Who deserves to get the award?

1. Should the award go to the MVP of his team? Or MVP of his league?
2. Can an MVP play for a losing team?

	I'm sure the Predators would settle for a recognizable player let alone a Hart trophy candidate.

The perspective of MVP to his team looks at the individual contribution that a player makes to his own team. The rationale is that without cede player the team would not achieve the same level of success. One interesting thing to consider for the argument that an MVP award should go to the most valuable player to his team is: the good player on a bad team case. For example if an expansion team had one extremely good player, let's say the Nashville Predators had Markus Naslund would he automatically be the MVP because he's so much better than all his other teammates? Without Naslund would the Nashville Predators be the same team? If you examine an MVP from this perspective it makes it much easier for a player to stand out when lesser talent surrounds him. Under this perspective an MVP would rarely come from a team full of stars ala the Yankees. The NHL's Hart Trophy is currently given to the player that's Most Valuable to his team. Peter Forsberg won the trophy this year, but one could make an argument that had Forsberg not been there, the team would still succeed. This was shown by the great regular season the Avs had last year when Forsberg sat out the entire year due to injuries. Forsberg was blessed to be on a team this year that boasted such stars as Sakic, Blake, Hedjuk, Tanguay and Roy. Markus Naslund was also in the running for the Hart Trophy but it's hard to single out Naslund's terrific season because of the great season Bertuzzi had alongside him. If anything Bertuzzi and Naslund should have been named co-MVP's.

The other perspective of MVP examines a player's contribution on a much greater scale. MVP to the league means that particular player is the most important and absolute best performer that the league has. Although some may argue that the MVP to the league may be a player that contributes much more than just on the field, court or ice. In the 90's there would be a strong argument made for Wayne Gretzky and Michael Jordan to be MVP's each year just because of the attention they brought to their respective sports. Gretzky's play in the 90's and early millennium wasn't on the same level as his play in the 80's, but Gretzky made a bigger impact on the game of hockey when he started playing for the LA Kings. Gretzky's move to LA opened the door for more California teams and exposed hockey to the mainstream America. He also managed to take them to the Cup Finals (against the computer with the offsides turned off. I mean they were a finesse team!).

	So Mario, why do you think the voters ignored your performance this year?

Can an MVP play for a losing team? Most would say yes, if they believe the view that the MVP is awarded to the player that is most valuable to his team. Last year in the NHL the Hart Trophy race boiled down to two players, Jarome Iginla and Jose Theodore. Iginla's team, the Flames, failed to make the playoffs. Theodore's team, the Canadiens, made the playoffs and progressed into the 2nd round. Theodore ended up winning the MVP vote by a slim margin. You have to wonder if Iginla failing to make the playoffs cost him the trophy. Then there are those who believe an MVP can't play for a losing team, believing instead that if the player was good enough he would be able to single-handedly carry his team into the playoffs. This view is a little short-sighted because I ask you, is there any player last year that could have single-handedly carried the Pittsburgh Penguins into the playoffs? Mind you Mario Lemieux did his best; his 91 points nearly doubled the next highest player's points on the team. Those 91 points also came despite missing 15 games. (I'm sorry I should have started that thought with: Warning! Mario Lemieux plug coming!)

After pondering through all those points of view I've arrived at a conclusion about the MVP trophy.

Here are my criteria to determine whether a player should be a MVP:

- If the player gets injured and misses significant time, the overall performance of the team goes downhill.
- The player should have the ability to hypothetically play for any team in the league and be their most important player.
- The player should be able to create their own opportunities and chances and their performance should not be heavily influenced by the players he plays with.
- The player should be able to make the performances of those around him that much better.

So I ask you readers, based on these criteria who should have won the Hart Trophy this year? I'll post the top responses next week.