So even in a redraft league, there is a superstar premium. This is accentuated in a keeper league, where the average team might have an extra $40 to play around with. In that case, 100% of that money should be spent on above average players, and most of it on the stars and superstars.

You also have to take into account what you can get in return should you need to trade a player away. In a redraft league, you will be able to trade a $39 player for two $20 players almost always and you will be able to trade two $20 players for a $39 player almost never.

The trade value discrepancy is even greater in a keeper league, where you have to have a plan on the off chance that your team underperforms. The difference in the keeper value you can acquire for a $39 player is significantly greater than the two $20s. Again, it’s supply and demand. The number of teams that can be upgraded by a $39 player is much more than the number of teams that can be upgraded by a $20 player. Then, once you upgrade a team with a $20 player, that’s one less team to trade your other $20 player too!

In the Wright/Morneau example, in a redraft league, I would be willing to pay $50 (minimum) for Wright and $20 for Morneau. If I had an extra $40 to play around with, the superstar premium goes up even more.

What you need and what’s available affect this as well. If A-Rod and Cabrera are available and Morneau is the best 1b on the board is a lot different than having the top four or five 1b available and the best 3b being someone like Troy Glaus.

In a real life example, my squad last year had every offensive position covered except 1b and 3b. It had it’s top four starters, and one closer. The best player available was Teixeira. His adjusted value was $37 ($28 unadjusted). The best 3b available was one of Troy Glaus, Mark Reynolds, or Edwin Encarnacion. Obviously I’m only spending $1 at 3b. The only other position I could even really upgrade is closer, but to me, Teixiera+waiver closer is much better than waiver 1b+good closer. So I was prepared to spend my max bid (something like $74) on Teixeira if I had to. I ended up getting him for $51. That means I overpaid $14 adjusted and $23 unadjusted. If I didn’t “overspend” on Tex, I would have ended up wasting money. It would have either been left on the table at the end of the draft or spent on players I didn’t need. I recognized this market early which lead me to overpay for Ortiz and Peavy by $7 as keepers. I hold the option on Tex at $56 this year and will have to seriously consider keeping him. Even though I have more needs this year, if I don’t get a top flight player, I won’t get all of my money spent. There might be ten teams saying the same thing and only five top flight players to go around.

I’m not sure if I understand it: Why would you not keep Morneau in that situation, and then try to draft a player like Wright? If inflation is around 10%, you should be able to:

Keep Morneau ($14/$20), Draft Wright ($46/$42) – $60 spent for $62 of value

Keep Wright ($47/$42), Draft Morneau ($22/$20) – $69 spent for $62 of value

Let’s say inflation is something ridiculous like 30%:

Keep Morneau ($14/$20), Draft Wright ($55/$42) – $69 spent for $62 of value

Keep Wright ($47/$42), Draft Morneau ($26/$20) – $73 spent for $62 of value

I just don’t see the situation that favors keeping Wright.

(Also, I got your email; I’m just a slow writer in responding. Sorry.)

On that note, you actually need to save less $ the better the player (and greater the need). For example, I would much rather pay full price for David Wright than save $5 on Beltre or $6 on Morneau. The question is, how much over would you be willing to go? Who would you keep, a $47 Wright (valued at $42), a $14 Morneau (valued at $20), or a $5 Beltre(valued at $10)?