C.
It's an interesting idea, but I think it there's a good chance it would allow for a different gaming of the system.
I agree with Mike that a minimum win rule fixes most of the big tanking issues. And it fits with the overall premiss of HBD. It's an MLB simulation. In MLB, in most cases, if you loose at the ML level you get fired sooner than later.
I suspect implementing your plan would result in HBD over rewarding people that invest all of their money on the ML team.
I'd certainly test a very high ML payroll with as little talent as possible in my MinL. Trade or release any MinL player with an OVR 65+ that I didn't think would be at least an average ML player. Certainly cut MinL players I project to be 22-25 man on the ML roster.
Good chance that would result in my team having both a very good shot at the WS and among the lowest overall projected talent levels. Even with low scouting, I'm going to see a very good players, so I'll get a good #1 pick. Probably never sign rounds 2-4 because they'll bump up my overall talent level. I'd keep my #1 pick every year and fill out the rest of my MinL teams with the worst players I could find.
If this worked, others would figure it out & copy. So it would work less well over time.
Currently, spending a lot on the ML roster and other more balanced approaches seem to be effective strategies. More than one strategy can produce a team that has a shot at the WS.
I think your suggestion would make it harder to build a solid, deep franchise into a team with a shot at the WS. The draft rewards would go to the teams with a few high-priced superstars and little else. Different than it works now, but I don't see it as being better.
Of course, I have no data, so I could be completely wrong.