My comment is semi-irrelevant because I think there is a large amount of "divine" players and your case (a) holds.
But I think your argument is severely mistaken and unfair in case (b). If there is a small amount of "divine" players, the teams that use them first have an advantage, no doubt. But it's not unfair. They have had the player when it didn't matter so much (e.g. the early rounds). Now they have a choice whether to keep him for the late rounds and pay the extra salary (as steve karenn suggests) or get rid of him, but no one else would be able to pick him up within the same season.
I think this suggestion isn't crazy, but it's a rather odd special case of the "freeze rosters" option, which I still prefer (e.g. especially in a format like: freeze rosters after week 3).
I also think that the "freeze rosters" option is superior.
But I don't see how option (b) can be viable in any form or shape. You're forgetting one critical aspect of the strategic options: "recycling" as many "divine" players as they can in the early rounds to make sure that they won't be surprised in later rounds. I don't see how this situation is superior.
It means that basically in the late round the teams will arrive with the final structure of their roster that they structured during the course of the season,because the best divine players would be out of the game
So,the team would be forced to choose at the start of the season if they want to have the salary monster,and they should be able to build a winning team knowing that large part of their resources are gone for salary monster,or if they build a more equilibrated team(in terms of salary,of course),renouncing to the salary monster.This is exactly the way to reward the mid-term management of the team,because divine trick would became a negligible factor in the late round,when the best teams directly face off each other