You act as if a player's value is solely based by how many teams are in a position to bid for him and how much cash they have in the bank. Assuming baseball teams continue to operate as rational profit making businesses (an assumption that maybe I should question based on your insights), then their demand for a particular player ultimately will be driven by their perception of how much marginal profit they will generate by signing that player (i.e his intrinsic value). In order to generate more profit, a team has to win more. So if a team is going to sign a player to the richest contract in baseball history, doesn't it stand to reason that they would expect that player to be among the best players in baseball and one that can lead them to a World Series? We can make this argument a lot more complex but fundamentally I just don't agree with the premise that just because a team can afford to sign a player to the richest contract in baseball that they should do it. The contract has to provide value for the franchise and that value is tied to the player's ability to help them win. If Machado and Harper are not cornerstone players World Series leading type players (My contention), then they certainly don't deserve anywhere close to the type of market setting contracts that their agents are trying to get them.