The Angels have a better record than the Tigers do.So, Mike Trout is such a tremendous player and so valuable that he couldn't even lead the Angels to the playoffs? Are the Angels short on talent compared to Oakland? I would argue that the Angels have more talent and yet even with Mike Trout they have failed to reach the playoffs. How is that possible if he is that valuable?
It's easy to blow-off Cabrera agreeing to move to 3b and forget that he didn't have to do that. Votto wouldn't do it. Cabrera did and that allowed Detroit to sign Fielder. It doesn't work for all'y'alls argument to give that any value but I bet even the Reds would be a better team if Votto had moved to LF so that the Reds could sign Fielder (not that the Reds had the money to do so, but saying there is no value is just discounting something that doesn't help your argument).
I believe it is Cabrera in a landslide, although there will be the people that only rely on WAR that vote for Trout; I just find it short-sighted to rely on a stat that has so many assumptions tied into calculating it. Even I can see all the talent on the Angels roster; how can adding the best player in baseball turn a playoff team into a non-playoff team and how does that make Trout the most "valuable" player?