Trout is a multi-generational player, and as such is out side the rules of the norm. Babe Ruth (a similar multi-generational player) was the highest paid player in the league for 13 straight years. He made $80k a year at his peak (both 1930 and 1931)--no other player matched or eclipsed that for 18 years, when Joe DiMaggio became the first 6-figure player in 1949. Even then, you have to go all the way to 1960 to find the first year where, going forward, the highest paid player in the league always made more than Ruth in 1931.
In fact, if you look at what Ruth made, compared to the rest of the country, he's the equivalent of a player making $60M today. To suggest that Harper (who has only one season over 5 WAR), or Machado (only one season removed from a 2.4 WAR season) should be getting multiple offers for obscene amounts of money misses the reality of the current environment--owners have figured out it's better to get a fraction of the production for an even smaller fraction of the cost. If you're looking for someone to blame, look no further than Billy Beane, who demonstrated that analytics and derivatives can build successful teams.
What numbers are you using to say that Ruth's salary, compared to average US salary, would be $60M today?
By my math, that's way off.
Average US income in 1930 was $1368, which means Ruth made 58.48 times the average US salary.
The average salary today is roughly $56,516, depending on which source you use.
Multiplying $55,516 by 58.48 gets us $3.3M, or a little more than 5% of your figure.