Dude, we can debate multiple definitions at the same time. I've stated, explicitly and multiple times, that based solely on on-field production (which is the current criteria), Trout is the MVP, it's not close, and it should be unanimous. If the MVP is restricted to the current year (which it should be), but pay is included (which it also should be), Trout is much less valuable, due to the fact that each point of WAR costs $4.2M (Kepler is $1.7M, Acuna is $196k, Bellinger is $88k). Those 3 players cost less than half of Trout this year, but have combined for almost twice the WAR. Here's an example for you; say you are told you can have one bowl of ice cream, and you get a choice between two bowls. One has 3 scoops, and costs $5, while the other costs $2 for 2 scoops. If all you care about is maximizing your ice cream, you'll get the 3 scoop bowl. However, if you get the 2 scoop bowl, you can use your extra 3 dollars to buy a brownie, some hot fudge, whipped cream, and a cherry. The latter option clearly has more value, which should perhaps be taken into account when conferring an award that has the word Valuable right in it.