For anyone who is an ESPN Insider, this is an extremely interesting read.
For those who aren't Insiders, I'm not entirely sure about the rules on posting information from Insider-articles, but in a nutshell, Hollinger discusses the theory that Rose shouldn't be MVP because any arguments for why he's had a breakout season are more applicable to the other candidates. Carrying the team on his back? Howard, Bryant > Rose. Invaluable to the team? Howard, Dirk, James, Bryant > Rose. You get the idea.
I'm not sure if I agree that it's as black and white as a +/- when they're on or off the court, since coaches might feel comfortable playing their worst players as long as their best star is still out there (see: Kevin Durant last year, or LeBron vs Varajao last year), but there's a lot here I do agree with. Such as Hollinger's point that guards seem to get more respect in the MVP race, only because they are the natural underdogs, which is why Howard would be a huge MVP snub this year, if Rose wins it.
I think one thing Hollinger ignores, but shouldn't necessarily be part of the MVP-race-equation, is the season in light of the players' other seasons. If Kobe is having a better year than Rose, but Kobe's stats are dropped off from prior seasons, while Rose's are vastly improved, how likely is Kobe to get the vote? And that's why the MVP voters are silly.