End of season MVP Discussion

[chopsx9]

 

Lee was the best and most productive player, he was the most valuable.

 

 

Most productive and most valuable aren't the same thing. They can be. If Pujols drives in 200 runs, but when you break down the numbers 175 of those were driven in when his team was already ahead by 3 runs - is he still the most valuable?

 

Obviously a very extreme example but it shows that the two aren't always interchangeable.

 

Hey, I'll be extatic if Lee wins. I don't think he will and think he may even end up third (not saying I agree with that).

[vance_the_cubs_fan]

This entire discussion is about philosophy.

What is Value?

We'll get the answer to this right after we figure out haw many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

 

My count of angels tells me.

Pujols=MVP

Lee=POY

 

If you use 1998 as a roadmap, this is what should happen.

 

Why not use 1987 as one? I think part of the problem is the voters have had no consistiency in this discussion.

[ManEatingTarp]

This entire discussion is about philosophy.

What is Value?

We'll get the answer to this right after we figure out haw many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

 

My count of angels tells me.

Pujols=MVP

Lee=POY

 

If you use 1998 as a roadmap, this is what should happen.

 

Why not use 1987 as one? I think part of the problem is the voters have had no consistiency in this discussion.

 

You just summed it up.

The rules seem to change every year for MVP.

 

 

...and Ozzie should have won in 87 ;)

[K-Town]

I don't think it's unreasonable to add a little context to the MVP Award. Pujols finished with more Win Shares than Lee, and Pujols helped his team to the playoffs, so I think he deserves it. If Lee wins it, I'll still be happy....... I like him.

 

It's amazing to me that Brian Giles finished 3rd in Win Shares. He quietly had a terrific year.

[vance_the_cubs_fan]

I don't think it's unreasonable to add a little context to the MVP Award. Pujols finished with more Win Shares than Lee, and Pujols helped his team to the playoffs, so I think he deserves it. If Lee wins it, I'll still be happy....... I like him.

 

It's amazing to me that Brian Giles finished 3rd in Win Shares. He quietly had a terrific year.

 

So basing post season awards on Win Shares, we have:

 

NL MVP- Albert Pujols

NL Cy Young- Roger Clemens

AL MVP- Alex Rodriguez

AL Cy Young- Mark Buherle or Santana (I'm not sure if one tenth of a win share is that significant and that's the difference between the two)

[K-Town]

I don't think it's unreasonable to add a little context to the MVP Award. Pujols finished with more Win Shares than Lee, and Pujols helped his team to the playoffs, so I think he deserves it. If Lee wins it, I'll still be happy....... I like him.

 

It's amazing to me that Brian Giles finished 3rd in Win Shares. He quietly had a terrific year.

 

So basing post season awards on Win Shares, we have:

 

NL MVP- Albert Pujols

NL Cy Young- Roger Clemens

AL MVP- Alex Rodriguez

AL Cy Young- Mark Buherle or Santana (I'm not sure if one tenth of a win share is that significant and that's the difference between the two)

 

 

I'm not saying that it should be based strictly on Win Shares, but that's a pretty solid list, isn't it?

 

Obviously, I'd love for Carpenter to win the Cy Young, but I'm pretty disappointed in how he was used down the stretch, and how poorly he finished. I'd trade the Cy Young for a dominant post-season performance from him in a heartbeat.

[sonofsamiam]

I don't think it's unreasonable to add a little context to the MVP Award. Pujols finished with more Win Shares than Lee, and Pujols helped his team to the playoffs, so I think he deserves it. If Lee wins it, I'll still be happy....... I like him.

 

It's amazing to me that Brian Giles finished 3rd in Win Shares. He quietly had a terrific year.

 

So basing post season awards on Win Shares, we have:

 

NL MVP- Albert Pujols

NL Cy Young- Roger Clemens

AL MVP- Alex Rodriguez

AL Cy Young- Mark Buherle or Santana (I'm not sure if one tenth of a win share is that significant and that's the difference between the two)

 

 

I'm not saying that it should be based strictly on Win Shares, but that's a pretty solid list, isn't it?

 

Obviously, I'd love for Carpenter to win the Cy Young, but I'm pretty disappointed in how he was used down the stretch, and how poorly he finished. I'd trade the Cy Young for a dominant post-season performance from him in a heartbeat.

