I'm a little confused. I read through this whole thread and it seems like Crusher is looking for a strong naya midrange deck. Now I'm not adverse to pursuing a token angle, but the conceptual list that is being argued is a disjointed stack of 60.
There's the classic naya midrange value cards; Thrag, Resto, Huntmaster... all solid. Reckoner belongs in the party for sure. Then we run into non-traditional cards like Assemble the Legion and Mayor of Avabruck.... which do synergize together somewhat... but not with the traditional naya value shell.
Crusher, when constructing your deck you need to avoid schizophrenic construction like is being suggested here. A lot of times during deck maturation people experiment with different angles and so at times you'll have a hybrid approach... but make no mistake that once you've identified the one that generally performs better you need to cut the cards that push the line you don't want to pursue. To be fair Kenshin has two halves of good decks. But they're each missing the other halves. To also be fair I really don't think Assemble the Legion is a maindeck card since it shines against control shells and less so against aggro... and Akroma's Memorial... really.
Now, to everyone in general let's be careful about the 'dies to removal' argument. It's ok to use it against cards that meet the following criteria:
1. Do not provide value on resolution (Thragtusk, Huntmaster, Resto Angel usually).
2. Do not have haste (Ash Zealot, Strangleroot Geist).
3. Do not end the game with immediacy on resolution (a huge creature that if you untap and connect with kills your opponent, like
Phage the Untouchable 
as an
example).
Saying anything that actually does meet any of those criteria dies to removal is usually correct. On the topic of Mayor of Avabruck he in a vacuum does not meet the criteria and is a valid target of dies to removal. However there are some exceptions where its a strong card:
1. Played on curve to pump preceding creatures. This is how he has provided value on resolution. This is also where Naya Blitz (naya humans) gets usage from it. If he resolves and basically causes 2-3 damage before dying then he wasn't a complete wash.
2. Your opponent is playing a non-interactive deck that just plays lands and passes turn, like Draw-Go. Here he's a fantastic sideboard card.
Now, the argument on Mayor being good seems to involve a few things I've seen:
1. Your opponent doing nothing.
2. Your opponent not having a direct answer.
3. You taking a turn off to flip it.
4. You having other cards in play to make it better, and conversely mayor making those cards better.
By the points:
1. Your opponent has a bad deck, or you've gotten a great matchup against Draw Go. This deck doesn't exist in standard.
2. Your opponent may have a bad deck, be bricking on draws/generally unlucky.
3. You played a land and passed turn a 1/1 into a 3/3, which is the same as spending all of your mana that turn to make a 3/3 that if you get to untap with and get to your end step will make a strong token.
4. Logical fallacy. Careful of this.
The odds of your opponent not having a direct answer to mayor or a spell to play on their turn is extremely low. Now when that happens I expect if you like Mayor enough you'll untap, draw, maybe play a land, and pass turn. Now you can force the flip... and hope your opponent doesn't have a removal spell or isn't beating your face in because they don't care about your 1/1 blocker. Now if things have gone ideally for you they untap and have now seen two additional cards to kill your Mayor. Or they could simply since it's turn 4/5 just play 2 spells and really make you miserable since they didn't expend a single resource to remove it, they just potentially advanced their board state or drew cards which is almost a double time walk.
Long into short, the potency of Mayor outside of providing immediate pumps to humans relies too heavily on your opponent's decision making and plays to be consistently good.
Crusher, the lesson here is to always select cards that have a guaranteed mean value for a midrange deck. Midrange decks are trying to grind out wins based on value. Mayor will not provide consistent value against opponents who know how to read and have a real deck.
EDIT: Fixed my logical criteria from ORs to ANDs, long day of coding = brain gas.
