At 19 players, we are way at the upper end of commits. Max is 21.
But we have 4 in the top 100, so we'll most likely lose some of them to the draft. But when looking at average stars, we have the 7th best class which is really solid for such a large class.
The portal is the way other teams are going more. Was reading the D1 Baseball review of VT and Clemson last night. They are getting lots of 5 year transfers coming in and projected to start this year.
I don't think one way or the other (develop versus transfer) is the best, but we need transfers to fill in holes and improve positions; our ones (Chandler and others) have really helped.
I agree. My view is that they both need to be used in today's day and age, but developing is #1 and transfers is #2. #1 recruit well and develop talent for your core. #2 fill holes with transfers. Much like the pattern that has become prevalent for the most successful teams in MLB since free agency.
Look at the Yankees, Dodgers, Astros, Braves, Cardinals, the Mets of the mid to late 1980's (yes, I had to throw the Mets in there, even though they've been a dysfunctional organization for most of the last 60 years...). If you look at their most successful teams, I suspect you'll find that they developed most of their talent, some via minor league trades, but not through free agency or trades for established major league players. They then filled holes with free agency and/or trades to compete for and/or win titles.
With the current transfer portal, I think that's the approach that successful college baseball teams will need to employ. You're not likely to import an entire team via the transfer portal to compete for a championship, but if you have a solid core of players and bring in a sparkplug like Chandler Simpson to fill a position of need and a couple of arms to successfully eat innings. Then you've got a team that can make some noise.