 

Bill James noted that the difference of up to 3 Win Shares isn't all that significant, so 0.1 certainly isn't.

 

I'm still surprised the Pujols got more offensive Win Shares than Lee -- I actually queried Dave Studeman at Hardball Times about this, and he said it was mainly down to St. Louis being much more efficient in matching up their team's actual runs with the team's Runs Created. (Big surprise, huh?)

 

One interesting note: Dontrelle Willis actually got more Total Win Shares than Clemens, though Clemens had a slight lead in Pitching Win Shares:

 

http://www.hardballtimes.com/winshares/index.php?sort=pitch&sort2=WSAB&limit1=&limit2=&leagueLimit=NL

 

Surprisingly, Carpenter is in 6th in Pitching Win Shares, though it's awfully close.

[vance_the_cubs_fan]

I don't think it's unreasonable to add a little context to the MVP Award. Pujols finished with more Win Shares than Lee, and Pujols helped his team to the playoffs, so I think he deserves it. If Lee wins it, I'll still be happy....... I like him.

 

It's amazing to me that Brian Giles finished 3rd in Win Shares. He quietly had a terrific year.

 

So basing post season awards on Win Shares, we have:

 

NL MVP- Albert Pujols

NL Cy Young- Roger Clemens

AL MVP- Alex Rodriguez

AL Cy Young- Mark Buherle or Santana (I'm not sure if one tenth of a win share is that significant and that's the difference between the two)

 

 

I'm not saying that it should be based strictly on Win Shares, but that's a pretty solid list, isn't it?

 

Obviously, I'd love for Carpenter to win the Cy Young, but I'm pretty disappointed in how he was used down the stretch, and how poorly he finished. I'd trade the Cy Young for a dominant post-season performance from him in a heartbeat.

 

I don't think it should be based on Win Shares either, and countered with it to say that if you look simply at Pujols WS to give him the lead over Lee (difference of 1 WS or roughly 1/3 of a win), you should do the same in the CY Race where Clemens lead in pitching win shares over Carpenter is greater than Pujols's over Lee in overall win shares.

 

I think win shares are a very encompassing stat, but when they are as close as they are in the case of Pujols and Lee, I look at other stats as well. Lee leads in RC and RC/G. I'm still going with Lee on this one. Both are deserving, but the stats seem to indicate Lee was the more (if slightly) productive and therefore valuable player.

[K-Town]

I don't think it's unreasonable to add a little context to the MVP Award. Pujols finished with more Win Shares than Lee, and Pujols helped his team to the playoffs, so I think he deserves it. If Lee wins it, I'll still be happy....... I like him.

 

It's amazing to me that Brian Giles finished 3rd in Win Shares. He quietly had a terrific year.

 

So basing post season awards on Win Shares, we have:

 

NL MVP- Albert Pujols

NL Cy Young- Roger Clemens

AL MVP- Alex Rodriguez

AL Cy Young- Mark Buherle or Santana (I'm not sure if one tenth of a win share is that significant and that's the difference between the two)

 

 

I'm not saying that it should be based strictly on Win Shares, but that's a pretty solid list, isn't it?

 

Obviously, I'd love for Carpenter to win the Cy Young, but I'm pretty disappointed in how he was used down the stretch, and how poorly he finished. I'd trade the Cy Young for a dominant post-season performance from him in a heartbeat.

 

I don't think it should be based on Win Shares either, and countered with it to say that if you look simply at Pujols WS to give him the lead over Lee (difference of 1 WS or roughly 1/3 of a win), you should do the same in the CY Race where Clemens lead in pitching win shares over Carpenter is greater than Pujols's over Lee in overall win shares.

 

I think win shares are a very encompassing stat, but when they are as close as they are in the case of Pujols and Lee, I look at other stats as well. Lee leads in RC and RC/G. I'm still going with Lee on this one. Both are deserving, but the stats seem to indicate Lee was the more (if slightly) productive and therefore valuable player.

 

I'm not going to make the Cy Young argument. Like I said, Carpenter crawled to the finish line. So if you're trying to bait me on that, it ain't gonna happen. :wink:

 

Win Shares don't tell everything, but they're a pretty solid measure. The fact that Pujols had slightly more Win Shares, and led his team to the best record in baseball, while the Cubs didn't finish .500.......... that's a pretty strong case for Pujols.

