I was listening to Nate Silver on the BS Report and he brought up a very interesting point. Mike Trout cost the Angels virtually nothing whereas Miguel Cabrera made around 20 million. It got me thinking, should salary matter when deciding MVP? Remember, in a vacuum, a player making less money is more valuable to a team in terms of winning because it offers up more payroll flexibility to add more talent. Obviously this isn't a vacuum, but I'm just curious to see what people think of this. I think it has to mean something.