i think the arguement centers on the fact that bad luck doesnt think that how important a player is to his team should be considered in the conversation of most valuable player. he seems to think that it should be based on each individual players "value" regardless of how important that player is to his team.
there is nothing wrong with either...it all depends on how you view the award.
trout was more "valuable" than Cabrera on individual performance alone (hitting+defense+base running). but Cabrera is clearly more valuable to the Tigers than trout is to the Angels.