1 - No. There is already enough reward for having a bad year with the rookie picks. I suggested once before that wins divided by expected wins (based on PB value) was fair. That set off a whole debate on PB values and team construction, but to me we need to avoid tanking for draft picks as much as teams that are too loaded. Besides #2 deals with the problem more directly.

2 - Yes, in theory, although I think the PB values need to be readjusted for this to work. Right now too much weight is given to PAs in PB value - so that one player with 650 PAs and an .900 OPS againts LHP and RHP will have a PB value much higher than the combined value of two players who could platoon to form the same numbers (200 PAs vs LHP, 450 vs RHP for instance). Now the argument for such weighting is that the team with the single player has an extra roster spot to use elsewhere to help themselves, and won't get caught in a bad platoon situation, but in day to day game play, the difference in ratings its overdone.

To me, if you want to make the cap harsh, make it harsh - with the knowledge that the free agent pool (and those picks) will just be more valuable. I'm not sure 120% is harsh enough.

3 - No, keep it at 27. Going to 25 would just throw a bunch of middle relievers and platoon players into the pool. Setting the cutoff point for PB value lowers achieves the goal better.

Fred