 

A strong case can be made, and has been made, for Lee, also............ which I could live with.

 

 

I'm honestly pretty worried about Andruw Jones winning it, though. That would be a shame.

[vance_the_cubs_fan]

I don't think it's unreasonable to add a little context to the MVP Award. Pujols finished with more Win Shares than Lee, and Pujols helped his team to the playoffs, so I think he deserves it. If Lee wins it, I'll still be happy....... I like him.

 

It's amazing to me that Brian Giles finished 3rd in Win Shares. He quietly had a terrific year.

 

So basing post season awards on Win Shares, we have:

 

NL MVP- Albert Pujols

NL Cy Young- Roger Clemens

AL MVP- Alex Rodriguez

AL Cy Young- Mark Buherle or Santana (I'm not sure if one tenth of a win share is that significant and that's the difference between the two)

 

 

I'm not saying that it should be based strictly on Win Shares, but that's a pretty solid list, isn't it?

 

Obviously, I'd love for Carpenter to win the Cy Young, but I'm pretty disappointed in how he was used down the stretch, and how poorly he finished. I'd trade the Cy Young for a dominant post-season performance from him in a heartbeat.

 

I don't think it should be based on Win Shares either, and countered with it to say that if you look simply at Pujols WS to give him the lead over Lee (difference of 1 WS or roughly 1/3 of a win), you should do the same in the CY Race where Clemens lead in pitching win shares over Carpenter is greater than Pujols's over Lee in overall win shares.

 

I think win shares are a very encompassing stat, but when they are as close as they are in the case of Pujols and Lee, I look at other stats as well. Lee leads in RC and RC/G. I'm still going with Lee on this one. Both are deserving, but the stats seem to indicate Lee was the more (if slightly) productive and therefore valuable player.

 

I'm not going to make the Cy Young argument. Like I said, Carpenter crawled to the finish line. So if you're trying to bait me on that, it ain't gonna happen. :wink:

 

Win Shares don't tell everything, but they're a pretty solid measure. The fact that Pujols had slightly more Win Shares, and led his team to the best record in baseball, while the Cubs didn't finish .500.......... that's a pretty strong case for Pujols.

 

A strong case can be made, and has been made, for Lee, also............ which I could live with.

 

 

I'm honestly pretty worried about Andruw Jones winning it, though. That would be a shame.

 

Slightly more...why not say how slight? It was one or 1/3 of a win. To me that doesn't make too strong of a case.

 

I wasn't trying to bait you on Cy Young, just seeing if you were consistent in your application of the data. If 1/3 of a win is enough to give Pujols the MVP when other metrics (RC RC/G point to Lee) shouldn't 3 WS or a full win be enough to swing your Cy Young vote to Clemens?

 

Just trying to chip through the bias to see how you apply the data objectively.

[K-Town]

Slightly more...why not say how slight? It was one or 1/3 of a win. To me that doesn't make too strong of a case.

 

I wasn't trying to bait you on Cy Young, just seeing if you were consistent in your application of the data. If 1/3 of a win is enough to give Pujols the MVP when other metrics (RC RC/G point to Lee) shouldn't 3 WS or a full win be enough to swing your Cy Young vote to Clemens?

 

Just trying to chip through the bias to see how you apply the data objectively.

 

The difference is so slight that it's pretty much irrelevant. I'll give you that. Since they're that close, I'd give it to Pujols.

 

I can see your point on the Cy Young thing, and I won't make a case for Carpenter. I honestly thought that Carpenter would finish strong while Clemens faded. That didn't happen, so if Carpenter loses out on the Cy Young Award, then I wouldn't be surprised.

 

Right now, I'd rather see Pujols win the MVP than see Carpenter win the Cy Young Award. There is no "lifetime achievement award", and Pujols has been Bonds' bridesmaid for too many years, so it would be nice to see him rewarded for being so consistently good.

[UK1679666180]

 

Lee was the best and most productive player, he was the most valuable.

 

 

Most productive and most valuable aren't the same thing. They can be. If Pujols drives in 200 runs, but when you break down the numbers 175 of those were driven in when his team was already ahead by 3 runs - is he still the most valuable?

 

Obviously a very extreme example but it shows that the two aren't always interchangeable.

 

Hey, I'll be extatic if Lee wins. I don't think he will and think he may even end up third (not saying I agree with that).

