Would you rather have Miggy's production for $21 million this year, or Trout's production for $510K?

Well, I went over to the article and read all of it.

On the whole it was a well reasoned thesis and seemed to indicate that yes, Trout is extremely valuable and only 22 as of August 7th and with the expectation of many more great years..

The article also clearly states why these salary inequities exist. Simply because the clubs have such tremendous control of a players first six seasons.

However, it is still correctly pointed out how much more valuable a seven WAR player is to a front runner. Miggy's year so far, is worth $ 35,000,000 to Detroit Figuring that a marginal win is worth about $ 5,000,000.

Trout, on a non contender is not worth that actual dollar amount to his team.

Perhaps we should distinguish MVP from best player in the league.

Cabrera on a post season bound team is the MVP and has earned it.

My take on the article is that this does not make him the BEST player in the league, merely the MVP which is what counts.

All in all, a provocative article and that all should read, instead of unfairly attacking Jeff Passen as being a Trout apologist.

Jeff Passen... that guy has been obsessively writing about Mike Trout's greatness the past two seasons. Earlier in the season in April, he posted an article about Trout vs. Miggy literally 1 hour after Trout raised his average above .300

Value. I guarantee you that if the Angels were 69-48 and Tigers were 53-64--with Trout having the $21 million salary and Miggy having the 510K million salary--Passen would switch up the words and talk about the value of being the top contributor on a playoff/winning team.

"Fans seem to have a hard time deciphering whether the MVP Award goes to the best player, or the most valuable player to his team. " -- Umm, let the record show---the Tigers are a playoff team and the Angels aren't.

"Getting Trout's production as such a cheap price allows for more flexibility to sign other great players. " --- like Albert Pujols, Josh Hamilton and Ryan Madson.

If Trout had caused the greatest closer in MLB history to blow two straight save opportunities, I guarantee you Passen would've freaked out and written a manifesto about Trout's value and greatness.

You seem to be a knowledgeable baseball fan Wiggy and I am sure you know you are talking apples and oranges. Cabrera is 11 years into a HOF career and Trout is in his 2nd year of what could be a HOF career. You also know that there are salary caps that have been negotiated between MLB and the players union. You also know that in a few years the Trout salary is going to escalate rapidly and he will, no doubt track Cabrera very closely as he gets years under his belt. The MVP's each year are determined by production and value to the team and not by how much money they make. If the new guys coming into the league can put up Cabrera type numbers they should be considered for MVP but no extra consideration should be given based on salary.

I don't care how much they're making, I would take Mike Trout over Miguel Cabrera in a heartbeat. First of all, Trout is almost 10 years younger than Cabrera. Miggy hits for power and hits for average. That's all he does well. Trout hits for the average, hits for power, drives in runs, scores runs, steals bases, plays outstanding defense. Miguel Cabrera is a better hitter, but there's no doubt in my mind that Trout is the better player. But to answer your question, I don't think salary has a role in determining who is more valuable. While they're only paying Trout half a million, they're paying Pujols and Hamilton millions of millions.

Here is what I think. You are biased and so is the article.

I'll take Miggy any old day of the week. He, at least, keeps his mouth shut. Trout will get his big pay day soon enough. Ask the question again.

This question......

For one, salary should NOT have a part in the most valuable player award. Then the award is going to turn into who the best player in baseball is who is affordable. The award is meant to me given to the player in baseball who was the best in their respective leagues and provided huge value to their team. Bringing salary into the question is making it more of a question of who has the most bang for the buck, which is stupid.

As far as Trout vs. Cabrera in terms of production and salary, I understand the point you are trying to make, but it fails to take into consideration other factors. The argument is based around ballplayers always being paid what they deserve. Simply put, that's not how baseball works. Trout is only making $510K because he is young. Cabrera has had a chance to sign a contract so there's a reason he is making way more. Trout eventually will be making a **** ton too.

So to answer your question, I would rather have Trout's production at his price obviously. But it's an unfair comparison to make because Trout still hasn't had a chance to sign a major contract and that is why he is so much cheaper. Your argument is a fallacy.

FYI, regardless of anything, I still believe Trout should have been MVP last year.

Depends what you do with all the extra cash... the Angels used it on Pujols and Josh Hamilton. Not a lot of extra value.

This isn't a salary cap sport. Russell Wilson's (lack of) salary helps the Seahawks.

There isn't any reason to believe the Angels would be any better or worse if Trout was making $5M.

If I were an owner or a GM, I might prefer Trout, but I doubt the Detroit fans would want to trade.

From a GM's point of view, Mike Trout.

Passan is a dick rider of Trout. He tries to do whatever he can to prove that Trout is better than Miggy, even though it's not true.