If a manager makes strategically smart roster changes, he can be competitive against teams with a higher roster value. For example, I recently had a Forbes '57 team that lingered in third place and was 5 games under .500 at the 93 game mark. My division was being dominated by a Hilltop Park team with only one LH hitter and the three top run producers being McGwire (4R card), Suttles, and Beltre (who was not platooned). The type of pitching required to be competitive inside my division was different than that against the rest of the league. Originally I had decided to "straddle the fence" in terms of my pitching roster. But as the season went along, that strategy wasn't working. So incrementally I made over my pitching staff, tailoring it to beat the first and fourth place teams in my division, calculating that if I could beat those two teams and break even with the second place team down the stretch, I'd have a shot at making a run for the division title.
Prior to game 94 (the final devaluing of my roster) my record against divisional teams was:
vs. Hilltop team (1st place) 2-7
vs. second place team 6-3
vs. fourth place team 3-6
After game 94, my record against divisional rivals was:
vs. Hilltop team 11-4
vs. second place team 7-8
vs. fourth place team 9-6
My team won the division, with Hilltop and the second place team tied at one game back.
The final roster values in my division were:
My team (1st place) $71,260,000 -- 22 roster moves (11 hitters, 11 pitchers)
Hilltop team $79,970,000 -- Zero roster moves
second place team $79,940,000 -- Zero roster moves
fourth place team $77,650,000 -- 7 roster moves (3 hitters, 4 pitchers)
I suppose it can be argued that, if I had begun the season with my final roster and used the extra money to build around it, I would have fared even better. But that's beside the point. The point is you can devalue your roster and end up with a better record than some full-value teams. If you make the right moves.
Here's the link to my team:
https://365.strat-o-matic.com/team/1513356