Owners will ruin the MLB Draft if Bryce Harper and the players let them

Part of what makes Bryce Harper such a special player is that he met the hype and then some. Harper came into the league with Hall of Fame expectations, and sure enough, he wound up becoming one of the best players of his generation. If Harper lets MLB owners get away with the proposal they outlined for the MLB Draft, players like Harper will cease to exist.

Let's dive into why that is.

MLB owners' draft proposal would eliminate players like Bryce Harper

Harper was selected with the No. 1 overall pick by the Washington Nationals as a 17-year-old back in 2010. While he wasn't drafted out of high school, he left high school early to get his GED and be draft-eligible at the same age as high schoolers. He was drafted at 17 and debuted with Washington at 19. He has put together a Hall of Fame-caliber 15-year career, and at age 33, he isn't slowing down. If owners have their way, what Harper did would no longer be allowed.

As ESPN's Jeff Passan notes, MLB proposed an overhauled domestic amateur-entry system that makes high schoolers ineligible to be drafted, makes college sophomores draft-eligible, shortens the draft by eight rounds and cuts bonus pool money substantially. These are a lot of changes, and to the shock of absolutely nobody, all of them would save the owners a boatload of money.

It's on Harper, a player who has voiced his displeasure with Rob Manfred in the past and has spoken out numerous times against the idea of adding a salary cap, and others, to put a stop to this before it gains any sort of traction.

Why MLB owners proposed these massive MLB Draft changes

Again, the point of these changes is to save the owners money. Shortening the draft lessens the number of players being selected, so that saves clubs money. Slashing bonus pool money, obviously, does the same thing. It isn't quite as easy to see why owners would want to eliminate high schoolers from being drafted, but that's all about money too.

MLB Draft would become much more interesting

Another benefit for the owners would be a more interesting MLB Draft, which would also put money in their pockets. The MLB Draft is an event that not even all die-hard fans pay attention to, as most of the players are not known at all, and none of the players will go straight from the draft to the majors. Most will need several years of development before maybe making it to The Show. While the MLB Draft will never be close to as interesting as the NFL or NBA Draft without trades, eliminating high schoolers makes the draft more interesting.

Can you imagine the popularity Harper would've had if he had gone to college for a couple of years? Plus, while Harper played 141 minor league games before earning his call-up, he might've gone straight from college to the majors, or at least required minimal time in the minors. That, also, adds more interest.

Most lucrative path to life-changing payday would be taken away

Harper debuted at 19 years old and became a free agent at 26 years of age. He would've received a massive contract regardless, but if he were forced to wait an extra three years before getting drafted, would he have been able to sign the same 13-year, $330 million deal with the Phillies that he did? Would the Pittsburgh Pirates have been as eager to hand Konnor Griffin the mega-extension that they did if he'd debuted a couple of years later than he otherwise would have?

Bust rate would be slashed

Another thing this proposal would do is lessen the odds that a player would turn out to be a bust. Nothing is foolproof, but odds are, eliminating younger players from being drafted and forcing them to develop in college would boost their odds of making it to the majors and being productive at that level. That's a great thing for owners, as it drastically lessens their risk.

Why the MLBPA would never accept this proposal

The MLBPA sent a response to MLB's proposal in record time, bashing the whole thing.

It isn't hard to see why. The MLBPA cited things like it'd remove talent from the sport by delaying their entrance to the league, it'd eliminate player compensation, and it'd even abolish a year of international signings since MLB wouldn't want to have the inaugural international draft until September of 2027 or even later.

It's hard to argue against any of this. Can you imagine the league forcing Konnor Griffin to wait to debut, even though he's clearly good enough to be at this level right now at the age of 20? Can you imagine players willingly accepting something that'd result in them risking serious injury in college before they can get their life-changing money in the MLB Draft? And why would players be open to anything that slashes their earning potential?

It's hard to see this proposal being accepted, assuming Harper and others stick up for the players.

More MLB news and analysis:

Add us as a preferred source on Google

Follow