Hey, it's Zack.
If you read Issue #7 of The Save you know how much the draft means to me personally. Sitting at my computer with slow internet waiting for my name to come up. The call from the Orioles. The contract negotiation I had never been prepared for. The call to my Texas A&M coach.
All of that started because an eighteen year old kid was eligible to be drafted out of high school.
Under MLB's latest CBA proposal that would no longer be possible.
On June 18 MLB presented a sweeping overhaul of the amateur draft to the MLBPA at the bargaining table. The proposal would fundamentally change how baseball finds and develops its next generation of players. And in my opinion it raises serious questions.
THE ENTRANCE
Here is what MLB is actually proposing.
No more high school players in the domestic draft. Under the proposal any player under the age of 20 as of September 1 of the draft year would be ineligible. Players would have to be 20 years old by September 1 and two years removed from high school graduation. For most players that means being eligible after their sophomore year of college.
The draft gets shortened from 20 rounds to 12. That eliminates eight rounds of opportunities for players who might otherwise get a shot at professional baseball through a late round selection.
The bonus pool gets capped at $200 million. Teams have not spent that little since 2010. The current bonus pool is approximately $360 million. That is a reduction of roughly $160 million that would come directly out of the pockets of amateur players.
All draft positions would be hard slotted. No negotiating above or below slot. The number attached to your draft position is the number you get.
An international draft would be instituted for all players outside of the United States, Canada and Puerto Rico. Currently international players sign as free agents under a system with team budget caps. Under the proposal they would enter a 12 round draft with a $200 million bonus pool. The minimum signing age increases from 16 to 18. Undrafted players would be capped at a maximum $10,000 bonus. And the competitive balance draft picks that have given lower revenue teams additional selections would be eliminated entirely.
The MLBPA rejected the proposal immediately, calling it flat out bad for baseball. The union estimates MLB's draft proposals would eliminate over a billion dollars in player compensation from the international and domestic system over the next five years. A $400 million reduction from 2026 to 2027 alone.
MLB's stated justification is that college baseball has undergone a remarkable transformation in recent years. Expanded scholarships. NIL opportunities. Better facilities and resources. MLB believes the college game now develops players faster and more effectively than ever before, and that building a draft system around college aged players benefits everyone.
This is not a minor tweak to the existing system. This is a fundamental restructuring of how baseball identifies and acquires talent at the amateur level.
THE DELIVERY
There is a lot to unpack here, so let me give you a few different ways to look at it.
First. The talent argument.
MLB's case for eliminating high school players rests on the idea that college baseball produces more ready made talent. And there is data to support parts of that argument. College pitchers do reach the majors faster. College players generally have more developed mechanics and a clearer projection.
But here is what that argument ignores. Some of the greatest players in the history of baseball were drafted before turning 20. Clayton Kershaw. Ken Griffey Jr. Derek Jeter. Alex Rodriguez. Mike Trout. Bryce Harper dropped out of high school, earned his GED, enrolled at a junior college, and was drafted first overall at 17 years old. He became the first junior college player ever taken number one overall. Under MLB's proposal none of them would have been eligible for the draft.
Of the twelve largest contracts in MLB history only one went to an American college player. The rest went to players who were drafted out of high school or signed as international amateurs. That is not a coincidence.
The players who become generational talents often show it at 17 and 18. Their physical tools are so obvious that no development system could teach what they already have. Removing those players from the draft does not make the game better. There is also a real concern about what happens to multi sport athletes at the high school level. Baseball's advantage over other sports has always been that elite teenagers can turn professional early and make real money. Eliminate that option, and a talented 17 or 18 year old athlete with opportunities in football or basketball has less incentive to commit to baseball full time, particularly given the significant gap in NIL compensation between football and basketball compared to baseball in college.
Second. The bonus pool reduction hurts the players who need it most.
Cutting the bonus pool from $360 million to $200 million saves teams money. There is no other honest way to frame it. That $160 million does not disappear. It stays in the pockets of team owners instead of going to the players being drafted.
For a first round pick with a multi million dollar signing bonus the reduction is significant but manageable. For the players in the later rounds who might have received life changing bonuses under the current system the impact is much more direct. Those bonuses represent opportunities that families who do not have the resources to fund years of college baseball followed by years of minor league development cannot afford to lose.