 

That doesn't show me how Pujols was more valuable than Lee. I just want to see how and why Pujols was more valuable than Lee?

 

That's only a hypothetical that doesn't apply to this case.

 

Lee was more productive than Pujols, Pujols' teammates were much more productive than Lee's.

 

Lee's being punished for having weaker teammates than Pujols.

 

If Lee doesn't win, it'll be the wrong choice.

[Diffusion]

Imagine this. It's spring 2004 and you, the GM of Team A, are in the unfortunate situation of having no-one better than player X at first base. And player X is useless. In fact, he's the very definition of a replacement player: you need to replace him. Now, fortunately, one week before the season starts, two better options become available, player Y and player Z, and they're both desperately eager to sign with Team A, who they've both supported since childhood. Also, more fortunate still, Aladdin has granted you three wishes. He tells you that A) Player Y will give your team 12.3 more wins than player X in 2004, B) that Player Z will be worth 10.7 more wins than player X in 2004, and C) that he will personally pay for whichever player you choose, so money's not an issue. So, do you sign Player Y or Z?

 

For those of you that said "Player Z please", now imagine that Aladdin is so angry with you for giving such a stupid answer that he's retracted his promise to pay for the players unless you change your mind. Player Y costs $7.66m for 2004. Player Z costs $11.05m. Sticking with Player Z?

 

"I would like to win 1.6 less games and pay $3.39m more".

 

That's what a vote for Albert Pujols over Derrek Lee boils down to.

[treebird]

Imagine this. It's spring 2004 and you, the GM of Team A, are in the unfortunate situation of having no-one better than player X at first base. And player X is useless. In fact, he's the very definition of a replacement player: you need to replace him. Now, fortunately, one week before the season starts, two better options become available, player Y and player Z, and they're both desperately eager to sign with Team A, who they've both supported since childhood. Also, more fortunate still, Aladdin has granted you three wishes. He tells you that A) Player Y will give your team 12.3 more wins than player X in 2004, B) that Player Z will be worth 10.7 more wins than player X in 2004, and C) that he will personally pay for whichever player you choose, so money's not an issue. So, do you sign Player Y or Z?

 

For those of you that said "Player Z please", now imagine that Aladdin is so angry with you for giving such a stupid answer that he's retracted his promise to pay for the players unless you change your mind. Player Y costs $7.66m for 2004. Player Z costs $11.05m. Sticking with Player Z?

 

"I would like to win 1.6 less games and pay $3.39m more".

 

That's what a vote for Albert Pujols over Derrek Lee boils down to.

 

if i'm making a list of my five favorite posters here, diffusion is on it.

[K-Town]

That doesn't show me how Pujols was more valuable than Lee. I just want to see how and why Pujols was more valuable than Lee?

 

That's only a hypothetical that doesn't apply to this case.

 

Lee was more productive than Pujols, Pujols' teammates were much more productive than Lee's.

 

Lee's being punished for having weaker teammates than Pujols.

 

If Lee doesn't win, it'll be the wrong choice.

 

 

Pujols was more valuable because, in reality, being the best player on a 4th place team is pretty unimportant. Is that Lee's fault? No. But quite frankly, they could have just as easily finished in 4th place with a lesser first baseman. He wasn't "important" to the Cubs. Pujols WAS "important" to the Cardinals. Yes, Lee is being punished for having weaker teammates. He'll be rewarded though (or should be) by the Hank Aaron Award, which is less ambiguious

 

"Production" doesn't necessarily equal "value".

 

But, I respect your opinion.

[indifferent]

To me, voting for a player whose team doesn't get to the playoffs for MVP is like voting for a pitcher for the MVP.

 

I would do it, but only if there aren't any other compelling candidates or if they are far and away the best choice.

[K-Town]

Imagine this. It's spring 2004 and you, the GM of Team A, are in the unfortunate situation of having no-one better than player X at first base. And player X is useless. In fact, he's the very definition of a replacement player: you need to replace him. Now, fortunately, one week before the season starts, two better options become available, player Y and player Z, and they're both desperately eager to sign with Team A, who they've both supported since childhood. Also, more fortunate still, Aladdin has granted you three wishes. He tells you that A) Player Y will give your team 12.3 more wins than player X in 2004, B) that Player Z will be worth 10.7 more wins than player X in 2004, and C) that he will personally pay for whichever player you choose, so money's not an issue. So, do you sign Player Y or Z?

