You could argue that in a macro sense, Mike Trout is the least valuable player in baseball. The Angels are currently 63-66; subtract Trout's 8.4 WAR, and that drops to 55-74. In other words, Mike Trout single-handedly drags the Angels to mediocrity, ensuring they don't get access to the premier talent at the top of the draft, or the larger bonus pool needed to get talent in the second and third round. The Angels can't enter a full-scale rebuild, dumping veterans to buttress the farm system, and throwing their own prospects out to see who sticks. Over the past 7 full seasons, the Angels are 584-550 (average of 83-79). Take out Mike Trout's 64.2 WAR, and they're now 520-614 (average of 74-88); to put that in perspective, over the same timeframe, the Twins have been 507-627 (average of 72-90). Further, while there is no other player the Angels could get to replace Mike Trout, his large salary (along with Pujols and Upton), prevent the Angels from getting immediate help. Put another way, Kepler and Polanco have combined for 7.4 WAR this year (88% of Trout), but at 25% of the cost, leaving the Twins $26M free to play with. Is Mike Trout the best player in baseball? Currently there is no doubt that he is, and perhaps the best ever. Is he the most valuable? At least in my opinion, no.