I wrote about this in the draft issue. The gap between what a first round pick can invest in himself during the offseason and what a late round pick can invest is already enormous. Cutting the bonus pool makes that gap wider.
Third. The international draft changes everything for Latin American players.
The current international signing system has real problems. In the Dominican Republic and across Latin America there is an entire industry built around finding young baseball talent. They are called buscones. They identify players as young as ten or eleven years old. They feed them. They house them. They develop them for years. They are not licensed and they are not regulated. When a player signs with a major league team the buscone takes anywhere from 30 to 50 percent of that signing bonus. On top of that, loan sharks who funded the player's development collect an additional 20 percent directly from the player's family. By the time a player sees that money a large portion of it is already gone. That is the corruption MLB says the international draft would fix. And on that point they have a case.
But under the current system a player like Yordan Alvarez or Rafael Devers can sign with a team at 16 and begin his professional development immediately. Under the proposed international draft the minimum signing age increases from 16 to 18. Those players would have to wait two additional years before beginning their professional careers. And a $200 million international bonus pool split across 12 rounds involving hundreds of international prospects means the individual bonuses going to those players would be significantly smaller than what the current market produces for elite international talent.
The MLBPA estimated this proposal alone would delay international signings by an entire year, with the first international draft not taking place until at least September 2027 and possibly as late as March 2028.
Fourth. Hard slotting removes leverage from the player.
Under the current system there is room to negotiate. If a team drafts a player who has real leverage, whether it is a strong college commitment or genuine big league projection, that player and his advisor can negotiate a bonus above slot. The Pittsburgh Pirates drafted Konnor Griffin and paid him well above his slot value. That negotiation happened because Griffin had leverage and a strong advisor who used it.
Under MLB's proposal that negotiation does not exist. The number attached to your draft position is fixed. You take it or you move on. For most players that is not a real choice. It is a take it or leave it system that systematically removes the one moment in a young player's career when he has any real leverage over an organization.
Fifth. What this means for minor league baseball.
MLB says the 120 minor league teams are not going anywhere. But the math of this proposal tells a different story. If you draft fewer players and younger players are no longer coming into the system, college baseball is doing two years of development that minor league teams used to do. Baseball already eliminated 40 minor league teams in 2021. When you sign fewer players and need less development infrastructure, the pressure to cut costs at the minor league level only grows.
I spent years on buses going through towns that built their summers around their minor league team. The fans showed up every night. They knew your name. They treated you like family. There is something about minor league baseball that the big leagues cannot replicate, and every team that disappears takes that special experience away from a community.
Fewer drafted players means fewer teams. Period.
THE SAVE
I was drafted out of high school in 2006. I was 18 years old. Under MLB's proposal I would not have been eligible. I would have been told to wait until I was 20 or spend two years in college first.
Would I have become the same pitcher? Maybe. Maybe not. What I know is that the years I spent in the minor leagues after being drafted at 18 shaped everything about who I became as a player. The development I received in the Orioles organization. The coaches who worked with me. The experience of playing professionally at a young age. None of that happens under the system MLB is proposing.
I also know this from my time on the MLBPA subcommittee. When ownership proposes something this sweeping this early in negotiations it is rarely because they genuinely believe it is best for the game. It is because they want to establish a position they can trade away later in exchange for something they want more. In this case that something is almost certainly the salary cap.
The draft overhaul and the international draft changes are leverage. They are proposals designed to give owners something to concede when the hard negotiations over the salary cap heat up. That does not mean these proposals will not find their way into the final agreement. But what you are seeing publicly right now is the opening move in a much longer game.
The players who would be most affected by these changes have no seat at that table. They are 17 and 18 year old kids in high school gyms and on travel ball fields right now, dreaming about the same phone call I got from the Orioles in 2006.
Under MLB's current proposal that call comes two or three years later. Or not at all.
That is worth paying attention to.
Talk soon, Z
The Save is a personal newsletter based on my own experiences, opinions, and recollections. The opinions expressed here are mine alone and do not represent any team, organization, union or employer past or present. When discussing players, contracts or organizational decisions I am sharing my perspective as a former player — not making legal or financial claims. When I share stories involving others I am telling them from my point of view. When I share tips or lessons I am sharing what worked for me. Always do your own research and consult professionals when making important decisions.