OK, so it's bad for the slotting system. Should we care? Should we care what bonuses are paid to amateurs to get them to sign long-term contracts? (Keeping in mind the the Uniform Player Contract binds signees for seven years). Do we like the slotting system? If so, why? Or are we just afraid of change?
There's a certain appeal to the concept of allowing clubs to pay whatever they want to induce amateurs to sign, with the stipulation that above a certain level, said amateurs must be added to the club's 40-man roster. This would automatically limit the number of player who could be so treated - and the penalties for "getting it wrong" would be significant, as such players have three option years, and then must stick on a 25-man roster or be waived...and in the meantime, they would tie up a roster spot, which would increase opportunities for other players to move among organizations.
Bottom line here is that the A's won't pay Murray mega-bucks unless they think he's worth mega-bucks... and if he's worth mega-bucks to the A's, why shouldn't he get mega-bucks? If your answer is because "it's obscene" (which IMHO really means because "he shouldn't get so much more than I could get"), you're not going to win many arguments.
If your answer is because it would damage the draft's ability to hold down signing bonuses... well, then you're acknowledging that the draft exists to hold down bonuses; e.g., to prevent the free market from paying top amateurs what they're worth to the industry. You're welcome to that position - but not to pretend that it's anything but supporting a monopolistic practice by a cartel to keep down the cost of purchasing talent.
If you're concerned about competitiveness... keep in mind that we're talking about the Oakland A's here - not one of MLB's "moneyed" franchises, but one that is notoriously frugal (in the context of MLB franchises).
It's funny. Some of you would call me a socialist (some here have); certainly a "progressive" or a "liberal." But what I'm saying here is, "Let the market work." The status quo here isn't the free market; it's monopoly power. But what happens, IMHO, is that self-interest gets in the road; fear that the game we love to follow will be disrupted is allowed to override (note that I did not say "trump") what we would otherwise see as right vs. wrong. It's not that important to me; it's entertainment - and the day I let entertainment get in the way of right vs. wrong... well, just take me out and shoot me.