Nobody asked me, and, to be perfectly honest, I really do not care, but I'm going to tell you why you should feel perfectly comfortable for having voted Miguel Cabrera for MVP. I'm also going to tell you that, in general, your arguments for why you voted that way suck. First, though, to the folks on the other side of the fence:
I have no idea who I'd choose if I were in charge of picking the AL MVP because I have not looked at the situation closely. But I do know that I would not rely on WAR, not because I think it is a poor metric, but because I think that awards were created for achievements that actually happened rather than what those achievements "meant" or what they were worth in some dependent-variableless state. If a player hits a walk-off two-run single in Game 7 of the World Series, we don't show up to the water cooler the next day saying, "I can't believe people are making such a big deal out of Smith's single -- 7 times out of 10 that groundball isn't going to find a hole, and, besides, it only drove in the winning runs because Smith's turn in the order happened to arrive with two men on base. Let's talk about how much better a player Johnson is." Johnson might be a better player, but Smith is the hero, and that's just how sports work. If we were going to award an MVP based on who is "the best" player is each year, chances are Mike Trout would end up winning that award every year of his career, at least through his prime years, just like Willie Mays and Barry Bonds and Babe Ruth would have. If we were going to take the route of using "value" in the literal sense, the best pre-Arb player would likely win it each year, usually a pre-Arb player at a premium position. If I were starting a franchise, I'd take Trout for all of the reasons a lot of people think he should be MVP. And maybe he should be MVP. But not strictly because of those reasons.
The simplest way I can put it is this: the best team doesn't always win the World Series, or even make the playoffs. But we don't crown champions based on their cumulative WAR. Situational performance is very much a part of winning a World Series. And while a player's performance in a given timeframe, or in a given situation, might not tell you much about his overall talent level or his likelihood of repeating said performance in that situation or over a broader period of time, the fact of the matter is that he did perform in that (or those) given moment(s).
Now, to the other guys: