I was not really aware that one MUST keep 27.....(my draft isn't for a while, so who pays that much attention to draft rules ;-)......Though I suppose in retrospect if I thought hard enough about the math (only 8 rookie rounds) I would've figured that part out.

My point is merely that not having some sort of year-to-year limitation that is REALISTIC in the play of the game, can lead to a similar thing that is happening in real baseball that doesn't have a salary cap. The reasons may be different (small/large markets in MLB vs. not actually having to pay a player in PB), but the end result can very easily work out to be the same : teams that START the league winning will CONTINUE winning. The reason is that they have all the talent. Whether they got that because they were lucky or they were good, they still have the talent. Without any sort of "limitation" (and I'm sorry - 120 is in NO way, shape, or form a limit), those teams win until their talent retires or blows out the elbows/knees.
Different types of leagues have salaries that go up over time, and I realize that something like that, with the PB draft system as it is, doesn't work. But it's stupid to think that Team A that got ARod will now have ARod for the next 15 years. There's no reason to trade a star for "potential" - at least not until that star hits his late 30's.

To say it "isn't broken" is like saying that gameplay isn't "broken" - yet you have a monstrous line of complaints below this, dealing with all the "problems" of the game. It's just my opinion that this is one issue (among many) that could use some tweaking for the purpose of giving teams that may have started badly a reasonable opportunity to get better. Without the expectations of an ARod or Junior EVER becoming a free agent again (like they are right now in NON-SIM life), how can I expect to ever get better, except by getting lucky enough to find the NEXT one in the rookie draft ? There is little to no opportunity to use whatever I may have learned during my first season towards making my team markedly better in the second. The prospect of maybe turning over a star rookie every season should give me a reasonable shot in say, 2004 ? Sorry, I just don't see that as being a real good way to manage and promote competition....
If a team wasn't very good, and the manager thinks that he knows why and wants to use that experience, he'd be so much better off just getting a new team. There needs to be SOMEthing in the system to make him think that his team can compete next season - if not, why would he come back ?