 

For those of you that said "Player Z please", now imagine that Aladdin is so angry with you for giving such a stupid answer that he's retracted his promise to pay for the players unless you change your mind. Player Y costs $7.66m for 2004. Player Z costs $11.05m. Sticking with Player Z?

 

"I would like to win 1.6 less games and pay $3.39m more".

 

That's what a vote for Albert Pujols over Derrek Lee boils down to.

 

 

In an imaginary world, yes. In reality, Player Y is playing for a 4th place team, and nobody cares if they won 1.6 games less.

 

And in reality, the extra $3.39M would be fine if it were a one-year contract, but neither Pujols nor Lee have a one-year contract, and Pujols will live up to his contract every bit, or more, than Lee does.

[imb]

This entire discussion is about philosophy.

What is Value?

We'll get the answer to this right after we figure out haw many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

 

My count of angels tells me.

Pujols=MVP

Lee=POY

 

If you use 1998 as a roadmap, this is what should happen.

 

Sure, if by "1998 roadmap" you mean "least valuable of the two wins" then sure.

[UK1679666180]

Pujols is more valuable b/c he has better teammates?

 

Quite a crappy and invalid concept.

 

So far, Pujols deseves the MVP b/c Jocketty is a better GM than Hendry, despite Lee having the better year.

 

Sorry, bias doesn't sell with me.

[Diffusion]

Imagine this. It's spring 2004 and you, the GM of Team A, are in the unfortunate situation of having no-one better than player X at first base. And player X is useless. In fact, he's the very definition of a replacement player: you need to replace him. Now, fortunately, one week before the season starts, two better options become available, player Y and player Z, and they're both desperately eager to sign with Team A, who they've both supported since childhood. Also, more fortunate still, Aladdin has granted you three wishes. He tells you that A) Player Y will give your team 12.3 more wins than player X in 2004, B) that Player Z will be worth 10.7 more wins than player X in 2004, and C) that he will personally pay for whichever player you choose, so money's not an issue. So, do you sign Player Y or Z?

 

For those of you that said "Player Z please", now imagine that Aladdin is so angry with you for giving such a stupid answer that he's retracted his promise to pay for the players unless you change your mind. Player Y costs $7.66m for 2004. Player Z costs $11.05m. Sticking with Player Z?

 

"I would like to win 1.6 less games and pay $3.39m more".

 

That's what a vote for Albert Pujols over Derrek Lee boils down to.

 

 

In an imaginary world, yes. In reality, Player Y is playing for a 4th place team, and nobody cares if they won 1.6 games less.

 

And in reality, the extra $3.39M would be fine if it were a one-year contract, but neither Pujols nor Lee have a one-year contract, and Pujols will live up to his contract every bit, or more, than Lee does.

 

In an imaginary world, your response actually makes sense.

 

But I have a limited imagination.

[K-Town]

Imagine this. It's spring 2004 and you, the GM of Team A, are in the unfortunate situation of having no-one better than player X at first base. And player X is useless. In fact, he's the very definition of a replacement player: you need to replace him. Now, fortunately, one week before the season starts, two better options become available, player Y and player Z, and they're both desperately eager to sign with Team A, who they've both supported since childhood. Also, more fortunate still, Aladdin has granted you three wishes. He tells you that A) Player Y will give your team 12.3 more wins than player X in 2004, B) that Player Z will be worth 10.7 more wins than player X in 2004, and C) that he will personally pay for whichever player you choose, so money's not an issue. So, do you sign Player Y or Z?

 

For those of you that said "Player Z please", now imagine that Aladdin is so angry with you for giving such a stupid answer that he's retracted his promise to pay for the players unless you change your mind. Player Y costs $7.66m for 2004. Player Z costs $11.05m. Sticking with Player Z?

 

"I would like to win 1.6 less games and pay $3.39m more".

 

That's what a vote for Albert Pujols over Derrek Lee boils down to.

 

 

 

Suppose Aladdin looked at his crystal ball and said. "Your team is going to finish in 4th place this year. Would you like Player Y at $7.66M, or would you like Player Z, for the league minimum".

 

You'd probably take Player Z. Does that make him "more valuable" than Derrek Lee would have been?

 

I'd like to pay $7.66M to finish in 4th place, instead of $400,000. That's what a vote for Derrek Lee boils down to.

