Using the Fangraphs auction calculator with Steamer projections, the top 30 hitters in our league should cost $1037. Instead, they will cost $550, with only one of them (Nelson Cruz) going back into the pool. Additionally, much of that value is concentrated on a few teams:
Lumberjacks: Trout, Betts, Donaldson, Freeman, Ramirez, Martinez (savings of $108 before inflaction)
Foes: Goldschmidt, Blackmon, Judge, Springer, Ozuna (savings of $90)
Tots: Harper, Votto, Altuve, Machado, Bellinger (savings of $59, which includes -$13 from Votto)
That's over half of the top 30 hitters on three out of 16 teams. Pitching's not much different, with two teams (the Foes and Wolfdogs) owning 10 of the top starters between them (the Wolfdogs also have several of the most valuable hitter contracts).
None of this, of course, adjusts for inflation, and that seems to be where the problems are coming into play right now. Because a few teams have so much surplus value, they are able to spend more at auction, and also keep more marginal players that they might otherwise have to pay more for if they were released to the auction. Nelson Cruz, who is the only top 30 hitter hitter going into the auction (in part because the Jacks and Tots are able to keep Freeman and Votto for a combined $94), now becomes a premium commodity.
Is this a problem? I'm not sure. I'd like to see what happens this year. If only the teams with a ton of surplus value compete, then that does feel problematic. It would be one thing if that value cycled through quickly, but when elite players can comfortably be kept for 16 years (1/6/9/10/15/18/19/24/27/28/33/36/37/42/45/46), they aren't re-entering the pool. Teams with several of these players maintain their advantage for a long time, especially when you consider that these owners are more likely than others to find the next elite group of players too.
Marcos, David, Frank, and I just started another league with very similar settings because we love the format but don't like how generous RBL is with elite player contracts. We decided that 7 years felt about right for a valuable player to be owned, and that the later years would not be at such an extreme surplus value as the earlier years. We decided to keep the first contract the same, but for the second contract, instead of doing another +$5/+8/+9, we did a +$10/+13/+14. Similarly, the third contract is +$15/+18/+19. Suddenly a three year deal isn't a no brainer, and the player has to be ultra elite to justify a 1/6/9/10/20/23/24/39/42/43 commitment. We think this structure will provide a balance of dynasty feel, but also cycle more players back into the pool and help prevent "super teams" from developing.