in 1995. I don’t begrudge Piniella himself the accomplishment – he did a hell of a job with that team this season – but I think it reveals what a bias the writers have against Cleveland.
Hargrove took a team that lost 100 games in 1991, went 76-86 in 1992 and 1993, and was 66-47 when the strike hit in 1994, and made them into 100 game winners in 1995. In a short season, they went 100-44.
The 1995 Indians led the league in runs, hits, home runs, average, slugging, on-base percentage, and stolen bases. They struck out less than any other team. They had the best ERA in the league, the most saves, the most shutouts, and the most innings pitched. Albert Belle – who unjustly lost the MVP Award to Mo Freakin’ Vaughan[sup]1[/sup] over personality issues – hit 50 home runs and 52 doubles in 143 games. He batted .317, slugged .690, and had a .401 OBP. It was, quite literally, his career year. The team had Gold Gloves at short and center, and a closer with 46 saves, a 3-0 record and a 1.12 ERA.
By any accounting, Mike Hargrove was the Manager of the Year that year in the AL. So who won the award? Why, Lou Pinella. Oh, sure, Seattle won the West that year. They finished 79-66, 21 wins fewer than the Indians, 10 wins fewer than the East champs Boston. Cleveland would have been the winner in any division under the new OR the old system, in either league. Seattle was 3rd of 14 teams in runs, homers and slugging, and 6th of 14 in hits, average and OBP.
The justification of a lot of writers? Well, Hargrove didn’t really have to manage that team. They had so much natural talent, they just won games. Some went so far as to say the Indians excelled in spite of Hargrove rather than because of him.
So, again, congratulations to Lou, but I wish the writers would get over their anti-Cleveland bias.
End of rant.
[sup]1[/sup]Vaughn, of course, led the league in strikeouts that year, with 150 in 550 AB. Belle had only 80 strikeouts in 546 AB. IMO, leading the league in strikeouts should preclude someone from being MVP, especially when one only has 68 walks to those 150 strikeouts.
Phil: I agree with you, though I’d ascribe it more to vagary than specific bias. Hargrove should’ve absolutely won it in 1995. It does raise interesting questions about the criteria one should use in selecting a coach of the year–1)the one who’s guided his team to the most wins, 2)the one who’s gotten the most out of his players, 3)the one who’s most clearly the best strategist, 4)the one who’s engineered the biggest turnaround, or what? If two of more of those factors converge in one coach, then the question’ll be easy. But when they’re all different–say, Piniella fits #1, Kelly’s got #2 and #4, and Art Howe has #3–then what do you do? There aren’t really any objective measurements other than wins and past history.
By the way, Phil, is Piniella your choice this year?
Gad, Piniella is definitely my choice this year, for the same reason it should’ve been Hargove in 1995 and the same reason it was Torre in 1998. He simply ran away with the league, and what’s more, he did it in defiance of expectations and after losing his marquee player.
Kelly is a close second, though, damned close. If Minnesota had pulled it off in the Central, I think it would be hard to vote against him.