If you can show me where the prerequesite qualifications for MVP include "making the finals" and "being the best player in the League", then I'll never again post on this topic. Facts are, as far as I know, anyway, that neither factor in. The MVP award is a regular season honor awarded to a specific player, for his value to his specific team, for a specific season.
With all that said, however, it's only in justification for his previous two awards, and for someone like LeBron or maybe even the Shaq-less Kobe; great players who may not make the Finals (again, in Kobe's case).
Think about this. Peyton Manning has two MVPs of the NFL, no Super Bowl appearances. Alex Rodriguez has two MVPs, no World Series appearances.
Most of the time the best player ends up with the best stats on the best team in the League. It won't always happen.
Nash will not win the award again. I'm nearly 100% certain of it. But, he's been the most important player on a team that has not only made two consecutive Western Conference Finals, but who's style of play has led to a League-wide revival of offensive skill/gunnery.
I've already argued this previously, and won't get suckered in again, but, for this final post on the topic, I believe many here have a flawed view of what the MVP award is, or at least should be.
I do think the award is either Kobe's, LeBron's or Wade's to lose.