[K-Town]

Pujols is more valuable b/c he has better teammates?

 

Quite a crappy and invalid concept.

 

So far, Pujols deseves the MVP b/c Jocketty is a better GM than Hendry, despite Lee having the better year.

 

Sorry, bias doesn't sell with me.

 

There's not much value in finishing 4th. That's not a biased opinion. It's what most of America believes, and probably what the majority of sports writers will determine. Maybe the majority of people are wrong, and you're right. It's not out of the question. "Value" is ambiguous, though. It's not necessarily black & white.

 

And I'm not sure that Pujols had better teammates around him (other than the pitching). He spent much of the season with people like So Taguchi and Yadier Molina hitting behind him. I'm sure he would have preferred the protection of Aramis Ramirez, and might have benefitted from it.

[Diffusion]

Imagine this. It's spring 2004 and you, the GM of Team A, are in the unfortunate situation of having no-one better than player X at first base. And player X is useless. In fact, he's the very definition of a replacement player: you need to replace him. Now, fortunately, one week before the season starts, two better options become available, player Y and player Z, and they're both desperately eager to sign with Team A, who they've both supported since childhood. Also, more fortunate still, Aladdin has granted you three wishes. He tells you that A) Player Y will give your team 12.3 more wins than player X in 2004, B) that Player Z will be worth 10.7 more wins than player X in 2004, and C) that he will personally pay for whichever player you choose, so money's not an issue. So, do you sign Player Y or Z?

 

For those of you that said "Player Z please", now imagine that Aladdin is so angry with you for giving such a stupid answer that he's retracted his promise to pay for the players unless you change your mind. Player Y costs $7.66m for 2004. Player Z costs $11.05m. Sticking with Player Z?

 

"I would like to win 1.6 less games and pay $3.39m more".

 

That's what a vote for Albert Pujols over Derrek Lee boils down to.

 

 

Suppose Aladdin looked at his crystal ball and said. "Your team is going to finish in 4th place this year. Would you like Player Y at $7.66M, or would you like Player Z, for the league minimum".

 

You'd probably take Player Z. Does that make him "more valuable" than Derrek Lee would have been?

 

I'd like to pay $7.66M to finish in 4th place, instead of $400,000. That's what a vote for Derrek Lee boils down to.

 

Player Z doesn't cost $400,000. He costs $11.05m.

 

Jeez, get your facts straight. Maybe Aladdin should have put you down for math classes.

 

I'm really not sure what you're arguing any more. I'd like to pay $7.66m to finish in 4th place instead of $400,000 implies that you think that half of Jose Macias is more valuable than Derrek Lee. Or something.

[imb]

Pujols is more valuable b/c he has better teammates?

 

Quite a crappy and invalid concept.

 

So far, Pujols deseves the MVP b/c Jocketty is a better GM than Hendry, despite Lee having the better year.

 

Sorry, bias doesn't sell with me.

 

There's not much value in finishing 4th. That's not a biased opinion. It's what most of America believes, and probably what the majority of sports writers will determine. Maybe the majority of people are wrong, and you're right. It's not out of the question. "Value" is ambiguous, though. It's not necessarily black & white.

 

And I'm not sure that Pujols had better teammates around him (other than the pitching). He spent much of the season with people like So Taguchi and Yadier Molina hitting behind him. I'm sure he would have preferred the protection of Aramis Ramirez, and might have benefitted from it.

 

Lee didnt finish fourth Mrs. Pujols, the Cubs did. Lee provided more value than your son, but the rest of our team provided less than the rest of Pujols team did, I have no idea why this is so hard for you to grasp. Unless you just dont want to because you've already cleared a spot on your mantle for your sons first MVP award.

[Diffusion]

Congratulations! You were successfully chosen at random in our free prize draw and have won an original Picasso! You have a choice of two...

 

Painting A

Independently valued at $10.7m, currently hanging in a beautiful showroom with lots of beautiful furniture and a beautiful bed with a beautiful girl lying in it.

 

Painting B

Independently valued at $12.3m, currently hanging in Neifi Perez's dusty garage.

 

To claim your original Picasso, please write to Free Prize Draw, 1908 Winner Avenue, New York and specify whether you would like to claim Painting B, independently valued at $12.3m, or would like to be psychiatrically assessed.