Let me preface this post by saying that the MVP award doesn't matter.  Sure, it's a nice trophy to display on the mantle, and contributes a hefty amount to a player's Hall of Fame credentials, but at the end of the day, at the end of the career, the number of Championship Rings is paramount.  10 years from now, when I'm telling my kids about the 07-08 Celtics, I'm not going to be talking about All-Star appearances and MVP awards.  I'll only be talking about them if they raise banner 17.

Let's go back a few months, to a time before the All-Star break.  The Celtics were taking the league by storm.  The Big 3 were more than we could have dreamed for.  This team needed no time to gel, they didn't need to build chemistry.  They came out of the blocks at full-speed taking no mercy on anybody.  Because of this, we were the headline of the young NBA season.  And, as one would expect, our biggest star was garnished with the most attention. 

KG was the story.   He changed the face of the team.  Ushered in an era of defensively-sound basketball.  We've heard his "intensity" written and talked about so much, that it's become cliche.  For a few months, sportswriters couldn't publish enough articles about him.  He was the best player on the best team in the NBA.  He was the MVP.

But, as it happens so frequently, his (and our) story became old.  There are only so many words that can be written about a dominating player on a dominating team before it becomes boring to write (and read) about.  Sportswriters (and bloggers) began looking for something fresh, a story yet uncovered (or at least a story not covered so frequently by so many outlets).  Chris Paul leading the surprising Hornets.  Kobe at the top of his game.  LeBron winning despite being surrounded by a group of misfits.  This is the reason we rarely hear about Tim Duncan anymore, or Steve Nash, or anything about the Pistons.  Those stories have been covered by every angle, inside and out. 

This is how players like Brian Brohm can go from being a top-5 pick and media darling, to a second round, middle of the pack QB (despite actually improving their play on the field).  The media picks up on the story early, covers it as much as they can, get bored and move on.   The country is at the mercy of the media, so if they're not writing and talking about these players, no one is thinking of them.  You could even throw our own "Big Baby" Glen Davis into this category.  There is no reason he should've been available in the second round, but he was -- because he was last year's story.  There are countless examples of this across the sports landscape.

I think it's an epidemic of the time we live in.  Information is readily available about anybody at any time.  If you're a writer, or a blogger, or a journalist and you want to get noticed, you better be bringing something fresh to the table.  Writing an article, no matter how good, about a three-month old story will get you nowhere.  Long gone are the days where the local writers had a monopoly over their geographic fanbase.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not yearning for "the good ol' days".  Personally, I like the current landscape.  I love that places like Yardbarker allow me to easily locate and read articles from people I'd never know of otherwise.  Multiple perspectives, open discourse and a free-flow of information is a great thing.  Sometimes, however, we're stuck with the best player on the best team being eliminated from winning the MVP award because he's been too good for too long.

Every once in a while someone will throw out their reason why Garnett isn't the MVP.  These are the three arguments I've heard most frequently: 1) He plays in the woeful East 2) When he was injured, the C's still won 3) He plays with Pierce and Ray Allen.  Let's break these down.

1) He Plays In The East:  First of all, how is that his fault?  Because Isiah Thomas is a disaster, KG can't be the MVP?  Second, and far more important, we played all those fancy teams out West, and we beat them all.  Every single one of them.  Most we destroyed, and most we beat multiple times.  I could understand that argument if we coasted through the season, but we didn't.  That's where they cliche "Intensity" pops up.  KG didn't play down to his opponent.  If they were weaker than him, he devoured them.  Argument 1: FAIL

2) When KG Was Injured, Boston Still Won:  So?  It's not as if he was out for half the season -- he missed 8 games.  And, when he did come back, we lost the next 3 games against three of the top teams from the West as KG was trying to get his legs.  So, full-strength KG = C's dominate West, weak KG = West beats Boston.  Argument 2: FAIL

3) KG has Paul Pierce and Ray Allen:  This is the most idiotic argument of all.  Larry Bird had Robert Parish and Kevin McHale and he won 3 MVP awards.  Should we take those 3 trophys away for Larry Legend?  Kobe has Lamar Odom and Pau Gasol.  Chris Paul has Peja, Chandler and David West.  I don't see how having talented teammates takes away a player's MVP eligibility.   It wasn't that way in the past, so why are the rules and parameters suddenly changing?  They shouldn't.  Argument 3: FAIL

I think my rant has been long enough, and I hope I proved my point.  KG is the best player, on the best team in the league.  Unless a different player is doing something truly phenomenal, KG should be the MVP.  In my mind, there's not much of an argument there.   The fact that "KG Is The MVP" was the story back in December and January is the only thing holding him back.  But, as I started the article with, all I'm truly concerned about is Banner 17... but yes, that MVP would still feel pretty good.