To be honest, I haven't given it much thought, in terms of "what I think about it" - e.g., is it good or bad, sensible or not. The draft rules are what they are.
Philosophically, I find drafts, in general, troubling. It's not clear to me that a free market for signing amateur talent (perhaps with overall spending constraints?) would necessarily be "worse" for the game. The draft was instituted in the 1960s to hold down the cost of signing amateur talent - it was explicitly an anti-competitive decision. That troubles me - what is basically a cartel that is a joint monopoly, adopting a process to avoid having to compete on price for scarce talent.
But, it is what it is. Given that, I don't lose sleep over how the draft is manipulated; competitive balance picks, compensation picks when high-round picks from the prior year don't sign, a bonus pick for having an exceptionally successful rookie, changing the number of rounds (50, 40, 5, 20, whatever). They argue this is all about competitive balance; but they don't have competitive balance (e.g., see Dodgers, Mets, Yankees, Phillies, vs. Pirates, Royals, Rays, etc.), and they're not willing (or able) to force franchises to fully share revenue, which would likely create competitive balance (excluding front office incompetence). The specifics of the draft, and the changing rules, look a lot more like just bargaining among the owners (and their lawyer the Commissioner's office) - organizational politics.
It all has no impact on my enjoyment of the games, or the progress of our minor league players...so I guess I really don't care if they fuddle the draft process every couple of years.
