Since I've never seen a team (2 LL's and an RT) that's even gotten CLOSE to that sort of PB rating with a full roster of 35, it strikes me as sort of a moot point.
And frankly, it strikes me as WAY too high a number anyway. I'm all for rewarding good managing and savvy draft/trade work, but that high a number will allow juggernauts to remain that way, ad nauseum, and I for one find that prospect to be very little fun.

Frankly, that number should be more like 70 - After all, if you have a roster full of superstars, no team could afford them in real life, so why should you in PB?
Many of teh complaints on this BB are in regards to the apparent "lack of reality" in regards to hitting vs. pitching, passed balls, etc... The ability to maintain a full roster of primo talents is even MORE unrealistic, and really limits the "competition" should a particular manager truly excel one season in collecting talent. Seattle can't keep a Griffey & an ARod together forever, why should PB ?

Some conceptual salary cap (I realize we don't do auctions) utilizing PB's - maybe a simple PB total limit, or maybe x # of players above 8, y # above 6, etc.... This would still allow GM's to keep a solid core of quality players, but would also simulate the real world of Free Agents and the fact that teams simply can't expect to keep their multiple superstars forever....
It would also keep those squads who suffered badly interested - without the occasional star becoming avilable in "Free Agency", the ONLY way to build in PB is through the draft, and I for one do NOT relish the concept of losing for 2-4 years in a row, hoping my rookies from a couple years back all pan out.