The $5million per WAR is linear, though it makes perfect sense that it wouldn't be, or shouldn't be.
No. You aim for 95 wins because getting to 95 wins will likely get you into the playoffs.Obviously, I hope, I mean generally, as a rule. That's why the Red Sox, back when they were good, aimed at 95 wins/year, not winning the division, because the extra 5 wins would be the most expensive.
Shooting for 100 wins means you'll be paying an extra ((100-95)*$5 million)) $25 million for no real extra reward.
30 times $5 million is $150 million (which shows the value of cost-controlled players).How much would it cost to put a .500 team on the field? That's 30 wins above replacement
15 times $5 million is an extra $65 million.. Then how much more are the next 15 wins above replacement going to cost?
Yeah. It makes sense to pay more for Wins #87 to #95. Because those wins are the difference between staying home or going to the playoffs.Again, I mean when you can predict what you'll get and pay what it's worth--to you.
Makes sense. But I don't think it's true.So, that wasn't really aimed at your question, because the reason for the difference was other, but . . . .
PREMIUM players charge more per WAR to play for good teams because good teams can afford to pay more of them and give them contracts, while weak teams don't. In other words, because they can.
Again, makes sense. But it's not observed.If you fall 5 wins short, you can't make that up by hiring a couple of 2.5 guys, unless you managed to win 90 games with two full time replacement players. In that case, you can, but first you should take your GM out behind the barn and shoot him for throwing away a pennant.
Average players sign at about $5 million per WAR
Star players sign at about $5 million per WAR.